About Irfan View and pdf files

[marcogv]

I use irfan view 4.10 on windows xp sp2!
The postscript library version is 3.98.
AFPL ghostsscript is 8.54.

Ok after 2 days i can view may pdf files!!!

But I have a little complain!
The Image quality is poor!!!

I can't use adobe reader. What else i can do?

[MItaly]

Use Foxit Reader.

[Bhikkhu Pesala]

Use PDF-XChange.

[Sam_Zen]

Foxit or PDF-XChange, both are right and sensible advices.

I must confess, that I'm getting quite tired with the on and ongoing discussion about IV handling a PDF.
Different ghostscripts, different IV's, it's always trouble.
So for once, instead of suggesting a new addition, as a request, I would ask Irfan to remove this option.
So IV just doesn't claim anymore that it can handle PDF-files.

[j7n]

To view PDFs you must apply different zoom ratios all the time, because of different quality pics and font sizes authors have used. With IrfanView it's just not possible. Rendering a text document to a flat graphics file is sometimes needed, but not for everyday reading.

Use Foxit for the best speed of text-only documents. And PDF-XChange for best quality graphics.

[Laurent]

Hi Sam_Zen,

Yes, it is true, the same question about PDF and PS is aked again and again.

But instead of removing PDF support, I prefer that IrfanView could use either AFPL or GPL. To make things easyer for the user, maybe it is necessary to group IrfanView, the plugins and the language files in only one installation file. The full download would still remain under 8 MB.

On the other hand, I find that replying to use another program is not giving support to IrfanView.

Laurent

[Laurent]

Hi marcogv,

Options | Properties | PlugIns | Postscript options
and choose a higher dpi value.

Laurent

[Sam_Zen]

IrfanView could use either AFPL or GPL

There you go. Which one ? Each format maybe has its own development, independent from IV.
So one has to monitor the newest version while using the same IV version.

I find that replying to use another program is not giving support to IrfanView.

In another perspective such a reply would be supporting the development of IrfanView very well,
because it would take away the burden of the demand to IV to manage everything.
Of course I can place a request to have the option to imply a fade-out of the audio-file in a slideshow.
But I consider that as far beyond the basic concept.

to group IrfanView, the plugins and the language files in only one installation file

I consider this OT, but yes, this would be nice, but with one condition :
A custom choice of elements of the package to install during the installation.
Plus of course at least still the possibility of just downloading the basic engine without anything extra.
Or updating some single plugin-groups or languages.

[Laurent]

Hi Sam_Zen

There you go. Which one ? Each format maybe has its own development, independent from IV.
So one has to monitor the newest version while using the same IV version.

Well, sorry for my poor english. In fact I meant "both". GPL is the continuation of AFPL, the difference is the licence... and the name. IV should see if Ghostcript is installed, no matter if it is AFPL or GPL.

In another perspective such a reply would be supporting the development of IrfanView very well,
because it would take away the burden of the demand to IV to manage everything.
Of course I can place a request to have the option to imply a fade-out of the audio-file in a slideshow.
But I consider that as far beyond the basic concept.

The fact is that IrfanView already manages PDF and PS very well. I didn't suggest a new feature and I don't understand your comparison with asking a fading-out feature. The only problem is just that some users don't have a correct installation of either (or both) IrfanView plug-ins / Ghostscript.

I consider this OT, but yes, this would be nice, but with one condition :
A custom choice of elements of the package to install during the installation.
Plus of course at least still the possibility of just downloading the basic engine without anything extra.
Or updating some single plugin-groups or languages.

In this case, users are still allowed to make an installation without the needed plug-in. It is exactly what should be avoided. I am convinced that today downloading 7- MB once a year or so is no more a problem.

Laurent

[j7n]

The fact is that IrfanView already manages PDF and PS very well. I didn't suggest a new feature and I don't understand your comparison with asking a fading-out feature. The only problem is just that some users don't have a correct installation of either (or both) IrfanView plug-ins / Ghostscript.

Why can't the Ghostscript itself be delivered as a plugin: A self-contained program that does not write anything to the system directory and does not require explicit installation?

In this case, users are still allowed to make an installation without the needed plug-in. It is exactly what should be avoided.

Do you want to say that everybody's gotta install ALL plugins? Why can't an user choose not to have PDF on his system?

[Sam_Zen]

Well, since I'm supposed to be testing things, I'll have to install the complete default plugin package anyway.
But so far, the visitor of the IV plugin-page has quite some choice what to add and what not.

Why can't the Ghostscript itself be delivered as a plugin

I agree with j7n here.
I don't use Ghostscript, and although it maybe ends up in the IV plugins-dir, I don't consider it a real plugin,
but more as an add-on.
And an explicit installation plus activities into some sys-dir makes it even more unlikely.
F.e. I only accepted adding the dll's to handle some older 8BF's was because they work correctly in the root of IV.
Plus the possibility of having traces of that installation in the registry.
A real plugin, like paint, can be implemented by just adding the dll in the plugin-dir or a sub, and the next time IV starts, it's detected.

It's a personal view, but in my toolbox I classify a PDF-file in the 'text' category, files with possible embedded images.
And IV is an image-viewer, not a text-reader.
So I wouldn't care at all if IV was no longer capable of reading *.txt files.
If I want a picture of such, I open an ascii-reader and can take a snapshot with IV.
In the environment of IV I call things like this a border-case. Should it also be implemented or not?

[Laurent]

Hi j7n,

Why can't the Ghostscript itself be delivered as a plugin: A self-contained program that does not write anything to the system directory and does not require explicit installation?

Do you mean delivered with IrfanView? It seems a good idea. I think some other programs include Ghostscript in their distribution.

Do you want to say that everybody's gotta install ALL plugins? Why can't an user choose not to have PDF on his system?

Yes. Users already can't choose not to install what is needed to see several types (see in the suppoted format all those that don't need a plug-in); doesn't this mean that the needed software (plug-in or dll) is installed without question? Users still have the choice to have IrfanView associated or not with these formats. People interested in viewing JPEGs only don't complain about having installed a program able to show GIF, TIFF, and so on too.

Laurent

[Laurent]

Hi Sam_Zen,

It's a personal view, but in my toolbox I classify a PDF-file in the 'text' category, files with possible embedded images.
(...)
In the environment of IV I call things like this a border-case. Should it also be implemented or not?

Most PDF we see are indeed text, but PDF isn't restricted to text. PDF like PS/EPS are true image formats. But we are speaking here about vectorial formats. For example, the same can be said about SVG too (able to contain text as well as graphical).

I agree that some formats are "border-case", but are the many non widespread formats border-cases too? I think that what makes the success of IrfanView is (among other things) the long list of supported formats.

Laurent

[j7n]

I meant that the PDF reader could be in a form of a single DLL file. You put it in /plugins and it works, you take it out and it doesn't. If the user is required to search for a 3rd party tool, how can PDF be called a supported format? How's it any different than installing Foxit?

It's a personal view, but in my toolbox I classify a PDF-file in the 'text' category

Some people use PDF for "grouping" and setting DPI for raster images, no matter how silly this may sound.

I think that what makes the success of IrfanView is (among other things) the long list of supported formats.

There was a tool called Konvertor. This was a Windows program, nothing to do with KDE, that claimed to be "the best" because of long list of supported formats: text, video, graphics. In reality none of the formats were completely implemented or quality/compression was poor. IrfanView is very good not because of the list but as a graphics viewer.

To make things easyer for the user, maybe it is necessary to group IrfanView, the plugins and the language files in only one installation file.

I think it would be a good idea to compile an installer where the user could select what to install. The plugins/formats should be grouped in categories, say, basic graphics, audio, rare graphics formats, the rest. Kinda like the Foobar2000 Special installer. The ini should also be preconfigured, so that formats that are not installed woudn't load.

[Sam_Zen]

Yep, apps that claim to handle everything make me very superstitious in the first place.
I agree with j7n's arguments.
And I support the the suggestion to make a more sophisticated installation procedure with custom choices of packages.
Maybe even a list with single items, because what's rare for one user, is essential for the other one.
With the growing use of camera's, the single choice in the Properties/Extensions dialog of 'Images only' has become a bit poor.
Which dialog by the way should then only contain a list of installed formats, not everything that's possible.