PE composed to PDF with IsoDraw images

[ptc-953343]

I've got a 33 page 2 column (milspec) document with about 12 1/4 page
images. Not terrible large or complicate, there are 3 simple tables as
well. The images are currently coming from IsoDraw referenced files. I
have a 9MB PDF file and it seems to take forever to page through the
document. You can see it redraw the page and a graphic or two will show
up, then some text. Also these are CADprocessed files so the ultimate
source is the ProE model.

The performance on this PDF file seems to be very poor for its overal
size. I'm wondering if I should be using a different format file format
for the grpahics. I'm going to experiment on my own but I was wondering if
anyone had experience to shed some light on other possible issues.

The IsoDraw format is convenient, but not required to be used.

..dan

[AndyEsslinger]

Dan,

If your illustrations are vector graphics the cgm (computer graphics
metafile) format is fast and small. IsoDraw can convert from ".iso" to
".cgm". If your graphic starts as a large raster graphic and you convert
to cgm, then the cgm output file size is huge, slow, and not recommended
(I would use tiff or eps if this is the case).

Just being "vector" is not a cure-all. I had a vector graphic with a
"filled" area that was slow. When our illustrations department analyzed
the graphic I think they found 32,000 entities in the "fill".

There are probably other things that can slow it down, but for a
mil-spec delivery vector cgm is the fastest legal format I could find.
I attached a document that I got from the TMSS (Tech Manuals,
Specifications, and Standards) web site. The reason they specify eps
format is because their "Datalogics Composer" doesn't use cgm. However,
Arbortext does grok cgm just fine.

Hope this helps,
-Andy

P.S.

If it wasn't a mil-spec deliverable I might recommend jpg. It is lossy
and not easy to maintain, but it is fairly fast and small.
-A
\ / Andy Esslinger LM Aero Tech Order Data
_____-/\-_____ (817) 279-0442 Box 748, Mail Zone 4285
\_\/_/ (817) 777 3047 Ft. Worth, TX 76101-0748

[ptc-953343]

I'm going to try and confirm if there is a difference, but I would
hope there isn't. I'm wondering if its the CAD content with too fine
of detail that is the issue and not the format.

What I understand is that I reference the ISO file, that PE does what
is right for the given output request (PDF or HTML). So I would hope
that CGM vs ISO doesn't make a difference, that PE converts either of
these to the best format and I get the best PDF from that.

The illustrations I have definitely have too much detail for the size
we are using them at. I have to work with the illustrator some more
to determine if we are using the best settings during the CADprocess
conversion, but otherwise I would hope the format I send to PE for
PDF generation shouldn't matter.

I want to use the ISO for a couple of reasons. One I don't have to
make another file/format to publish. So I always am referencing the
latest version of the file, and I let PE do what's right. I can have
PE produce the CGM if I'm required to send the source files or
creates a jpeg for html output. Now it might do that with cgm as
well, its hard to beat using the source file rather than relying on
someone or some process to make sure all the versions are available
(cgm, jpg, etc) . This also lowers my disk space requirements if I
only have the single file.

..dan