Acfording to the guy who once printed some posters for me you can always
convert the jpeg to some non-lossy format (tif), do your changes and then
save back to jpeg. Is that incorrect?
Den 4 aug 2014 23:54 skrev Stefan Solbrig stefan.solb...@ur.de:
OK, I can see that 'JFIF' in the tombe.jpg
2014-08-06 13:31 GMT+02:00 BPJ b...@melroch.se:
Acfording to the guy who once printed some posters for me you can always
convert the jpeg to some non-lossy format (tif), do your changes and then
save back to jpeg. Is that incorrect?
Not exactly. It is of course better than saving repeatedly to
On 2014-08-04 13:50, Stefan Solbrig wrote:
The following two commands will set all resolution metadata known to
exiftool to 300.
exiftool -'*Resolution'=300 image.jpg
I haven't done a thorough testing of this tool, but for OP's image, it
worked. (The command might need some refinement,
Turns out we've also been bit by this problem... please see my questions
below.
On 2014-08-04 01:55, Heiko Oberdiek wrote:
On 04.08.2014 01:27, Gildas Hamel wrote:
I append the jpg file (tombe.jpg).
The resolution data in tombe.jpg are inconsistent:
* JFIF header: 72 DPI
* EXIF header: 300
On 04.08.2014 19:50, Stefan Solbrig wrote:
Turns out we've also been bit by this problem... please see my
questions below.
On 2014-08-04 01:55, Heiko Oberdiek wrote:
On 04.08.2014 01:27, Gildas Hamel wrote:
I append the jpg file (tombe.jpg).
The resolution data in tombe.jpg are
Mike Maxwell (me) wrote:
I'm looking at one of our
jpgs in a text editor, and while I see the string Exif near the
top,
I don't see any jfif-like string.
Stefan Solbrig wrote:
You can find 'JFIF' of tombe.jpg at position 6, meaning, there are
six other bytes before the string.
OK, I can
OK, I can see that 'JFIF' in the tombe.jpg file. But it turns out
it's not in my file at all, only the 'Exif' header is there. Our
sysadmin guys haven't installed the suggested exiftool tool yet;
presumably exiftool will be capable of *adding* the JFIF header
(which I gather should come
2014-08-04 23:52 GMT+02:00 Stefan Solbrig stefan.solb...@ur.de:
OK, I can see that 'JFIF' in the tombe.jpg file. But it turns out it's
not in my file at all, only the 'Exif' header is there. Our sysadmin guys
haven't installed the suggested exiftool tool yet; presumably exiftool will
be
On Aug 3, 2014, at 6:27 PM, Gildas Hamel gwel...@ucsc.edu wrote:
% !TEX TS-program = xelatexmk
% !TEX encoding = UTF-8 Unicode
\documentclass[12pt]{article}
\usepackage{fontspec}
\usepackage{lipsum}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\begin{document}
\lipsum
\begin{figure}[h]
On 4 Aug 2014, at 00:48, Herbert Schulz he...@wideopenwest.com wrote:
On Aug 3, 2014, at 6:27 PM, Gildas Hamel gwel...@ucsc.edu wrote:
% !TEX TS-program = xelatexmk
% !TEX encoding = UTF-8 Unicode
\documentclass[12pt]{article}
\usepackage{fontspec}
\usepackage{lipsum}
On Aug 3, 2014, at 17:48, Elliott Roper elli...@yrl.co.uk wrote:
On 4 Aug 2014, at 00:48, Herbert Schulz he...@wideopenwest.com wrote:
On Aug 3, 2014, at 6:27 PM, Gildas Hamel gwel...@ucsc.edu wrote:
% !TEX TS-program = xelatexmk
% !TEX encoding = UTF-8 Unicode
On Aug 3, 2014, at 17:48, Elliott Roper elli...@yrl.co.uk wrote:
On 4 Aug 2014, at 00:48, Herbert Schulz he...@wideopenwest.com wrote:
On Aug 3, 2014, at 6:27 PM, Gildas Hamel gwel...@ucsc.edu wrote:
% !TEX TS-program = xelatexmk
% !TEX encoding = UTF-8 Unicode
On 04.08.2014 01:27, Gildas Hamel wrote:
I append the jpg file (tombe.jpg).
The resolution data in tombe.jpg are inconsistent:
* JFIF header: 72 DPI
* EXIF header: 300 DPI
Apparently XeTeX uses the EXIF header, whereas xdvipdfmx the JFIF header
(or vice versa).
It would be nice, if the TeX
13 matches
Mail list logo
