[texhax] Illustrations from other books
martin at oneiros.de
Mon Sep 26 00:31:01 CEST 2005
On 2005-09-25 10:22:06 -0700, pierre.mackay wrote:
> It depends not so much on TeX as on the driver you use for printing.
> Dvips is wonderfully helpful in this respect, and that is one of the
> reasons to retain the extra step TeX -> PostScript -> PDF.
> Scan, (or photograph with a digital camera) and use GIMP to convert to
> Encapsulated PostScript (EPS) files. I suggest photography for any
> half-tone in which you can sense the screening, because direct scanning
> tends to give you a very precise picture of the screened dots. 300 dots
> per inch is all you need for half-tones, but if you want really sharp
> black and white line art, you will have to learn some techniques in GIMP
> and work from as much as 1200 DPI.
> Dvips will allow you precise placement and scaling of the EPS results.
> Take a look at the University of California journal Classical Antiquity
> if you would like to see some results of dvips placement of EPS files.
> Issue 23.1 after page 93 will show (Figures 4 and 6) what the risks of
> getting too precise a picture of the half-tone screen are.
All this can be done with pdfTeX, if you convert your scans to
pdf (or png or jpeg).
More information about the texhax