On Sun, Jul 04, 2004 at 01:21:53PM +0100, Jon Dowland wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 23:21:41 -0500, cecil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Someone told me today at lunch that what with my "wierd obsession", as
> > he called it, to perhaps go without a gui(X), I should try "that latex
> > thingie".
>
> One point that I haven't seen raised yet - handling of embedded images
> in (la)tex documents. Iused a package 'epsfig' to include encapsulated
> post script images; but that entailed conversion of many bitmaps to
> EPS, which involved pixels to inches/centimetres, with dots per inch
> cropping up, etc. Not a pleasant experience.
I use the 'graphicx' package. I still have to convert images to EPS.
I've never had any problems with that, though. I just open them in the
gimp and save them as eps, accepting all defaults. With graphicx, you
can say things like
\includegraphics[width=.9\textwidth]{graphicsfile}
and I have a neat embedded image with a width slightly less than the
textwidth. Very pleasant, actually. The only problem is that eps images
take up a lot of space. But, converting to pdf, the images are
compressed. If you want to use pdflatex instead of latex, convert the
images to pdf with epstopdf from the xpdf-utils package. In my
experience, this works a lot better than eps2pdf from the ghostscript
packages. Maybe this will change with ghostscript 8 when it reaches some
stability.
See, for example,
http://nebula.homeunix.net/~dfokkema/meesterproef.pdf
http://nebula.homeunix.net/~dfokkema/leerlingen.pdf
HTH,
David
--
Hi! I'm a .signature virus. Copy me into
your ~/.signature to help me spread!
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
