On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Gökhan Sever <gokhansever@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 10:08 AM, Jae-Joon Lee <lee.j.joon@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 9:56 PM, Gökhan Sever <gokhansever@gmail.com> wrote:
> What could be causing this discrepancy? Is there any way to use an
> alternative PS creator with MPL? or an option to increase e.g. bits per
> pixel option somewhere in the configuration?

There can be a lot of things. However, you cannot just say one is
better than the other  based on how it looks on your monitor screen.
As far as I can tell, postscript is best for printing, but not very
optimal for your monitor screen.

I printed the PNG and PS file. The result looks same on paper as well. I was comparing the two ps file one from IDL one from MPL. IDL looks neat both on the screen and printed.

While matplotlib with the xpdf distiller could be better than
ghostsrcipt one in this regard, but, again, postscipt on your monitor
screen does not make much sense, at least to me.


OK, here is one more comparison.

I use xpdf distiller, and set the pdf comparison to 0 in the rc file.


PS and EPS outputs are almost alike to my eye. Setting ps.distiller.res to 6000 DPI doesn't make a difference either. PDF backend produces the highest quality output. However the problem with that I can't include pdf images on a regular OpenOffice document :(

With xpdf the line is plotted blue correctly as it is seen on my screen. Before it was drawing a red-line.


It seems like ps.distiller.res parameter doesn't have an effect on the output ps file. I set this to 60 and 6000 and 60000 it all produces same sized same looking figures. Any ideas?