[latexrefman] if it has been rotated by -90 then it will have zero height but a large depth.
vincent.belaiche at gmail.com
Fri Jun 5 22:50:05 CEST 2020
The discussion is that the statement « if it was rotated » was unclear
to me, when I wrote the email in the first place I was unaware of the
angle & origin \includegraphics options (I always used \rotatebox) and
I also missed the point about default origin (I had a misconception
that the default was c, but it is lB).
So I even wondered we meant that the graphic file was obtained by
rotating some other graphic files by some external command like
magick convert standing_vincent.jpg -rotate -90 lying_vincent.jpg
Then how the height/depth stuff will be arranged really depend on the
And if I use \rotatebox, then it will be outside the \includegraphics,
not inside, so I would do
Even with \rotatebox it really depends on the origin, if origin=c then
you get equal depth and height, don't you ?
So, OK, in the end I noticed that there are these angle & origin
options --- I did not know about them.
OK so may be we should just replace « if it was rotated » by « if it
was rotated with option angle=-90 and option origin left to default »
for the unaware reader to look further in the description.
Le jeu. 4 juin 2020 à 00:57, Hefferon, Jim S. <jhefferon at smcvt.edu> a écrit :
> I'm sorry, I don't understand the question. I understand -90 to be a valid input. The discussion is about why height\neq totalheight.
> From: latexrefman <latexrefman-bounces+jhefferon=smcvt.edu at tug.org> on behalf of Vincent Belaïche <vincent.belaiche at gmail.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2020 14:20
> To: latexrefman
> Subject: [latexrefman] if it has been rotated by -90 then it will have zero height but a large depth.
> ⚠ External Sender ⚠
> This text is part of @node \includegraphics / @item totalheight.
> I am a bit puzzled, do we speak about a -90° rotation, or a -180°
> rotation ie making it upside down?
More information about the latexrefman