Replace Source Images with PDFs

[Mark]

Re: Replace Source Images with PDFs

Mark,
Is a jpg or pdf preferred for source documents? I have both and am wondering if they should all be standardized?

When possible, a PDF is generally the better option -- though in most cases you won't get too much benefit from converting a JPG to a PDF.

If you're given the option to choose the format (e.g. you're downloading it from a website that provides it in several formats), I would go with PDF. But if the file comes as a JPG, I wouldn't bother converting it to PDF.

That's just my humble opinion, though.

[donworth]

Re: Replace Source Images with PDFs

When possible, a PDF is generally the better option

Mark, I'm curious - why is PDF (slightly) better than JPG? I would think JPG would have less overhead (since PDF is encapsulating the JPG), and no less standard and ubiquitous than PDF? JPG was created by a standards committee (Joint Photographic Experts Group) in 1992, PDF was created a year later by a commercial company (Adobe).

I use both and agree that there isn't much point in converting one to the other.

Don

[Mark]

Re: Replace Source Images with PDFs

I would think JPG would have less overhead (since PDF is encapsulating the JPG), and no less standard and ubiquitous than PDF?

If the PDF is just encapsulating the JPG (e.g. you converted a JPG to a PDF), then the JPG would be just as good of an option as the PDF.

If it's actually a PDF (e.g. you're downloading from a website and PDF is one of the file formats offered), then the PDF would be better due to the fact that a PDF is a vector graphic and not a raster graphic. Essentially, vector graphics allow you to zoom in without losing quality - if you look at the image on the right of the vector graphic Wikipedia entry I linked, you'll see the difference.

HTH

[AE Palmer]

Re: Replace Source Images with PDFs

Mark, I'm curious - why is PDF (slightly) better than JPG? I would think JPG would have less overhead (since PDF is encapsulating the JPG), and no less standard and ubiquitous than PDF? JPG was created by a standards committee (Joint Photographic Experts Group) in 1992, PDF was created a year later by a commercial company (Adobe).

I use both and agree that there isn't much point in converting one to the other.

Don

If the PDF document has an optical character read option, it is fully searchable for words and phrases. JPGs do not offer such capability.

[donworth]

Re: Replace Source Images with PDFs

Ah. I was thinking about photographs when I posted. For text documents, you guys are, of course, correct.