LaTeX to PDF doesn't look good on screen
Erik Neumann
I'm wondering why converting my LaTeX file to a PDF looks bad on the screen?
The letters look jaggy & blurry. Printouts look great.
I'm using MikTeX then dvips and then Adobe Distiller (on Windows 98).
Note that using Yap to preview the .dvi file looks great on screen.
Is there some screen font issue? If so, why does Yap do better than PDF?
I would like to use the PDF to display math on a website.
Thanks for any advice,
Erik Neumann eri...@myphysicslab.com
Ben Morrow
>Hello,
>
>I'm wondering why converting my LaTeX file to a PDF looks bad on the screen?
>
>The letters look jaggy & blurry. Printouts look great.
>
Either use pdflatex (instead of latex) or read
http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html?label=dvips-pdf
Ben
Ben Crowell
which does tex->pdf in one step? Works great!
Brendan Mahony
\usepackage{times}
and things should improve.
Tom Royer
>
> You are probably using the bit-mapped CM fonts. Add something like
>
> \usepackage{times}
That's OK for the base text, but what about equations?
>
> and things should improve.
>
> Erik Neumann wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > I'm wondering why converting my LaTeX file to a PDF looks bad on the screen?
> >
> > The letters look jaggy & blurry. Printouts look great.
> >
> > I'm using MikTeX then dvips and then Adobe Distiller (on Windows 98).
> >
> > Note that using Yap to preview the .dvi file looks great on screen.
> >
> > Is there some screen font issue? If so, why does Yap do better than PDF?
> >
> > I would like to use the PDF to display math on a website.
> >
> > Thanks for any advice,
> >
> > Erik Neumann eri...@myphysicslab.com
--
Tom Royer
Lead Engineer, Software Test
The MITRE Corporation
202 Burlington Road
Bedford, MA 01730
Voice: (781) 271-8399
FAX: (781) 271-8500
tro...@mitre.org
"If you're not free to fail, you're not free." --Gene Burns
Olaf Dietrich
> Brendan Mahony wrote:
>>
>> \usepackage{times}
>
> That's OK for the base text, but what about equations?
times.sty is obsolete, use mathptmx.sty instead
(both are/were part of the PSNFSS package).
Olaf
--
Before posting to comp.text.tex, see:
- LaTeX Introduction <URL:http://www.ctan.org/tex-archive/info/lshort/english/>
- Symbol List <URL:http://www.ctan.org/tex-archive/info/symbols/comprehensive/>
- UK TeX FAQ <URL:http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html?introduction=yes>
Erik Neumann
news:9ebdffd1.01102...@posting.google.com...
> Going tex->dvi->ps->pdf is the hard way. Why not just use pdftex,
> which does tex->pdf in one step? Works great!
Hey, I tried pdflatex and it works great... text and math looks good on
screen.
However I have to convert all my .eps graphics to .pdf beforehand with
epstopdf file.eps
Does anyone know a handy script to do this to a bunch of files in MSDOS?
How would I use pdftex instead of pdflatex? Does it not have the
restriction on .eps files?
Thanks for the help.
__________________________________________
Erik Neumann eri...@myphysicslab.com
David Naughton
<snip>
> I'm using MikTeX then dvips and then Adobe Distiller (on Windows 98).
Are you using the options -Ppdf -G0 when running dvips ?
<snip>
Ciao
Dave
Joost Kremers
> Erik Neumann wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> I'm using MikTeX then dvips and then Adobe Distiller (on Windows 98).
>
> Are you using the options -Ppdf -G0 when running dvips ?
and another important question: is your gs recent enough?
--
Joost Kremers
registered Linux user #230173
Life has its moments
pi...@cs.uu.nl
EN> "Ben Crowell" <ben_c...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
EN> news:9ebdffd1.01102...@posting.google.com...
>> Going tex->dvi->ps->pdf is the hard way. Why not just use pdftex,
>> which does tex->pdf in one step? Works great!
EN> Hey, I tried pdflatex and it works great... text and math looks good on
EN> screen.
EN> However I have to convert all my .eps graphics to .pdf beforehand with
EN> epstopdf file.eps
EN> Does anyone know a handy script to do this to a bunch of files in MSDOS?
for %f in (*.eps) do epstopdf %f
EN> How would I use pdftex instead of pdflatex? Does it not have the
EN> restriction on .eps files?
Yes, it's the same: pdflatex is just pdftex with the latex format.
--
Piet van Oostrum <pi...@cs.uu.nl>
URL: http://www.cs.uu.nl/~piet [PGP]
Private email: P.van....@hccnet.nl
Erik Neumann
that it sets the 'printer' to be 'pdf'. I'll try that.
The dvips documentation is silent about a -G0 option... what does that do?
In reply to Joost Kremers: my version of Ghostscript is 7.00 (freshly
downloaded a couple weeks ago).
____________________________________
Erik Neumann eri...@myphysicslab.com
"David Naughton" <dav...@ee.ucd.ie> wrote in message
news:newscache$scc1mg$at2$1...@weblab.ucd.ie...
Joost Kremers
> Ah, the -Ppdf option looks interesting... I see from the dvips documentation
> that it sets the 'printer' to be 'pdf'. I'll try that.
>
> The dvips documentation is silent about a -G0 option... what does that do?
i dont know... and to be honest, i dont use it...
> In reply to Joost Kremers: my version of Ghostscript is 7.00 (freshly
> downloaded a couple weeks ago).
that should be recent enough... i had the same problem as you, and
then it was a matter of having a (very) old gs. so i thought i just
mention it.
the thing is, in order for the pdf output to look good, you need ps
type1 versions of the fonts you use, and you need a recent enough
version of gs (>6.00) in order to embed the type1 fonts into the pdf
file. if you have all that, and use the -Ppdf option (or use dvipdfm
to generate pdf from the dvi file) you should be ok.
Robin Fairbairns
>Ah, the -Ppdf option looks interesting... I see from the dvips documentation
>that it sets the 'printer' to be 'pdf'. I'll try that.
not really: -P loads a configuration file; that file may contain all
sorts of stuff, and there certainly are some that don't stand alone.
-Ppdf loads a set of configurations appropriate for use when
generating postscript for distillation.
>The dvips documentation is silent about a -G0 option... what does that do?
-G is a binary switch that says "remap characters". some (older)
versions of adobe acrobat reader would misbehave if offered characters
in the ascii non-printable range (0-31). -G1 remaps those characters
to positions above 160, which is fine if your font doesn't already
have characters in that range (the cm family satisfy that
requirement).
since -Ppdf "selects -G1", and since the broken acroreaders are all
pretty old now, the common suggestion is -Ppdf -G0, just in case the
user is using an adobe (or similar) font that _does_ have characters
above 160.
--
Robin Fairbairns, Cambridge -- rf10 at cam dot ac dot uk
Sven Utcke
> Ah, the -Ppdf option looks interesting... I see from the dvips documentation
> that it sets the 'printer' to be 'pdf'. I'll try that.
Of course, this only works if you do have Type-1 fonts installed, in
which case dvips should print something like
...<cmr12.pfb>...
somewhere (ore some other *.pfb).
> In reply to Joost Kremers: my version of Ghostscript is 7.00 (freshly
> downloaded a couple weeks ago).
Life's a bitch:
Pretty much any 6.x and 7.x version would work, but 7.0 does not...
Sven
--
_ __ The Cognitive Systems Group
| |/ /___ __ _ ___ University of Hamburg
| ' </ _ \/ _` (_-< phone: +49 (0)40 42883-2576 Vogt-Koelln-Strasse 30
|_|\_\___/\__, /__/ fax : +49 (0)40 42883-2572 D-22527 Hamburg
|___/ http://kogs-www.informatik.uni-hamburg.de/~utcke/home.html
António Antunes
('\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}') since I write a lot of documents in Portuguese
('\usepackage[portuges]{babel}']), and that allows for proper hyphenation. This
encoding uses EC fonts, for which there are no PS type1 files. My understanding
is that raster fonts are generated for the postscript display. When the
conversion is made to pdf by Ghostscript, these bitmap fonts are used. They
don't display very well in Acrobat Reader. So I made the following:
1) Installed the 'aeguill' package, which uses the CM family fonts to simulate
EC fonts.
2) Used option 'ae' in this package ('\usepackage[ae]{aeguill}') to simulate the
guillemet ('«' and '»') symbols, which end up being the only characters
displayed by Acrobat using bitmap fonts. (You can use other options that even
generate non-bitmap guillemets.)
I have used this approach for some time now, and the results have been
excellent.
Erik Neumann wrote:
--
António Armando Antunes
Faculdade de Economia
Universidade Nova de Lisboa
Campus de Campolide, 1099 - 032 Lisboa (Portugal)
a...@fe.unl.pt
aaan...@mail.telepac.pt
Olivier Crouzet
On Thu, 08 Nov 2001 10:06:41 +0000, António Antunes wrote:
> I have found the same problem. I usually use T1 font encoding
> 1) Installed the 'aeguill' package, which uses the CM family fonts to
simulate
> EC fonts.
> 2) Used option 'ae' in this package ('\usepackage[ae]{aeguill}') to
simulate the
> guillemet ('«' and '»') symbols, which end up being the only characters
> displayed by Acrobat using bitmap fonts. (You can use other options that
even
> generate non-bitmap guillemets.)
>
You may now use the cm-super type1 fonts (available on CTAN), this package
provides cm-like fonts with t1 encoding (guillemets, ...).
Olivier.
--
Olivier Crouzet
Human and Machine Perception Research Centre
Keele University