Actions
Forum Thread Details
  • Replies 12 replies
  • Subscribers 187 subscribers
  • Views 1686 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Related

PS vs. PDF

dukepro

Jorge,

 

One thing I don't understand is the strategic decision to print via PDF

format as opposed to print via PostScript.  I understand that the

languages were defined by the same company, but PS is a far more

portable format (supported on linux, mac, windows, BSD, and just about

any unix derivative you can name).  Additionally, many printers support

PS natively.  In the rare cases where you needed a PDF (as in print to a

PDF file), ghostscript, or ps2pdf are good candidates.  In contrast, I

don't know of any printers that support PDF format natively, so you'll

always have a backed process that converts PDF to the printer language.

 

By emitting a PDF format, you leave it to the print subsystem to convert

it to PS, and then to the printer's native language.  This happens every

time one prints as opposed to the rare times when one prints to a PDF.

 

I guess my point is that every time the data goes through a format

conversion, there is a risk of conversion errors causing problems.  So

the fewer conversions, the less likely of a conversion problem, and the

more efficient the overall process.  After all, isn't that what

engineering is all about - avoiding potential problems and efficiency?

 

I welcome your thoughts on why PDF was chosen rather than PS.

 

Thanks,

    - Chuck

 

Parents

  • There are a number of incorrect assumptions in your post.

     

    First PDF is a very portable format, even if you don't believe the name

    "Portable Document Format".  The Acrobat reader is available for free on

    just about every platform out there, certainly on all platforms Eagle runs

    on, and all the ones you mention as examples you can us PS on.

     

    Second, using PDF to convey schematics is not rare at all.  In fact, is the

    the #1 format of communicating schematics between people that use different

    software.  All my customers expect me to send them schematics in PDF, and

    this is how customers send me schematics without asking about the format.

    That's how it's done.

     

    I've never actually exported anything from Eagle to a PS file.  PS is

    basically a printer language.  It's the printer driver's job to produce

    that if that's what the printer wants.  Perhaps some of the time I have

    printed schematics to paper there was a PS step in the middle, perhaps not.

    But in no case is that, nor should it be, relevant to me.  I either print

    from Eagle directly if I'm doing it myself, or someone else prints from the

    PDF file.  I have never seen that process produce erroneous results.

    Printing from a PDF file is a solved problem and a reliable process.

    --

    Web access to CadSoft support forums at www.eaglecentral.ca.  Where the CadSoft EAGLE community meets.

     

  • in reply to Former Member

    Guest wrote:

     

    I have never seen that process produce erroneous results.

    Printing from a PDF file is a solved problem and a reliable process.

     

    Try exact scale 1:1 from a PDF. It's not too good. Mainly due to printer tolerances and lack of control in PDF to fix it. I'd agree that PDF for general text documents (or schematics) is perfectly fine.

  • in reply to Former Member

    selsinork schrieb:

     

    Guest wrote: I have never seen that process produce erroneous

    results. Printing from a PDF file is a solved problem and a

    reliable process.

     

    Try exact scale 1:1 from a PDF. It's not too good. Mainly due to

    printer tolerances and lack of control in PDF to fix it. I'd agree

    that PDF for general text documents (or schematics) is perfectly

    fine.

     

    Just for the record: PDF, just like PS, basically is a vector oriented

    data format containing numerical information (unless we are talking

    about embedded pixel graphics).

     

    So it has exactly the same precision as PS. If there are any tolerances

    in printing, they are caused be the printer or the driver, but

    definitely not by the file format.

     

    Tilmann

     

     

  • in reply to Former Member

    Tilmann Reh wrote:

     

     

    Just for the record: PDF, just like PS, basically is a vector oriented

    data format containing numerical information (unless we are talking

    about embedded pixel graphics).

     

    So it has exactly the same precision as PS. If there are any tolerances

    in printing, they are caused be the printer or the driver, but

    definitely not by the file format.

    You're absolutely correct, it has very little to do with the format itself.

     

    Much more to do with native PDF printers being comparitively new, multiple conversions between formats behind the scenes in the driver and not all the pieces having caught up. For example, when I print artwork direct to PS (not with eagle I hasten to add) I can individually control x & y scaling to compensate for printer discrepancies, but that either isn't an option or simply doesn't work properly for PDF.   Yes, I'm quite sure cups and it's strange multiple conversions isn't helping at all here.

    I'm equally sure that at some point, when native PDF printers are as common as PS ones are today, these problems will get sorted. But until then...

  • in reply to Former Member

    selsinork <selsinork@gmail.com> wrote:

    Guest wrote:

     

    I have never seen that process produce erroneous results.

    Printing from a PDF file is a solved problem and a reliable process.

     

    >Try exact scale 1:1 from a PDF. It's not too good. Mainly due to

    >printer tolerances and lack of control in PDF to fix it. I'd agree

    >that PDF for general text documents (or schematics) is perfectly

    >fine.

     

    Printing PCB artwork to a laser printer for one-offs is quite

    difficult with all those arbitrary scaling processes in the chain.

    You notice the problem especially if you use an NC machine to drill

    the holes for you even on a moderately-sized PCB (half-Eurocard).

     

    One has to resort to fiddling with scaling factors and re-checking

    long (orthogonal) dimensions on the printed output with e.g. vernier

    calipers.

    --

    /"\ Bernd Felsche - Somewhere in Western Australia

    \ /  ASCII ribbon campaign | For every complex problem there is an

    X   against HTML mail     | answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.

    / \  and postings          |  --HL Mencken

     

Reply
  • in reply to Former Member

    selsinork <selsinork@gmail.com> wrote:

    Guest wrote:

     

    I have never seen that process produce erroneous results.

    Printing from a PDF file is a solved problem and a reliable process.

     

    >Try exact scale 1:1 from a PDF. It's not too good. Mainly due to

    >printer tolerances and lack of control in PDF to fix it. I'd agree

    >that PDF for general text documents (or schematics) is perfectly

    >fine.

     

    Printing PCB artwork to a laser printer for one-offs is quite

    difficult with all those arbitrary scaling processes in the chain.

    You notice the problem especially if you use an NC machine to drill

    the holes for you even on a moderately-sized PCB (half-Eurocard).

     

    One has to resort to fiddling with scaling factors and re-checking

    long (orthogonal) dimensions on the printed output with e.g. vernier

    calipers.

    --

    /"\ Bernd Felsche - Somewhere in Western Australia

    \ /  ASCII ribbon campaign | For every complex problem there is an

    X   against HTML mail     | answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.

    / \  and postings          |  --HL Mencken

     

Children
No Data