Hi! There is one more option that you may try:
dev.copy2eps(file="file_name.eps") Good look. On Thu, 22 Jul 2004, Rob Knell wrote: > Nope, sorry, I made a mistake - it's Office vX, native for OSX. I've > had a look around and found quite a few complaints on the 'net about > Word X claiming to be OSX native but rendering the image as a scruffy > bitmap, so I guess this is a Word problem. I don't want to invest in > the newest version of MS Office, which might do it properly... maybe > I'll hang on for the Aqua version of Open Office, so I can expunge MS > from my hard drive. > > Cheers > > > Rob > > > > On 22 Jul 2004, at 13:55, Prof Brian Ripley wrote: > > > R's PDF is indeed vector graphics. Given that PDF is supposedly the > > native graphics representation on MacOS X, it sounds as if you are not > > using MacOS X native applications (and Office 2000 cannot be, given its > > date). If you are indeed using classic MacOS applications then the > > native > > graphics format is different and PDF is foreign. Might this be as > > simple > > as using up-to-date MacOS X versions of your other applications? > > > > On Thu, 22 Jul 2004, Rob Knell wrote: > > > >> Hi there > >> > >> The default option for saving graphics from R (1.9.1) on my Mac is as > >> a > >> pdf file. If I open the file in Acrobat reader it looks really good > >> and > >> crisp, and is obviously saved as vector graphics, since I can zoom in > >> as much as I like and it continues to look really nice. If I import it > >> into MS Word (from office 2000), or Textedit, however, it imports it > >> as > >> a bitmap and unless I save it as a pretty big image and then shrink it > >> in size by about three times after import it looks blurry and > >> pixellated. The save it as a really big picture and shrink it option > >> is > >> bearable, but hardly elegant. > >> > >> I'm trying to persuade some other people in my department that we > >> should move to using R as a standard analysis package, and this is > >> currently one strike against it - it's difficult to export > >> decent-looking high-res graphics. > > > > Not true: the export _is_ high quality and your subject line is blaming > > the wrong tool. > > > >> If I want to persuade people to use > >> R, I need to be able to give them an easy way to do this. There are > >> some solutions like importing the text and then the graphics into > >> acrobat, or installing ghostscript and trying it with the graphics as > >> postscript, but obviously people will respond to this with 'why should > >> I waste time and or money doing this when I can just cut and paste out > >> of Excel/Statistica/Minitab'. I realise that this is arguably more of > >> a > >> problem with Word or Textedit, but does anyone know of a good easy > >> solution to this that I can use as part of my program to evangelise my > >> colleagues? > > > > -- > > Brian D. Ripley, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Professor of Applied Statistics, http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/~ripley/ > > University of Oxford, Tel: +44 1865 272861 (self) > > 1 South Parks Road, +44 1865 272866 (PA) > > Oxford OX1 3TG, UK Fax: +44 1865 272595 > > > > ______________________________________________ > [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list > https://www.stat.math.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help > PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html > -- Ulises M. Alvarez LAB. DE ONDAS DE CHOQUE FISICA APLICADA Y TECNOLOGIA AVANZADA UNAM [EMAIL PROTECTED] ______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list https://www.stat.math.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
