Re: saving files as PDF with Publisher

Of course you can assuming that you have high resolution images. Just because an image is high resolution does not mean that they are any good. More dots per inch does not necessarily equate to higher quality. there is a point of diminishing returns and a point where you just screw up a perfectly good (or bad) picture by having too much resolution.

If you look at the settings for high quality and commercial press you'll notice that they are the same, images over 450 DPI are down sampled to 300 DPI, monochrome images over 3600 DPI are down sampled to 2400. Both settings are exceedingly over any necessary requirements for general printing. Even for "high quality" printing... God, I just love how "quality this" or "quality that" get tossed around. Quality printing at 133 LPI looks good. Not so good quality at 133 looks like crap. Same thing with 200 LPI an 10 micron Staccato. If it ain't done right it's going to like crap. If it's done right, it's going to look good.

PDF's are made smaller for web posting and emailing but not necessarily by changing the resolution down drastically. Sometimes it is as simple as changing the image compression method, and amount, as well as making a modest change in resolution. Like I said above, having too much resolution is a bad thing. Actually, being a bit under the resolution threshold is a bit better than being over sampled. The last thing you want is a super-high res PDF like 1200 DPI and uncompressed. You want 300 DPI for color and grayscale images and 1200 to 2400 for monochrome images. Without getting into all the technical details of halftones, spot sizes, dot sizes, screen frequencies and angles suffice it to say that 300/1200 is plenty of information to produce a quality piece. You can reproduce images as low as 225 DPI at 150 LPI. The idea of having no compression is of no real consequence and generally absurd. Having some compression is a good thing if you are sending files over the internet. Even if you are storing them it's not a bad thing. Modern computing power is so high at this point that the CPU cycles required for compressing image data while being normalized is modest at best. I doubt you will see a significant speed improvement by going with no image compression. ZIP compression is lossless, meaning image data is not deleted in order to achieve a higher level of compression. You end up with lower compression ratios but you also preserve all the original image data. Whereas JPEG and JPEG2000 are lossy image compression formats. Lossy meaning image data is deleted (somewhat intelligently)in order to achieve greater compression ratios. The higher the quality setting for JPEG and JPEG2000 the less image data is removed. Conversely the lower the quality level the more data is removed. JPEG2000 suffers less from artifacts than JPEG does, but not many applications and printers support JPEG2000. JPEG also suffers from the problem of progressive saving causing more data loss which results in more artifacts becoming obvious. The problem is that every time you save a JPEG in an image editor you go through the entire image compression sequence each time you save the document. Each time you do that data is averaged and then deleted. Do it a few times and you'll see what happens. In Acrobat Distiller the default for some settings is to preserve the original JPEG encoding whenever possible.

Chances are that what ever scanner you might be using won't have the dynamic range or the level of optics and image processing to produce a high quality scan. Digital camera's aren't much better unless you get into DSLR's. Many point and shoot cameras can produce quite stunning results if basic rules of photography are followed. I've seen some real shitty pictures taken with $30,000 Leaf digital camera backs. I've got some great pictures from my Sony DSC-W7, a $180 7MP digital camera. Heck, for most applications shooting at 5MP is as good as shooting at 7MP.

Whether you use Publisher, Scribus, PageMaker, InDesign, Quark, Ready Set Go!, Apple Pages or some other program you can get excellent results if you follow some basic rules about desktop publishing, image reproduction and prepress/printing. If you want to do it right, use the right techniques and forget the idea that bigger is better. Often bigger causes more problems than it creates benefits and results in a piece of junk being printed.

Matt Beals
Consultant
Enfocus Certified Trainer
Markzware Recognized Trainer
(206) 201-2320 - Main
(720) 367-3869 - eFax
mailto:matt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Come visit me at:

http://www.automatetheworkflow.com
http://www.mattbeals.com
http://forums.mattbeals.com

Friends don't let friends write HTML email


genericaudioperson wrote:
Hello,

When you save a Publisher file as a PDF, can you make it very-high
resolution? I see options for high-quality printing and commercial
printing, but it doesn't say the dpi specs.

I know that PDF's are often made to lower the file size for web
viewing and e-mailing. But I want a giant PDF that is super high
resolution. 1200dpi, nothing compressed.

Just wondering if I can get a super-sharp printing file out of the
Publisher PDF authoring, or if I will have to get the Adobe version or
another company's version to get a really crisp file.

.