On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Benedict Holland <
benedict.m.holl...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Sorry about the last email. I tried a complex one from my phone and I
> shouldn't have bothered. It is very possible that latex natively supports
> .eps.

The problem is that the above sentence "Latex natively supports natively
eps" is neither true nor false. It all depends on which output format you
direct Latex to (or, rather, TeX). If you use LaTeX to produce .ps
(postscript) files, then, yes, native inclusion of EPS is supported, while
pdf is not. If you use LaTeX to produce pdf (for instance, as it is most
common, by using the pdftex backend) then eps is *not* supported, while pdf
is. (I am not going into *how* you can produce different formats with the
many different TeX backends now available, as there are numerous,
overlapping possibilities. Suffice it to say that the most common option is
to use pdftex, which can output either .ps and .pdf. The user's manual has
details for those interested.)

LyX tries to take care of this (and many other) discrepancies by using
imagemagick's facilities to convert back and forth among the various
graphics formats. Often, though, it is better to avoid this
behind-the-scene magic by inserting the images in the graphics format
directly supported by the output format one is aiming for (.ps .pdf, etc.)

All this is explained in the user's manual, BTW, sec. 3.8.2 "Output file



Stefano Franchi
Associate Research Professor
Department of Hispanic Studies         Ph:   +1 (979) 845-2125
Texas A&M University                          Fax:  +1 (979) 845-6421
College Station, Texas, USA


Reply via email to