3 ms·
even compared to MuPDF? PDF.js is well known to be very slow, and even poppler is pretty slow compared to MuPDF.
by Hello71 8y ago
even compared to MuPDF? PDF.js is well known to be very slow, and even poppler is pretty slow compared to MuPDF.
- zokier 8y agoI still prefer Adobe Acrobat Reader despite everything, and absolutely hate PDF.js because it seems to take like few seconds to render a page when jumping around, whereas Adobe Acrobat Reader is pretty much interactive. Nevermind the fact that pdf.js has still problems rendering quite many documents I encounter, while Acrobat is basically the de-facto reference implementation for PDFs. btw if you want quickly some random large scanned PDFs for testing, archive.org is a goldmine. For example here is a scanned 1200 electronics handbook: https://archive.org/details/NationalSemiconductorLinearApplicationsHandbook1994 https://archive.org/details/NationalSemiconductorLinearAppli... They also do DjVu, so you can see the size difference there. For that particular book, its 58M for the PDF vs 31M for DjVu. So basically half the size.
- pmoriarty 8y agoI use mupdf all the time for PDFs. It's much faster than PDF.js, but still much, much slower than djvu for scanned documents.