PDF creation - OpenOffice vs. NeoOffice?

[GanChan]

I'm researching how to publish an e-book in PDF format, so I was on the Lulu.com site today looking at the PDF options they prefer. They point out that the Mac Quartz/Preview-based "Print as PDF" feature in OSX isn't designed for print-quality results, so they don't recommend it for electronic book publishing. They do, however, recommend OpenOffice's "Export to PDF" function.

I have NeoOffice, but I've never owned OpenOffice. Is the "Export to PDF" function on both these applications exactly the same, or is there any reason there might be a difference in quality as with "Print to PDF" on a Mac?

If there is a difference, i'll consider downloading and test-driving OpenOffice. Otherwise, I guess I'll keep using NeoOffice. Any feedback is appreciated.

 

[Keleko]

I can't answer the question directly, but NeoOffice is based on an earlier version of OpenOffice than the current release of OpenOffice uses. So I'd expect there are some differences in the export to PDF due to that.

 

[shwc]

If you use pages you can "export to PDF" (under the file menu) and set the image quality to either good, better, or best.

 

[mysterytramp]

Like NeoOffice, OpenOffice is open source and freely available. You can just download it to check it out and see if it meets your needs.

mt

P.S. "They point out that the Mac Quartz/Preview-based "Print as PDF" feature in OSX isn't designed for print-quality results, so they don't recommend it for electronic book publishing." Lulu indeed says this, but it sounds like nonsense.

 

[maflynn]

Given that the NEOOffice is based off off OpenOffice and they're using the system functionality to produce the PDF, I'd go out on a limb and say they'll be the same.

I use OpenOffice and I've been pleased with it. While NeoOffice has a more mac feel, I use OO on Ubuntu so the consistent look/feel for me works better.

 

[GanChan]

P.S. "They point out that the Mac Quartz/Preview-based "Print as PDF" feature in OSX isn't designed for print-quality results, so they don't recommend it for electronic book publishing." Lulu indeed says this, but it sounds like nonsense.

That was my first thought. Doesn't Mac's "Print to PDF" default to 300 dpi? I'm no expert, but that sounds like good quality to me. I'd be surprised if Open/Neo's "Best" setting was much better than that....

I'm starting to find other opinions contradicting Lulu's statement as well. I wonder if they're just in bed with Adobe or something....

 

[mysterytramp]

I'm starting to find other opinions contradicting Lulu's statement as well. I wonder if they're just in bed with Adobe or something....

Truthfully, that was my first thought. If there was a significant difference in quality between printing and Print to PDF, the Microsoft trolls masking as MacRumors "newbies" would have been all over this board ages ago.

Having said that, I ran a little test. I went on iPhoto, picked a photo and printed it from the software, then created a PDF and printed it from Preview. There are lots of variables with this test -- issues that iPhoto might have, issues that Preview might have and issues the Epson RX595 might have lead the list -- but it might offer some insight.

iPhoto produced a nice photo (normal paper), though it did produce two green blotches. Preview was adequate, but it produced a number of vertical white hairlines in the output. Not the optimum. Blame the printer? Blame the software? Blame Snow Leopard's PDF rendering routines?

However, we are talking Lulu. Not to denigrate their service, but is someone who is producing an exegesis on Da Vinci's art using them as a publisher? I appreciate their exactness, but I wonder how well placed it is. Thankfully, they're suggesting a potential customer use free software.

<end of sermon>

mt