What you did is useful as an exercise. Otherwise exporting images from a PDF like this and creating a new PDF out of those makes no sense.
The original document space usage is:
Description Bytes Percentage
Images 351,829 97.60 %
Content Streams 2,742 0.76 %
Document Overhead 5,916 1.64 %
Total 360,478 100 %
Your document's space usage is:
Description Bytes Percentage
Images 1,329,944 98.87 %
Bookmarks 21 0.00 %
Content Streams 1,675 0.12 %
Structure info 60 0.00 %
Document Overhead 13,389 1.00 %
Total 1,345,089 100 %
The original document isn't created with Acro, but iText which explains the missing structure info.
Under Document Processing you have a separate tool "Optimize scanned PDF". I followed your workflow and run the optimizer on my newly created PDF, and the resulting file size is 328KB. However the quality is clearly worse than the original document.
This is to be expected, as I did everything with default settings. This means the image export was already done as jpg which anyway is larger than a PDF. I tested this just by extracting each page to a single PDF - for example the jpg image exported from page 1 is 22KB whereas exported as a PDF it's just 9KB. Optimizing the images further in the new document worsens the image quality even more. This is just unavoidable with bitmap image formats such as jpg.
The size usage above shows that Acrobat clearly exported the images with highest possible quality. This makes sense, as when you do this you want to get them out with minimal image data loss.
One option could be OCRing the file, which converts the images to text, and textual files are much lighter than image bloats. Acro Pro contains OCR tool, but I can't test this as I don't have Arabic available.
EDIT: Extended language pack only applies to Adobe Reader. After some research it seems that Acrobat does not support Arabic OCR. See this Adobe forum discussion.
Scanning into PDF and then optimizing is always a tradeoff between size and quality. You just need to test with different settings (both original scan and the optimization) to you find a satisfactory compromise.
Instructions for PDF optimization are in Acrobat Help. Help is available online for both Acrobat X and Acrobat XI
Store on a compressed directory? Assumming windows OS. You can also winzip/pkzip each for compression. – mdpc – 2014-12-28T09:11:18.843
stored on a regular directory, not compressed. Yes, using Windows. Zipping and extracting each time? That's not practical. – living being – 2014-12-28T09:24:15.850
I mean set the directory to be compressed so that as you put things in it will be compressed automagically. For longer term storage and light use, I think that compression is quite practical on an individual file basis. – mdpc – 2014-12-28T09:25:46.623
The original pages look like a fax (not over 200 dpi black and white; could have been scanned that way), with a watermark on every page. That's why the PDF was so small, and how to re-create one of comparable size. – fixer1234 – 2014-12-28T09:37:48.250
1@mdpc: I want to reduce the size of the file itself. – living being – 2014-12-28T09:41:34.257
@fixer1234: How can I reduce the size of my scanned images to this level? + So Adobe Reader converts the images to a higher quality? – living being – 2014-12-28T09:45:06.080
Use a scan setting equivalent to a fax (200 dpi B&W), and save in an image format that supports B&W (also called monochrome or bi-level), with compression, like TIFF, GIF, PNG, or PCX. If they are already scanned, use an image processing program like Irfanview to convert them. – fixer1234 – 2014-12-28T09:59:17.227
Converting the pdf to postscript and back to pdf usually does the trick. If you have access to a linux machine, you could do it like this:
pdf2ps input.pdf output.ps; ps2pdf output.ps output.pdf– Reuben L. – 2014-12-28T10:07:43.907@fixer1234: I did some tweaking with Irfanview and did not get a good result. – living being – 2014-12-28T10:16:14.230
@Reuben L: I'm using Windows – living being – 2014-12-28T10:16:50.487
Take a close look at the text on the sample document. It isn't very high quality. That's what 18K per page looks like. Also, reprocessing an old color or greyscale scan will probably be degraded from a clean original scan at the desired settings. – fixer1234 – 2014-12-28T10:22:17.063
The best result I got from Irfanview is 70 KB per page with an awful quality. – living being – 2014-12-28T10:26:03.567
Can you post a sample original scan and a sample processed scan? Looking at the actual files is the only way to determine what the problem might be. – fixer1234 – 2014-12-28T20:15:47.553
as I mentioned, I downloaded that file from a website. I have no access to scanned images. furthermore my main purpose is to find a general solution to apply on my own scanned images for not to get a large PDF file out of them. – living being – 2014-12-28T20:21:26.697
"The best result I got from Irfanview is 70 KB per page with an awful quality." The only way for someone to understand the results you got is to see the before and after images involved. You haven't clearly stated your objective. What do you want to start with (existing images or hard copies)? What do you want to end up with (a small aggregate PDF)? How good/bad can the result look (similar to the sample you posted)? You can't get there if jpg is part of the process (doesn't do B&W, plus heavy compression creates artifacts). Starting from color/greyscale image will yield poor results. – fixer1234 – 2014-12-29T00:42:04.893