I've been back on this issue. I think that slightly changing the call to ImageMagick is the best solution, as it will not break things that used to work and has the potential of enabling preview of images that did not have.
What do you think about this (minimalist) patch? On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 at 13:13, Dr Eberhard Lisse <nos...@lisse.na> wrote: > Thibaut, > > I don't know. Try both of them > > TeX has nothing to do with this, it's a LyX issue. > > el > > On 2022-02-10 03:22 , Thibaut Cuvelier wrote: > > On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 at 22:45, Dr Eberhard Lisse <nos...@lisse.na> wrote: > > > > Is the issue displaying it on the screen or in the resulting PDF? > > > > > > For me, only the preview in LyX: LaTeX handles the EPS without troubles. > > > > Try GraphicsMagick :-)-O > > > > > > Isn't there a difference in the number of supported formats? Both are > > quite copious (https://imagemagick.org/script/formats.php#supported > > vs. http://www.graphicsmagick.org/formats.html, I'm not sure there's > > any noticeable difference for a LyX user. > > > > Digging deeper into Photoshop's behaviour, it seems that the TIFF > > portion is a low-quality preview of the actual content (by default, > > using only one bit per pixel). Among the two images output by > > ImageMagick (with a simple magick $$i.eps $$o.png), the preview is the > > second file ($$o-1.png), while the expected one is the first > > ($$o-0.png). > > > > As I understand, the standard behaviour with pdflatex is to go through > > epstopdf, which internally uses GhostScript. It doesn't care about > > the preview and only outputs the image that corresponds to > > ImageMagick's $$o-0.png. > > > > (However, I'm really unfamiliar with TeX and derivatives' code source, > > so I could not really triple check this.) > > >
0005-configure-for-EPS-to-PNG-ask-ImageMagick-to-only-con.patch
Description: Binary data
-- lyx-devel mailing list lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org http://lists.lyx.org/mailman/listinfo/lyx-devel
