[go: up one dir, main page]

Menu

#165 [pdf export] low quality of new export method compared to the legacy

v1.0_(example)
closed
nobody
None
5
2017-07-20
2015-11-21
No

Hi,

Thanks for wonderful project! I just found it, better later than never.

I just had a case in which I got a document to sign, but when export to pdf quality significantly dropped.

I used the legacy method and quality was preserved, however the text additions were reported to be garbage.

Attached are:
000 - original.pdf - the original pdf
000 - original.pdf.xoj - the xournal version with minor text addition
001 - new method.pdf - export to pdf using new method
002 - legacy method.pdf - export to pdf using the legacy method

Notice the change in quality between the legacy and the new, this is a scanned document, a picture, there are no option to tune the output, unsure what exactly happening.

Also please notice that the garbage of text additions within the legacy format is not visible always, however, you can see this behaviour online using[1], upload the legacy and the new and observe the text within the box.

So I had an issue of lose lose... either use the new format with lower quality or the legacy format with garbage.

Thanks!

[1] http://pdfviewer.softgateon.net/

4 Attachments

Discussion

  • Alon Bar-Lev

    Alon Bar-Lev - 2015-11-21

    Solved in master:
    003 - new method.pdf - export with new method using master.

    I guess commit 78d9643 and e03ebdb

    Thanks!

     
  • Denis Auroux

    Denis Auroux - 2015-11-21

    Great, thanks for confirming that the most recent version does fix the issue. (The commits you point out were indeed aimed precisely at this bug).
    Denis

     
  • Denis Auroux

    Denis Auroux - 2017-07-20
    • status: open --> closed
     
  • Denis Auroux

    Denis Auroux - 2017-07-20

    Release 0.4.8.2016 is up to date with cvs/git repositories, and should include a fix for this bug. Please reopen if problems persist with 0.4.8.2016 or with the current cvs/git code.

     
  • Jeffrey Baitis

    Jeffrey Baitis - 2017-07-20

    I can confirm this has been fixed comparing the output of 0.4.8.2016 to that of 0.4.8. Thanks very much.

     

Log in to post a comment.