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--