Thanks all for the answers. As suggested by Akira and Herbert, I edited eps image. The result with xelatex is ok but the result with latex+dvips+ps2pdf is not ok (it is out of the \fbox). I have attached the generated pdf file. It seems a bit odd; they behave differently.
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 10:45 AM, Akira Kakuto <kak...@fuk.kindai.ac.jp>wrote: > Dear Heiko, > > `epstopdf' does not require that the PostScript file is a strict >> Encapsulated PostScript file. It takes the BoundingBox it can find, >> moves the graphics to the origin, sets the new media size >> (setpagedevice) and calls ghostscript for the conversion to PDF. >> In the case that the PostScript file is *not* an EPS file, this >> might succeed or fail. >> >> XeTeX/xdvipdfmx/dvipdfmx are using ghostscript with option `-dEPSCrop', >> configured in TDS:dvipdfmx/dvipdfmx.cfg. This option *requires* >> EPS files. It seems that ghostscript can be fooled by an EPSF header >> line, e.g. %!PS-Adobe-2.0 EPSF-2.0 >> > > I have tested > D "epstopdf --outfile='%o' '%i'" > in dvipdfmx.cfg. > It worked fine with the present xetex.def and dvipdfmx.def. > This can be a good way, though it is too late for TL 2014. > Note that repstopdf does not work since %o is an absolute > path. > > Thanks, > Akira > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: > http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex >
test.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
-------------------------------------------------- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex