Yes, 96 dpi here.
Esteban ________________________________ De: Tilman Hausherr <[email protected]> Enviado: jueves, 15 de junio de 2017 07:09 p.m. Para: [email protected] Asunto: Re: Change in image quality between versions 2.0.4 and 2.0.5 (also applies to 2.0.6) Ok, now I can confirm it. You wrote "PDFDebugger" in your first post, but you meant PDFToImage. It does happen as described. The images are created with 120 dpi here, probably 96 dpi on your system. I have no idea why, but I'll investigate it and come back to you. Tilman Am 15.06.2017 um 20:45 schrieb Esteban R: > This is what I do (windows 10 environment, java 1.8.0_121). I can upgrade > java if needed. > > > C:\temp>java -jar pdfbox-app-2.0.3.jar PDFToImage out.pdf > > C:\temp>dir out1.jpg > El volumen de la unidad C no tiene etiqueta. > El número de serie del volumen es: 98F8-8920 > > Directorio de C:\temp > > 15/06/2017 15:35 4.107 out1.jpg > 1 archivos 4.107 bytes > 0 dirs 52.658.810.880 bytes libres > > C:\temp>java -jar pdfbox-app-2.0.4.jar PDFToImage out.pdf > > C:\temp>dir out1.jpg > El volumen de la unidad C no tiene etiqueta. > El número de serie del volumen es: 98F8-8920 > > Directorio de C:\temp > > 15/06/2017 15:36 4.286 out1.jpg > 1 archivos 4.286 bytes > 0 dirs 52.658.810.880 bytes libres > > C:\temp>java -jar pdfbox-app-2.0.6.jar PDFToImage out.pdf > > C:\temp>dir out1.jpg > El volumen de la unidad C no tiene etiqueta. > El número de serie del volumen es: 98F8-8920 > > Directorio de C:\temp > > 15/06/2017 15:36 4.286 out1.jpg > 1 archivos 4.286 bytes > 0 dirs 52.658.810.880 bytes libres > > C:\temp>java -version > java version "1.8.0_121" > Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.8.0_121-b13) > Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (build 25.121-b13, mixed mode) > > > In my case out1.jpg has a different size (4.107 vs 4.286). If you compare > visually the output, files are almost the same, the difference is visible > when you zoom in. > > My screen should be at 100% (how can I check?). > > Esteban > > > > > > ________________________________ > De: Tilman Hausherr <[email protected]> > Enviado: jueves, 15 de junio de 2017 06:29 p.m. > Para: [email protected] > Asunto: Re: Change in image quality between versions 2.0.4 and 2.0.5 (also > applies to 2.0.6) > > Am 15.06.2017 um 20:19 schrieb Esteban R: >> I'm sorry. I was not using exactly pdfbox-app-2.0.4.jar but >> pdfbox-app-2.0.4-20160925.091907-39.jar (maybe a snapshot build?). I'm not >> sure where did I get that version. I have tryied with pdfbox-app-2.0.4.jar >> and the output is the same than in version 2.0.6. >> >> >> So, I tried again with pdfbox-app-2.0.3.jar (downloaded from >> https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.apache.pdfbox/pdfbox-app/2.0.3) and >> It produces the same output than pdfbox-app-2.0.4-20160925.091907-39.jar (so >> the change is between versions 2.0.3 and 2.0.4). Maven Repository: org.apache.pdfbox » pdfbox-app » 2.0.3<https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.apache.pdfbox/pdfbox-app/2.0.3> mvnrepository.com org.apache.pdfbox pdfbox-app > Maven Repository: org.apache.pdfbox » pdfbox-app » > 2.0.3<https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.apache.pdfbox/pdfbox-app/2.0.3> Maven Repository: org.apache.pdfbox » pdfbox-app » 2.0.3<https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.apache.pdfbox/pdfbox-app/2.0.3> mvnrepository.com org.apache.pdfbox pdfbox-app > mvnrepository.com > org.apache.pdfbox pdfbox-app > > > > > Same rendering in PDFDebugger for me, regardless whether jdk8 or jdk9. > > Tilman > > > >> Esteban >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> De: Tilman Hausherr <[email protected]> >> Enviado: jueves, 15 de junio de 2017 04:33 p.m. >> Para: [email protected] >> Asunto: Re: Change in image quality between versions 2.0.4 and 2.0.5 (also >> applies to 2.0.6) >> >> Am 15.06.2017 um 18:20 schrieb Esteban R: >>> Warning: don't use the following link to download de pdf: >>> <http://file-upload.com/d/6FgO> (seems to be a malicious page, I tried to >>> remove the link while writing the e-mail, but that part was kept anyways) >> done >> >>> . >>> >>> Use this one instead: >>> >>> http://wikisend.com/download/185248/out.pdf >> Thanks... disregard my theory about PDFBOX-1958. But I am not able to >> reproduce the effect with jdk8. With jdk9 there is an effect but it >> looks better for me (my screen is on 125%). >> >> The PDFToImage results are identical. >> >> What jdk are you using? What OS, and do you have a screen that is not >> set at 100% ? >> >> Tilman >> >> >> >> >>> Esteban >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> De: Esteban R <[email protected]> >>> Enviado: jueves, 15 de junio de 2017 04:09 p.m. >>> Para: [email protected] >>> Asunto: Re: Change in image quality between versions 2.0.4 and 2.0.5 (also >>> applies to 2.0.6) >>> >>> These links should work for at least a week: >>> >>> >>> >>> Screenshots: >>> >>> https://img4.file-upload.com/i/00298/5ep2gagcmcna.jpg > [https://img4.file-upload.com/i/00298/5ep2gagcmcna.jpg] > >> [https://img4.file-upload.com/i/00298/5ep2gagcmcna.jpg > [https://img4.file-upload.com/i/00298/5ep2gagcmcna.jpg] > > ] >>> [https://img4.file-upload.com/i/00298/5ep2gagcmcna.jpg >> [https://img4.file-upload.com/i/00298/5ep2gagcmcna.jpg] >> >> ] >>> (2.0.4) >>> >>> https://img5.file-upload.com/i/00298/8llrhev3r8oz.jpg >> [https://img5.file-upload.com/i/00298/8llrhev3r8oz.jpg] >> >>> [https://img5.file-upload.com/i/00298/8llrhev3r8oz.jpg >> [https://img5.file-upload.com/i/00298/8llrhev3r8oz.jpg] >> >> ] >>> (2.0.5) >>> >>> >>> PDF: >>> >>> <http://file-upload.com/d/6FgO>http://wikisend.com/download/185248/out.pdf >>> (need to click the "Download" button) >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> De: Tilman Hausherr <[email protected]> >>> Enviado: jueves, 15 de junio de 2017 03:35 p.m. >>> Para: [email protected] >>> Asunto: Re: Change in image quality between versions 2.0.4 and 2.0.5 (also >>> applies to 2.0.6) >>> >>> Am 15.06.2017 um 02:37 schrieb Esteban R: >>>> Hello. >>>> >>>> >>>> I have noticed with PDFDebugger that the same pdf is rendered >>>> differently by pdfbox-2.0.4 and by pdfbox-2.0.5 (pdfbox-2.0.6 produces >>>> the same output than pdfbox-2.0.5): the newer versions generate a more >>>> pixelated image. >>>> >>>> >>>> Please find attached a sample pdf and two screenshots of PDFDebugger >>>> in version 2.0.4 and in version 2.0.5 (also applies for version 2.0.6). >>>> >>> Please upload a PDF to a sharehoster, attachments don't get through. It >>> *might* be >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PDFBOX-1958 >> [PDFBOX-1958] image mask outline with shading pattern is >> ...<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PDFBOX-1958> >> issues.apache.org >> This is also somewhat of a regression: two weeks ago, the attached file had >> the image rendered in b/w, now it is invisible. I was able to get the image >> in another ... >> >> >> >>> [PDFBOX-1958] image mask outline with shading pattern is >>> ...<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PDFBOX-1958> >> [PDFBOX-1958] image mask outline with shading pattern is >> ...<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PDFBOX-1958> >> issues.apache.org >> This is also somewhat of a regression: two weeks ago, the attached file had >> the image rendered in b/w, now it is invisible. I was able to get the image >> in another ... >> >> >> >>> issues.apache.org >>> This is also somewhat of a regression: two weeks ago, the attached file had >>> the image rendered in b/w, now it is invisible. I was able to get the image >>> in another ... >>> >>> >>> >>> [PDFBOX-1958] image mask outline with shading pattern is >>> ...<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PDFBOX-1958> >> [PDFBOX-1958] image mask outline with shading pattern is >> ...<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PDFBOX-1958> >> issues.apache.org >> This is also somewhat of a regression: two weeks ago, the attached file had >> the image rendered in b/w, now it is invisible. I was able to get the image >> in another ... >> >> >> >>> [PDFBOX-1958] image mask outline with shading pattern is >>> ...<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PDFBOX-1958> >> [PDFBOX-1958] image mask outline with shading pattern is >> ...<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PDFBOX-1958> >> issues.apache.org >> This is also somewhat of a regression: two weeks ago, the attached file had >> the image rendered in b/w, now it is invisible. I was able to get the image >> in another ... >> >> >> >>> issues.apache.org >>> This is also somewhat of a regression: two weeks ago, the attached file had >>> the image rendered in b/w, now it is invisible. I was able to get the image >>> in another ... >>> >>> >>> >>> issues.apache.org >>> This is also somewhat of a regression: two weeks ago, the attached file had >>> the image rendered in b/w, now it is invisible. I was able to get the image >>> in another ... >>> >>> >>> >>> see the last two comments I made there. Without the change some files >>> would not be rendered at all. >>> >>> >>>> The old approach is better for our pourposes. Is there a way to revert >>>> to the old rendering? >>>> >>> By using 2.0.4, obviously. Alternatively build from source code a 2.0.6 >>> version, and try to revert the commit mentioned in the issue above. It >>> is possible because the change did not touch very much. >>> >>> But I'd still be interested in seeing your PDF. >>> >>> Tilman >>> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
