>> `selectdevice` does `setdevice` and then `.setdefaultscreen`.
>> If we use only `setdevice`, then `.setdefaultscreen` is not done.
>
> Aha. So should we just call .setdefaultscreen ourselves? (calling
> "[...] setdevice (pdfwrite) finddevice setdevice" is duplicate) Looks
> like it was introduc
Am Sonntag, den 12.07.2020, 18:57 +0900 schrieb Masamichi Hosoda:
> >>> I've found the documented way to specify Ghostscript devices
> >>> without `-sDEVICE=pdfwrite`. It is using the operator
> >>> `selectdevice`.
> >
> > Thanks for investigating. The main question remains why gs produces
> > s
>>> I've found the documented way to specify Ghostscript devices
>>> without `-sDEVICE=pdfwrite`. It is using the operator
>>> `selectdevice`.
>
> Thanks for investigating. The main question remains why gs produces
> suboptimal results without `selectdevice`.
`selectdevice` is defined in gs_ini
>> > Ghostscript seems to need `-sDEVICE=pdfwrite` to produce the PDF
>> > we expect.
OK.
>> > Is the device specifying way on the new method (without
>> > `-sDEVICE=pdfwrite`) documented by Ghostscript documents? If
>> > not, it is not a bug in my humble opinion.
>>
>> I've found the documente
Am Samstag, den 11.07.2020, 22:28 +0900 schrieb Masamichi Hosoda:
> > Ghostscript seems to need `-sDEVICE=pdfwrite` to produce the PDF we expect.
> >
> > Is the device specifying way on the new method (without `-sDEVICE=pdfwrite`)
> > documented by Ghostscript documents?
> > If not, it is not a bu
> Ghostscript seems to need `-sDEVICE=pdfwrite` to produce the PDF we expect.
>
> Is the device specifying way on the new method (without `-sDEVICE=pdfwrite`)
> documented by Ghostscript documents?
> If not, it is not a bug in my humble opinion.
I've found the documented way to specify Ghostscrip
>> From the same PostScript file, the new method generates a PDF of
>> 7081 bytes and the old method generates a PDF of 6423 bytes. The
>> new method is more than 10 % larger than the old method.
>
> Do you consider this a bug in gs or a feature?
>
>> From `old-to-new.diff`, it seems that the am
On 7/11/2020 4:14 AM, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
OK. What do you think about opening a ghostscript issue, asking the
developers for an explanation? Maybe our new method can be slightly
adapted to avoid the size increase.
The question might have to be asked carefully. Ghostscript's Ken Sharp
in 20
>> Is this expected, probably a side effect of your latest changes? I
>> uncompressed the PDFs using `pdftk` and did a comparison;
>> unfortunately I couldn't see big differences in the diff file,
>> which probably hints at small but many changes that accumulate to
>> the 15% difference.
>
> If
> your fix for gs works fine; the resulting PDFs are small again.
> Thanks a lot!
>
> BUT: They are not as small as previously. For example, with commit
> 21a20de3, the NR has 10 pages more and is now 8.3MByte (I've tested
> compilation with both gs 9.21 and 9.52) instead of 7.1MByte (with gs
> 9
Masamichi-san,
your fix for gs works fine; the resulting PDFs are small again.
Thanks a lot!
BUT: They are not as small as previously. For example, with commit
21a20de3, the NR has 10 pages more and is now 8.3MByte (I've tested
compilation with both gs 9.21 and 9.52) instead of 7.1MByte (with
11 matches
Mail list logo
