PDF files look terrible; a better viewer? fonts?

PDF files look terrible; a better viewer? fonts?

Post by charles271.. » Sun, 10 Oct 1999 04:00:00



I have noticed that PDF files look absolutely awful under xpdf; on
Windows 95 I was doing a lot of pdflatex and I hope to do the same now
that I have switched to FreeBSD.  But there must be some way to make the
PDF files look better!

Is there some standard gotcha that I have missed?  Thanks!

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

 
 
 

PDF files look terrible; a better viewer? fonts?

Post by Blaz Zup » Sun, 10 Oct 1999 04:00:00



>I have noticed that PDF files look absolutely awful under xpdf; on
>Windows 95 I was doing a lot of pdflatex and I hope to do the same now
>that I have switched to FreeBSD.  But there must be some way to make the
>PDF files look better!

Use Adobe Acrobat Reader instead. It produces excellent results!

--

Medinet d.o.o., Linhartova 21, 2000 Maribor, Slovenia

 
 
 

PDF files look terrible; a better viewer? fonts?

Post by FreeBSD use » Sun, 10 Oct 1999 04:00:00


Use Adobe Acrobar Reader 4.0 from the ports coolection. They look *exactly*
as they are.

Luis


Quote:> I have noticed that PDF files look absolutely awful under xpdf; on
> Windows 95 I was doing a lot of pdflatex and I hope to do the same now
> that I have switched to FreeBSD.  But there must be some way to make the
> PDF files look better!

> Is there some standard gotcha that I have missed?  Thanks!

> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.

 
 
 

PDF files look terrible; a better viewer? fonts?

Post by German Tischle » Sun, 10 Oct 1999 04:00:00



> I have noticed that PDF files look absolutely awful under xpdf; on
> Windows 95 I was doing a lot of pdflatex and I hope to do the same now
> that I have switched to FreeBSD.  But there must be some way to make the
> PDF files look better!
> Is there some standard gotcha that I have missed?  Thanks!

The linux version of the Acrobat Reader works great. Try that.

--


 
 
 

PDF files look terrible; a better viewer? fonts?

Post by charles271.. » Sun, 10 Oct 1999 04:00:00


Quote:> Use Adobe Acrobar Reader 4.0 from the ports coolection. They look
> *exactly* as they are.

I made a test*file with just a couple of sentences.  After
pdflatex, both Acrobat 3.02 and 4.0 show the file with funky colored
overprinting that is not correctly aligned.  I can see that the black
text is correct, but it looks like it is sticking in some hyperlinks on
its own?

Acrobat 4.0 also seems to reliably die with error code 0x400e0009.

I also installed acroread-commfont-1999.7.20, though that seems to have
had no effect on anything.  Linux base 5.2 and rpm 2.5.5 were also
installed, of course.

Can anyone shed some light on these problems?  Thanks.

Sent via Deja.com http://www.veryComputer.com/
Before you buy.

 
 
 

PDF files look terrible; a better viewer? fonts?

Post by Stephen Montgomery-Smit » Sun, 10 Oct 1999 04:00:00



> I have noticed that PDF files look absolutely awful under xpdf; on
> Windows 95 I was doing a lot of pdflatex and I hope to do the same now
> that I have switched to FreeBSD.  But there must be some way to make the
> PDF files look better!

> Is there some standard gotcha that I have missed?  Thanks!

I don't think that acrobat does such a great job of viewing pdf files.
What I like best is

gv -antialias file.pdf

--




University of Missouri-Columbia
Columbia, MO 65211
USA

Phone (573) 882 4540
Fax   (573) 882 1869

http://math.missouri.edu/~stephen

 
 
 

PDF files look terrible; a better viewer? fonts?

Post by Mark Summerfiel » Tue, 12 Oct 1999 04:00:00



> I have noticed that PDF files look absolutely awful under xpdf; on
> Windows 95 I was doing a lot of pdflatex and I hope to do the same now
> that I have switched to FreeBSD.  But there must be some way to make the
> PDF files look better!

Were you previously using 'pdflatex' under Windows, and viewing under
Windows also?

What happens if you use 'pdflatex' under FreeBSD, and then view the
PDF file the way you used to, under Windows?

My personal experience is that every PDF file I've seen generated from
*has the same horrible artifacts you describe, no matter what
viewer I use.  But I've never seen one that was generated under Windows.

I believe it's a font thing.

Mark

 
 
 

PDF files look terrible; a better viewer? fonts?

Post by Darryl Okahat » Tue, 12 Oct 1999 04:00:00



> My personal experience is that every PDF file I've seen generated from
>*has the same horrible artifacts you describe, no matter what
> viewer I use.  But I've never seen one that was generated under Windows.

> I believe it's a font thing.

     It probably is.  I've been beating my head trying to remember the
fix (unfortunately, I can't ;-(), but the cause is probably that
TeX/LaTeX is placing "type 3" (bitmap) fonts into the PDF file, which
makes the PDF file look ugly, and slower to display.  What you want to
use are "type 1" fonts.  If you use acroread, you can see the fonts used
via the menu pick "File/Document Info/Fonts..." (I think you also need
to hit the "show all fonts" button in the ensuing dialog box).

     Under Unix, if you use TeTeX, I believe the "pdftex" and "pdflatex"
commands will generally create PDF files using type 1 fonts, but not
always.

--
        Darryl Okahata

DISCLAIMER: this message is the author's personal opinion and does not
constitute the support, opinion, or policy of Hewlett-Packard, or of the
little green men that have been following him all day.

 
 
 

PDF files look terrible; a better viewer? fonts?

Post by J. Scott Hofma » Tue, 12 Oct 1999 04:00:00


 >>
 >> I have noticed that PDF files look absolutely awful under xpdf; on
 >> Windows 95 I was doing a lot of pdflatex and I hope to do the same now
 >> that I have switched to FreeBSD.  But there must be some way to make the
 >> PDF files look better!

Have you tried the linux version of the acrobat reader? I use that on my
FreeBSD box via the linux_base emulation port. Its output is very very
close to the output of acroread under Windows.

scott

--
J. Scott Hofmann                      http://www.seas.gwu.edu/student/shofmann/

 
 
 

PDF files look terrible; a better viewer? fonts?

Post by tommy fredriksso » Tue, 12 Oct 1999 04:00:00




> > I believe it's a font thing.

>      It probably is.  I've been beating my head trying to remember the
> fix (unfortunately, I can't ;-(), but the cause is probably that
> TeX/LaTeX is placing "type 3" (bitmap) fonts into the PDF file, which
> makes the PDF file look ugly, and slower to display.  What you want to
> use are "type 1" fonts.  If you use acroread, you can see the fonts used
> via the menu pick "File/Document Info/Fonts..." (I think you also need
> to hit the "show all fonts" button in the ensuing dialog box).

I've been following the discussion and I see that you hit the nail
here.

Quote:>      Under Unix, if you use TeTeX, I believe the "pdftex" and "pdflatex"
> commands will generally create PDF files using type 1 fonts, but not
> always.

Why not always?

--
/tommy

 
 
 

1. Fonts look terrible on XFrre86 with NeoMagic 128XD video

I've just installed RedHat v6.0 on my Compaq Presario 1260 notebook.  Using
Xconfigurator, I accepted the "MagicGraph NM2160" chipset found by the
probe, then selected "LCD 800x600" as the monitor type.  Although I wasn't
allowed to select the 800x600x16bpp I normally use under Win98 (hmm...),  I
can run at 640x480x16bpp.

When XFree86 (from RedHat's v3.3.3.1-49 RPMs) starts up, the fonts are
*horrible*.  Some parts of the characters are very thick while other parts
are missing altogether.  I have the 75dpi and 100dpi font RPMs installed.
XFree86 is fully functional, but the text is barely readable.  

Speaking of things installed, I also have the xfs font server daemon
running.  I see no indication (at boot time or when starting/quiting XFree)
that there is any problem with the font server.

BTW, this is not the first time I have seen this affect.  This is precisely
the way Win98 looks without the NeoMagic 128XD video driver installed.
Once the appropriate video driver is installed on Win98 the text is
perfectly sharp.  Apparently the contents of the video ROM alone is not
sufficient to render clear text in graphics modes.

Help!  And thanks in advance.

***** Steve Snyder *****

2. OT: DVD-* owners be warned . Please see inside .

3. Courier fonts look terrible

4. Graphics editors under Linux

5. Fonts look terrible under KDE

6. X windows

7. Why do my font's look terrible?

8. Pine 3.91 on SCO Unix - Problem with attachments

9. Viewer for pdf file

10. Does DVI file look better than PS file?

11. KDE 1.1 fonts look better?

12. Reg. Getting Fonts Look better on Linux

13. better looking fonts