autocad e stampa pdf: problem

[Marco_78]

Hello everyone,

My name is Marco, and this is my first intervention on this forum.

I learned to use self-taught autocad, thanks to all the material on the internet. I've always handled it pretty well, but now I'm facing a problem I can't handle.
I have 2 autocad files made by me, and on both there is a same design: a globe that I made, and that I copied from one drawing to another.

the problem is this: when I go to print in pdf format this globe, the result is considerably different from one file to another, yet to me it seems to always use the same settings, which I summarize below:

autocad 2017
printer/plotter: autocad pdf (high quality print).pc3 (plotter: dwg to pdf – pdf eplot – by autodesk).
quality: 300 dpi
vector quality: 4.800 dpi
quality raster: 4.800 dpi

printing the same design, from a file comes a pdf of 3.478 kb, while from the other I get a pdf of 11.508 kb (and the qualitative difference is seen).

because of my poor experience, I cannot understand why of this difference: probably it's about some settings I've inadvertently modified, but I don't know what to do; Does anyone know what I'm missing? which are the other fields that should be set when you want to print a carcad design in pdf format?

 

[Jaberwok]

Hi.
I had a similar problem but tied "to pdf".
Basically, in my case, I had activated by error "print as images" (in the pdf properties of the printer) that rasterized the vector and gave me a sostianzlale difference of quality and weight.

ps files have embedded images?

I hope you can help.
♪

 

[Marco_78]

Hello jaberwok, and thank you for your answer.

you can't imagine how much time I've devoted to solving this problem, and in the end the reason was really trivial: the 2 files I had made were identical, the print settings were identical, it was all the same except one thing: the display style.
in one file it was "wireframe 2d", while in the other it was "realistic".
I believed that the visualization style had to do only with the display on screen, but obviously it is not so, it has a remarkable impact also on the press (how it is right that it is, of the rest).
but I don't regret all the time I took to solve the problem, because it really made me know many aspects of the press that I didn't know before, and that they allowed me to get significantly better results, in terms of quality of the final product (the design actually printed from the copy center). I learned that the printers "ragionane" in raster, non vector terms, and that the best way to get what you see on the screen is to raster the image (and not with sites that allow you to do it online). here I talk about "complex" images (though made with autocad), which are not limited to simple engineering schemes, but to drawings with color fillings of different shades, etc.
for those interested, I would like to bring back a couple of links, which made me understand why of the difference I saw between the pdf generated with autocad and the press that I then had in hand.
the first explores the issues of printing from pdf, which do not concern the pdf format itself, but the passage between different data reading systems contained in pdf:http://www.pomezia.stampaonline.info/blog.php?user=&password=&articolo=pdfthe second link is an article of aranzulla, which made me discover the program (pdf-xchange viewer) that I now use to raster the pdf to send in print. https://www.aranzulla.it/convertire-pdf-in-jpg-60233.htmlpersonally, the system I believe to be better is this:
I print my autocad design at the highest possible resolution: 4.800 dpi for everything: raster, vector, ...
use pdf-xchange viewer to convert it to image to 2,400 dpi. as format I choose the tiff, because unlike the jpeg it does not give me problems later.
at the end, I use gimp to further reduce the definition up to what is required for that specific printing; often working with images "at the stroke", I choose 600 dpi. as image format, I choose the tiff with deflate compression, really great.
what I described is the system that I think is better: when I tried to skip the passage with gimp, then converting the pdf generated with autocad directly in image to 600 dpi (always thanks to pdf-xchange viewer) the result was definitely worse.
but, and I want to emphasize it again, this also concerns the graphic complexity of my designs, perhaps with simpler designs there would not have been a remarkable difference.

thanks again to jaberwok for his intervention,

Mar