[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: dvips and computer modern fonts

Apparently, _Stephan Otto_, on 23/01/05 10:29,typed:

after fiddling a while with different fonts in latex, I'm stuck with
the following problem:

When I use latex with default (computer modern) fonts, and dvips with
default (outline) fonts, the result looks very bad in ghostscript. The
characters appear unclear and unequally sized. Only at magnifications
of 4 and above, they become even.

However, using dvips with bitmap fonts or using postscript fonts in latex
and dvips produces smooth output. I can also create flawless pdf's (with
dvipdfm) and printouts from all font combinations.

As a reference, I took a postscript file made by someone else (on another
machine), that also uses computer modern outline fonts, and it displays
nicely in all sizes. Next, I copied the font descriptions from this file
over into my file, but the problem persisted (besides the encoding

This is where my "expertise" ends. Any help is highly appreciated! I need
the computer modern fonts for the boldmath part.

I'm using a clean tetex installation with tetex-base 2.0.2c-3, tetex-bin
2.0.2-25 and tetex-extra 2.0.2c-3 on debian 3.1.



BTW, here is what I have on my Sarge system:
$> dpkg -l gv tetex* gs *afpl* *gsfont* | grep ^i
ii  gv             3.5.8-36       PostScript and PDF viewer for X
ii  tetex-base     2.0.2c-3       Basic library files of teTeX
ii  tetex-bin      2.0.2-25       The teTeX binary files
ii tetex-doc 2.0.2c-3 The documentation component of the Debian te
ii  tetex-extra    2.0.2c-3       Additional library files of teTeX
ii  gs             8.01-5         Transitional package
ii gs-afpl 8.14-3 The AFPL Ghostscript PostScript interpreter
ii  gsfonts        8.14+v8.11-0.1 Fonts for the Ghostscript interpreter(s)
ii gsfonts-other 6.0-3 Additional fonts for the ghostscript interpr
ii  gsfonts-x11    0.17           Make Ghostscript fonts available to X11

Please remove the underscores ( the '_' symbols) from my email address to obtain the correct one. Apologies, but the fudging is to remove spam.

Reply to: