Thomas McGahee wrote:

> The PDF file at 600 dpi was 18k in size.
> The PDF file at 150 dpi was 17k in size.
> There are free readers available for all platforms.
> The GIF file came to 181k. I was able to reduce it to 57k monochrome.

  Tom, I can't help feeling you're doing something *WRONG* here.  The
attached .GIF doesn't have all the detail of what you sent, but looks
pretty clean.  I can only suspect that the right software applied to
your original and thus avoiding interpolation, would produce a more
concise or at least equal .GIF version.  I am glad we haven't
degenerated to the point of mentioning .JPGs though!

> I also prefer the PDF files because the PDF writer is accessible the
> same as a printer, and so I can produce PDF files from ANY of my
> applications.

  That's nice, but it's a proprietary software, unlike the reader.
(This discussion has been covered on the list before.)

> I find the quality of the PDF files superior. I normally produce 600
>? dpi PDF files, as they reproduce excellently on laser printers, and
> the increase in file size is very small.

  I do agree that Acrobat prints correctly, unlike any .GIF viewer I
have used so far.  Well, unlike Netscape at least.

> I might be able to get something readable from an 18k GIF, but that
> same 18k of file space in PDF format gives me a MUCH better result
> when printed out on paper.

  How does the enclosure look?  I'll have to try it at work, but I even
suspect Netscape might print it correctly!

> In general I have found the PDF files to be smaller than the
> comparable quality GIF files,

  See my initial comment, and below.

> plus I can incorporate word processor elements, and in that case
> people can extract the text if they desire.

  True, but not for the example given.  If the file was an Acrobat
construct to begin, then I'd immediately agree that is the superior
representation and *always* prints perfectly.  I just can't quite
believe that a bitmap import will be compressed significantly better by
the Acrobat format than the .GIF format.  Thus my comment that if you're
going to post a file from another format, make it directly web-readable.

  My real gripe is probably that the plug-in as applied to Netscape, is
so badly behaved, for which reason I managed to remove the beggar at
some length...

> I was initially suprised to find that if I include a GIF file into a
> PDF document, the resulting PDF document is often actually smaller!

  I can't help thinking you used a *bad* .GIF file.  If they use a
better compression algorithm than .GIF, then why isn't it in general
use?

Roland Andrag wrote:

> can you tell me how you got a gif out of Autocad?  I am using Acad
> 2000 and would love a way of get drawings to a bitmap format at 600
> dpi (300 dpi)...

  Sorry, can't give you a generic, guaranteed method, but this *was*
covered the previous time round on the list and a capture software
recommended.  Because this particular file fits on my display, I used
PrintScreen to capture it, Paint to crop it and Adobe (must be smart
guys, these) PhotoDeluxe to convert to .GIF.
--
  Cheers,
        Paul B.
Attachment converted: growth:ccsource.gif (GIFf/JVWR) (0000DA0B)