Am Dienstag, 31. Oktober 2006 16:05 schrieb Enrico Forestieri: > On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 01:46:54PM +0100, Georg Baum wrote: > > > Enrico Forestieri wrote: > > > > > But I simply used the default converter chosen by LyX and the rotation > > > was actually depending on using latex or pdflatex. > > > > Then we might need to change the default converter. Do you have an example > > file? I don't remember seeing this with the default converter. > > > > > So, I was getting > > > different rotations in output but still the same orientation in LyX > > > display. This is confusing by itself, whether or not I am able to > > > rotate differently the image in LyX display. So, I still think that it > > > makes sense having different rotations for output and display.\ > > > > But why? I fear I don't understand what you want. I thought that you needed > > the option to work around silly converters, but it seems that you have > > another reason. Which one? > > Please, try the attached. In LyX I get the image rotated; in output I > get the image not rotated if I use pdflatex but rotated if I use latex. > So, what I see on screen corresponds to the output depending on which > program (latex or pdflatex) I use. > > I would like to rotate the image in LyX display such that I can see it > as I intended to, independently of the output rotation that I am in any > case forced to change for the output. I hope I was clear.
I see the same behaviour, but I don't agree with the solution. The problem here is that the image is detected by LyX as PS, not EPS, because the first line reads %!PS-Adobe-2.0 and not %!PS-Adobe-2.0 EPSF-2.0 Therefore ps2pdf is used to convert it to pdf, not epstopdf. If you fix the first line of the image and set the rotation to 270 degrees you get the same orientation in LyX, in DVI and pdf output. The right fix for this problem is IMO not to introduce a separate rotation option for display, but to convert ps files to eps with ps2eps for included figures. This conversion will be a noop (except from the changed first line) in your case, but if an included file is really PS and not EPS with a wrong declaration then it will generate a LaTeX failure. This is the only case I know where the indirect route PS -> EPS -> PDF gives a better result than the direct route PS -> PDF. Another possible solution would be to define another pdf format "pdf4" that is only used for included graphics, and to define both the eps -> pdf4 and ps -> pdf4 converter as epstopdf. This is exactly what I wrote previously: These cases of wrong rotation are always caused by a faulty converter, and therefore the converter should be fixed and no extra rotation option for display introduced. Georg
