Re: Lenny. How to join multiply Postscript files into one document?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Mark Goldshtein wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Sarunas Burdulis
> <sarunas@math.dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>> *.ps files are source code of an interpreted language Postscript.
>> Usually they contain quite a bit of definitions, fonts etc. before pages
>> themselves are described. In general PS files can't be just concatenated
>> and still expected to make sense for the interpreter. The way to join PS
>> files should incorporate a Postscript interpreter. Ghostscript perhaps?.
>
> Yes, thanks for tip but if you look at my message, which is started
> the tread, you may see:
>
> MG>"Since googled first, I've tried:
> $ gs -q -dNOPAUSE -dBATCH -sDEVICE=pswrite -sOutputFile=program.ps
> part1.ps part2.ps part3.ps
>
> But resulted document is x10 in size and looks like a rasterized one.
> There are serious paper format mismatches also. Do not fit my needs,
> anyway."
> ...
(Sorry for missing the top of the thread.)
It has to do with the 'pswrite' driver (its capabilities and/or
options). pswrite might be rasterizing at least part of the input.
Clearly it's interpreting input files and writing entirely new PS code
for the output. While output may look similar, the underlying PS code
will still be very different.
As for the paper size you might be able to get correct page size with gs
- -sPAPERSIZE= option --- just in case you haven't tried that yet...
Unless it's the original PS code that you want to preserve, I would use
PDF as an intermediate format. ps2pdf, merge PDFs, print to PS or just
leave in PDF --- it's an open format anyway...
- --
Sarunas Burdulis
Systems Administrator
Department of Mathematics, Dartmouth College
http://math.dartmouth.edu/~sarunas
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAknfbqoACgkQejaFVltl6E9N+QCfUunnxJ+vWhf+qHwPd4hyZpHq
v4UAoLiqm0ql+u4iAJbrbj/5eCvMGhuT
=Ejbl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: