[Scribus] Embedding a PDF inside a page
Michael Petroni
michael
Wed Aug 23 11:09:39 CEST 2006
ok, I finally could solve my problem with pdftk.
thx for your support & best rg,
michael
Michael Petroni wrote:
> I'm trying the pdftk way and the first thing that I found out is, that
>
> $ pdftk input.pdf burst
>
> produces the following error when input.pdf is a scribus 1.3.3.3
> generated 1.4 pdf file:
>
> Internal Error: invalid top_outline_p in ReportOnPdf()
>
> has somebody any idea about that?
>
> thx & rg.
> michael
>
>
> Craig Ringer wrote:
>> Gregory Pittman wrote:
>>> Michael Petroni wrote:
>>>> The problem by placing the pdf inside an image frame is, that it is
>>>> automatically converted to a bitmap (settings seem to be the same as for
>>>> eps graphics in preferences, default 300dpi) by ghostscript.
>>>>
>>>> I'm planning to produce an ezine with contributed pages by other people
>>>> which I will receive as pdf files. By placing inside an image frame, all
>>>> text will be converted to bitmaps. This means not only loosing quality,
>>>> the text is not markable in the pdf reader in the final output pdf any more.
>>>>
>>> One of the things we keep seeing is an apparent obsession with the idea
>>> that:
>>> bitmap = bad
>>> vector graphics = good
>> Yep, and while it's certainly not that black and white, ther's some
>> truth in it:
>>
>> - When targeting a press, bitmaps leave the RIP little leeway
>> for clever halftoning and other processes to ensure crisp
>> text;
>> - Bitmaps usually result in bigger files, which while rarely an
>> issue for sending to a press, can be a problem for online
>> publication;
>> - As noted earlier, when working with the electronic document,
>> you can't select a bitmap as text and copy it (you need an OCR
>> tool that understands PDF, and then the results are iffy
>> at best).
>>
>> So, overall, I do think output paths that avoid rasterising inputs in
>> favour of retaining the original form are preferable in most situations.
>> Not all, and it's never black and white, but more often than not I'd
>> rather not use a bitmap if I can include the original vector/mixed form.
>>
>>> If what you are trying to do is to take PDFs and disassemble-reassemble
>>> to a larger PDF, Scribus is not the right tool. Adobe Acrobat will do
>>> this, or you might try pdftk for a free program to do this job.
>> Yep. Hopefully Scribus will be able to do it one day, though I've not
>> yet done much in that direction personally, but right now it's not the
>> way to go. HOWEVER, you can sometimes get good results by converting the
>> PDFs to EPS files, then using those in Scribus using the PostScript
>> output path and an external PS to PDF conversion tool. Unfortunately the
>> best results are obtained by the Save as EPS tool from Acrobat and
>> Adobe's Distiller (gs is pretty darn good for PS -> PDF, but not so
>> great for PDF -> EPS unfortunately). It's still worth a try if you
>> REALLY need to avoid bitmaps, but you'll run into a whole extra set of
>> issues, and there's no guarantee you'll retain editable text (nor any
>> guarantee about how much of the PDF might be rasterised during
>> conversion to EPS anyway).
>>
>> --
>> Craig Ringer
>> _______________________________________________
>> Scribus mailing list
>> Scribus at nashi.altmuehlnet.de
>> http://nashi.altmuehlnet.de/mailman/listinfo/scribus
> _______________________________________________
> Scribus mailing list
> Scribus at nashi.altmuehlnet.de
> http://nashi.altmuehlnet.de/mailman/listinfo/scribus
More information about the scribus
mailing list