Bug 696069 - PDF to JPEG - Generates Poor Quality Images
Summary: PDF to JPEG - Generates Poor Quality Images
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 695975
Alias: None
Product: Ghostscript
Classification: Unclassified
Component: General (show other bugs)
Version: master
Hardware: PC Windows 7
: P4 normal
Assignee: Default assignee
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2015-07-01 11:07 UTC by Atul
Modified: 2015-07-08 11:19 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:
Customer:
Word Size: ---


Attachments
Sample PDF Document (5.89 MB, application/pdf)
2015-07-01 11:07 UTC, Atul
Details
Output JPEG file with darken color shown (189.43 KB, image/jpeg)
2015-07-08 10:57 UTC, Atul
Details

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Atul 2015-07-01 11:07:45 UTC
Created attachment 11775 [details]
Sample PDF Document

Hello,

We are converting PDF documents to JPEG using Ghostcript.We are not able to generate good quality images when PDFs are converted to JPEG using Ghostscript 9.14. 

Attached is the sample PDF file we have used for our testing and here is the command we have used to convert it -

gswin64 -sDEVICE=jpeg -r600x600 -sOutputFile=e:\\watch.jpg -dBATCH -dNOPAUSE e:\\watch.pdf

We tried using latest version but result is same.

Can you please let know if you can fix this issue?

Atul
Comment 1 Ken Sharp 2015-07-07 07:15:28 UTC
You haven't defined what you mean by 'poor quality'. I do see that, just like your existing report, the output is darker than expected. What else is there ?
Comment 2 Atul 2015-07-08 08:51:07 UTC
Yes, output is darker than expected. Can GS fix this?
Comment 3 Ken Sharp 2015-07-08 08:58:15 UTC
(In reply to Atul from comment #2)
> Yes, output is darker than expected. Can GS fix this?

You already have a bug report open, please do not open new reports for the same problem. The existing report will be investigated a developer time permits.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 695975 ***
Comment 4 Atul 2015-07-08 09:00:39 UTC
Earlier bug was specific to 9.16 version of the GS.

In this bug, I am talking about PDF to image conversion is loosing some colors from the PDF. This issue is coming in all the versions of the GS.
Comment 5 Ken Sharp 2015-07-08 09:08:32 UTC
(In reply to Atul from comment #4)

> In this bug, I am talking about PDF to image conversion is loosing some
> colors from the PDF. This issue is coming in all the versions of the GS.

I asked you "what else is there ?" and you didn't say there was any other problem which is why your report was closed as a duplicate.

I do not see any colours missing. If you want this looked at you are going to have to be *much* more specific about the problem you see.
Comment 6 Atul 2015-07-08 09:38:52 UTC
There are some colors missing -

Can you please download the attached PDF to your machine and check the band color of the upper watch - When system converts it, it looses the color of the band, little darker.
Comment 7 Ken Sharp 2015-07-08 09:50:20 UTC
(In reply to Atul from comment #6)
> There are some colors missing -

I don't see any colours missing.

 
> Can you please download the attached PDF to your machine and check the band
> color of the upper watch 

I already did that.

- When system converts it, it looses the color of
> the band, little darker.

So we're back to the output being darker again ?

I suggest you make a screenshot and highlight where you think the problem is, I don't see any missing colours, I do see that the output is darker, just like your existing report.
Comment 8 Atul 2015-07-08 10:57:21 UTC
Created attachment 11786 [details]
Output JPEG file with darken color shown

Attached is the output JPEG file with darken color shown
Comment 9 Atul 2015-07-08 10:58:03 UTC
Also this is the same output we are getting in all the GS versions.
Comment 10 Ken Sharp 2015-07-08 11:19:34 UTC
Since we're back to 'the colours are too dark' again, I'm closing this as a duplicate. When the other bug is closed I suggest you try this file and open a new bug if it is still not correct.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 695975 ***