4 ms·
How different is from this free tool? https://wkhtmltopdf.org/ https://wkhtmltopdf.org/
by lucapinello 9y ago
How different is from this free tool?
https://wkhtmltopdf.org/ https://wkhtmltopdf.org/
- have_faith 9y agoOne is a hosted service and one isn't.
- lucapinello 9y agoI know but if I need to use an API to an external server I can also launch a command locally. 7$ is not much but I don't see any real benefit unless you want to capture a subsection of a website.
- tyingq 9y agoThe clip to a specific DOM element seems unique to this.
- laktek 9y agoAlso with screen.rip, you can run a custom JS before capturing the screenshot and also can wait for certain elements to appear (which is quite important today with client-side rendered sites) Disclaimer: I created screen.rip
- sah2ed 9y ago> Disclaimer: I created screen.rip No need for a disclaimer, after all, this is your Show HN ;)
- mpetrovich 9y agoIf it’s using Chrome headless, it’s superior to wkhtmltopdf. The latter has lots of little gotchas and things that may render fine in a browser but not in wkhtmltopdf. Chrome headless doesn’t suffer from those issues, obviously.
- gotrecruit 9y agobut the site itself says it "runs headless".
- htgb 9y agoRunning headless does not imply that it's running Chrome headless, just that it runs without a GUI.