Re: Not understanding pdflatex

[Simon Law <sfllaw@engmail.uwaterloo.ca>]

On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 02:13:33PM -0500, David P James wrote:
> Gary Turner wrote:
> 
> >It is interesting to note that gv and xpdf render Type3 fonts very
> >nicely while Acroread looks like crap.  Regardless of how they look on
> >screen, printed docs will look fine.
> >
> >See /usr/share/doc/texmf/tetex/TETEXDOC.pdf.gz  There are a few words
> >about this.  Basically, Acroread barfs of Type3 (bitmap) fonts.  There
> >was a recent thread here on how to get Type1 fonts.  I tried and found
> >this set of instructions to work.  Do
> >
> >[la]tex sample
> >dvips -Ppdf sample
> >ps2pdf sample.ps
> >
> >This should yield a pdf file that Acroread can render nicely.
> >
> 
> Really? It usually comes out looking pretty awful if you ask me when 
> looked at with Acroread. I've had much more success with:
> 
> texi2pdf sample.tex

	If you want straight PDFs, it's best to use PDFLaTeX straight at
the command line.  To get Type 1 embedded fonts instead of bitmapped
ones, you have two options:

1) Install the cm-super fonts, which have not yet been packaged.
   Bug 133649.

2) Ask LaTeX to use the Old Type 1 fonts, which will then grab the Blue
   Sky fonts.  \usepackage[OT1]{fontenc}

Simon