Maximum PDF file size for web download?
Jeff Wieczorek
financial sector) new corporate website. Are there any sort of
unwritten rules (or web etiquette) of what the maximum file size
should be for a PDF download on the web? I realize you have can
create some HUGE PDF files, but what's considered good practice.
For instance some of the PDF's we get back from out printers are quite
large (several mb). Should we be giving the printers (who produce our
marketing collateral and PDFs) a maximum file size for web ready PDFs?
We would like to tell them that if a PDF reaches a certain size they
should compress it or break it up. I'm struggling to figure out what
that magic file size for the cutoff should be. Any suggestions?
My approach was/is that as long as we state the size of the file next
to the PDF we should be safe. The user "knows what they are getting
into" before they click, if the file size is stated. For clarity and
documentation purposes i would like to get some sort of file size
cutoff in writing though.
Thx in advance for your help.
U.Berlin
presumed user to wait.
When I had only analog modems privately and in office I allways hated
web pages that where to big (I still do sometimes). These days with
dsl technology available (at least for the lucky few so far) this is
not that knock out criterion for me that it was. But still smaller is
better seems to be the thumb rule. Unfortunately this rules out high
definition photo art and graphics should not be pixeled either. I
think it is no wonder that Google with its no nonsense design is so
successful. The web still is good when information is important, when
you need good looks, produce a nice flyer or brochure.
Uli
Josef
wrote:
What people think is a reasonable size is increasing all the time. A
year ago I might have been wary of downloading a 5 Mb PDF, today it's
a matter of course. Just make it as small as you can such that it
preserves the quality you desire. jpegs on "low" compression may sound
bad, but I find the quality is surprisingly good. And on "medium" the
size gain may not be much. Compression on line art and text is
non-lossy by zip, so again helps. I am working on a PDF for download I
thought was going to be 20 Mb, now it'll probably be under 5 Mb after
lots of experimentation with compression. So in thinking about it I
have settled on 5Mb as a good size to try to weigh in under. But if it
has to be bigger then that's just the way it is. Just my own view
based on my own practices and the kind of size of PDFs I have come
across on the web. I think it's good to say how big the PDF is and how
long on average it will take to download on a 56k modem, here's my
rough timings in practicality:
2Mb 9 min
3Mb 13 min
4Mb 17 min
5Mb 21 min
Downloaded via Gozilla or some other download manager while one is
surfing elsewhere, these don't seem like unreasonable times to me, by
the time you've checked your email and a newsgroup it's done. And in
the corporate sector with always on ISDN, ADSL etc, it's nothing to
download 5Mb or more.
Like you, I'd be interested to hear other's opinions on this.
peter pilsl
> I am trying to create some business rules for my employer's (in the
> financial sector) new corporate website. Are there any sort of
> unwritten rules (or web etiquette) of what the maximum file size
> should be for a PDF download on the web? I realize you have can
> create some HUGE PDF files, but what's considered good practice.
>
as a pure pdf-user I can say:
Of course it depends on the length of the text. I am not willing to
download 500kb for a two-page-document.
Most pdf-documents I deal with are technical descriptions and their size is
between 500kB and 2MB for 40-70 pages.
For some reports with more than 100pages this size may go up if there are
necessary pictures.
But I just converted a scientific report with ~100 pages and lot of
diagrams and functions to pdf and it doesnt have more than 700kb ...
peter
--
peter pilsl
pil...@goldfisch.at
http://www.goldfisch.at
Dan Sideen
would typically include images at 600 dpi or more resolution, and perhaps 24
bit colour. The file size goes up with the square of the resolution and
colour depth, so they get really big really fast.
For the web, you should ask your printer to provide 72dpi (screen
resolution) images, and probably 8 bit colour. Most printers (and I work for
one) maintain Distiller Hot Folders for print resolution, and for screen
resolution, so it shouldn't be hard or expensive for your printer to provide
lo res versions.
You also need to think about fonts. If the fonts are embedded (very common
for files destined for film or plate), your file sizes will increase by
probably 50K per font. If you don't use non-standard fonts, or if an exact
rendering of the fonts on-screen is not required, ask the Printer to NOT
embed fonts. Acrobat will use the closest available font on the client
machine, or one of its built in serif or sans serif font. While this might
affect the appearance, the character spacing, and line ending are preserved.
"Jeff Wieczorek" <jpwie...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d7864820.02042...@posting.google.com...
Josef
wrote:
>It would seem that your printer is giving you print resolution pdfs. This
>would typically include images at 600 dpi or more resolution, and perhaps 24
>bit colour. The file size goes up with the square of the resolution and
>colour depth, so they get really big really fast.
600dpi? Surely not.
>
>For the web, you should ask your printer to provide 72dpi (screen
>resolution) images, and probably 8 bit colour.
Then the PDF will look awful at anything over 100% on screen (and most
people look at a PDF over 100%) and print crap. 200 dpi jpeg isn't so
large. If you're going to use 72 dpi then you should do a webpage
instead.
>Most printers (and I work for
>one) maintain Distiller Hot Folders for print resolution, and for screen
>resolution, so it shouldn't be hard or expensive for your printer to provide
>lo res versions.
>
>You also need to think about fonts. If the fonts are embedded (very common
>for files destined for film or plate), your file sizes will increase by
>probably 50K per font.
Not if you sub-set and compress.
>If you don't use non-standard fonts, or if an exact
>rendering of the fonts on-screen is not required, ask the Printer to NOT
>embed fonts.
Why bother with PDF if you're not going to take advantage of it?
Aandi Inston
>>resolution) images, and probably 8 bit colour.
>
compression, and an image that is (or has EVER been) 8-bit colour will
not compress well with JPEG.
Josef <a...@b.com> wrote:
>Then the PDF will look awful at anything over 100% on screen (and most
>people look at a PDF over 100%) and print crap. 200 dpi jpeg isn't so
>large.
I don't think I can agree with that. 72 dpi images look reasonable on
screen and do not generally cause disappointment with print quality
unless what is being printed is a functional picture. For instance,
photos of the sales team may be fine, while a picture of a complicated
machine you are selling is not.
The best test is to use your eyes, but don't be afraid of high
compression and low resolution. 60 dpi images don't look all that
bad.
> If you're going to use 72 dpi then you should do a webpage
>instead.
Don't follow that advice, sorry. A 100 page brochure does not make a
good web page.
----------------------------------------
Aandi Inston qu...@dial.pipex.com http://www.quite.com
Please support usenet! Post replies and follow-ups, don't e-mail them.
Markus Kuhn
user's time and money with huge amounts of raster graphics such as
fancy background images that your arts department might find
appropriate for a print edition, if it doesn't actually carry any
information.
Rule of thumb for excellency in web site design: Make every single
byte worth the total cost of downloading it.
Do all inhouse testing and executive demonstrating of your new web
site via a 64 kbit/s PPP serial line, otherwise you will fake your
real users experience.
Markus
--
Markus G. Kuhn, Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge, UK
Email: mkuhn at acm.org, WWW: <http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/>
Josef
wrote:
>
>On Wed, 24 Apr 2002 03:10:26 GMT, "Dan Sideen" <dans...@rogers.com>
>wrote:
>>>For the web, you should ask your printer to provide 72dpi (screen
>>>resolution) images, and probably 8 bit colour.
>>
>Certainly NOT 8 bit colour. For small files you will want JPEG
>compression, and an image that is (or has EVER been) 8-bit colour will
>not compress well with JPEG.
>
>Josef <a...@b.com> wrote:
>
>>Then the PDF will look awful at anything over 100% on screen (and most
>>people look at a PDF over 100%) and print crap. 200 dpi jpeg isn't so
>>large.
>
>I don't think I can agree with that. 72 dpi images look reasonable on
>screen
At 100% I agree. At 135% (which is what you need to view at to
reasonably read 12 point type on screen) they can look very
amateurish. It's the old question of quality versus size. It all
depends what you want, I want better quality so put up with larger
size. I like to think my content is worth 20 minutes download time.
The way I look at it is if potential readers can't be bothered to
spend 20 mins to download my stuff then I don't want 'em as readers in
the first place. Takes a lot longer to walk to the newsagents and
costs more too. But for boring dull PDFs, yep, I agree, make 'em as
small as possible, might as well have something attractive about the
thing.
>and do not generally cause disappointment with print quality
>unless what is being printed is a functional picture. For instance,
>photos of the sales team may be fine, while a picture of a complicated
>machine you are selling is not.
>
>The best test is to use your eyes, but don't be afraid of high
>compression and low resolution. 60 dpi images don't look all that
>bad.
>> If you're going to use 72 dpi then you should do a webpage
>>instead.
>
>Don't follow that advice, sorry. A 100 page brochure does not make a
>good web page.
I just meant do a website, rather than a webpage, if 72 dpi images is
good enough. To me a PDF is aesthetic, not merely functional. But then
I'm bothered about small caps and expert fonts and ligature
replacement. To me the attractiveness of PDF is not simply portability
in the sense of being able to read it on any machine but also that my
minute and somewhat obsessional kernings of letters is fully
represented. This, certainly, is not everyone's objective.
Josef
<i_hat...@invalid.net> wrote:
>a...@b.com Wed, 24 Apr 2002 04:59:06 +0100 (Josef):
>> On Wed, 24 Apr 2002 03:10:26 GMT, "Dan Sideen" <dans...@rogers.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>It would seem that your printer is giving you print resolution pdfs. This
>>>would typically include images at 600 dpi or more resolution, and perhaps 24
>>>bit colour. The file size goes up with the square of the resolution and
>>>colour depth, so they get really big really fast.
>>
>> 600dpi? Surely not.
>
>Um yes it will. The man knows whereof he speaks.
As far as I know, a glossy colour magazine with photos won't be using
more than 300 dpi for such images, newspapers even less. Am I wrong?
What purpose are you talking about for 600 dpi?
>
>>>
>>>For the web, you should ask your printer to provide 72dpi (screen
>>>resolution) images, and probably 8 bit colour.
>>
>> Then the PDF will look awful at anything over 100% on screen (and most
>> people look at a PDF over 100%) and print crap. 200 dpi jpeg isn't so
>> large. If you're going to use 72 dpi then you should do a webpage
>> instead.
>
>It will look fine as long as the enduser doesn't print it. The "web"
>setting for distiller doesn't included fonts by default.
Default isn't a synonym for best. All depends what kind of PDF you're
making and whether you're happy with your foreign characters etc being
unreadable. If it's just a rough and ready thing in Times or Arial
then obviously it doesn't matter.
>
>>>Most printers (and I work for
>>>one) maintain Distiller Hot Folders for print resolution, and for screen
>>>resolution, so it shouldn't be hard or expensive for your printer to provide
>>>lo res versions.
>>>
>>>You also need to think about fonts. If the fonts are embedded (very common
>>>for files destined for film or plate), your file sizes will increase by
>>>probably 50K per font.
>>
>> Not if you sub-set and compress.
>
>The idea when providing a pdf for webviewing only is to get it as small
>as possible. No need for the fonts to be included, they do increase the
>size.
The original poster wasn't talking about web-viewing, he was talking
about maximum size for *download*.
Josef
<i_hat...@invalid.net> wrote:
>a...@b.com Wed, 24 Apr 2002 19:41:44 +0100 (Josef):
>> On Wed, 24 Apr 2002 01:47:21 -0500, "Steve A."
>> <i_hat...@invalid.net> wrote:
>>
>>>a...@b.com Wed, 24 Apr 2002 04:59:06 +0100 (Josef):
>>>> On Wed, 24 Apr 2002 03:10:26 GMT, "Dan Sideen" <dans...@rogers.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>It would seem that your printer is giving you print resolution pdfs. This
>>>>>would typically include images at 600 dpi or more resolution, and perhaps 24
>>>>>bit colour. The file size goes up with the square of the resolution and
>>>>>colour depth, so they get really big really fast.
>>>>
>>>> 600dpi? Surely not.
>>>
>>>Um yes it will. The man knows whereof he speaks.
>>
>> As far as I know, a glossy colour magazine with photos won't be using
>> more than 300 dpi for such images, newspapers even less. Am I wrong?
>> What purpose are you talking about for 600 dpi?
>
>Lots of stuff - at my place of work we often work at 175 and 25% of our
>work is 200 lpi. Often vector art is saved at the equivalent of 1200dpi.
Vector art is a bit different. I still don't know why anyone would
require say a TIFF at 600 dpi for magazine reproduction. You say you
do a lot at 175, what's the higher stuff of 600 and over? Where you
simply referring to vector illustration? No-one's ever complained
about the 300 dpi scans I've supplied. Am I missing something here?
I'd be happy to be enlightened on the matter.
>
>
>>>>>For the web, you should ask your printer to provide 72dpi (screen
>>>>>resolution) images, and probably 8 bit colour.
>>>>
>>>> Then the PDF will look awful at anything over 100% on screen (and most
>>>> people look at a PDF over 100%) and print crap. 200 dpi jpeg isn't so
>>>> large. If you're going to use 72 dpi then you should do a webpage
>>>> instead.
>>>
>>>It will look fine as long as the enduser doesn't print it. The "web"
>>>setting for distiller doesn't included fonts by default.
>>
>> Default isn't a synonym for best. All depends what kind of PDF you're
>> making and whether you're happy with your foreign characters etc being
>> unreadable. If it's just a rough and ready thing in Times or Arial
>> then obviously it doesn't matter.
>
>As stated we're talking for web enduse,
Are we? I assumed download for offline viewing. The original poster
can tell us. Maybe we're talking at cross-purposes.
>as a brochure for a company's
>website or for filing to the various securities bodies [EDGAR or SEDAR].
>The Adobe native PDF fonts will do a good enough job for this purpose.
>It's always secondary to the printed piece - as long as the information
>is accurate and looks "close". Size is very important in this medium.
>The same ligature and tracking isn't - at least with the
>companies/clients we deal with.
Horses for courses. Personally I think a badly presented PDF says
plenty about a company. I have seen far more awful PDFs on the web
than I have good ones. I remember the good ones. A lot were by Adobe.
Embedded fonts, great layout, not trying to be too small at the
expense of quality. I don't know whether your clients have any taste
or not. If size is the only factor then we're playing a different
game. A lot of the Egyptologists I know like to see the hieroglyphs
y'know. Horses for courses.
>
>>>>>Most printers (and I work for
>>>>>one) maintain Distiller Hot Folders for print resolution, and for screen
>>>>>resolution, so it shouldn't be hard or expensive for your printer to provide
>>>>>lo res versions.
>>>>>
>>>>>You also need to think about fonts. If the fonts are embedded (very common
>>>>>for files destined for film or plate), your file sizes will increase by
>>>>>probably 50K per font.
>>>>
>>>> Not if you sub-set and compress.
>>>
>>>The idea when providing a pdf for webviewing only is to get it as small
>>>as possible. No need for the fonts to be included, they do increase the
>>>size.
>>
>> The original poster wasn't talking about web-viewing, he was talking
>> about maximum size for *download*.
>
>Well tell me - doesn't one have to download it to view it in the
>browser? <g>
I download in Gozilla, make a cup of tea, and open in Acrobat when
it's done. I presume that is the kind of set-up the original poster
was talking about. I may be wrong. PDFs as glorified webpages don't
interest me a great deal.
Josef
<i_hat...@invalid.net> wrote:
>a...@b.com Thu, 25 Apr 2002 03:13:47 +0100 (Josef):
>> On Wed, 24 Apr 2002 20:56:05 -0500, "Steve A."
>> <i_hat...@invalid.net> wrote:
>>
>>>a...@b.com Wed, 24 Apr 2002 19:41:44 +0100 (Josef):
>>>> On Wed, 24 Apr 2002 01:47:21 -0500, "Steve A."
>>>> <i_hat...@invalid.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>a...@b.com Wed, 24 Apr 2002 04:59:06 +0100 (Josef):
>
><snip for editing>
>
>>>> As far as I know, a glossy colour magazine with photos won't be using
>>>> more than 300 dpi for such images, newspapers even less. Am I wrong?
>>>> What purpose are you talking about for 600 dpi?
>>>
>>>Lots of stuff - at my place of work we often work at 175 and 25% of our
>>>work is 200 lpi. Often vector art is saved at the equivalent of 1200dpi.
>>
>> Vector art is a bit different. I still don't know why anyone would
>> require say a TIFF at 600 dpi for magazine reproduction. You say you
>> do a lot at 175, what's the higher stuff of 600 and over? Where you
>> simply referring to vector illustration? No-one's ever complained
>> about the 300 dpi scans I've supplied. Am I missing something here?
>> I'd be happy to be enlightened on the matter.
>
>Well *I* didn't say that we provide PDF's @ 600dpi, but certainly we do
>some work in this fine linescreen - a few coffee table art books. At our
>location we really run the gamut. Never would pdf's at that resolution
>be provided for webuse however, for print, only occasionally. You're
>correct, no magazines that I know print at that high resoulution, heavens
>150 lpi [300 dpi] is usually the norm. However I think you're zeroing in on
>this point unnecessarily - I think everyone agrees that it's
>wise/prudent to provide as low resolution/small size pdf as possible for
>web use as opposed to press enduse.
Yes, I agree, I guess I'm emphasising the happy medium and also
stressing that I personally as a frequent downloader of PDFs have
grown used to downloading larger PDFs (5Mb) without blinking an
eyelid. I think the size issue is changing rapidly actually. Or that
there are two schools, the streamed PDF mimimicking webpages, and the
PDF as book off the shelf approach. I rarely read PDFs on screen, it
tires the eyes, I print them out because that's what they're made for.
No-one will read more than a couple of pages on screen, so emphasis on
screen use is overrated for PDFs of many pages.
As for 72 dpi and bad PDF construction, I saw one the other day in
which a few words in Hebrew type had been inserted as 72 dpi jpegs.
Not only was it unreadable on a print-out how stupid was it to do that
when they could have simply embedded subsetted Hebrew type and have it
print crisp and clean. So a factor in PDF design should always take
into account the fact of what people do: they print them out to read,
often on a laser-printer. Colour illustrations they may return to the
PDF to view on screen.
The term "web use" is thus misleading, the web is simply the means to
deliver an electronic publication. Treating PDFs as fast loading
webpages may well be the way the web is heading, but still people want
a PDF as an "object" much like a book or magazine, and there is no
reason why such an item should not be delivered over the web. A PDF
should not merely be something one has to fish out of one's
web-browser's cache from amongst all the other junk, but something one
wants to keep, read all the way through at leisure, and refer to from
time to time. If PDFs are created as fast food they will be treated as
fast food. The web has shortened most people's attention spans enough
already I would have thought. Anyway, that's my soapbox on that
particular issue. Now I'll try to make my PDF smaller...... :-)
Cidade Family
I work for a major airline and literally, the sky is the limit when it
comes to PDF size....but with a caveat:
We use Acrobat 5.05 because of what it does to the PDF when viewing
through a web browser: With the proper configuration, a major size PDF
can be at your advantage because when viewed through the web browser, it's
displayed one page at a time because of the optimization that takes place.
Therefore, in theory, with the proper configuration, a PDF of, say 10MB
and 200 pages, complete with graphics, etc will take only seconds on a
page-by-page basis.
Coupled with the right authoring software (FrameMaker is what we use)...
Hope this helps.....
Eduardo
Jeff Wieczorek wrote:
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----