Size of 8 1/2 x 11 scanned PDF versus JPG - which will take less disk space?
We’re developing a project at work in which the one of the functions will be for the salesperson to scan a one-page “Agreement page” and then upload it to that person’s customer record. That way we’ll have the customer’s name, signature, and handwritten completed form in one place. No fancy graphics – just some lines of text, some handwritten stuff, and a signature.
The question is one of disk storage. Is PDF storage likely to be more efficient than storing as a JPG?
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
3 Answers
From my basic understanding… I would go for PDF, if only to prevent any unwanted changes made by others. The second reason I’d go for PDF is because text and black/white contrast saves better in PDF than JPG.
If you’re more concerned about file size than image quality, then the size of the file depends on the image size and how many pixels are used. If you have a 300dpi photo-ready JPG file, it’s obviously going to be much larger than the internet-standard 72dpi file.
I would go PDF for the reasons @linguaphile cited, but would like to add a relevant note about technology.
The average hard drive in 2014 holds a terabyte or more. A $10 Micro-SD card holds twice as much as a $100 hard drive from a decade ago. Internet connections are orders of magnitude faster as well. With that in mind, the file size difference between PDF and a JPEG isn’t an issue unless you have literally millions of customers. Both will occupy a very tiny percentage of your storage, and will transmit almost instantly.
Storage is cheap.
PDF vs JPG is not the choice.
The images in PDFs are usually JPGs.
So, PDF or JPG, the best ways to to save space are:
1)
Scan at a lower resolution
2)
Use black & white instead of greyscale or color.
A 200 DPI black & white image can look really good and it can be small.
Answer this question 
This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.
Composing members:
0
