Georg Baum schrieb: > 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.
ps2pdf _and_ epstopdf uses both ghostscript ... sometimes ghostscript is too clever and rotates parts of the images, which shouldn't. In this case a -dAutoRotatePages=/None did the trick. Herbert
