Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.postscript > #854

Re: execform, 75% faded

Show all headers | View raw

In article <0fa3d714-e8ee-4464-8c56-272a085501aa@googlegroups.com>, 
jdawiseman@gmail.com says...
> 
> On Wednesday, August 1, 2012 9:15:37 AM UTC+1, Chris wrote:

> Yes, that would have the effect you say. But the example output 
contains twenty-two copies of several complicated graphics. Using 
execform and Adobe Distiller causes the PDF to hold only two copies of 
each graphic (should be one, but it?s two), the third and subsequent 
instances being replaced with a pointer to the second. That greatly 
lightens the PDF, and might speed printing. If it is possible to dodge 
the Preview failure to render transfers without losing that lightness, 
that would be preferred. 

In the specific instance of converting the PostScript to PDF, you can 
change the setting of transfer functions. Select Settings->Edit Adobe 
PDF settings. Select 'Color' from the list on the left. Near the bottom 
of the dialog is a control labelled 'When transfer functions are found'. 
Select 'Apply'.

This *may* get the effect you are looking for butfor the reasons Chris 
gives its equally likely that it will not. The whole point of a form is 
that it is supposed to be the have the same effect every time it is 
used, which allows the interpreter to efficiently reuse it.

And you are correct, the pdfwrite device (NOT Ghostscript) does not 
preserve PostScript forms on conversion to PDF. At least in part because 
hardly anyone uses forms and those that do rarely use it in the intended 
fashion.


			Ken

Back to comp.lang.postscript | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

execform, 75% faded jdaw1 <jdawiseman@gmail.com> - 2012-07-30 01:57 -0700
  Re: execform, 75% faded luser- -droog <mijoryx@yahoo.com> - 2012-07-30 07:04 -0700
    Re: execform, 75% faded jdaw1 <jdawiseman@gmail.com> - 2012-07-31 06:24 -0700
      Re: execform, 75% faded jdaw1 <jdawiseman@gmail.com> - 2012-07-31 11:40 -0700
        Re: execform, 75% faded luser- -droog <mijoryx@yahoo.com> - 2012-07-31 16:02 -0700
          Re: execform, 75% faded jdaw1 <jdawiseman@gmail.com> - 2012-08-01 00:08 -0700
    Re: execform, 75% faded jdawiseman.bloomberg@gmail.com - 2019-04-20 06:46 -0700
      Re: execform, 75% faded jdawiseman.bloomberg@gmail.com - 2019-04-20 06:46 -0700
  Re: execform, 75% faded Chris <cjl@spamcop.net> - 2012-08-01 07:40 +0000
    Re: execform, 75% faded jdaw1 <jdawiseman@gmail.com> - 2012-08-01 01:02 -0700
      Re: execform, 75% faded Chris <cjl@spamcop.net> - 2012-08-01 08:15 +0000
        Re: execform, 75% faded jdaw1 <jdawiseman@gmail.com> - 2012-08-01 02:53 -0700
          Re: execform, 75% faded ken <ken@spamcop.net> - 2012-08-01 12:56 +0100
          Re: execform, 75% faded Chris <cjl@spamcop.net> - 2012-08-01 12:33 +0000
  Re: execform, 75% faded jdaw1 <jdawiseman@gmail.com> - 2012-08-01 05:47 -0700
    Re: execform, 75% faded jdaw1 <jdawiseman@gmail.com> - 2012-08-01 06:28 -0700
  Re: execform, 75% faded Don Lancaster <don@tinaja.com> - 2012-10-23 08:45 -0700
    Re: execform, 75% faded jdaw1 <jdawiseman@gmail.com> - 2015-04-25 15:05 -0700

csiph-web