http://www.dopdf.com/forum/ Discussion forum for doPDF users. en Wed, 08 Feb 2012 21:46:06 +0000 http://www.dopdf.com/forum/topic/change-layout-to-side-by-side#post-3804 Tue, 07 Sep 2010 06:48:20 +0000 Softland 3804@http://www.dopdf.com/forum/ <p>Hello,</p> <p>I am afraid that doPDF does not support this feature.</p> <p>However all the novaPDF versions support the option so you can use novaPDF Lite to achieve the side by side alignment.</p> <p>Thank you. </p> http://www.dopdf.com/forum/topic/change-layout-to-side-by-side#post-3801 Mon, 06 Sep 2010 18:32:34 +0000 pat 3801@http://www.dopdf.com/forum/ <p>I am impressed with the doPDF software, in particular for the small sizes of pdf files which are generated - typically a third to a quarter of the size of other systems used.</p> <p>However, I would like to display the pages within the pdf as side by side, not top to bottom. Is this possible by setting preferences within the software? </p> http://www.dopdf.com/forum/topic/dopdf-vs-freepdf-size-and-quality#post-1116 Thu, 03 Dec 2009 22:13:07 +0000 Gluek 1116@http://www.dopdf.com/forum/ <p>Just tried version 7 (7.0.320), file size same as v6, so I'm stay with v5. </p> http://www.dopdf.com/forum/topic/dopdf-vs-freepdf-size-and-quality#post-1094 Fri, 27 Nov 2009 21:35:33 +0000 Gluek 1094@http://www.dopdf.com/forum/ <p>Tried older version of <a href="http://www.winaddons.com/dopdf-53240/">doPDF 5.3.240</a> and get just <strong>2.74 Kb</strong> "123 test" file! Also, older version can be installed silently (with <strong>doPDF53240 /verysilent /norestart</strong>), so I think I will prefer it. </p> http://www.dopdf.com/forum/topic/dopdf-vs-freepdf-size-and-quality#post-1093 Fri, 27 Nov 2009 20:03:37 +0000 Gluek 1093@http://www.dopdf.com/forum/ <p>Tried to set 72 dpi, but file size still 20 Kb, not 3 Kb. As I see, you have another version of doPDF:</p> <p><code>doPDF Ver 7.0 Build 317 (Windows Vista Enterprise Edition (Service Pack 2) - Version: 6.0.6002 (Platform: x86))</code></p> <p>May you share it with me to test?<br /> If it not public yet, you may mail me: <a href="mailto:mrgluek@gmail.com">mrgluek@gmail.com</a> </p> http://www.dopdf.com/forum/topic/dopdf-vs-freepdf-size-and-quality#post-1092 Fri, 27 Nov 2009 13:34:37 +0000 Softland 1092@http://www.dopdf.com/forum/ <p>So now it's only the matter of size, as the quality is the same for instance when printing from Firefox.</p> <p>As for the size, make sure that when you do the test with the text file you set the resolution for dopdf at 72dpi and not 300dpi as it is default. Probably freedpdf has the resolution set lower (for the web) and that's why the difference in size. I have created a pdf from a word document with 123 test text in it and dopdf created a 3Kb file when setting the resolution to 72 dpi - you can download it here to see: <a href="http://www.dopdf.com/download/test/test-123.pdf" rel="nofollow">www.dopdf.com/download/test/test-123.pdf</a><br /> So practically it's smaller than the one freepdf created. </p> http://www.dopdf.com/forum/topic/dopdf-vs-freepdf-size-and-quality#post-1091 Thu, 26 Nov 2009 17:39:23 +0000 Gluek 1091@http://www.dopdf.com/forum/ <p>Thanks for your answer.</p> <p>I not only printed one page, this is just example I was uploaded.</p> <p>Here another one, no images, just few words of text:</p> <p>Almost empty page Word document (only "123 test" text on it), printing to pdf:</p> <p><a href="http://dl.dropbox.com/u/444697/temp/123test_dopdf.pdf">123test_dopdf.pdf</a> │20.66 K<br /> <a href="http://dl.dropbox.com/u/444697/temp/123test_freepdf.pdf">123test_freepdf.pdf</a> │ 5.61 K</p> <p>Ok, if I try to open 123test_dopdf.pdf and re-print it on FreePDF printer:</p> <p>Wow! I get even smaller document:</p> <p><a href="http://dl.dropbox.com/u/444697/temp/123test_dopdf_reprint_freepdf.pdf">123test_dopdf_reprint_freepdf.pdf</a> │ 3.83 K</p> <p>So, do GhostScript cut of all wasted space from pdf, or why? </p> http://www.dopdf.com/forum/topic/dopdf-vs-freepdf-size-and-quality#post-1086 Thu, 26 Nov 2009 07:47:12 +0000 Softland 1086@http://www.dopdf.com/forum/ <p>Hi,<br /> The comparison you're doing is a bit misleading for several reasons:<br /> - you have only printed one page using one browser and compared the results; you should try at least 2 other browsers (the same forum page prints perfectly with dopdf via Firefox, the images are sent badly by IE), and you should alternate text only pages with mixed pages<br /> - you don't mention the fact that freepdf is based on ghostscript so basically that's the one doing the conversion, as with any other ghostscript-based pdfcreator; dopdf uses his own internal conversion engine and this is why the size is larger when handling images<br /> - you didn't do a comparison conversion from other document types, word/txt, alternations of text and images</p> <p>What I'm saying is that this is a subjective comparison. </p> http://www.dopdf.com/forum/topic/dopdf-vs-freepdf-size-and-quality#post-1084 Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:20:29 +0000 Gluek 1084@http://www.dopdf.com/forum/ <p>Hello! I tried to use latest doPDF as alternative for FreePDF (http://shbox.de/) - doPDF smaller, faster and run fine on Windows 7, yeah!</p> <p>But: FreePDF make much smaller PDF files with better images in it. Please compare:<br /> (main forum page saved in FreePDF 4.02 - latest; and doPDF 6.3 build 311 - latest)</p> <p> (doPDF) PDF Forum - doPDF.pdf │267.8 K<br /> (FreePDF) PDF Forum - doPDF.pdf │87.50 K</p> <p>Also you may check files here:</p> <p><a href="http://dl.dropbox.com/u/444697/temp/%28doPDF%29%20PDF%20Forum%20-%20doPDF.pdf">(doPDF) PDF Forum - doPDF.pdf</a><br /> <a href="http://dl.dropbox.com/u/444697/temp/%28FreePDF%29%20PDF%20Forum%20-%20doPDF.pdf">(FreePDF) PDF Forum - doPDF.pdf</a></p> <p>As you see, size of file generated with FreePDF 3 (!) times smaller than doPDF file.<br /> And images looks better:</p> <p>doPDF:</p> <p><img src="http://dl.dropbox.com/u/444697/screenshots/2009-11-25-221438.png" alt="" /></p> <p>FreePDF:</p> <p><img src="http://dl.dropbox.com/u/444697/screenshots/2009-11-25-221855.png" alt="" /> </p> http://www.dopdf.com/forum/topic/subset-of-embedded-fonts#post-1078 Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:36:52 +0000 Softland 1078@http://www.dopdf.com/forum/ <p>Make sure you have the latest version installed of dopdf, and then in the window that lets you select where to save the pdf file check the option "Embed fonts" </p> http://www.dopdf.com/forum/topic/subset-of-embedded-fonts#post-1076 Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:24:53 +0000 GLG 1076@http://www.dopdf.com/forum/ <p>How do I embed fonts? I converted some files and the fonts were not embedded with the default settings.<br /> Thanks </p> http://www.dopdf.com/forum/topic/subset-of-embedded-fonts#post-1034 Fri, 16 Oct 2009 10:47:48 +0000 Softland 1034@http://www.dopdf.com/forum/ <p>No one said that subsets cannot be supported, just that they'll be in a future version. In fact this feature will be included in dopdf 7 which should be released in november or early december.</p> <p>Right now if you want to reduce the size of the pdf you can choose not to embed the fonts. </p> http://www.dopdf.com/forum/topic/subset-of-embedded-fonts#post-1033 Wed, 14 Oct 2009 12:21:32 +0000 Guillaume_nl 1033@http://www.dopdf.com/forum/ <blockquote><p>In a future version of doPDF we'll embed by default all used font subsets.</p></blockquote> <p>This is a quote of yourself:<br /> <a href="http://www.dopdf.com/forum/topic/which-fonts-are-supported#post-309" rel="nofollow">http://www.dopdf.com/forum/topic/which-fonts-are-supported#post-309</a></p> <p>So why is it that subsets are not to be/cannot be supported all of a sudden? In my opinion it makes doPDF completely useless, as a 182KB PDF-file with some text becomes a 2.99MB file when fonts are embedded (whereas if I create the same file with subset of fonts embedded in OpenOffice, the file is only 81KB). </p> http://www.dopdf.com/forum/topic/file-size#post-871 Tue, 07 Jul 2009 13:42:48 +0000 Softland 871@http://www.dopdf.com/forum/ <p>Make sure you uncheck the option "Embed fonts" when printing. I printed with dopdf google.com's main page and it resulted a bit over 80kb, the same test with fonts embedded being at over 1Mb. </p> <p>The 300dpi option is ignored by Internet Explorer, if you do the test of setting a 72dpi option in word or notepad you'll see is kept. IE ignores it because it already sends the images in lower resolution. </p> http://www.dopdf.com/forum/topic/file-size#post-870 Mon, 06 Jul 2009 18:33:27 +0000 Acerola 870@http://www.dopdf.com/forum/ <p>As a suggestion for future releases, you should try and improve the image compression algorithms. I did a simple test. I opened Google's main page on Internet Explorer and printed it on dopdf, pdf995 and pdffactory. The results were:</p> <p>pdffactory: 24KB<br /> pdf995: 30KB<br /> dopdf: 489KB</p> <p>All at 300dpi, which I couldn't change in dopdf, but this bug has already been reported on other messages in this forum. </p> http://www.dopdf.com/forum/topic/small-output-images-with-chrome#post-804 Sun, 24 May 2009 12:45:57 +0000 cmbrittin 804@http://www.dopdf.com/forum/ <p>Small update: Just got a new PC. Vista, latest Chrome, latest doPDF. Unfortunately same symptom in this environment.</p> <p>By the way, forgot to say in first post, great utility, always has worked extremely well for me! </p> http://www.dopdf.com/forum/topic/small-output-images-with-chrome#post-749 Thu, 30 Apr 2009 08:28:45 +0000 Softland 749@http://www.dopdf.com/forum/ <p>you're right, printing a page from chrome shows it smaller; i'll talk with our devs to see if it's a bug in dopdf or something with chrome. </p> http://www.dopdf.com/forum/topic/small-output-images-with-chrome#post-746 Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:12:59 +0000 cmbrittin 746@http://www.dopdf.com/forum/ <p>New member so please send me to another thread if already covered.</p> <p>doPDF seems to work fine with Chrome except that the output is reduced and only takes up about half a page. Fine with IE and Firefox. XP SP3 is environment.</p> <p>cb </p> http://www.dopdf.com/forum/topic/pdf-file-oversized-in-62288#post-627 Thu, 19 Feb 2009 07:21:47 +0000 Softland 627@http://www.dopdf.com/forum/ <p>Glad that keeping the PDF filesize down worked.<br /> As for "...its normal state of relative happiness", I'm afraid I can't help, but if I ever find a solution for my case I'll post it here ;). </p> http://www.dopdf.com/forum/topic/pdf-file-oversized-in-62288#post-626 Thu, 19 Feb 2009 06:21:51 +0000 wsnedden 626@http://www.dopdf.com/forum/ <p>Thank you for the help. I went back to the original docs and did my resize there then I copied &#38; pasted into the larger doc to be pdf'd. dopdf print and the result was from a file of 1666kb output was 896kb. Yahoo! issue resovled.</p> <p>My life can go back to its normal state of relative happiness. Good job! </p> http://www.dopdf.com/forum/topic/pdf-file-oversized-in-62288#post-623 Wed, 18 Feb 2009 07:56:36 +0000 Softland 623@http://www.dopdf.com/forum/ <p>If I understand correctly, the problem is that a word document of 1594kb results in a pdf of 2499kb, this happening with the previous version and with the current one too. However another doc of about 20mb results in a 2mb pdf file. </p> <p>I don't see anything abnormal here, because it all depends on what the word doc contains. If it has images that were resized in it (not externally) than the pdf will include the entire size, that's why the increase in size instead of decrease. You can see some tips on reducing the size of the pdf here - <a href="http://www.novapdf.com/kb/reduce-pdf-file-size-152.html">Adjust images in the original document to reduce the size of the resulting PDF</a> (the first part of the article applies to dopdf too, and that should help reduce the size of the pdf). </p> http://www.dopdf.com/forum/topic/pdf-file-oversized-in-62288#post-622 Wed, 18 Feb 2009 04:49:28 +0000 wsnedden 622@http://www.dopdf.com/forum/ <p>pdf out from dopdf is larger than the original. When source file (.doc) was 1594kb output pdf was 2499kb. I reinstalled 6.2.287 and re-ran a 21,163kb file through dopdf and the result was a file size of 1961kb [a good compression!).</p> <p>Reran original 1594kb file again and got same result as previous i.e. 2499kb. It seems like there should have been some compression not an expansion???</p> <p>Anyone got any clues as to why this might be ok? </p> http://www.dopdf.com/forum/topic/pdf-file-oversized-in-62288#post-620 Tue, 17 Feb 2009 23:41:56 +0000 wsnedden 620@http://www.dopdf.com/forum/ <p>I recently downloaded the 6.2.288 and after running it for a .doc file type that was 1594 kb the pdf result has 2499 kb. I did NOT check the "embed fonts" check box. I think it did it anyway!!?? I haven't looked yet, but I am going to try to download the prvious version. Has anyone else had this problem? The previous version generated a pdf with 2038kb from a file that was 18,000kb.</p> <p>Is this a bug? </p> http://www.dopdf.com/forum/topic/pdf-file-oversized-in-62288#post-608 Mon, 16 Feb 2009 08:23:17 +0000 Softland 608@http://www.dopdf.com/forum/ <p>glad you've solved this </p> http://www.dopdf.com/forum/topic/pdf-file-oversized-in-62288#post-605 Sun, 15 Feb 2009 13:13:48 +0000 Francisco Faz 605@http://www.dopdf.com/forum/ <p>Forget it... reinstalled and all is OK now... mea culpa! </p> http://www.dopdf.com/forum/topic/pdf-file-oversized-in-62288#post-604 Sun, 15 Feb 2009 04:54:35 +0000 Francisco Faz 604@http://www.dopdf.com/forum/ <p>In this new version 6.2.288 the PDF file is more big as before (5X at less)... please check this... </p> http://www.dopdf.com/forum/topic/subset-of-embedded-fonts#post-591 Thu, 12 Feb 2009 06:52:04 +0000 Softland 591@http://www.dopdf.com/forum/ <p>Hi, it cannot embed subsets only. The only solution I see is to create it without embedded fonts and ensure that the recipient has those used fonts (or you could send the font separately). </p> http://www.dopdf.com/forum/topic/subset-of-embedded-fonts#post-587 Wed, 11 Feb 2009 19:07:39 +0000 mandyvigilante 587@http://www.dopdf.com/forum/ <p>I'm not sure if this has been asked on the forum before and if it has, I'm sorry. Is there a way to embed only a subset of the fonts used in the document? I have a two page document written in Japanese characters, and when I convert it with the fonts embedded it goes from 183KB to 44.5MB. That is a HUGE difference and I'm not sure what I can do about it. </p>