Re: Error when including image with bogus resolution
Akira Yokosawa <[email protected]> Mon, 10 Feb 2025 17:57:53 +0900
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.tex.pdftex |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------x2JHdF6X9hZgPfIDIoOwWu1R Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Max, On 2025/02/10 11:52, Max Chernoff wrote: > Hi Karl, > > On Sun, 2025-02-09 at 14:57 -0700, Karl Berry wrote: >> pdfTeX warning (ext1): too small image resolution ignored >> >> Yes, a new warning. It was intentional since in the past pdftex did not >> ignore those too-small image resolutions. >> >> However, I agree with you it's too noisy. So far I have gotten warnings >> on nearly every image I've used. And it does not seem to make any >> difference in the output. Does it? > > That warning should only trigger in cases where pdfTeX would have issued > an error before (if the image dimensions exceed \maxdimen), so if it's > triggering for documents that worked previously, then that means that > there's a bug in my patch somewhere. > > Do you have an example document/image that triggers this warning that > worked previously? Attached is a tar archive of MWE. It's Makefile downloads Bloch_sphere.svg from wikimedia.org and converts it into PDF. Required commands (other than texlive): wget, rsvg-convert. You'll see a warning in main.log like this: ------------------------------------------------------------------ pdfTeX warning (ext1): too small image resolution ignored <Bloch_sphere.pdf, id=1, 179.16937pt x 189.70876pt> File: Bloch_sphere.pdf Graphic file (type pdf) <use Bloch_sphere.pdf> Package pdftex.def Info: Bloch_sphere.pdf used on input line 8. (pdftex.def) Requested size: 179.16893pt x 189.70828pt. ------------------------------------------------------------------ HTH, Akira > >> So I think I suggest that we introduce a new parameter, say >> \pdfwarnimageresolution, and only emit the warning if it's positive. >> And it's zero by default. > > Provided that this is a bug with my patch (which I'm 90% sure that this > is), this shouldn't be necessary. > > Thanks, > -- Max --------------x2JHdF6X9hZgPfIDIoOwWu1R Content-Type: application/gzip; name="pdftex-include-pdf.tar.gz" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="pdftex-include-pdf.tar.gz" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 H4sIAAAAAAAAA+2T32+bMBDH8xr/FTetT1OBEAJ0aD+6ppr20rVS91Ip0uSAQyzAIBuabCj7 22c6SLokS1+iVdPu84CxufvembszrSKalWxpcBGmVcQMvbV6x2Wg8X23WW3fHTxeO3r2yHeH juM5vt0b2I7nDnvgHjmPvVSqpBKgRxMu6QG7p77/o5j76n9FEzbjKTtSjKbAnjf6Y/390XBT /6Gj6+86tq7/4EjxD/Kf1/8lXKR5OP+qijmTzFT3MdFH3+A24yUzrhhXJZNgwPVCwCKXySmM x3BxZ9x+AMccnGpjzbwsCxVYVphnWS6UueAJz1jEqZnL2FpYXERsaRbz4n1YSR69dc+Grx33 jBCapgFklAtTtx0h26kEpL+IWbnWr4o0p9G2vN4Vza4Lb3mWN7V2rvW7uo4X7F69L/XTCHNx z2QJxgy0GZy8gXdwck5Il2ibsp4a2NYk/ZTq8yyBZpDWdoSYN5+uP98FEKaMCoj0b314I+Rh CR75jUn/XGZN8F3x9sOrH4SsJVpNnfuuU3Onw/XfO/9d2kfqsafm37H9bv4d27Vx/v8ikygP q4wJ3UtUqZrKkut2WpFJpVhBw4TGrI4lLeY8XK4ImUxZzEXdOW1OZjyuZOMX6mMmuYjJRDLF v7NpvqwdLlb1i1U9abusVVT1425dNd60KHku6i9MlVoDbi4/As90EtB6ahsmonW4X7tNOs/9 OxEEQRAEQRAEQRAEQRAEQRAEQRAEQRDkWfgJj019kwAoAAA= --------------x2JHdF6X9hZgPfIDIoOwWu1R--