On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 4:14 PM, Erik Iverson <er...@ccbr.umn.edu> wrote:
> John, > > Thank you for your reply. > > No problem -- nice report and I'm glad you got things fixed!! John > For those that don't want to read all that follows, please note my > conclusion, given here: > > Since orgmode is automatically telling latex to use T1 encoding, > perhaps we should somewhere document to the user that Type 1 > fonts should be available to get the best looking PDF possible. > Otherwise, type 3 fonts will be substituted. I got suitable > Type-1 fonts by installing the texlive-fonts-extra package > under Ubuntu. > > (Of course, that could already be documented somewhere :) ) > > All of this explained very succinctly right here: > http://www.latex-community.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=571 > > > > Here, for example, are the > >> various texlive packages I can pick from: >> http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/TeX_Live#Group_texlive-most >> >> Not saying one of those would fix the problem, but I wonder if you could >> verify you have the fontsextra package? Just an idea? >> > > It was a great idea. It was what was wrong. :) > > Under Ubuntu, I simply install texlive-fonts-extra, and it works. > > Of course, I was a bit more curious as to exactly *what* and *why* > things were behaving as they were, so here is a summary for those who > may see the same issue. > > Caveat: I don't know much about font issues, so the following is a bit > imprecise and possibly even plain wrong :). > > By including [T1]{fontenc}, we are telling LaTeX to use so called T1 > font encoding. Simple enough. However, the original Computer Modern > fonts were not designed with this encoding in mind. There have been > Type 1 replacements made and can be found in the Cm-super package. > This is part of what texlive-fonts-extra installs, but was not > available on either of the systems I tested on, one Ubuntu, one > Fedora. > > Not having these font packages, I set out to determine which > fonts were being used in the PDF depending on what encodings we > use. > > The best way I have of checking what's going on is making a PDF, > and then opening it up in Evince or acroread, and looking at 'fonts' > tab under the document properties. > > As things were, i.e.: before installing texlive-fonts-extra, and > while including T1 font encoding, things looked > quite bad under Evince. Looking at the fonts included in the PDF > showed why. Instead of the list of computer modern fonts I get when > I don't include the T1 encoding, I got a list of "Type 3" fonts with > "No Name" in evince and names like "F16, F20, ..." in acrobat. > > Why these looked "ok" under acrobat is not understood by me, but > they certainly looked poor under evince. > > I could 'fix' this many ways, including removing the lines referencing > T1 encoding from the .tex file, or changing fontenc to OT1 instead of > T1, essentially the same fix. This allowed the good old computer > modern fonts to be included in the PDF, and all was well. But I wanted > to know why T1 encoding wasn't working. > > After installing texlive-fonts-extra, I now have the > "cm-super" package. These fonts now are used when I specify the T1 > encoding. (I think!) Now, my list of fonts under evince looks like > "sfrm1200" for example. No more Type 3 fonts, they are all Type 1. > This all seems to be explained in Chapter 7 of The LaTeX Companion, > section 7.5. > > I would be interested in what the names of the fonts embedded in > PDF documents from other users are? Are you all using these > "cm-super" fonts? > > Alternatively, I was also able to get nice fonts by using the > Modern Latin package, \usepackage{lmodern} with T1 encoding > specified. > > The upshot is: If you're using an OS with a package manager, > it might pay to do a "texlive-full" type install, instead of just > doing the bits and pieces of latex packages as I've been doing! > Unfortunately, I think with at least Ubuntu, that's not the > default, so many users may be having the same issue as I am, > without even realizing it. > > > Hope this helps, > > --Erik > > > >> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Erik Iverson <er...@ccbr.umn.edu<mailto: >> er...@ccbr.umn.edu>> wrote: >> >> Hello, >> >> I'm wondering if anyone can >> >> 1) reproduce what I'm seeing >> 2) help in understanding what's going on. >> >> If I export an Org file to LaTeX, the resulting >> .tex file contains the following in its header: >> >> \usepackage[T1]{fontenc} >> \usepackage{t1enc} >> >> Long story short: >> >> The resulting .PDF file from pdflatex looks quite >> bad in evince, and quite good in Acroread. By "quite bad", >> I mean the fonts are practically illegible, very thin >> and wiry. >> >> If I comment out *both* of those package requirements, >> recompile the PDF, the resulting PDF looks great in all >> viewers I can find. >> >> The Fonts specified in the Properties of the document >> change when I use those packages versus not use them. >> >> However, the packages are the default for good reason I'm sure, >> but C-c C-e d fires up Evince on my system, so the default >> is not very pleasant. >> >> I realize this isn't org-mode question per se, but can >> anyone else replicate this, and do you know what's happening? >> It seems like a potential problem with Evince specifically, since >> Acroread seems to handle the resulting PDF just fine. >> >> Finally, does anyone know why the t1enc package is required, the >> only thing I read about it was the following: >> >> http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html?label=t1enc >> >> Thanks! >> Erik >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Emacs-orgmode mailing list >> Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list. >> Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org <mailto:Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org> >> >> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode >> >> >> >
_______________________________________________ Emacs-orgmode mailing list Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list. Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
