Timeline for $\LaTeX$ and Mathematica
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 12, 2014 at 23:55 | comment | added | Ralph Dratman | Here we may observe two of the top experts in this community -- people who have each given crucial help to countless users, answering thousands of questions -- both musing on the possible influence of ImageSize and ImageResolution on the scale and granularity of printed output. Is it not ludicrous that Mathematica should still, after all these years, require undocumented tricks and incantations simply to print something at a definite size? Then to top it off: "May be it is different now." As usual, whoever knows such details is keeping mum. | |
| Jan 27, 2012 at 10:54 | comment | added | Leonid Shifrin | When I was doing this a lot (2004-2009), I found that both ImageSize and ImageResolution are useful in combination, since one is not reduced to the other. May be it is different now, I have not checked. +1. | |
| Jan 26, 2012 at 10:09 | comment | added | acl | @Szabolcs you're right, I added it to the answer (if you don't mind). I am making some composite images for a paper and have been using ImageSize all the time, so I kept thinking of that. Thanks for the correction. | |
| Jan 26, 2012 at 10:08 | history | edited | acl | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 356 characters in body |
| Jan 26, 2012 at 9:59 | comment | added | Szabolcs | I'd recommend ImageResolution instead which makes sure that every element of the image scales proportionally, including text and line widths. | |
| Jan 26, 2012 at 9:43 | history | answered | acl | CC BY-SA 3.0 |