Identifying the image type within a PDF file?

In article <siegman-16DB8F.12133202092006.RemoveThis@news.stanford.edu>,
AES <siegman.RemoveThis@stanford.edu> wrote:

> Is there any quick and easy way to determine the basic or current
> structure of an image of unknown original vintage that is embedded in a
> PDF file, without trying to extract the image, or edit the whole PDF? --
> for example, by searching for specific strings inside the PDF file with
> a text editor, or by examining some metadata associated with the file
> using Acrobat?
>
> I have a large number of single-page PDF files (single slides) which
> mostly consist of a single image or graphic, plus maybe a small amount
> of added text or text labels.
>
> I'm sure the images are sometimes pixel purely in character (JPEG, TIFF,
> etc); sometimes fully vector in character (EPS, Illustrator, or vector
> PNG); sometimes "mixed" (i.e., they were acquired in a potentially
> vector format like PostScript, EPS, PNG or PICT, but may have primarily
> a pixel image inside them); but I doubt very much anyone added any
> metadata about the original or the converted image character when the
> PDFs were created.
>
> Any easy way to find this out?

Why do you want to find out? Seriously? What will you do with the
information? How will it help you to do what? there amy be
alternative strategies to do these other things.

--
dorayme

dorayme wrote:

>
> Why do you want to find out? Seriously? What will you do with the
> information? How will it help you to do what? there amy be
> alternative strategies to do these other things.

If that's all you have to say, why even bother answering?

In article <dsednQIqscDPy2fZnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d.DeleteThis@rcn.net>,
PDFrank <pdfrank.DeleteThis@some.com> wrote:

> dorayme wrote:
>
> >
> > Why do you want to find out? Seriously? What will you do with the
> > information? How will it help you to do what? there amy be
> > alternative strategies to do these other things.
>
> If that's all you have to say, why even bother answering?

Because you said:

"Is there any quick and easy way to determine the basic or
current structure of an image of unknown original vintage that is
embedded in a PDF file, without trying to extract the image, or
edit the whole PDF? -- for example, by searching for specific
strings inside the PDF file with a text editor, or by examining
some metadata associated with the file using Acrobat?

I have a large number of single-page PDF files (single slides)
which mostly consist of a single image or graphic, plus maybe a
small amount of added text or text labels.

I'm sure the images are sometimes pixel purely in character
(JPEG, TIFF, etc); sometimes fully vector in character (EPS,
Illustrator, or vector PNG); sometimes "mixed" (i.e., they were
acquired in a potentially vector format like PostScript, EPS, PNG
or PICT, but may have primarily a pixel image inside them); but I
doubt very much anyone added any metadata about the original or
the converted image character when the PDFs were created.

Any easy way to find this out?"

And I have a job right now with a cd of similar description. I
have asked the company concerned to send me the original DVD of
the art work which I know contains the originals TIFFS and it
these that are more convenient for me to use for my job. I did
have a reasonable backup plan if this DVD was not obtainable but
it would have involved more work in my particular circumstances.
This backup plan may or may not have been useful to share with
you to help you. It did not seem unreasonable to ask you for a
little more information as I was interested in your question.

I am puzzled about your reaction?

--
dorayme

dorayme wrote:

> In article <dsednQIqscDPy2fZnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d.TakeThisOut@rcn.net>,
> PDFrank <pdfrank.TakeThisOut@some.com> wrote:
>
>
>>dorayme wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Why do you want to find out? Seriously? What will you do with the
>>>information? How will it help you to do what? there amy be
>>>alternative strategies to do these other things.
>>
>>If that's all you have to say, why even bother answering?
>
>
> Because you said:
>
> "Is there any quick and easy way to determine the basic or
> current structure of an image of unknown original vintage that is
> embedded in a PDF file, without trying to extract the image, or
> edit the whole PDF? -- for example, by searching for specific
> strings inside the PDF file with a text editor, or by examining
> some metadata associated with the file using Acrobat?
>
> I have a large number of single-page PDF files (single slides)
> which mostly consist of a single image or graphic, plus maybe a
> small amount of added text or text labels.
>
> I'm sure the images are sometimes pixel purely in character
> (JPEG, TIFF, etc); sometimes fully vector in character (EPS,
> Illustrator, or vector PNG); sometimes "mixed" (i.e., they were
> acquired in a potentially vector format like PostScript, EPS, PNG
> or PICT, but may have primarily a pixel image inside them); but I
> doubt very much anyone added any metadata about the original or
> the converted image character when the PDFs were created.
>
> Any easy way to find this out?"
>

I said nothing of the kind.

In article
<doraymeRidThis-0ED80E.15040503092006.DeleteThis@news-vip.optusnet.com.au>,
dorayme <doraymeRidThis.DeleteThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> I am puzzled about your reaction?

You misquoted. The original poster was AES.

leo

--
<http://web0.greatbasin.net/~leo/>

AES wrote:

> Is there any quick and easy way to determine the basic or current
> structure of an image of unknown original vintage that is embedded in a
> PDF file, without trying to extract the image, or edit the whole PDF? --
> for example, by searching for specific strings inside the PDF file with
> a text editor, or by examining some metadata associated with the file
> using Acrobat?
>
> I have a large number of single-page PDF files (single slides) which
> mostly consist of a single image or graphic, plus maybe a small amount
> of added text or text labels.
>
> I'm sure the images are sometimes pixel purely in character (JPEG, TIFF,
> etc); sometimes fully vector in character (EPS, Illustrator, or vector
> PNG); sometimes "mixed" (i.e., they were acquired in a potentially
> vector format like PostScript, EPS, PNG or PICT, but may have primarily
> a pixel image inside them); but I doubt very much anyone added any
> metadata about the original or the converted image character when the
> PDFs were created.
>
> Any easy way to find this out?

It partly depends on how the PDF was generated.

A simple method is to hook the PostScript for image/imagemask/ etc. When a
bitmap is found it outputs some text. The absence of text, caused by the
unhooked vector commands will give you some indication.

Is there a cleverer way of achieving your aims?

--
Eric

In article <K_udnZ-IsJAO-WfZnZ2dnUVZ_oGdnZ2d.RemoveThis@rcn.net>,
PDFrank <pdfrank.RemoveThis@some.com> wrote:

> dorayme wrote:
>
> > In article <dsednQIqscDPy2fZnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d.RemoveThis@rcn.net>,
> > PDFrank <pdfrank.RemoveThis@some.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>dorayme wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Why do you want to find out? Seriously? What will you do with the
> >>>information? How will it help you to do what? there amy be
> >>>alternative strategies to do these other things.
> >>
> >>If that's all you have to say, why even bother answering?
> >
> >
> > Because you said:
> >
> > "Is there any quick and easy way to determine the basic or

>
> I said nothing of the kind.

I beg your pardon, you did not. I assumed, wrongly, that a third
party would not bother to say what you said. Nevertheless, it is
noteworthy that you continue to be abruptly rude when you had the
opportunity after the explanation I gave to ignore this as an
answer to your question (which it was in essence in spite of the
attributional mistake) to acknowledge it. Instead you continue to
fixate on the most spiteful course. It is not impressive.

--
dorayme

In article
<doraymeRidThis-059907.07545104092006.TakeThisOut@news-vip.optusnet.com.au>,
dorayme <doraymeRidThis.TakeThisOut@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> In article <K_udnZ-IsJAO-WfZnZ2dnUVZ_oGdnZ2d.TakeThisOut@rcn.net>,
> PDFrank <pdfrank.TakeThisOut@some.com> wrote:
>
> > dorayme wrote:
> >
> > > In article <dsednQIqscDPy2fZnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d.TakeThisOut@rcn.net>,
> > > PDFrank <pdfrank.TakeThisOut@some.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>dorayme wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>Why do you want to find out? Seriously? What will you do with the
> > >>>information? How will it help you to do what? there amy be
> > >>>alternative strategies to do these other things.
> > >>
> > >>If that's all you have to say, why even bother answering?
> > >
> > >
> > > Because you said:
> > >
> > > "Is there any quick and easy way to determine the basic or
>
> >
> > I said nothing of the kind.
>
> I beg your pardon, you did not. I assumed, wrongly, that a third
> party would not bother to say what you said. Nevertheless, it is
> noteworthy that you continue to be abruptly rude when you had the
> opportunity after the explanation I gave to ignore this as an
> answer to your question (which it was in essence in spite of the
> attributional mistake) to acknowledge it. Instead you continue to
> fixate on the most spiteful course. It is not impressive.

You seem to have a problem with people being rude to you.

I wonder why that is...

In article
<leo-7D5ABD.15044003092006.TakeThisOut@sn-indi.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
Leonard Blaisdell <leo.TakeThisOut@greatbasin.com> wrote:

> In article
> <doraymeRidThis-0ED80E.15040503092006.TakeThisOut@news-vip.optusnet.com.au>,
> dorayme <doraymeRidThis.TakeThisOut@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> > I am puzzled about your reaction?
>
> You misquoted. The original poster was AES.
>
> leo

With respect Leo... I did misquote but you quoting my saying "I
am puzzled about your reaction?" is misleading. Go and have a
look at the thread. The words "I am puzzled by your reaction?"
had nothing to do with my subsequent minor error.

--
dorayme

> With respect Leo... I did misquote but you quoting my saying "I
> am puzzled about your reaction?" is misleading. Go and have a
> look at the thread. The words "I am puzzled by your reaction?"
> had nothing to do with my subsequent minor error.

Well, hell, the misquoting wasn't minor as you've seen people get
chopped to bits for it a thousand times. I mistook your response to
PDFrank to be what you thought they said, because you started with
"Because you said:".
I do see your point, I think. You asked a question and received a blunt
rebuttal.

leo

--
<http://web0.greatbasin.net/~leo/>

In article
<030920061732471452%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>,
Dave Balderstone <dave DeleteThis @N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
>
> You seem to have a problem with people being rude to you.
>
> I wonder why that is...

Ah it's you again! My favourite person! If you follow the thread
concerned, instead of being of your gloating and misguided self
(the gloating is obvious, the misguided bit is because you choose
a case of someone being clearly unjustified, uncomprehending and
rude too), you might come back and explain what is truly
relevant. Of course, given your past track record, you will
always cloud the issue. You complained about my having some
obsession with you and that it was a worry to you. You are quite
a hypocrite aren't you Balderstone, here intervening for quite
gratutitous purposes, showing the obsession is rather the other
way around?

I was set to follow Clever monkey's excellent advice and what doi
i get fairly soon after? An idiot replying to a genuine effort to
help a poster and now you back again. that's ok, bring it all on.
Keep it up pal...

(What do you suggest Clever Monkey, you are a sensible fellow,
advise me how to deal with mean spirited earthlings without
humiliation...)

--
dorayme

In article
<doraymeRidThis-FA39D8.10244204092006.TakeThisOut@news-vip.optusnet.com.au>,
dorayme <doraymeRidThis.TakeThisOut@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> In article
> <030920061732471452%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>,
> Dave Balderstone <dave.TakeThisOut@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
> >
> > You seem to have a problem with people being rude to you.
> >
> > I wonder why that is...
>
> Ah it's you again! My favourite person! If you follow the thread
> concerned, instead of being of your gloating and misguided self
> (the gloating is obvious, the misguided bit is because you choose
> a case of someone being clearly unjustified, uncomprehending and
> rude too), you might come back and explain what is truly
> relevant.

You complained about rudeness. I've noticed you have been doing that
with some frequency.

I asked you, quite politely, why you think it is that you think people
are being rude to you.

You replied rudely. That's slightly interesting, but not enough for me
to ask you about it, and not surprising.

I'll reiterate my original query, with a slight variation.

You seem to have a problem with people being rude to you.

I wonder why that is. Do you have any ideas that you would share as to
why you find an increasing number of people being rude to you,
specifically?

In article
<leo-FEA36F.16442103092006 RemoveThis @sn-indi.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
Leonard Blaisdell <leo RemoveThis @greatbasin.com> wrote:

> > With respect Leo... I did misquote but you quoting my saying "I
> > am puzzled about your reaction?" is misleading. Go and have a
> > look at the thread. The words "I am puzzled by your reaction?"
> > had nothing to do with my subsequent minor error.
>
> Well, hell, the misquoting wasn't minor as you've seen people get
> chopped to bits for it a thousand times. I mistook your response to
> PDFrank to be what you thought they said, because you started with
> "Because you said:".
> I do see your point, I think. You asked a question and received a blunt
> rebuttal.
>
> leo

Leo! I have no wish to be off side with you. You have never shown
any mean tendencies.

But you are mistaken about the substantive issue. The misquoting
was quite a minor issue in respect to my answer as to why I
replied to the OP (AES). The person who asked me why I "bothered"
to reply was PDFrank. I assumed (wrongly... and I apologise for
this, especially to the OP) it was the OP unhappy at the inquiry
I made. had I not made this mistake,m the reply would have been
almost identical except that instead of me prefacing my answer
with the words "Because you said" I would have put "Because OP
said".

The point is that the misquoting was nothing to do with my "I am
puzzled about your reaction?" to PDFrank, it was nothing to do
with why I replied to the OP in the first place.

--
dorayme