Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: PDF vs printer (Read 4493 times) previous topic - next topic

PDF vs printer

An observation that may be of help to others:

I've been working on a conductor's score for a 378-measure work for large orchestra and soprano. I'm storing the score in two versions, one for my hard-copy printer and the other for my pdf printer. This is necessary because, as anyone who has prepared a work for print knows, different printers often interpret the same command in different ways. In particular, pdf printers tend to dramatically change system breaks and pagination from the same work produced in hard copy.

But here's the interesting thing. When I change from my hard copy printer (HP Photosmart C3180) to my pdf printer (PDFreDirect v. 2), it throws absolutely everything off, particularly in relation to where collapsed staff segments begin and end and where courtesy time signature changes, clef changes, etc., need to be placed at the ends of systems. What I found this morning, however, is that if I reduce the staff metrics from 10 points in the hard copy version to to 9 in the pdf version, almost everything suddenly snaps back into place, and instead of a pdf score six pages longer than its hard copy counterpart, I get one that's just one page longer - and that extra page has only three measures on it.

So - is it the one-point difference, or is it the percentage difference? (At this size, one point is a 10% change.) Is it only the relationship of my specific printer to my specific pdf printer, or do all pdf printers bear the same relationship to all hard-copy printers? I dunno. But I thought others might find it worthwhile to try the same experiment.

Re: PDF vs printer

Reply #1 –
Quote from: William Ashworth –
An observation that may be of help to others:

I've been working on a conductor's score for a 378-measure work for large orchestra and soprano. I'm storing the score in two versions, one for my hard-copy printer and the other for my pdf printer. This is necessary because, as anyone who has prepared a work for print knows, different printers often interpret the same command in different ways. In particular, pdf printers tend to dramatically change system breaks and pagination from the same work produced in hard copy.

But here's the interesting thing. When I change from my hard copy printer (HP Photosmart C3180) to my pdf printer (PDFreDirect v. 2), it throws absolutely everything off, particularly in relation to where collapsed staff segments begin and end and where courtesy time signature changes, clef changes, etc., need to be placed at the ends of systems. What I found this morning, however, is that if I reduce the staff metrics from 10 points in the hard copy version to to 9 in the pdf version, almost everything suddenly snaps back into place, and instead of a pdf score six pages longer than its hard copy counterpart, I get one that's just one page longer - and that extra page has only three measures on it.

So - is it the one-point difference, or is it the percentage difference? (At this size, one point is a 10% change.) Is it only the relationship of my specific printer to my specific pdf printer, or do all pdf printers bear the same relationship to all hard-copy printers? I dunno. But I thought others might find it worthwhile to try the same experiment.

I have a slightly different use case, which I've mentioned in a few previous posts, for which I also create hard-copy and "PDF ready" scores. I don't think I've observed the issue you are seeing, when the paper size and margins are the same for the printer and PDF versions of the score, but to be honest, I haven't done any specific tests... but I will now! I have a Samsung laser printer and I use the Nitro PDF converter "printer", and I'll try a few of my multi-page scores to see if they lay out differently.

Have you confirmed that the margins and paper size are the same for both scores? I've noticed that my PDF driver has a "dpi" setting, which I've never changed, and I don't see that changing it should affect the score's layout during printing.

One final question: do you see the same layout changes during print preview, or only on the actual hardcopy or generated PDF? I've noticed that sometimes there are minor differences between final rendering and preview mode.

Mike

Re: PDF vs printer

Reply #2 –
I use PDF Creator, version 1.6.2 (which might not be available any longer).  It's freeware available at http://sourceforge.net/projects/pdfcreator/files/PDFCreator/.

I have never noticed a difference between what I see on screen in PDF (using FoxItPro REader) and on paper.  My printer is a Samsung ML-1710 black and white laser printer, about 7 years old.  I've printed hundreds of pages of music with that combination.

If you do choose to download PDF Creator, be careful; last time I tried to upgrade to version 1.7 it downloaded a whole bunch of nuisance-ware as well. 

Re: PDF vs printer

Reply #3 –
I also use PDFCreator and my printer is an OKI colour laser.  I also don't notice any pagination problems.  Both devices are set to A4.

However, these days I normally print to PDF only.  When I need a hard copy I (re)print the PDF rather than going back into NWC.  For me it's just easier that way.
I plays 'Bones, crumpets, coronets, floosgals, youfonymums 'n tubies.

Re: PDF vs printer

Reply #4 –
Paper size and margins are the same for the hard copy printer and the pdf printer. It shows up in Print Preview, which isn't a surprise, as PP tries to render the music the same way the printer NWC is currently connected with would. (The only differences I've ever seen between PP's version of the music and the printed copies are small problems caused by scaling the staff and the various fonts.) I think it's a difference in the way the two different drivers handle the rendering mechanism. I don't know if it's just the particular printers that I use, or whether it's inherent in the difference between pdf and hard-copy printing.

David and Lawrie, I also usually print directly from pdf, and I think I probably will in this case as well. But I work primarily with the printer set to its default (easier that way), and my curiosity was spiked here by noticing that, when all the instruments are represented (no collapsed staves) - as on the first page of every score - the HP driver got everything nicely on the page vertically; but when I switched to PDFreDirect to clean up the inevitable differences before printing, the first-page score was stretched vertically to the point where it completely overlapped the copyright notice.

Re: PDF vs printer

Reply #5 –
David, do you know that Foxit Reader also installs "Foxit Reader PDF printer"?
No need for PDFCreator anymore.

Re: PDF vs printer

Reply #6 –
Yes, but I'm comfortable with what I'm used to so I've not bothered with it.

I also have a third program on my system, PDF24.exe, which is freeware, but I have no idea how it ended up on my system.  I do not recall downloading it. 

Re: PDF vs printer

Reply #7 –
When I had pagination problems as W. Ashworth says I have used with good results the virtual printer in Windows that creates files with the extension XPS. There are programs to convert XPS files to PDF, although I have not tested them.

Re: PDF vs printer

Reply #8 –
Well, papi22, sure it works, but I don't see any advantage to do it in two steps instead of generating a pdf directly.
Anyway, each one is free to use whatever he prefers.

Re: PDF vs printer

Reply #9 –
Quote from: William Ashworth –
Is it only the relationship of my specific printer to my specific pdf printer, or do all pdf printers bear the same relationship to all hard-copy printers? I dunno. But I thought others might find it worthwhile to try the same experiment.
I've done more experiments in this area than I care to count. Most PDF printers/drivers yield similar layout provided that the same dpi is used. 360dpi seems to produce the most content per system, followed by 720 and 1440dpi. 300/600/1200 dpi generally produce less content per system.

For important, complex work, once I get to the final edit, I document the print settings in the song comments and produce a PDF. This becomes something to use in an emergency and "freezes" the layout as a reference so I see where future edits and NWC version changes depart from it.

5 years ago, I did not use PDF. The drivers and readers were simply not up to the task. I converted everthing to b&w, multi-page tiff. Modern PDF readers now let me print to a variety of paper sizes and remove the "dpi problem" from the equation. PDF is now vastly superior to tiff, provided that a competent program is used to print it.

For Bill's specific problem, I would observe that the only version that is critical is the one he will present to the conductor. I would design my song from the ground up, setting the margins, dpi, system metrics, and paper size to achieve that goal. If I wanted hard copy for anyone other than the conductor, I would produce it from the "conductor" PDF. That way, I have confidence that I have given everyone the same layout.
Registered user since 1996

Re: PDF vs printer

Reply #10 –
Quote from: Rick G. –
For Bill's specific problem, I would observe that the only version that is critical is the one he will present to the conductor. I would design my song from the ground up, setting the margins, dpi, system metrics, and paper size to achieve that goal. If I wanted hard copy for anyone other than the conductor, I would produce it from the "conductor" PDF. That way, I have confidence that I have given everyone the same layout.
Well, it's not exactly a problem, just an observation that has proved helpful to me when going from my system's default hard-copy printer (which I don't bother shifting away from while composing or entering a score, or doing the initial proof reading) to my pdf printer (where I produce the final copy). But other than that, I agree with everything you wrote in your last post - especially the paragraph I've quoted, which is exactly how I work. Thanks for your observations.

Bill