Re: ps and pdf question
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Karl Hammar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Anybody who wants to play tricks with ps files (and I am occasionally one of them) is free to invoke lilypond --ps, so this is a red herring. I agree with Laura: we should treat the .ps files are temporary and delete them. I have a script that does this automatically, but I think that deleting the .ps files is a good default option. Most users don't want ps, and many users who investigate the ps files won't know how to deal with them properly. Anybody who really wants a ps file can invoke with --ps. What is the big deal with pdf? From what I understand is that they are portable, but most pdf's I get from others does not show up good or at all in gv, xpdf or evince. It seems that they are portable in the sens that work with ths latest Adobe acrobat. For me, pdf means trouble. Why should I ever want to produce pdf's? And btw, the pdf's produces by current lilypond does not print either on my (postscript) printer. And IME (and I stress IME) pdf doesn't do what it says on the tin, anyway! In other words, it does NOT print accurately. I would LIKE to be able to print an A4 pdf on a sheet of A4 paper. It seems to me, however, that whatever I do, Acrobat always sticks the top left corner of the pdf in the top left corner of the printable area of the paper. Okay, that could well be down to crappy Windows drivers, and it could well work properly in *nix, but on Windows I either get a slightly smaller image than I should, or my top and left margins are slightly too big. (I don't normally give a monkeys about this, but other people might...) Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: ps and pdf question
Anthony W. Youngman wrote: And IME (and I stress IME) pdf doesn't do what it says on the tin, anyway! In other words, it does NOT print accurately. I would LIKE to be able to print an A4 pdf on a sheet of A4 paper. It seems to me, however, that whatever I do, Acrobat always sticks the top left corner of the pdf in the top left corner of the printable area of the paper. Okay, that could well be down to crappy Windows drivers, and it could well work properly in *nix, but on Windows I either get a slightly smaller image than I should, or my top and left margins are slightly too big. I hope you have tried all possible settings of Page scaling in the Print window. Below the preview, it also specifies exactly what scaling is used for the printout (at least on my version of Acroread). /Mats ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: ps and pdf question
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Mats Bengtsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Anthony W. Youngman wrote: And IME (and I stress IME) pdf doesn't do what it says on the tin, anyway! In other words, it does NOT print accurately. I would LIKE to be able to print an A4 pdf on a sheet of A4 paper. It seems to me, however, that whatever I do, Acrobat always sticks the top left corner of the pdf in the top left corner of the printable area of the paper. Okay, that could well be down to crappy Windows drivers, and it could well work properly in *nix, but on Windows I either get a slightly smaller image than I should, or my top and left margins are slightly too big. I hope you have tried all possible settings of Page scaling in the Print window. Below the preview, it also specifies exactly what scaling is used for the printout (at least on my version of Acroread). Yes I have! The problem is simple - if I select scale to fit then I'm not getting an exact image, and if I select don't scale, the image is offset down and right by the non-printable margin. If I've gone to the trouble of telling the pdf what size paper I've got, I'd like to be able to print accurately on that size paper :-) I do not seem to be able to tell Acrobat to lay an A4 image exactly over a sheet of A4. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: ps and pdf question
Anthony W. Youngman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The problem is simple - if I select scale to fit then I'm not getting an exact image, and if I select don't scale, the image is offset down and right by the non-printable margin. If the A4 document that you want to print includes (= leaves empty) the non-printable margins, you can instruct Acroreader or the printer driver to ignore the non-printable margins. This would give you an A4 to A4 mapping. -- Johan ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: ps and pdf question
So, I too, would rather have lilypond convert automatically to PS level 2. You can do this manually, saying gs -sDEVICE=pswrite \ -dLanguageLevel=2 \ -sOutputFile=foo-level2.ps \ foo.ps That's what I'm doing currently. But I sometimes forget... Making LilyPond emit level 2 is problematic since it relies on level 3 features. There seem to be two users category who participated to this thread: 1. Those who need only the PDF (and suggested to remove the temporary PS file). 2. Those who wanted to print the PS file on a PS level 2 printer (and couldn't because lilypond produces PS level 3. Couldn't it be possible that the small step you suggest is performed by the lilypond script? [Just to prevent wasted paper sheets ;-)]. Best, Gilles ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: ps and pdf question
Werner LEMBERG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So, I too, would rather have lilypond convert automatically to PS level 2. You can do this manually, saying gs -sDEVICE=pswrite \ -dLanguageLevel=2 \ -sOutputFile=foo-level2.ps \ foo.ps Ghostscript comes with a tool 'ps2ps' that makes this easier: ps2ps -dLanguageLevel=2 in.ps out.ps -- Johan ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: ps and pdf question
[EMAIL PROTECTED]: Werner LEMBERG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So, I too, would rather have lilypond convert automatically to PS level 2. You can do this manually, saying gs -sDEVICE=pswrite \ -dLanguageLevel=2 \ -sOutputFile=foo-level2.ps \ foo.ps Ghostscript comes with a tool 'ps2ps' that makes this easier: ps2ps -dLanguageLevel=2 in.ps out.ps Yes, that could do it, but one have to add the paper size: $ ps2ps -dLanguageLevel=2 -sPAPERSIZE=a4 in.ps out.ps or (which is the same) $ gs -q -sDEVICE=pswrite -dNOPAUSE -dBATCH -dLanguageLevel=2 -sPAPERSIZE=a4 -sOutputFile=out.ps in.ps Regards /Karl ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: ps and pdf question
[EMAIL PROTECTED]: Karl Hammar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What is the big deal with pdf? It is only with PDF that one can have hyperlinks in the document for example. Yes and no, you could probably do the same with e.g. a wordprocessor, html, display postscript, with different pros and cons. But that does not apply to a printer. Regards /Karl ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: ps and pdf question
Karl Hammar wrote: Yes, that could do it, but one have to add the paper size: $ ps2ps -dLanguageLevel=2 -sPAPERSIZE=a4 in.ps out.ps or (which is the same) $ gs -q -sDEVICE=pswrite -dNOPAUSE -dBATCH -dLanguageLevel=2 -sPAPERSIZE=a4 -sOutputFile=out.ps in.ps That depends on your installation. It's possible to change the default paper size of the Ghostscript installation, see the Ghostscript documentation. /Mats ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: ps and pdf question
[EMAIL PROTECTED]: Tim Reeves escreveu: Tom wrote: . . . a somewhat unrelated question: In the creation of a PDF output file, LilyPond creates an intermediate PostScript file. That PostScript file is sometimes viewable using gv and sometimes it gives some errors. But it never prints on any printer I tried it on (several HP models, Gestetner/Ricoh, Xerox) - always either no pages at all, or some error message about some fonts. Is the PostScript output at all meant to be publishable/printable? It would be convenient if for printing the sheets I could just print the PostScript output to the printer directly, instead of having to go through the PDF. My question is: can one dispense with the Postscript file altogether? I just use the pdf and always delete the ps file. Is there a way to save a step and processing time by just not producing the ps file in the first place? No, the PDF is produced from the PS. The PS uses an embedded CFF font that is binary data. You'd have to check out the Postscript standard to see what printers can handle this. CFF font is a PostScript level 3 feature. From what I understand, the newer font types is the only level 3 feature lilypond is interested in. If I ever gets to it, would you accept patches that makes the ps files printable again, or rather, to conform to level 2 ? Regards /Karl ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: ps and pdf question
[EMAIL PROTECTED]: Anybody who wants to play tricks with ps files (and I am occasionally one of them) is free to invoke lilypond --ps, so this is a red herring. I agree with Laura: we should treat the .ps files are temporary and delete them. I have a script that does this automatically, but I think that deleting the .ps files is a good default option. Most users don't want ps, and many users who investigate the ps files won't know how to deal with them properly. Anybody who really wants a ps file can invoke with --ps. What is the big deal with pdf? From what I understand is that they are portable, but most pdf's I get from others does not show up good or at all in gv, xpdf or evince. It seems that they are portable in the sens that work with ths latest Adobe acrobat. For me, pdf means trouble. Why should I ever want to produce pdf's? And btw, the pdf's produces by current lilypond does not print either on my (postscript) printer. Regards /Karl ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: ps and pdf question
For me, pdf means trouble. Why should I ever want to produce pdf's? And btw, the pdf's produces by current lilypond does not print either on my (postscript) printer. Regards /Karl Well, I can print pdf but no ps level 3 with my printer. But: I would like to print LilyPond generated eps-files with my printer, which does not work with ps level 3. Thomas ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: ps and pdf question
Karl Hammar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What is the big deal with pdf? It is only with PDF that one can have hyperlinks in the document for example. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: ps and pdf question
Hello. Anybody who wants to play tricks with ps files (and I am occasionally one of them) is free to invoke lilypond --ps, so this is a red herring. I agree with Laura: we should treat the .ps files are temporary and delete them. I have a script that does this automatically, but I think that deleting the .ps files is a good default option. Most users don't want ps, and many users who investigate the ps files won't know how to deal with them properly. Anybody who really wants a ps file can invoke with --ps. What is the big deal with pdf? From what I understand is that they are portable, but most pdf's I get from others does not show up good or at all in gv, xpdf or evince. It seems that they are portable in the sens that work with ths latest Adobe acrobat. For me, pdf means trouble. Why should I ever want to produce pdf's? And btw, the pdf's produces by current lilypond does not print either on my (postscript) printer. I also have problems when printing the pdf. And my postscript printer doesn't like the ps produced by lilypond: it spits out pages and pages, each one with a single error message on it, most of them about unknown command. From an earlier message, I understand that it is probably related to the binary font description in PS level 3. So, I too, would rather have lilypond convert automatically to PS level 2. Thanks, Gilles ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: ps and pdf question
Hello list, hello Gilles, You wrote: So, I too, would rather have lilypond convert automatically to PS level 2. Me too. :-) Best Regards Roland ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: ps and pdf question
So, I too, would rather have lilypond convert automatically to PS level 2. You can do this manually, saying gs -sDEVICE=pswrite \ -dLanguageLevel=2 \ -sOutputFile=foo-level2.ps \ foo.ps Making LilyPond emit level 2 is problematic since it relies on level 3 features. Werner ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: ps and pdf question
Tom wrote: . . . a somewhat unrelated question: In the creation of a PDF output file, LilyPond creates an intermediate PostScript file. That PostScript file is sometimes viewable using gv and sometimes it gives some errors. But it never prints on any printer I tried it on (several HP models, Gestetner/Ricoh, Xerox) - always either no pages at all, or some error message about some fonts. Is the PostScript output at all meant to be publishable/printable? It would be convenient if for printing the sheets I could just print the PostScript output to the printer directly, instead of having to go through the PDF. My question is: can one dispense with the Postscript file altogether? I just use the pdf and always delete the ps file. Is there a way to save a step and processing time by just not producing the ps file in the first place? PS Thanks for a great application. In a fairly short time I am able to enter music faster with LP than with any of the graphical software I've tried. That it's more flexible and prettier goes without saying. Tim Reeves ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: ps and pdf question
Le vendredi 12 janvier 2007 à 11:01 -0800, Tim Reeves a écrit : Tom wrote: . . . a somewhat unrelated question: In the creation of a PDF output file, LilyPond creates an intermediate PostScript file. That PostScript file is sometimes viewable using gv and sometimes it gives some errors. But it never prints on any printer I tried it on (several HP models, Gestetner/Ricoh, Xerox) - always either no pages at all, or some error message about some fonts. Is the PostScript output at all meant to be publishable/printable? It would be convenient if for printing the sheets I could just print the PostScript output to the printer directly, instead of having to go through the PDF. As far as I know, LilyPond PS output is to be processed by Ghostscript (ps2pdf), it is not designed to be sent directly to a printer. My question is: can one dispense with the Postscript file altogether? I just use the pdf and always delete the ps file. Is there a way to save a step and processing time by just not producing the ps file in the first place? No, LilyPond outputs PostScript, then Ghostscript (ps2pdf) converts it to PDF. On the contrary, if you have a viewer that can display PS files produced by LilyPond, you can save the ps2pdf step by running LilyPond with the --ps option. Regards -- John Mandereau [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: ps and pdf question
Tim Reeves escreveu: Tom wrote: . . . a somewhat unrelated question: In the creation of a PDF output file, LilyPond creates an intermediate PostScript file. That PostScript file is sometimes viewable using gv and sometimes it gives some errors. But it never prints on any printer I tried it on (several HP models, Gestetner/Ricoh, Xerox) - always either no pages at all, or some error message about some fonts. Is the PostScript output at all meant to be publishable/printable? It would be convenient if for printing the sheets I could just print the PostScript output to the printer directly, instead of having to go through the PDF. My question is: can one dispense with the Postscript file altogether? I just use the pdf and always delete the ps file. Is there a way to save a step and processing time by just not producing the ps file in the first place? No, the PDF is produced from the PS. The PS uses an embedded CFF font that is binary data. You'd have to check out the Postscript standard to see what printers can handle this. -- Han-Wen Nienhuys - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen LilyPond Software Design -- Code for Music Notation http://www.lilypond-design.com ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: ps and pdf question
Han-Wen == Han-Wen Nienhuys [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: My question is: can one dispense with the Postscript file altogether? I just use the pdf and always delete the ps file. Is there a way to save a step and processing time by just not producing the ps file in the first place? Han-Wen No, the PDF is produced from the PS. The PS uses an Han-Wen embedded CFF font that is binary data. You'd have to Han-Wen check out the Postscript standard to see what printers Han-Wen can handle this. But if we aren't going to consider it a bug when the postscript file doesn't print, shouldn't we treat it as a temporary file and delete it for the user instead of leaving it there? I used to usually print the postscript files, and I still forget and try to do it sometimes, and it doesn't work with my current printer. -- Laura (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] , http://www.laymusic.org/ ) (617) 661-8097 fax: (501) 641-5011 233 Broadway, Cambridge, MA 02139 ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: ps and pdf question
This would be a bad idea from my point of view, because in order to generate a pdf that's on a non-standard sheet of paper, I must use the postscript, so not having that file would make it impossible for me to generate a file that prints on, say, 9x12 paper. On Friday, January 12, 2007, at 02:42PM, Laura Conrad [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Han-Wen == Han-Wen Nienhuys [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: My question is: can one dispense with the Postscript file altogether? I just use the pdf and always delete the ps file. Is there a way to save a step and processing time by just not producing the ps file in the first place? Han-Wen No, the PDF is produced from the PS. The PS uses an Han-Wen embedded CFF font that is binary data. You'd have to Han-Wen check out the Postscript standard to see what printers Han-Wen can handle this. But if we aren't going to consider it a bug when the postscript file doesn't print, shouldn't we treat it as a temporary file and delete it for the user instead of leaving it there? I used to usually print the postscript files, and I still forget and try to do it sometimes, and it doesn't work with my current printer. -- Laura (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] , http://www.laymusic.org/ ) (617) 661-8097 fax: (501) 641-5011 233 Broadway, Cambridge, MA 02139 ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: ps and pdf question
James E. Bailey wrote: This would be a bad idea from my point of view, because in order to generate a pdf that's on a non-standard sheet of paper, I must use the postscript, so not having that file would make it impossible for me to generate a file that prints on, say, 9x12 paper. On Friday, January 12, 2007, at 02:42PM, Laura Conrad [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Han-Wen No, the PDF is produced from the PS. The PS uses an Han-Wen embedded CFF font that is binary data. You'd have to Han-Wen check out the Postscript standard to see what printers Han-Wen can handle this. But if we aren't going to consider it a bug when the postscript file doesn't print, shouldn't we treat it as a temporary file and delete it for the user instead of leaving it there? I used to usually print the postscript files, and I still forget and try to do it sometimes, and it doesn't work with my current printer. James, please do not top-post unless you are certain it is appropriate. It makes discussions like this quite confusing. Anybody who wants to play tricks with ps files (and I am occasionally one of them) is free to invoke lilypond --ps, so this is a red herring. I agree with Laura: we should treat the .ps files are temporary and delete them. I have a script that does this automatically, but I think that deleting the .ps files is a good default option. Most users don't want ps, and many users who investigate the ps files won't know how to deal with them properly. Anybody who really wants a ps file can invoke with --ps. Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
