AWare Systems, , Home TIFF and LibTiff Mailing List Archive

LibTiff Mailing List

TIFF and LibTiff Mailing List Archive
August 2010

Previous Thread
Next Thread

Previous by Thread
Next by Thread

Previous by Date
Next by Date


The TIFF Mailing List Homepage
Archive maintained by AWare Systems

New Datamatrix section

Valid HTML 4.01!


2010.08.19 17:18 "tiff2ps page sizing options", by Richard Nolde
2010.08.23 04:54 "Re: tiff2ps page sizing options", by Lee Howard

2010.08.23 04:54 "Re: tiff2ps page sizing options", by Lee Howard

Richard Nolde wrote:
>    I'm revisiting tiff2ps to fix a bug with images that have no 
> resolution unit tag but do have x and y resolutions. That fix seems to 
> be only a line or two but while I'm back in the code, I'm trying to 
> clean up a few things in my patches so they can be resubmitted once 
> more for inclusion in at least some version of libtiff.  The current 
> CVS version has some of my work from 2005 that allows for additional 
> rotations of 90 and 270 degrees and page chopping by width as well as 
> height.  However, there are known bugs in it that were fixed in 
> subsequent patches that never got applied in CVS.  I'm trying to 
> simplify the old code and my patches before making any new 
> submissions. There are also errors in the current man page that I can 
> address.

I'll be happy to review your work when you're done.

>   I have some questions about how tiff2ps worked originally and/or 
> should work when multiple options are specified. In particular, there 
> isn't a clear definition of how the -H, -W, -h -w flags interact when 
> they are combined. I think that -h and -w define the size of the page 
> on which the image is presented whereas -H and -W define viewports 
> into the image that will be output. In other words, -H or -W could be 
> used to specify that only a portion of the image be displayed on a 
> given output page, with additional pages created to handle the 
> overflow. To me, this implies that -H can never be larger than -h, -W 
> can never be larger than -w.

I'm not an authority as I didn't author the -H/-W/-h/-w options, and I 
don't use those features, but the way that I read the man page 
documentation (which was written by the options author, I suspect) it 
appears that -h and -w refer to the printed area of the image.  They 
define the page size.  In other words, I may want to resize the image to 
only be 4x5" area on the page, and I'd do this with the -h and -w 
options without the use of the -H and -W options.

The -H and -W options appear to be ways to print the image on multiple 
pages without resizing if the image does not fit within the page 
boundaries defined by -h and -w.

Correct, my reading is that -H is never larger than -h and -W is never 
larger than -w.

>   If -h and -w are specified alone, the entire image is scaled to fit 
> on that size output media. If -H is also specified, the image is 
> scaled to the -w value (or native width if no -w is specified) 
> horizontally and the result clipped to -H in each page that is 
> required. If -W is specified with -h and -w, the image is scaled to 
> the -h value (or native height if no -h is specified), and the result 
> clipped to -W in each page that is required. Yes/No?

This sounds correct to me.

>   If -H or -W are specified without -h and -w, I assume no scaling 
> should take place, only clipping and generation of multiple pages as 
> needed.

This also sounds correct.