![]() ![]() In fact, it's much more efficient to use pdfjam to combine the photographed pages into a full-color full-resolution PDF. ![]() So there's no point doing any conversion. So far, it seems that not specifying any optional parameters almost always gives the smallest file size, which still incurs extra tens of KB's. In fact, -monochrome seems to double the file size, regardless of other parameters. When -depth is less than 8, however, not all gray levels are used, which allows the space to be recovered in the compression (which always seems to occur).Īt no time, however, is the size of the output file less than the sum of the sizes of the input files. In the past, this revealed that it always uses 8-bit depth regardless of the presence/absence/specification of the -depth parameter. ![]() I follow the conversion with pdfimages -list OutputFile.pdf to inspect the result. For example, one invocation pattern might be: convert -density 72x72 -monochrome -depth 2 File1.jpg File2.jpg Output.pdf I've tried various combinations of convert's named arguments -density 200x200, -density 72x72, -monochrome, -colorspace Gray, and -depth 2. This is inconsequential on a per-page basis, but with everything being stored electronically, it adds up quick. The photographs can take several MB's per page, while fax-quality can take a few dozen KB's at most. I have lost count of the number of times I've experimented over the years to "convert" photographs of document pages to a fax-quality PDF. TL DR: Can ImageMagick's convert convert smartphone photographs of document pages to a fax-quality PDF file and shrink the file size by several orders of magnitude? I was advised on Stack Overflow to post here. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |