Nik Clayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't think so. I saw this if I used pdftex and used the .png files
> *natively*. They still appeared about twice as large as I'd like them
> to be in the generated .pdf file.
>
> This wouldn't have been a problem *if* I could have reliably converted
> from PNG to PDF. If I could have done that then I could have just upped
> the DPI when converting from PNG to EPS and PNG to PDF.
What I do is that most of my source images are in .eps, and for PDF
output, I convert from .eps to .pdf. Thus no density problem arises.
'convert foo.eps foo.pdf' works great.
I guess that doesn't help you if your source images are .png however.
The problem is that whenever you convert into PDF format there is a
density being set implicitly -- default is 72x72. I bet you already
know that.
> Sadly, every time I tried this (whether I was using Ghostscript
> directly, or ImageMagick, or any of the NetPBM stuff) I got a broken PDF
> file.
I dunno, 'convert foo.png foo.pdf' works for me, but I haven't tried
embedding that.
I just noticed the EPDF format. Hmm. Maybe that is what we should
be using?
--
.....Adam Di [EMAIL PROTECTED]<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>
------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
"unsubscribe" in the body to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
