On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 at 10:31PM +0400, LRN wrote:
> As an experiment, try creating a simple image (say, a rectangle of
> 100x100 pixels), then save it as png, create multiple copies and give
> them different DPI values in Gimp.
The key idea, it seems to me, is that *I* am the one giving the image
d
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 24.04.2013 20:00, Dan Drake wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 at 06:44AM -0700, LRN wrote:
>> That said, i've noticed that you're using [scale=.4]. How would
>> it look without scale=.4? The point is that DPI info should
>> allow typesetter to guess ima
On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 at 06:44AM -0700, LRN wrote:
> That said, i've noticed that you're using [scale=.4]. How would it look
> without scale=.4? The point is that DPI info should allow typesetter to
> guess image size correctly, and it should look OK without scaling.
Let me admit my ignorance here
On Wednesday, April 24, 2013 9:44:47 AM UTC-4, LRN wrote:
>
>
> On Tuesday, April 23, 2013 6:15:00 PM UTC+4, kcrisman wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, April 23, 2013 6:15:23 AM UTC-4, LRN wrote:
>>>
>>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> I've attached a sample tex file.
>>
On Tuesday, April 23, 2013 6:15:00 PM UTC+4, kcrisman wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, April 23, 2013 6:15:23 AM UTC-4, LRN wrote:
>>
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> I've attached a sample tex file.
>>
>>
> You are totally cutting-edge! But remember, even with imagemagick,
