Subject: Re: Windows freeware to lock in a 3: or 4:3 aspect ratio for cropping
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Mayayana
>> "nospam"<email@example.com> wrote
>> | > On the other hand, PDF seems a suitable
>> | > format for Macs: Expensive, locked, and
>> | > being the best tool for a very narrow range
>> | > of mostly commercial uses.
>> (I'm not even getting into the strangeness
>> of you thinking PDF is an image format.)
> I can remember when a lot of scanning software, especially that
> accompanying scanners aimed at office use, _did_ _default_ to .pdf -
> even to the extent that it was sometimes quite difficult to make it
> produce anything else (though I don't _think_ I came across one where
> you couldn't at all).
> I suppose it did have _some_ justification where the scanner had a sheet
> feeder. The _other_ justification usually given at the time, that
> everybody has a .pdf reader but not everyone has a viewer for the image
> formats, I never accepted - it might have been true, but there were even
> then free image viewers easily available.
But that's an abuse of PDF. It's simply a wrapper around an image
format. You're relying on whatever the best compression options
are available in the PDF, which might not be as good as the
best separately-available image format.
The main advantage of the PDF, is for lazy users who will not
be repurposing the scan. The PDF can be easily printed with
a useful scale, on the first try to a printer, without wasting
paper. If you give a user an image file, it might take a couple
tries before they get all the printing settings right. And for the
people who just scan and attach a multi-sheet scan to an email,
look at the convenience factor. It's less useful if you want to
reuse the images for some reason.