Great! I have tried with pdfbox-app-2.0.7-20170615.210220-70.jar and it generates the same output than pdfbox-app-2.0.3.jar.
Esteban ________________________________ De: Tilman Hausherr <[email protected]> Enviado: jueves, 15 de junio de 2017 09:04 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) Aaaaarghhhhhh!!!!! https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PDFBOX-3523 see near the bottom: Commit 1763621 from Tilman Hausherr <https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ViewProfile.jspa?name=tilman> in branch 'pdfbox/branches/2.0' [ https://svn.apache.org/r1763621 ] PDFBOX-3523 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PDFBOX-3523>: disable high quality interpolation if image is scaled up by ctm AND xform (temporary commit) I then waited for feedback of the user who wrote "Alright, I will try it again, probably, tomorrow", and never got it, and forgot to revert the change that you're complaining about (rightfully!). I have reverted the change, and will think whether to make it configurable, or just do nothing. A snapshot is available here: https://repository.apache.org/content/groups/snapshots/org/apache/pdfbox/pdfbox-app/2.0.7-SNAPSHOT/ it is at the bottom of the page, the number must be 70 or higher. Tilman Am 15.06.2017 um 21:09 schrieb Tilman Hausherr: > 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) 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 >>> 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> 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] >
