Re: [Pyx-user] Re: Problem when exporting to pdf via dvipdfm

[Andre W. <wo...@us...>]

Hi Alvaro,

On 16.12.03, Alvaro Tejero Cantero wrote:
> I'm starting to think that this might have also something to do with
> PyX. My evidence comes from a multipart book that I have written in LyX.
> The only chapter with eps figures coming from PyX is giving problems: I
> can convert to postscript with dvips, but then some of the pages are
> missing in gv. Strangely enough, if I print the last of the pages which
> is viewable through GV (and contains a PyX graph) I get the "hidden
> pages" (from number 4 to number 10 or so).
> 
> This happened in a more radical flavour when I put the attached PyX
> graph in the cover of a LaTeX book: the only page showed by GV was
> precisely the cover (although I didn't do the printing test).
> 
> So AFAIK something strange might be happening with PyX's eps output,
> 
> do you have experienced this kind of problems? are my figures buggy?

Well, the PostScript code created by PyX should have a really good
quality. We do have control over all the PostScript written to the
eps output and we have tried to be very accurate regarding the
standards. While there might be bugs in PyX leading to broken
PostScript, we have used it ourselfs for several theses, posters,
quite some papers ... the PostScript seems to be very robust (indeed,
we do have much less problems with broken figures etc. since we use
PyX ourself).

On the other hand, we have observed strange behaviour of ghostscript
from time to time when interpreting PostScript (independend of the
source of the PostScript -- for PyX as well as for other sources). For
example the pattern filling example creates strange output even with
the most recent release of ghostscript (8.11). Many of these problems
are related to the antialiasing mode of ghostscript. But this
antialiasing can be turned off (in ghostview you can troggle it via
"a"). This helps in a lot of cases. However, if your problem remains,
it would be great to try to minimize the example. And then try to
print it on different PostScript printers. Usually PostScript printers
do have much less problems with interpreting the PostScript. But we've
also observed bugs in PostScript interpreters built into printers ...
which we could clearly identfy as bugs in the interpreter.


André

-- 
by  _ _      _    Dr. André Wobst
   / \ \    / )   wo...@us..., http://www.wobsta.de/
  / _ \ \/\/ /    PyX - High quality PostScript figures with Python & TeX
 (_/ \_)_/\_/           visit http://pyx.sourceforge.net/