From: Paul <nospam@needed.invalid>
Subject: Re: Windows freeware to lock in a 3: or 4:3 aspect ratio for cropping
Full headers:
From: Paul <nospam@needed.invalid>
Subject: Re: Windows freeware to lock in a 3: or 4:3 aspect ratio for cropping
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 12:27:12 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 43
Message-ID: <p6f1de$bao$>
References: <> <p6alqc$sk5$> <170220182050480435%nospam@nospam.invalid> <n0lmy7amjq04$> <170220182135361720%nospam@nospam.invalid> <1sucv1hqkm69j.1srj76gl8tuo7$> <> <180220181315158529%nospam@nospam.invalid> <7ngwzv6rxgof$> <p6ekmb$air$> <190220180927010996%nospam@nospam.invalid> <p6ennu$l2$> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 17:27:11 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info:; posting-host="4590227b37e5aa4f26234a53cdb4bf5c";
logging-data="11608"; mail-complaints-to="";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18wXHZfkijn037N7RojZ7cYBINMelwQvtU="
User-Agent: Ratcatcher/ (Windows/20130802)
In-Reply-To: <>
Cancel-Lock: sha1:M0S1yg9WTHJK8ggvKfhmZCfMPdA=
Print Article
Forward Article
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message <p6ennu$l2$>, Mayayana 
><mayayana@invalid.nospam> writes:
>> "nospam"<nospam@nospam.invalid> 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.