Steven J. Sobol wrote:
> In article < .com>, Andrew Thompson wrote:
>
> > What do you see as being the advantage of that?
>
> PDF is a much more common format, in terms of end-users that can
> actually view files in the format in question.
Rot! Most end-users are using a late model Windows*....
> > (I doubt the TIFF to PDF conversion could go any
> > better, without OCR)
>
> Well, you could just wrap a TIFF inside the PDF so people without the
> ability to view TIFF files would be more likely to be able to open it.
I don't see how you figure that.
* This Windows box has the 'Windows Picture and
Fax Viewer' and IE that can *both* read TIF's (& probably
a dozen other apps. on this sytem can handle them),
but *no* PDF support.
I'll bet 5 to 1 that the computers at my local internet cafe,
and 2 to 1 that (most of) the computers at the local library,
do not have PDF readers. (You might think a library would
have PDF readers, but Google offers HTML formatted versions
of most PDF's on the net, so why bother?)
Besides adding 20%+ (shrugs) to the file size, wrapping
a TIF in a PDF does *nothing* for it.
Andrew T.
|