PDF-XChange - Tracker PDF Viewer - TIFF-XChange - Image-XChange - XMF-XChange - Raster-XChange - Support

Moderators: TrackerSupp-Daniel, Tracker Support, Chris - Tracker Supp, Vasyl-Tracker Dev Team, Sean - Tracker, Tracker Supp-Stefan

 
DIV²
User
Topic Author
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 1:47 am

Font embedding : multiple subsets versus merged subsets.

Mon Jul 17, 2017 1:11 pm

I have modified the Word document uploaded by Willy.

In Willy's version (the original), there are in-layperson's-terms six 'fonts', but as each of these were shown in roman, italic and bold (i.e. three variants) there were technically eighteen fonts. When printing this from Word using PDF-XChange Lite V6, with font (subset?) embedding, the resulting PDF generated by Willy contained 18 embedded font (subsets). That makes sense.

In my modified version I copied all of the original text, inserted a couple of blank lines, a page break and a section break, and pasted the copied content onto the two resulting (erstwhile) blank pages. I print this from Word using PDF-XChange Lite V6. Regardless of whether I choose font embedding or not, there are 54 'font' subsets listed under Document Properties in the resulting PDF files. 54 = 3 × 18. So for every subset that has to be embedded/listed, there are another two that are redundant. It seems that PDF-XChange Lite V6 is just tracking 'runs' in which a certain font is used continuously. I had previously considered the possibility that additional subsets would be created if the document were structured like, say: "[Heading in UPPERCASE Palatino] [Text in Arial] [Text in lowercase Palatino]", so that the lowercase characters might/would not be embedded in the first subset of Palatino, but would be needed for the last passage of text. However, this appears in the present testing to be not the case, because in the present testing the text has been repeated verbatim.
See attachments.
Note: files sizes are 13 kB (no embedded fonts) and 2918 kB (embedded 'font' subsets)

Finally, I have tested the "Merge font[s] subsets" functionality under "File: > "Save as Optimized..." in PDF-XChange Editor. This successfully cuts the number of fonts shown in Document Properties back down to 18.
Furthermore, the file size is reduced to 968 kB.

The result of optimization, which apparently retained only the necessary embedding, suggests that the originally produced PDF with embedded fonts contained 968/2918 = 33% useful data and 67% unneeded data.
If that's correct, then it's not clear why the subset merging isn't included as part of the original PDF creation from Lite. The only motivation I can come up with is that it takes more time to merge the various subsets.
Attachments
Test with different fonts_DIV1.Word-Lite-noEmbedding.settings.png
Test with different fonts_DIV1.Word-Lite-noEmbedding.pdf
(12.86 KiB) Downloaded 24 times
Test with different fonts_DIV1.Word-Lite-embedSubsets.Editor-MergeFontSubsets.settings.png
Test with different fonts_DIV1.Word-Lite-embedSubsets.Editor-MergeFontSubsets.pdf
(967.92 KiB) Downloaded 21 times
Test with different fonts_DIV1.Word-Lite-embedSubsets.settings.png
Test with different fonts_DIV1.Word-Lite-embedSubsets.pdf
(2.85 MiB) Downloaded 19 times
 
Timur Born
User
Posts: 422
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2012 1:50 pm

Re: Font embedding : multiple subsets versus merged subsets.

Mon Jul 17, 2017 1:42 pm

X-Change does not do proper font embedding, unfortunately. The corresponding character often are mixed up or even replaced with special characters. It depends on the original file that is printed, but as long as XP outputs "garbage" text and "tmp" font sets its usefulness for reprinting is more than limited.

Source:

"GMs are encouraged to run this encounter without
miniatures or a play mat to heighten the nebulous,"

X-Change Standard:

"¬← ↑≡ ≡±…°♠↑÷≡≈ ↔° ↑♠± ↔•∂← ≡±…°♠±↔≡↑ ♦∂↔•°♠↔
″∂±∂↔♠↑≡← °↑  ↓≥ƒ ″↔ ↔° •≡∂÷•↔≡± ↔•≡ ±≡♠≥°♠←⌠"
 
Willy Van Nuffel
User
Posts: 1260
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 12:10 pm

Re: Font embedding : multiple subsets versus merged subsets.

Mon Jul 17, 2017 3:25 pm

Hello,

The original problem was to be able to crop pages and to print x-numbers of pages to single pages.

When you are using default Windows and/or MS Office fonts in your Word documents, there is no immediate reason to embed these fonts in the PDF.

Embedding is only needed in case if your PDF will be read by someone that does NOT have these fonts on his/her computer.
When the indicated fonts are not available on the other computer, the used PDF reader, viewer or editor will use some of the other available fonts as a replacement, what makes that the presentation can be slightly different than the original.

In all other cases, the PDF reader, viewer or editor will use the exact same fonts - available on the other computer itself - to make the text visible. So, the presentation will exactly be equal to the original.

My advise (still the same as before) - in case if you would like to use the free PDF-XChange Lite printer - is to use default fonts for your Word document and to NOT embed these fonts while creating the PDF. If you do so, and there are no embedded fonts, you can reprint the PDF via Lite without worries.

Best regards.
 
DIV²
User
Topic Author
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 1:47 am

Re: Font embedding : multiple subsets versus merged subsets.

Tue Jul 18, 2017 1:55 am

Hi, Willy.
It's true that the original issue that prompted this exploration related to 'joining' multiple pages of a PDF on one sheet.
However, in the process some matters came up related to font embedding/listing, and for my document the PDF's generated using PDF-XChange Lite listed 200 'fonts' (embedded or otherwise). This was rather surprising, as the source document wouldn't have had more than ~20 fonts, and I felt was far enough from the original query to merit a separate discussion.
While it might be interesting to look at these from a purely philosophical point of view, I do actually have a strong motivation, because:
  • at the moment I would be printing these (hardcopy, onto real physical paper!) from a computer/station that I don't control, and where I cannot necessarily be sure what fonts will be installed on the system;
  • maybe in future I might want to look at these on some other computer, or share them with someone, and I just feel more comfortable when document is truly "portable", as in the original focus of the Portable Document Format (even if the likelihood is low, it's better than having to try to go back in time);
  • I am keen for file sizes not to be artificially inflated by the inclusion of redundant font data, as seems to have happened in the experiment detailed under my first post in this (new) topic.

Regards,
David
 
User avatar
Patrick-Tracker Supp
Site Admin
Posts: 1655
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2014 6:14 pm
Location: Vancouver Island
Contact:

Re: Font embedding : multiple subsets versus merged subsets.

Wed Jul 19, 2017 12:25 am

Hi David,

Thank you for your input here. It does seem as though Lite is not handling these fonts as well as it perhaps could. That said, Lite is designed to be a paired down alternative to our PDF-XChange Standard Printer which can optimise PDF during the creation process. I would recommend trying PDF-XChange Standard to see if the results of embedding fonts is a little better. Furthermore, while using Standard instead of Lite you will have access to our office toolbar add-in for pdf conversion. The add-in circumvents Word's print preprocessing of the files in which much of the metadata is stripped for faster transmission to printing devices. This means that the Standard add-in can make use of all the data it requires in order to optimise the PDF whereas Lite can only access the information that office has retained after the print preprocessing. Please try PDF- XChange Standard from the link below: https://www.tracker-software.com/PDFXStd6.zip

Please give it a try and let us know if there is an improvement. It may lead to a solution for Lite as well.

Thank you!
If posting files to this forum, you must archive the files to a ZIP, RAR or 7z file or they will not be uploaded.
Thank you.

Cheers,

Patrick Charest
Tracker Support North America
 
Timur Born
User
Posts: 422
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2012 1:50 pm

Re: Font embedding : multiple subsets versus merged subsets.

Wed Jul 19, 2017 8:55 am

Does Lite offer the "Embed a subset of fonts only, if percentage of characters used is less than" option? Would switching that cause less subsets to be created?

Overall I am still unhappy with how X-Change embeds fonts. Both Adobe and Ghostscript do it proper, X-Change does not, which is why I keep Ghostscript based PDF printers installed alongside X-Change.
 
DIV²
User
Topic Author
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 1:47 am

Ta.

Sat Jul 22, 2017 1:07 pm

Hi, Patrick.
Thanks for explaining the difference in functionality between Lite and the Standard printer, which I didn't appreciate previously.
Regards,
David

P.S. In your signature it says "If posting files to this forum, you must archive the files [...]". Is that correct? It seems like I could upload some non-archived files in this topic (see first post, above).
 
User avatar
Tracker Supp-Stefan
Site Admin
Posts: 12679
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 8:07 am
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Font embedding : multiple subsets versus merged subsets.

Mon Jul 24, 2017 10:56 am

Glad we could help David,

But please do also try the suggestions Willy made - as even though Lite is offering a different feature set than our Standard drivers - it still has some Font options that you can control.

Regards,
Stefan

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest