> Have you tried just doing the TeX conversion with: > lamed main.tex > dvips main.dvi > ps2pdf main.ps main.pdf
Here are some differences in output, at least from my system: 1. Vertical spacing: With dvipdfm there is slightly more vertical spacing between the bottom line of one staff and the top line of the next. 2. Embedded font format: dvipdfm embeds the greciliae fonts in the PDF file in the "Type 1" format instead of the newer, more space-efficient "Type 1c" format (OpenType/CFF form). (Run a "pdffonts" command on the PDF files to see this.) 3. Relying on standard fonts: If the LaTeX document specifies font "times", ps2pdf and dvipdf do not embed a font for the text, relying instead on the standard Acrobat fonts (Times, etc.) dvipdfm embeds Nimbus-RomNo9L for Times. On screen this is certainly not a look-alike replacement, but in print both versions appeared to print with the same TimesRoman font (on an HP LaserJet 1200). 4. Kerning: In print, the dvipdfm version kerns letters slightly farther apart, which in my opinion made the text more readable. 5. Default margin: dvipdfm sets default margins of 1.0in at the top and side. The top margin for ps2pdf output is about 0.25in less. --rc _______________________________________________ Gregorio-devel mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/gregorio-devel
