Joachim_L Posted April 8, 2020 Posted April 8, 2020 Yesterday, while I was bug hunting on a document I experienced a nice way to save some bytes. So I made some tests, which might be helpful for others as well? But don't expect too much, but if you want to streamline your document, this is worth a try. Or I wrote my typical nonsense. Test document 1: CMYK, A4 with a linked TIFF just placed = 1.881.016 bytes Test document 2: CMYK, A4 with a linked TIFF inside a picture frame = 1.879.646 bytes PDF export (preset X-4) Test document 1 = 3.412.180 bytes PDF export (preset X-4) Test document 2 = 3.412.182 bytes Observation: Only 2 bytes saved in comparison to the picture frame. The image was in width larger than the document, so I made a crop in both documents to the margin. PDF export (preset X-4) Test document 1 = 3.247.183 bytes PDF export (preset X-4) Test document 2 = 3.326.495 bytes Observation: 79.312 bytes saved in comparison to the picture frame. Now I was interested what would happen, if I change the height of the crop rectangle. I expected that the difference would be more or less equal. PDF export (preset X-4) Test document 1 = 2.952.002 bytes PDF export (preset X-4) Test document 2 = 3.042.883 bytes Observation: 90.881 bytes saved in comparison to the picture frame. This is interesting. I thought of the cropping rectangle as a mathematical definition of dimension and position. But there seems to be more than that, saving again approx. 11.000 bytes. Conclusion (for me): Where possible using a directly placed file instead of putting them inside a picture frame saves some bytes. I wonder how much can be saved in a very large document? Quote ------ Windows 10 | i5-8500 CPU | Intel UHD 630 Graphics | 32 GB RAM | Latest Retail and Beta versions of complete Affinity range installed
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.