dvipdf vs buildt-in converter to pdf??

dvipdf vs buildt-in converter to pdf??

[pop]

Emacs does not use 'dvipdf' when it converts dvi files to pdf.

I prefer using 'dvipdf' because I only need to have an .eps version of the 
images I would like to include in my .tex files.

Why does emacs not use 'dvipdf' and is there any flaws to this converter 
compared to the one emacs use?? 

Re: dvipdf vs buildt-in converter to pdf??

[Tim X]

"pop" <asd@asd.com> writes:

> Emacs does not use 'dvipdf' when it converts dvi files to pdf.
>
> I prefer using 'dvipdf' because I only need to have an .eps version of the 
> images I would like to include in my .tex files.
>
> Why does emacs not use 'dvipdf' and is there any flaws to this converter 
> compared to the one emacs use?? 
>

Not enough information to provide a concise answer. For example, are
you using auctex mode to create your documents? 

Your problem discription is a bit confusing. I don't see what dvipdf
has to do with putting images into a tex file. There are a number of
packages for putting images of various types into tex/latex documents.
Under Latex, I regularly use the graphics/graphicx packages to embed
.eps, .gif and .png images into latex files. Once I run the latex
command to get the dvi file, I then use either dvips or dvipdf,
depending on whether I want a PS or PDF file for the finished
document. 

Ntoe that the dvi* programs available to emacs depends on what
tex/latex distribution/packages you have installed (i.e. tetex,
texlive etc). The program emacs uses is not part of emacs and
therefore, it is possible to change what emacs uses. However, there is
not enough detail in your question to give a more precise answer.

HTH

Tim

-- 
tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au

Re: dvipdf vs buildt-in converter to pdf??

[pop]

Tim X wrote:

> "pop" <asd@asd.com> writes:
> 
>> Emacs does not use 'dvipdf' when it converts dvi files to pdf.
>>
>> I prefer using 'dvipdf' because I only need to have an .eps version of
>> the images I would like to include in my .tex files.
>>
>> Why does emacs not use 'dvipdf' and is there any flaws to this converter
>> compared to the one emacs use??
>>
> 
> Not enough information to provide a concise answer. For example, are
> you using auctex mode to create your documents?


I use auctex. If I use latex built-in 'pdflatex' I need to have my pictures
in a .pdf format. But if I just want to see the dvi output I need to have
them in .eps. So far I have had both a .pdf version and a .eps version of
the pictures and included them like:

\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=10cm]{pic1}
\end{center}

where pic1.pdf and pic1.eps are located in the same dir as my .tex file.

But now I just found out that if I use dvipdf instead of pdflatex I don't
need to have the .pdf versions of my pictures, which saves me for a lot of
work.

Therefore I would like to know what the difference is between using 'dvipdf'
and 'pdflatex' (besides from the obvious advantage of only using .eps
files).

Re: dvipdf vs buildt-in converter to pdf??

[Peter Dyballa]

Am 15.07.2006 um 08:36 schrieb pop:

> I use auctex. If I use latex built-in 'pdflatex' I need to have my  
> pictures
> in a .pdf format. But if I just want to see the dvi output I need  
> to have
> them in .eps. So far I have had both a .pdf version and a .eps  
> version of
> the pictures and included them like:

Have you thought of a PDF viewer as substitute for xdvi? There are  
free ones that work better then commercial products. When you have  
teTeX you can use texdoc as universal script to view teTeX  
documentation or as tex-dvi-view-command.

IMO the route with DVI output is out-dated. PDF is the way today.  
Tomorrow: ?

You could try to set tex-dvi-print-command to a script that uses  
dvipdfm to convert DVI to PDF -- and in the end it should print the  
PDF file (or use tex-alt-dvi-print-command for this purpose).

Or, set *tex-run-command(s) to scripts that do two things: invoking  
some *TeX engine (plain tex, latex, xetex, xelatex, slitex, ...) +  
upon success dvipdfm.


pdfTeX also supports PNG, GIF, JPEG, and could be TIFF, too, but no  
PS or EPS. Ps4pdf or pstricks have learned to convert (E)PS to PDF on  
the fly.

--
Greetings

   Pete

"Let's face it; we don't want a free market economy either."
         James Farley, president, Coca-Cola Export Corp., 1959

Re: dvipdf vs buildt-in converter to pdf??

[Ralf Angeli]

* Peter Dyballa (2006-07-15) writes:

> Am 15.07.2006 um 08:36 schrieb pop:
>
>> I use auctex. If I use latex built-in 'pdflatex' I need to have my  
>> pictures
>> in a .pdf format. But if I just want to see the dvi output I need  
>> to have
>> them in .eps. So far I have had both a .pdf version and a .eps  
>> version of
>> the pictures and included them like:
>
> Have you thought of a PDF viewer as substitute for xdvi? There are  
> free ones that work better then commercial products. When you have  
> teTeX you can use texdoc as universal script to view teTeX  
> documentation or as tex-dvi-view-command.
>
> IMO the route with DVI output is out-dated. PDF is the way today.  

Unless you want an extraordinarily fast previewer which supports
forward and inverse search as well.

> You could try to set tex-dvi-print-command to a script that uses  
> dvipdfm to convert DVI to PDF -- and in the end it should print the  
> PDF file (or use tex-alt-dvi-print-command for this purpose).
>
> Or, set *tex-run-command(s) to scripts that do two things: invoking  
> some *TeX engine (plain tex, latex, xetex, xelatex, slitex, ...) +  
> upon success dvipdfm.

Those variables are totally unrelated to AUCTeX which the OP is using
as mentioned above.

-- 
Ralf

Re: dvipdf vs buildt-in converter to pdf??

[David Kastrup]

Peter Dyballa <Peter_Dyballa@Web.DE> writes:

> Am 15.07.2006 um 08:36 schrieb pop:
>
>> I use auctex. If I use latex built-in 'pdflatex' I need to have my
>> pictures
>> in a .pdf format. But if I just want to see the dvi output I need
>> to have
>> them in .eps. So far I have had both a .pdf version and a .eps
>> version of
>> the pictures and included them like:
>
> Have you thought of a PDF viewer as substitute for xdvi? There are
> free ones that work better then commercial products. When you have
> teTeX you can use texdoc as universal script to view teTeX
> documentation or as tex-dvi-view-command.
>
> IMO the route with DVI output is out-dated. PDF is the way today.

Outdated or not, DVI viewers beat the pants off PDF in terms of
viewing speed and user interface (they offer reasonably well working
forward and backward search using Source Specials, for example).

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: dvipdf vs buildt-in converter to pdf??

[Leon]

David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:

> Peter Dyballa <Peter_Dyballa@Web.DE> writes:
>
>> Am 15.07.2006 um 08:36 schrieb pop:
>>
>>> I use auctex. If I use latex built-in 'pdflatex' I need to have my
>>> pictures
>>> in a .pdf format. But if I just want to see the dvi output I need
>>> to have
>>> them in .eps. So far I have had both a .pdf version and a .eps
>>> version of
>>> the pictures and included them like:
>>
>> Have you thought of a PDF viewer as substitute for xdvi? There are
>> free ones that work better then commercial products. When you have
>> teTeX you can use texdoc as universal script to view teTeX
>> documentation or as tex-dvi-view-command.
>>
>> IMO the route with DVI output is out-dated. PDF is the way today.
>
> Outdated or not, DVI viewers beat the pants off PDF in terms of
> viewing speed and user interface (they offer reasonably well working
> forward and backward search using Source Specials, for example).

Which DVI viewer are you using?

My xdvi that comes with texlive2005 does not run
as fast as xpdf.

-- 
Leon

Re: dvipdf vs buildt-in converter to pdf??

[Peter Dyballa]

Am 15.07.2006 um 12:47 schrieb Leon:

> Which DVI viewer are you using?

I am on Mac OS X which has no "native" DVI viewer. Xdvi runs, of  
course, as an X11 client. The "Aqua clients" TeXniscope or TeXShop  
(the best PDF viewer you can find) convert DVI to PDF via dvipdfmx or  
dvipdfm (teTeX supports MAP files automatically). TeXShop "sees" that  
the source (at least PDF) has changed and automatically updates. I've  
set TeXShop as viewer application for a few TeX document formats in  
texdoc. So it's texdoc that is used from AUCTeX to display everything  
for which GNU Emacs does not suffice.

There is another problem with dvipdfm (besides it lacks support in  
AUCTeX): it's dead (but not complete; or do you see for example  
support for TTF or OTF fonts?). Development happens in dvipdfmx (and  
xdvipdfmx for XeTeX output), which also supports CJK text (maybe more).

--
Greetings

   Pete

Behold the warranty ... the bold print giveth and the fine print  
taketh away.

Re: dvipdf vs buildt-in converter to pdf??

[David Kastrup]

Leon <sdl.web@gmail.com> writes:

> David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> Peter Dyballa <Peter_Dyballa@Web.DE> writes:
>>
>>> Am 15.07.2006 um 08:36 schrieb pop:
>>>
>>>> I use auctex. If I use latex built-in 'pdflatex' I need to have my
>>>> pictures
>>>> in a .pdf format. But if I just want to see the dvi output I need
>>>> to have
>>>> them in .eps. So far I have had both a .pdf version and a .eps
>>>> version of
>>>> the pictures and included them like:
>>>
>>> Have you thought of a PDF viewer as substitute for xdvi? There are
>>> free ones that work better then commercial products. When you have
>>> teTeX you can use texdoc as universal script to view teTeX
>>> documentation or as tex-dvi-view-command.
>>>
>>> IMO the route with DVI output is out-dated. PDF is the way today.
>>
>> Outdated or not, DVI viewers beat the pants off PDF in terms of
>> viewing speed and user interface (they offer reasonably well working
>> forward and backward search using Source Specials, for example).
>
> Which DVI viewer are you using?
>
> My xdvi that comes with texlive2005 does not run
> as fast as xpdf.

Come again?  I can lean on page-down, and let autorepeat do the rest.
And in fact, I could do this on a 486 already.  In contrast, xpdf does
not keep up with autorepeat, still.  And that's on a 1GHz Pentium III.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: dvipdf vs buildt-in converter to pdf??

[Tim X]

pop <asd@asd.com> writes:

> Tim X wrote:
>
>> "pop" <asd@asd.com> writes:
>> 
>>> Emacs does not use 'dvipdf' when it converts dvi files to pdf.
>>>
>>> I prefer using 'dvipdf' because I only need to have an .eps version of
>>> the images I would like to include in my .tex files.
>>>
>>> Why does emacs not use 'dvipdf' and is there any flaws to this converter
>>> compared to the one emacs use??
>>>
>> 
>> Not enough information to provide a concise answer. For example, are
>> you using auctex mode to create your documents?
>
>
> I use auctex. If I use latex built-in 'pdflatex' I need to have my pictures
> in a .pdf format. But if I just want to see the dvi output I need to have
> them in .eps. So far I have had both a .pdf version and a .eps version of
> the pictures and included them like:
>
> \begin{center}
> \includegraphics[width=10cm]{pic1}
> \end{center}
>
> where pic1.pdf and pic1.eps are located in the same dir as my .tex file.
>
> But now I just found out that if I use dvipdf instead of pdflatex I don't
> need to have the .pdf versions of my pictures, which saves me for a lot of
> work.
>
> Therefore I would like to know what the difference is between using 'dvipdf'
> and 'pdflatex' (besides from the obvious advantage of only using .eps
> files).

I guess we have different modes of operation. This is what I do

1. Create the image files - either .eps, .gif, .png etc
2. Create my Latex doc with emacs and auctex
3. Use command similar to yours to embed image
4. Hit C-c C-c to run latex and get a dvi file
5. View with C-c C-c again (using xdvi). All images are visible (at
least if they are .eps, can't remember about .gif and .png). 
6. If more work required, go back to 2 and repeat until final document
looks correct
7. Run dvipdf on dvi file to produce pdf version

This works fine for me using tetex as my TeX/LaTeX implementation. I
don't understand why the additional process of creating a PDF file
just to view it - thats the last step I do prior to printing or
sending to someone else. I have no problems viewing files with a fair
few images - but on average, the documents I'm working on are around
the 20-40 page size and rarely exceed 100 pages. Often, if I'm going
to print the document and I am using a postscript or specific
device/printer, I may use one of the more specific dvi* as I think you
get a more reliable result and it seems to make no sense to go through
an additional processing/translation when you are only going to print
the file. 

Tim
-- 
tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au