Hi Eduardo, Thanks for the insight, I really appreciate this. Cheers, M > On Apr 10, 2017, at 12:51 PM, Eduardo Mercovich <edua...@mercovich.net> wrote: > > Hi Marvin. > >> I also agree that in terms of resolution (pix per inch ) pdf and jpg are the >> same. However, pdf (and SVG) allow the image to be scaled with little loss >> in image quality. > > Sorry to disagree, but again, pdf images can be vector (like svg) and > infinitely scaled or raster (bitmap, as a jpg) and in this case the quality > is on the file. The pdf format only adds and envelope around the original jpg > image, or in the conversion it can be downscaled. > > Just to test this you can extract the images from the pdf and check their > properties. The specific tools depend on your OS of choice, but at least in > Linux there are many options, some command line based and others GUI based. > >> In my lab we typically save the images in pdf because the most biomedical >> journals don’t accept SVG file format (not yet). > > Sure. But why not simply use a jpg or png? > * Journals accept those formats perfectly well, * you will see them with > their best quality, and > * you can see them in emacs buffers natively. > > Just try it and you'll see that -if I understood you ok- you will gain in > every dimension. :) > > Best... > > > -- > eduardo mercovich > > Donde se cruzan tus talentos con las necesidades del mundo, ahí está tu > vocación. (Anónimo)
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
