[R] which one give clear picture-pdf, jpg or tiff?

[(Ted Harding)]

See in-line below.

On 20-Aug-10 10:37:50, Gavin Simpson wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-08-20 at 10:54 +0100, Ted.Harding at manchester.ac.uk wrote:
>> On 20-Aug-10 09:24:17, Gavin Simpson wrote:
>> > On Thu, 2010-08-19 at 20:32 -0700, Roslina Zakaria wrote:
>> >> Hi,
>> >> 
>> >> I need some opinion. I would like to use graph that I generate
>> >> from R code and save it into word document. Whichformat is better?
>> >> pdf, jpeg or tiff?
>> > 
>> > Not that I have used word for a while myself, but when I did EPS
>> > files were my preferred format for Word docs that were to be printed
>> > or converted to PDF. The only downside is that Word's EPS importer
>> > displays a low resolution bitmap image of the EPS in the document
>> > so things look pretty sketchy on screen. When printed, however,
>> > EPS images will provide top quality. To achieve the same quality
>> > with JPEG or TIFF would require a much larger image file and
>> > consequently a much larger final document.
>> > I still send my Word-using colleagues EPS files for papers we are
>> > writing etc.
>> > 
>> > ?postscript for the options needed to produce correct EPS.
>> > 
>> > HTH
>> > G
>> 
>> I agree with Gavin about the relative merits of EPS and any bit-mapped
>> format (such as jpeg or tiff). And also with Tim Gruene's earlier
>> comment that "MS product are a little ignorant of PostScript and PDF":
>> not only ignorant, but do not want to know!
>> 
>> However, a further comment about "Word's EPS importer": You will
>> only see on screen that "low resolution bitmap image of the EPS"
>> when viewing the Word document IF the EPS file is in fact EPSI,
>> i.e. it includes a "header" as PostScript Comments in the initial
>> section which codes that bitmap for "preview" purposes. EPS files,
>> *as such*, by default do not include this, and then you would only
>> see on screen the outline box with nothing inside it. (The only
>> requirement for a PS file to be EPS is the presence in the Comments
>> of a "%%BoundingBox: ..." line).
>> 
>> There is nothing about this that I can see in '?postscript', and
>> running a test using
>>   postscript("testEPS.eps")
> 
> Don't you need onefile = FALSE in that call? An EPS should only contain
> a single "page" or image.

So long as you only put one plot in each file it doesn't matter,
I think. All that really matters for an EPS file is the BoundingBox
line (and of course on should not have multi-page content in an EPS
file which one is going to import). On testing, you get no EPSI
"preview" header whether you have onefile = TRUE or FALSE.

> Back in the day, when I was using word and R, R's EPS files were
> imported without the preview (as R doesn't generate one). Later on,
> a low resolution bitmap was being displayed. I presumed this was
> because I was using a newer version of office. I generate EPS using
> postscript(..., onefile = FALSE) and with no further processing, my
> colleagues see the low res bitmap in Word.

Now that you remind me, I do recall sending EPS (not EPSI) files to
someone and they could see them in Word (recent version). So perhaps
Office has moved on (slightly)! Like you, I use Linux and try to
avoid exposure to Word etc., so undoubtedly lack recent experience.

Ted.

> Like I said, I don't use Word any more and am writing this from a Linux
> box so can't check but that is my experience from working with
> colleagues who do use Word.
> G 
> 
>>   plot(...)
>>   dev.off()
>> produced an EPS file with no such EPSI inclusion.
>> 
>> There are PostScript-handling program suites, such as ghostscript,
>> which include a facility to convert from EPS to EPSI: in particular,
>> ghostscript has the command ps2epsi.
>> 
>> Ted.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
E-Mail: (Ted Harding) <Ted.Harding at manchester.ac.uk>
Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 094 0861
Date: 20-Aug-10                                       Time: 12:32:31
------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------