[texhax] includegraphics and image scaling

[Peter Davis]

On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 6:07 PM, Peter Davis <pfd at pfdstudio.com> wrote:

>
> On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Heiko Oberdiek <
> heiko.oberdiek at googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 05:12:07PM -0500, Peter Davis wrote:
>>
>> > On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 4:51 PM, Martin Schröder <martin at oneiros.de>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > 2010/12/9 Peter Davis <pfd at pfdstudio.com>:
>> > > > I have a couple of .jpg files that are 1024 x 768 pixels, with a
>> > > resolution
>> > > > of 96dpi.  If I just include them in my LaTeX document with:
>> > > > \includegraphics{xyz.jpg}
>> > > > they appear on the page at 1024bp x 768bp.  In effect, the
>> resolution is
>> > > > ignored, and they're scaled up by 1/3.
>>
>> > > What's the output of
>> > > - "identify -verbose" (from imagemagick)
>>
>> > Image: Chrysanthemum.jpg
>> >   Geometry: 1024x768+0+0
>> >   Resolution: 72x72
>> >   Print size: 14.2222x10.6667
>> >   Units: PixelsPerInch
>>
>> The resolution is 72dpi, not 96dpi.
>>
>
>
> Interesting.  The Windows Photo Viewer clearly lists it as 96dpi
> horizontally and vertically:
>
> ...
>
> I've run into this before ... where different tools report different
> resolutions for JPEG files.  If memory serves, ImageMagick always reported
> 72dpi, whereas the IJG JPEG Library reported something else.  I think this
> is the result of multiple file formats with potentially inconsistent fields.
>


Interestingly, Adobe Photoshop CS5 and Adobe InDesign CS5 report the image
resolution as 96ppi.

I'm using XeTeX (xelatex).  Is that using ImageMagick internally to get the
resolution?

-pd
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://tug.org/pipermail/texhax/attachments/20101209/c8495b6f/attachment.html>