Using DTPO, I scanned a document (without OCR since it was’t a Latin-script language), saved it, and exported it out to the finder. I then opened it in Acrobat, and got 8 pages (correct) that were completely blank (incorrect). After a moment I got an error saying something about errors in drawing (I think). I opened it again in DT, and it was readable; likewise in Preview. No matter what I did, no luck in Acrobat 8. When I scan the same thing from “Image capture”, it opens up fine in Acrobat 8. Again, just to stress this point, I did not use the OCR.
Just FYI, Annard, since those of using DTPO are using Acrobat 8 (since it is universal) more and more now.
We’re only using standard Apple libraries to generate PDF, so it seems Apple and Adobe need to get their act together. It reminds me of what M$ did with the “docx” format in the latest version of Office, but why nobody is screaming about Adobe pulling a similar one with Acrobat 8 goes beyond me…
OK. I agree. But what do you recommend for us currently? Also, I’ve used DTPO many times with OCR, and they show up fine in Acrobat 8. What’s the difference?
I can’t recommend anything, but I would look at the benefits of Acrobat 8 compared to the problems. In any case I would definitely contact Adobe to complain.
Acrobat 8 introduces some new PDF features and standards.
I’ve usually kept up with upgrading my Acrobat software. But when version 8 came out I saw enough problems discussed on Mac forums that I’ve postponed upgrading from version 7.x.
For example, I’ve tested PDFs that had been OCR’d by Acrobat 8. When I attempt to perform a search of such a PDF using Preview or the PDFKit code in DT Pro, the search results are unacceptable. If I use Data > Convert to make a plain or rich text copy of the PDF, the text is full of extra spaces (which is why searching is poor).
Clearly, Acrobat 8 has introduced changes in PDF files that the PDFKit code in OS X 10.4.x cannot interpret properly. I expect that Apple will modify PDFKit code so that Acrobat 8 PDFs can be properly interpreted. But that hasn’t happened yet. So I’ll wait for a while.
Would complaining to Adobe make any difference? No. Months ago, I read a post by a Mac ScanSnap user who found that PDFs scanned by ScanSnap and OCR’s by Acrobat 8 were almost unsearchable on his Mac. He contacted Adobe. Adobe simply said that Fujitsu needed to update their driver (which IMHO was a technically inaccurate response). So the ScanSnap owner contacted Fujitsu, whose technical support person denied that Fujitsu provides a Mac-compatible driver.
That sort of thing always seems to happen when standards evolve. But ultimately everyone will adapt – it’s just tricky in the interim.
This is why I dislike purchasing software from the large companies – you can’t seem to get through to anyone. That’s why I prefer Bookends to Endnote, etc etc. There no face, no name…no Annard or Bill.
Problem here is that Acrobat is a standard, and has features other PDF programs don’t (though the opposite is also true). Also, Acrobat 8 is universal, which meant it was a no-brainer for my first purchase of Acrobat to use with my Macbook (so much for my no-brainer…now I’m even more worried about the decisions I make that actually do require a brain).
I was ecstatic to find out that JSTOR’s downloadable PDF’s are all OCRed now. I was not as ecstatic to just discover half an hour ago that it seems they are using something akin to Acrobat 8, because their PDF’s are perfectly searchable in Acrobat 8, but – in DT and Preview – have the same type of extra spaces mentioned elsewhere on the forums; not helpful when I rely on DT to help me sift through my 1000’s of articles, book chapters, theses, and notes.
sigh I guess it is like Bill said: it’s now a waiting game for Apple to catch up with the Adobe-appointed new standard, and I suppose an even longer waiting game for software developers to then be able to deploy that in their own software. All I know is that it is very frustrating trying to use DT when I am in a project-critical stage without it working fully…due to no fault of DEVONtech. Living on the software’s cutting edge is going to hurt sometimes, I guess…
Anyways, thanks for the responses from the good folk at DT. (If only Adobe was as responsive…)
Actually, the “universal” standard in PDFs is probably PDF version 1.3 or 1.4, as just about any software capable of viewing PDFs can handle PDFs saved in those versions.
For example, Science Magazine makes PDF versions of most online articles available as PDF version 1.3. That reduces the possibility that readers would encounter incompatible versions of the PDF “standard”. And yes, those PDFs downloaded from Science are perfectly searchable in DT Pro.
As I recall, Acrobat 8 saves by default as version 1.6 or 1.7. I haven’t checked, but there’s likely a preferences setting (there are a LOT of preferences settings in Acrobat) that could save as an earlier version. Acrobat 8 has added features especially useful to people working in groups, and those features would be lost by saving to the early PDF version standard. But PDFs saved as version 1.3, for example, would be in the de facto “universal” PDF format (probably, unless Adobe deliberately screwed that up).