On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Benedict Holland < benedict.m.holl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry about the last email. I tried a complex one from my phone and I > shouldn't have bothered. It is very possible that latex natively supports > .eps. > The problem is that the above sentence "Latex natively supports natively eps" is neither true nor false. It all depends on which output format you direct Latex to (or, rather, TeX). If you use LaTeX to produce .ps (postscript) files, then, yes, native inclusion of EPS is supported, while pdf is not. If you use LaTeX to produce pdf (for instance, as it is most common, by using the pdftex backend) then eps is *not* supported, while pdf is. (I am not going into *how* you can produce different formats with the many different TeX backends now available, as there are numerous, overlapping possibilities. Suffice it to say that the most common option is to use pdftex, which can output either .ps and .pdf. The user's manual has details for those interested.) LyX tries to take care of this (and many other) discrepancies by using imagemagick's facilities to convert back and forth among the various graphics formats. Often, though, it is better to avoid this behind-the-scene magic by inserting the images in the graphics format directly supported by the output format one is aiming for (.ps .pdf, etc.) All this is explained in the user's manual, BTW, sec. 3.8.2 "Output file formats" Cheers, Stefano -- __________________________________________________ Stefano Franchi Associate Research Professor Department of Hispanic Studies Ph: +1 (979) 845-2125 Texas A&M University Fax: +1 (979) 845-6421 College Station, Texas, USA stef...@tamu.edu http://stefano.cleinias.org
