Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About MartinHH

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    : make an educated guess!

Recent Profile Visitors

211 profile views
  1. Same here! This seems to be a bug.
  2. @Steps: Thanks, but the picture-size is not the main problem. I reduced the size drastically without a notable effect. My problem, or my question is about that unpredictable effect with the different compression rates. I have no explanation for that strange effect.
  3. Good evening! I have to put my enthusiasm from my last posting into some perspective. Today I did a few more test exports, which resulted in the following: 20 pages, pictures and text 1st document 16bit export quality 100% - 330MB 80% - 330MB 60% - 330MB Why doesn't the output size change with decreasing quality? 2nd document 8bit export quality 100% - 196MB EDIT 85% - 22MB - 80% - 196MB 60% - 22MB Ok, it is a bit strange that there is no difference between 100 and 80% in the output size. But at 60% it is a huge leap. And what about 85%? I can't explain all this, but with 16bit documents there seems to be something wrong. Or did I miss something? Is there an explanation? Thanks a lot! Martin
  4. No problem, you've got mail! Thanks again and have a nice weekend!
  5. I think I've got it. And I think that the Affinity Guys did a good job! Beta 206, 8 bit, PDF 1.7, 85% compression. Output PDF Size: 618MB! Thanks a lot, Guys! Good Job! Cheers Martin
  6. Hi @thomaso, now I run another test with my original document. 8bit, 60% compression, PDF 1.4 Result: 2.33GB. That's a good way, but never the less far away from <=1GB. HG Martin
  7. Hi Thomaso, wow, that's a great solution! I didn't recognised that point. Thanks a lot for your big effort! I will start testing as soon as my new mac is up and running! Stay tuned, I will report the results here! Thanks again, best regards Cheers Martin
  8. Thanks a lot so far! I've send you a link to my dropbox. if we have new infos we can discuss it here. Thanks for now! BR Martin
  9. @thomaso: Thanks a lot! I can't upload an example because a document with only 10 pages is over 400MB in size. Even a two-page document already has 45MB, and I'll explain why. But I made further comparisons to Indesign, and now I suspect that I can't realize this kind of documents (more than 200 pages, more than 300 high-resolution images, output filesize maximum 1GB) with Affinity Publisher. The following statements and facts (Sorry, Affinity, if I constantly compare this with InDesign, but InDesign is the reference, and if I change, then I simply compare): 1) For years I have never, or only very rarely, taken care of the size of the images used in my work with InDesign. I have always left that to InDesign, and it has always worked very well. As an example my last photo book, 216 pages size A3, 300-400 pictures, high resolution. InDesign document: 150MB (linked images), output file size: 550MB. The used images have a size between 5 and 20MB per image. 2 In Affinity Publisher, it makes no difference in file size whether I embed or link images. The file size is always exactly the same! With InDesign I have even in a very large document (see above) a minimum file size, that is only the "skeleton", and so it should be. 3. It may be my fault that I have to drastically decrease image-size before processing them in Affinity Publisher. As I said before, this is something I never had to do with InDesign, and the results have been flawless so far. If I have to do that in the future, it would greatly affect my workflow. Furthermore I don't think that I could reduce the outpout file size so much that I would stay at an output file size of max 1GB with such a large photo book. I will now simply wait and see how the "final release" behaves. Then I will make dependent on it whether I can work with it for my requirements or not. Thank you for your support and the many tips and suggestions! Best regards Martin
  10. Does this possibly depend on the size of the history table? With about 10 entries I cannot confirm the effect.
  11. Hi, I'd like to warm-up this topic. I've turned my big testing project into a more manageable project with only 20 pages, and I'd like to share the results with you. File-Size of the exported PDF: 682MB. File-Size of the exported PDF: 284MB. File-Size of the exported PDF: 313MB. As I mentioned in one of my earlier postings there is no difference between "Allow JPG compression" 60% or 100%. I exported 220 pages from an InDesign-Document with the same settings (hopefully - as far as comparable) with an output size of a bit more then 500MB! I don't know if the settings of my export-dialog are wrong, cause I didn't change them from default. Is there any setting a "kill-setting"? Any ideas? Thanks a lot! Cheers Martin
  12. Thanks a lot! Color space of the document is set to sRGB. That's the color space WhiteWall is asking for. All Photos are also in sRGB. And I use no Transparency. Yes, I will prepare a smaller Test-Document. In this case I'd like to compare the sizes of the PDFs with different parameters in the main-document. But I will prepare a smaller one. Yes, no problem about the beta. That's the reason why we are testing and comparing. One word to the supplies: Blurb: No A3 landscape. Saal: max 100 pages in A3. Viaprinto: No A3.
  13. @thomaso: thanks a lot for your effort! I tried PDF/1a:2003 just for tests, only to see if the filesize decreased. And it does! With PDF 1.8 the file-size of my output-document is about 9.6GB. With PDF 1.4 it is about 5.1GB. And with PDF/1a:2003 it's about 1.25GB. I tried some more things, f.e. pictures within picture-frames or without, using only jpg files or also affinity-photo files etc. It all has no, or a negative effect for the file-size. I know that WhiteWall accepts only sRGB documents. So I can't use PDF/1a:2003 with only CMYK. And I don't use their special .icc profiles until now. Unfortunately they see no chance to work with larger PDFs due to their automatic online process. I'm pretty upset about that cause there are not so many print-shops who are able to create books from pdf uploads.
  14. Hi, when I open an image box, I have four possibilities how the image behaves in this image box. That's very good so far! But I don't have the possibility to adjust the image box automatically to the proportions of the image. If I choose "scale to min fit" or "None", I can manually adjust the frame to the image, but this is annoying, and my hand is usually not calm enough to see a very narrow border again and again. An automatism would be great! Thanks and br Martin
  15. @Wosven: thanks a lot! That might be a solution. In the first test run I was able to reduce the file size to 1.25GB. Let's see how I can save the last 250MB. @v_kyr: thanks, but I hope that a software with this high demand should be able to adjust output formats granular in size. If I need additional programs for this,I think something is not round yet. Of course I'm inspired by InDesign which is what Serif does. Thanks again for your input, guys! Cheers Martin