From: "Jules Richardson" <julesrichardsonuk at yahoo.co.uk>
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 9:34 AM
On Fri, 2005-06-03 at 10:13 -0400, Paul Koning wrote:
>>>> "der" == der Mouse <mouse at rodents.montreal.qc.ca>
writes:
> - Ran identify again on the resulting TIFF
file, and the comment's
> now changed to: "Image generated by ESP Ghostscript
> (device=pnmraw)"
> ... so it looks like any TIFF
'metadata' isn't getting preserved.
der> Worse, it is probably re-rendering the pixels, so unless it's
der> quite careful, it's introduced blur due to mismatches between
der> the original's pixel boundaries and the output's pixel
der> boundaries.
Is that speculation or have you seen something that supports this
notion? Given Adobe's background, I would assume your speculation is
false -- Adobe knows this stuff far better than most of us.
Quick test done here, and it does result in exactly the same pixel data
between souce image and the one that's 'passed' through a PDF file; I
saved both before and after images and pnm and a checksum on them shows
that they match...
cheers
Jules
What gets me is the simple fact that non-Adobe utilities changed a comment
field in a tiff -> pdf -> tiff and from that it is taken as gospel that is
the fault of the PDF structure. I may look into trying it with other
utilities including Adobe's Acrobat.
Even if it does destroy the comment field the info can be put in the PDF
meta data.
Randy