On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Michiel Kamermans
wrote:
> Ulrike,
>
>> Well most of the graphics on my pc have either no dpi entry or 72,
>> but I found one with 300dpi and this too is larger (x4) when used
>> with xelatex. (it is not a graphic I can share so we can't test if
>> it works for yo
Am Sat, 01 May 2010 08:01:18 -0700 schrieb Michiel Kamermans:
> Ulrike,
>
> There's two differences between the two, one in the amount of EXIF data,
> the other in the presence of a "thumbnail" encoding in my image which
> comes with its own 72dpi... now I'm wondering which image graphicsx
>
Ulrike,
Well most of the graphics on my pc have either no dpi entry or 72,
but I found one with 300dpi and this too is larger (x4) when used
with xelatex. (it is not a graphic I can share so we can't test if
it works for you too).
Odd... I did a minmal example with the jpg that Jose linked to,
Am Fri, 30 Apr 2010 08:20:57 -0700 schrieb Michiel Kamermans:
>> No, I can reproduce your problem with miktex 2.7 too.
>>
>> Your picture is 1886 pixel wide and declares its resolution to be
>> 600 dpi. This gives a "natural" width of 8cm and this width you get
>> with pdflatex.
>>
>> But xetex se
On 30-04-2010 15:35, Ulrike Fischer wrote:
This is XeTeX, Version 3.1415926-2.2-0.9995.1 (MiKTeX 2.8)
So, it is a slightly more recent version than yours (and the problem
might lie there).
No, I can reproduce your problem with miktex 2.7 too.
Your picture is 1886 pixel wide and declares its
On 30-04-2010 15:59, Peter Dyballa wrote:
http://www.fc.up.pt/mp/jcsantos/imagens/Figura_3-1.JPG
It also contains an useless sRGB profile while it's only black and
white. Looks like a candidate for TikZ/PGF... Or is the handwriting
important?
I don't know. It's the author of the chapter tha
No, I can reproduce your problem with miktex 2.7 too.
Your picture is 1886 pixel wide and declares its resolution to be
600 dpi. This gives a "natural" width of 8cm and this width you get
with pdflatex.
But xetex seems not to take the resolution into account but use a
resolution of 72 dpi. Thi
Am 30.04.2010 um 15:55 schrieb José Carlos Santos:
http://www.fc.up.pt/mp/jcsantos/imagens/Figura_3-1.JPG
It also contains an useless sRGB profile while it's only black and
white. Looks like a candidate for TikZ/PGF... Or is the handwriting
important?
--
Greetings
Pete
"A TRUE Klin
Am 30.04.2010 um 15:55 schrieb José Carlos Santos:
http://www.fc.up.pt/mp/jcsantos/imagens/Figura_3-1.JPG
It's 1358 pixels wide. That's approximately 20" or 50 cm. An ISO A4
page is 21 cm wide. Taking the margins and indentations into account
I'd vote to scale it by 0.25.
--
Greetings
Am Fri, 30 Apr 2010 14:55:06 +0100 schrieb José Carlos Santos:
> This is XeTeX, Version 3.1415926-2.2-0.9995.1 (MiKTeX 2.8)
>
> So, it is a slightly more recent version than yours (and the problem
> might lie there).
No, I can reproduce your problem with miktex 2.7 too.
Your picture is 1886
On Apr 30, 2010, at 8:55 AM, José Carlos Santos wrote:
> On 30-04-2010 12:28, Ulrike Fischer wrote:
>
>>> If I compile this file:
>>>
>>> \documentclass{article}
>>> \usepackage{graphicx}
>>> \begin{document}
>>> \includegraphics[scale=.4]{Figura_3-1.jpg}
>>> \end{document}
>>>
>>> with PDFLaT
On 30-04-2010 11:24, Peter Dyballa wrote:
Does it work better when you give the maximal height or width?
If you mean using the \resizebox command, yes, it does work. Thanks.
No, I thought of:
\includegraphics[height=96mm]{Kollaps.jpg}
Yes, this also solves my problem. Thanks.
Best regard
On 30-04-2010 12:28, Ulrike Fischer wrote:
If I compile this file:
\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\begin{document}
\includegraphics[scale=.4]{Figura_3-1.jpg}
\end{document}
with PDFLaTeX, then all goes well. But if I use XeLaTeX instead, then
I get this:
Overfull \hbox (427.18
On Apr 30, 2010, at 3:59 AM, José Carlos Santos wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> If I compile this file:
>
> \documentclass{article}
> \usepackage{graphicx}
> \begin{document}
> \includegraphics[scale=.4]{Figura_3-1.jpg}
> \end{document}
>
> with PDFLaTeX, then all goes well. But if I use XeLaTeX instead,
Am Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:59:13 +0100 schrieb José Carlos Santos:
> Hi all,
>
> If I compile this file:
>
> \documentclass{article}
> \usepackage{graphicx}
> \begin{document}
> \includegraphics[scale=.4]{Figura_3-1.jpg}
> \end{document}
>
> with PDFLaTeX, then all goes well. But if I use XeLaTeX i
Am 30.04.2010 um 12:15 schrieb José Carlos Santos:
Does it work better when you give the maximal height or width?
If you mean using the \resizebox command, yes, it does work. Thanks.
No, I thought of:
\includegraphics[height=96mm]{Kollaps.jpg}
--
Greetings
Pete
Ce qui été comp
On 30-04-2010 10:49, Peter Dyballa wrote:
\includegraphics[scale=.4]{Figura_3-1.jpg}
Does the starred form perform better?
No. I get the same message.
Does it work better when you give the maximal height or width?
If you mean using the \resizebox command, yes, it does work. Thanks.
Best
Am 30.04.2010 um 10:59 schrieb José Carlos Santos:
\includegraphics[scale=.4]{Figura_3-1.jpg}
Does the starred form perform better? Does it work better when you
give the maximal height or width?
--
Greetings?
Pete
Time is an illusion. Lunchtime, doubly so.
---
Hi all,
If I compile this file:
\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\begin{document}
\includegraphics[scale=.4]{Figura_3-1.jpg}
\end{document}
with PDFLaTeX, then all goes well. But if I use XeLaTeX instead, then
I get this:
Overfull \hbox (427.1866pt too wide) in paragraph at lines
19 matches
Mail list logo
