|
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Re: Thickness Isn't Thickness
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg30038] Re: Thickness Isn't Thickness
- From: "Martin Rommel" <Martin_Rommel at REMOVEmac.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 01:00:21 -0400 (EDT)
- References: <9j3agr$iop$1@smc.vnet.net> <9j648u$29l$1@smc.vnet.net>
- Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com
Just an additional note:
One can use the PostScript["1 setlinecap"] in PlotStyle and it will be
included properly in the eps-file created by Export or "Save selection as
... EPS" (Mathematica 4.0.1 Win).
What I don't understand is why printing from the front-end creates
postscript different from the Export command. Furthermore, the front-end PS
interpreter breaks certain contourplots into smaller pieces that show
artifacts stemming from the "2 setlinecap". Very ugly!
BTW, at support.wolfram.com I could not find any relevant information. Is it
there?
Cheers, Martin
P.S. Meine Anerkennung für Jens-Peer und die anderen frequent poster die
diese newsgroup so bereichern!
"Jens-Peer Kuska" <kuska at informatik.uni-leipzig.de> wrote in message
news:9j648u$29l$1 at smc.vnet.net...
> Hi,
>
> I have tyed it on my SGI box and the FrontEnd does not
> show it correct but it is correct in an exported PostScript
> file
>
> gg = Show[
> Graphics[{Thickness[0.1], PostScript["1 setlinecap"];
> Line[{{-0.25, -0.25}, {1, 1}}], Line[{{0.75, -0.75}, {-1,
> 1}}]}]];
> Export["test.eps", gg, "EPS"]
>
> and in "test.eps" the lines have round ends.
> It seems that Mathematica's PostScript interpreter
> ignore the "setlinecap" and only use "2 setlinecap"
> for every line. If you wish that thick lines end
> exact on the endpoint "0 setlinecap" in a PostScript[]
> command may help.
>
> But I'm sure you will only see it in a external
> PostScript viewer and not with Mathematica's
> PostScript interpreter.
>
> Regards
> Jens
Prev by Date:
Mathlink and MPW v3.5 problems
Next by Date:
Re: graphics cell background
Previous by thread:
Re: Thickness Isn't Thickness
Next by thread:
Re: Re: Thickness Isn't Thickness
|