Re: difference in output between postscript and pdf terminal
- From: Francky Leyn <francky.leyn@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 07 May 2008 14:32:26 +0200
Hello,
I believe I'm in the defensive...
The best medicine for that is going into the
offense, what I will do in the following.
Sorry, I disagree FULLY with the above.
First some general idea's.
I use LaTeX to generate postscipt.
Included plots are in eps, and occur
unchanged/verbatim in the document
postscript (tex-dvi-ps path).
I use pdfLaTeX to generate pdf.
Included plots are in pdf, and occur
unchanged/verbatim in the document
pdf (tex-pdf path).
The advantage of the LaTeX path is
that one can use packages like pstricks.
The advantage of the pdfLaTeX path is
that one can have hyphenated hyperlinks,
something which is at the moment impossible
with the LaTeX path. I need this func-
tionality, and that is why I consider the
LaTeX path obsolete, despite its nice
features like pstrics. The consequence
is that pdf is my primary input/output.
Suppose that for some reason, I still need
the LaTeX path with postscript in-/output.
Then I expect that gnuplot is able to
provide me both postscript AND pdf, starting
from the same source. By changing the terminal
type and the outputfile extension, I must get
postscript/pdf. I expect that the result is
the same. The included plots must be have the
same size, the same fonts, the same offsets,
and so on.
Lets look at a similar situation: Xfig.
The Xfig has as export tool fig2dev.
Starting from the fig file generated by Xfig,
different output formats can be generated on
request. Eg: you draw a figure and obtain a
fig file. If one exports to postscript one
obtains a postscript file. Suppose we put
that on a slide. We do the same for the pdf
output format. Well, the slide of the postscript
and the pdf will PERFECTLY overlay. There won't be
a single difference.
In the Xfig case the fig format is the GENERIC format.
The export routines are just that: they conver the
GENERIC format into an application specific format.
If we now take the gnuplot scripting language:
the gnuplot input format is the GENERIC format.
No matter to what one exports, the result should be
the SAME. If I tune a certain gnuplot input in
order to be typographically correct, I expect it
to be correct in ALL output formats. If I make that
the font sizes are correct for the different type
of labels, if I make that the label offsets are
correct, and so one, if I do all that fine tunning,
I expect that my work and effort is visible/obtainable
in ALL output formats. Once more: the gnuplot input
format should be GENERIC.
Ok, one can convert postscript to pdf. Then one fine
tunes the output ps. With ps2pdf one obtains the
coresponding pdf. I dislike this because one needs
an additional external tool: ps2pdf (wich is obsolete
I heard from the author).
Moreover, the above is only a good way to go if
postscript is yur primary output language. In my case
pdf is the primary output language. If I then
want to obtain ps, I need pdf2ps. Sorry, these are
all workarounds.
If I thus want the same output for both formats,
I need 2 (or as many as there are out formats) DIFFERENT
gnuplot files. this is NON-GENERIC.
Therefore, I had the following idea: I use gnuplot
to generate a fig file. To export to a certain
language, I use the export routine of Xfig, fig2dev,
which is available as a seperate filter exe. That
way I will get, starting from a GENERIC gnuplot file,
both postscript and pdf which are CONSISTENT. Put
them on slide and they will perfectly overlay.
Now there seem to be some problems with the fig terminal
gnuplot, but lets hope these are solvable. Anyway,
I hope you understood my point.
No some individual replies:
>I only use eps output and convert it with epstopdf to pdf if needed.
>The cairopdf terminal (up to now) leads to file sizes which are at
>least twice as large compared to the approach given above.
Output file sizes are of no importance any longer with the
current technolgy of hard disk. The size of hard disks is
determined, not by gnuplot output files (wich have neglectible
size), but by space hungry multimedia files.
>Not sure why you should expect "the output to be equal" - they are
>different formats (albeit vector ones) and may not in general be used in
>the same way. Furthermore, pdf output is created (at least in my ver.
>4.2) using a third party library.
I expect this that the corresponding slides overlay, or that
the page output generated by including the different formats
is EQUAL.
>Both terminals have the facility to set font size and output size - see
>the manual for details. Note, for example: "The default size for
>postscript output is 10 inches x 7 inches. The default for eps output is
>5 x 3.5 inches. The size option changes this to whatever the user
>requests." and "The default size for PDF output is 5 inches by 3 inches.
>The size option changes this to whatever the user requests."
And who has written that in the manual?
This is just an officialisation of something that is
wrong in the first place (at least in my eyes).
Why is the default pdf terminal twice as small as the
default postscript terminal? They should be equal to begin
with.
>An obvious option is to use the postscript terminal (with eps if that's
>what you want - you probably do if you're going to embed your plot in a
>document) and then convert to pdf using utilities such as ps2pdf or
>epstopdf.
Tis requires additional tools. gnuplot should be able to do
the job itself.
The final point is that if one tunes a graph, this tunning
should be valid for ALL output formats.
So, I said what I had to say.
If I was sometimes too hard, I apologise for this.
I'm just disillusioned. I fine tuned multiple graphs
for pdf. However, in the pdf terminal there are some bugs.
I thought: no problem, I switch to postscript and generate
pdf with ps2pdf. Unfortionatly, the postscript plot looks
like shi...
Best regards,
Francky
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: difference in output between postscript and pdf terminal
- From: Lionel B
- Re: difference in output between postscript and pdf terminal
- From: Juergen Wieferink
- Re: difference in output between postscript and pdf terminal
- References:
- difference in output between postscript and pdf terminal
- From: Francky Leyn
- Re: difference in output between postscript and pdf terminal
- From: Lionel B
- difference in output between postscript and pdf terminal
- Prev by Date: Re: difference in output between postscript and pdf terminal
- Next by Date: Re: difference in output between postscript and pdf terminal
- Previous by thread: Re: difference in output between postscript and pdf terminal
- Next by thread: Re: difference in output between postscript and pdf terminal
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
