From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.comp.tex.context/50549 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Taco Hoekwater Newsgroups: gmane.comp.tex.context Subject: Re: PDF sizes Date: Sat, 16 May 2009 09:20:17 +0200 Message-ID: <4A0E6931.8030804@elvenkind.com> References: Reply-To: mailing list for ConTeXt users NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1242458494 10614 80.91.229.12 (16 May 2009 07:21:34 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 16 May 2009 07:21:34 +0000 (UTC) To: mailing list for ConTeXt users Original-X-From: ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl Sat May 16 09:21:28 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gctc-ntg-context-518@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from ronja.vet.uu.nl ([131.211.172.88] helo=ronja.ntg.nl) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1M5ED1-0002w5-Ij for gctc-ntg-context-518@m.gmane.org; Sat, 16 May 2009 09:21:27 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id B92B71FFA0; Sat, 16 May 2009 09:21:25 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from ronja.ntg.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.ntg.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 14244-03; Sat, 16 May 2009 09:20:36 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from ronja.vet.uu.nl (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D60A1FF71; Sat, 16 May 2009 09:20:36 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24EA11FF71 for ; Sat, 16 May 2009 09:20:34 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from ronja.ntg.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.ntg.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 14205-01 for ; Sat, 16 May 2009 09:20:24 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from filter1-til.mf.surf.net (filter1-til.mf.surf.net [194.171.167.217]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id B28A41FF70 for ; Sat, 16 May 2009 09:20:24 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from smtp-vbr5.xs4all.nl (smtp-vbr5.xs4all.nl [194.109.24.25]) by filter1-til.mf.surf.net (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id n4G7KNxI016409 for ; Sat, 16 May 2009 09:20:24 +0200 Original-Received: from [192.168.178.26] (boo.demon.nl [82.161.175.147]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp-vbr5.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n4G7KIZw034025 for ; Sat, 16 May 2009 09:20:23 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from taco@elvenkind.com) User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090114) In-Reply-To: X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner X-Bayes-Prob: 0.0001 (Score 0, tokens from: @@RPTN) X-CanIt-Geo: ip=194.109.24.25; country=NL; region=07; city=Amsterdam; latitude=52.3500; longitude=4.9167; http://maps.google.com/maps?q=52.3500,4.9167&z=6 X-CanItPRO-Stream: uu:ntg-context@ntg.nl (inherits from uu:default, base:default) X-Canit-Stats-ID: 226634882 - 5328f4f9c33b - 20090516 X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 194.171.167.217 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ntg.nl X-BeenThere: ntg-context@ntg.nl X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: mailing list for ConTeXt users List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl Errors-To: ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ntg.nl Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.tex.context:50549 Archived-At: Hi, ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl wrote: > > From: Mohamed Bana > Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 19:51:31 +0100 > To: mailing list for ConTeXt users > > > Hi all, > > why is the PDF generated from luatex so much smaller in size? When I > compile slightly larger documents the difference is quite noticeable, > e.g., 300 KB for pdftex and 56 KB for the same document. > > -rw-r--r-- 1 mbana mbana 13K 2009-05-15 19:48 luasize.pdf > -rw-r--r-- 1 mbana mbana 56K 2009-05-15 19:39 pdfsize.pdf Because mkiv+luatex treats the fonts differently. If you compare the fonts in the pdf documents, you'll see this difference: [taco@ntg tmp]$ pdffonts luasize.pdf name type emb sub uni object ID ------------------------------------ ------------ --- --- --- --------- CLWCAI+LMMono10-Regular CID Type 0C yes yes yes 4 0 FRSDEY+MinionPro-Regular CID Type 0C yes yes yes 5 0 [taco@ntg tmp]$ pdffonts pdfsize.pdf name type emb sub uni object ID ------------------------------------ ------------ --- --- --- --------- TPEDRB+LMMono10-Regular Type 1 yes yes yes 4 0 QCXLWN+WarnockPro-Regular Type 1 yes yes yes 5 0 The 'CID Type 0' vs 'Type 1' is about encoding (2bytes vs 1byte); the key to the different sizes is the 'C' in the type category. In the luatex case, the fonts are internally converted to the newer 'Type 1 CFF' font format, which is much more compact than 'oldfashioned' Type 1. IIRC, dvipdfmx uses 'Type 1C' (1byte CFF), so that should also be smaller than pdftex. Best wishes, Taco ___________________________________________________________________________________ If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki! maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context webpage : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net archive : https://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___________________________________________________________________________________