pdf size due to images

We have a report with a number of external images. When the report is run
and exported to pdf, the resulting document is over 2mb (regardless of
whether the report is run in VS or the ReportManager). When the images are
changed from external to embedded, the resulting pdf document is around
500kb. This is great since the 2mb was causing issues with our client's
email server. When the modified rdl is imported to our client's system, the
resulting document is still around 500kb.
When the original rdl is modified on the client's system using
ReportDesigner - and all of the images are changed from external to embedded
- the resulting pdf document is still over 2mb!! I've verified any number
of times that the images are of type embedded.
Both systems are have reporting services at sp1. The only obvious
difference is that our environment is a developer edition of SQL Server and
the client's is Standard.
Is the difference in SQL the reason? Any other ideas/suggestions'
ThanksThis is NOT an issue between external vs. embedded images. During testing
the wrong image file was being used.
It DOES appear to be an issue with the way images are rendered to PDF.
Using other document types such as Word results in a smaller overall document
size.
Any suggestions/ideas for rendering to pdf are appreciated.
"PD" wrote:
> We have a report with a number of external images. When the report is run
> and exported to pdf, the resulting document is over 2mb (regardless of
> whether the report is run in VS or the ReportManager). When the images are
> changed from external to embedded, the resulting pdf document is around
> 500kb. This is great since the 2mb was causing issues with our client's
> email server. When the modified rdl is imported to our client's system, the
> resulting document is still around 500kb.
> When the original rdl is modified on the client's system using
> ReportDesigner - and all of the images are changed from external to embedded
> - the resulting pdf document is still over 2mb!! I've verified any number
> of times that the images are of type embedded.
> Both systems are have reporting services at sp1. The only obvious
> difference is that our environment is a developer edition of SQL Server and
> the client's is Standard.
> Is the difference in SQL the reason? Any other ideas/suggestions'
> Thanks|||The issue was resolved by: (1) upgrading to SP2 AND (2) reducing the size of
jpg images that are used in the report. ONLY upgrading to SP2 DID NOT solve
the problem - the original images were simply distorted/gray AND without a
reduction in overall pdf document size. The size of the images were reduced
using MS Photo Editor, although other editors seem to work also.
"PD" wrote:
> This is NOT an issue between external vs. embedded images. During testing
> the wrong image file was being used.
> It DOES appear to be an issue with the way images are rendered to PDF.
> Using other document types such as Word results in a smaller overall document
> size.
> Any suggestions/ideas for rendering to pdf are appreciated.
>
> "PD" wrote:
> > We have a report with a number of external images. When the report is run
> > and exported to pdf, the resulting document is over 2mb (regardless of
> > whether the report is run in VS or the ReportManager). When the images are
> > changed from external to embedded, the resulting pdf document is around
> > 500kb. This is great since the 2mb was causing issues with our client's
> > email server. When the modified rdl is imported to our client's system, the
> > resulting document is still around 500kb.
> >
> > When the original rdl is modified on the client's system using
> > ReportDesigner - and all of the images are changed from external to embedded
> > - the resulting pdf document is still over 2mb!! I've verified any number
> > of times that the images are of type embedded.
> >
> > Both systems are have reporting services at sp1. The only obvious
> > difference is that our environment is a developer edition of SQL Server and
> > the client's is Standard.
> >
> > Is the difference in SQL the reason? Any other ideas/suggestions'
> > Thanks