Hello,
Thanks for having a look at this problem. I changed a bit the source files
by replacing
\documentclass[border=9,tikz]{standalone}
with
\documentclass[a4paper,landscape]{article}
Also, I added the command
\thispagestyle{empty}
just before the
\end{document}
Then compiled the files and then I used pdfcrop to crop the white space.
All files had the same size! Of course now I "understand" what the problem
was,but I had the impression that since the image is placed within the bounding
boxof the final output, it would not affect its final size. To me this is a
bug. And the"recipe" I presented above shows why this is a bug. The bounding
box of all imagesis the same.
Kindest regards,
Apostolos
----------------------Apostolos Syropoulos
Xanthi, Greece
On Tuesday, May 31, 2022, 07:19:29 PM GMT+3, Heiko Oberdiek via XeTeX
<xetex@tug.org> wrote:
On 2022-05-29 21:16, Apostolos Syropoulos via XeTeX wrote:
> [...] The two files differ as follows:
>
> 28,29c28,29
> < \node[inner sep=0pt] (light) at (1,2.1)
> < {\includegraphics[scale=0.1]{TRAIN-crop.pdf}};
> ---
>> \node[inner sep=0pt] (light) at (5.2,3.5)
>> {\includegraphics[scale=0.1,angle=45]{TRAIN-crop.pdf}};
>
> The question is why do I get different paper sizes?
You know that the size of the second \includegraphics with angle=45
is different?
The size of the second \includegraphics is a *square*. If w1 and h1
are the width and height of the first \includegraphics, then
the width w2 and h2 of the second \includegraphics with angle=45 are:
w2 = h2 = sqrt(1/2) * (w1 + h1)
or
w2 + h2
------- = sqrt(2) ≈ 1.4142
w1 + h1
Yours sincerely
Heiko
