Dear all,
I have just (within the last week or so, using the 2.0.0 svn development
code, which I've kept up with and compiled) started having problems using XFig
figures within LyX.
Previously (and the mechanism is still there), to insert an XFig figure, I'd
use the "external material" insert, and choose the "xfig" type. Currently, if I
do that, the preview will no longer show up in LyX, and upon trying to compile
the document, a message complaining of a missing figure will show up, with a
mangled path to the file. *However*, quite by accident, I found that inserting
the XFig file as a regular graphic (such as a .jpeg or .pdf) now seems to work.
Is this going to be a long-term change to the code? It'll certainly make things
more consistent to my mind, so long as the documentation is fixed, too.
--C.O.
/************************************
Down with categorical imperative!
flutz...@yahoo.com
************************************/
________________________________
From: Helge Hafting <helge.haft...@hist.no>
To: Steve Litt <sl...@troubleshooters.com>
Cc: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org
Sent: Monday, May 25, 2009 4:36:08 AM
Subject: Re: Is PDF the best graphic format for LyX?
Steve Litt wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Is it my imagination, or do things go MUCH better when graphics included in a
> LyX diagram are PDFs? That's what I've found. I've found them infinitely and
> continuously scalable, and if I create the PDF with "embed fonts", I think
> they work anywhere.
>
> I'm so old I remember the days when LyX seemed to work reliably only with
> .eps. THen it could work with .png/.jpg/.gif. But nowadays my personal
> experience is that PDF images inside the doc work much better than any of
> those other formats ever did. Is this a placebo effect, or do PDFs really
> work much, much better as LyX doc graphics?
Any supported vector format ought to look fine, or there is a bug. There should
be no difference between pdf and eps images. PDF might compile faster with
pdflatex though.
The problem with bitmaps is that screens have different resolutions, and even a
cheap printer has much much higher resolution than an expensive big screen. And
good printers have much better resolution than that.
So, a jpeg that looks good printed on a photosetter or something will have to
be one huge file, maybe a full-resolution image from a good camera. But such a
big file will render slowly on a computer, and it will not be necessary to look
good on a screen.
Helge Hafting
