[scribus] Drop Shadow

[Gregory Pittman]

On 01/17/2012 12:11 PM, Vladimir Savic wrote:
>
>
> On 01/17/2012 04:22 PM, Gregory Pittman wrote:
>> On 01/17/2012 10:11 AM, Gregory Pittman wrote:
>>> On 01/17/2012 09:59 AM, Stefan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Only the newest PDF versions support transparency.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And many commercial printers forbid transparency in PDF
>>>>
>>>>
>>> It's important to note that one can flatten transparency. One way to do
>>> this is to print from Scribus to a file, which creates a PS file, which
>>> can then be converted to PDF 1.3 with the appearance of having the
>>> transparency.
>>>
>>
>> Oops! not this way.
>>
>> Instead export to pdf1.4 in Scribus, then pdftops, then ps2pdf13.
>>
>> Greg
>>
>
> Why don't we just get rid of PDF 1.3. It's of little use for anyone
> these days. Yet, it can render many users confused. I'm aware of need
> for supporting PDF X-3, but what if we pay much more attention in
> Preflight process on X-3 export? Informing user what might get wrong
> and/or even employing ghostscript for converting some temp file created
> by Scribus, if transparency is present, that is. In this part of Europe
> we have no need for X-3, so I have a little insight on potential
> problems by pdfX3-ps-pdfX3 conversion.
> Being realistic, it's unlikely we'll get useful flattener anytime soon.
> I'm not even sure I want it now since it would drive developers away
> from much more needed stuff. I don't like excuses for not having
> "native" blur objects in Scribus. :) It affects SVG import, on which
> many, if not all, designers on Linux rely, and makes work-flow for
> getting soft shadows so complicated that I could understand if one would
> never get into.
> I know this "solution" is radical, but I don't think it's insane.
>
It's neither radical nor insane, but what if you want to create PDF 1.3, 
and don't have any transparency? The basic capability is there. I think 
the default setting for Scribus export is 1.4; the warnings from 
Preflight Viewer are nonetheless a good thing -- we might change the 
language to "advisory", but I think it's still worthwhile.

Greg