Dmytro O. Redchuk schrieb: > 2008/11/13 Peter Nermander <peter at nermander.se>: >> It is useful to know that Scribus (as far as I know) uses ghostscript for >> this import. To see if the file renders correctly by ghostscript you could >> use gv or GhostView. >> >> If they can not show it correctly, Scribus can not rasterize it correctly. > Well, that's why i'm worrying. > > A little "test", one bar "music": > PS by LilyPond: http://brownian.org.ua/plain/scribus/first-barno.ps (468K) > PDF by LilyPond: http://brownian.org.ua/plain/scribus/first-barno.pdf (20K) > > PS was imported into Scribus document and exported as PDF: > http://brownian.org.ua/plain/scribus/first-barno-scribus.pdf (17K) > > Note stems... So, first two files look good in ghostview, kpdf etc. > and acroread. > > The third one looks bad. > > That's why i'm worrying. > > Scribus 1.3.4, 2007-05-27, C-C-T-F-C, using Ghostscript 8.15.4. > Linux. > >> /Peter > Have just committed some changes to 1.5.5svn, which fixed the incorrect parsing of the rectfill and rectstroke postscript commands. So the exported pdf will now look much better.
Franz Schmid
