General ⇒ include pictures with wrong scale

[nphaibk]

Hi all,

I have 2 pictures with the same size (712x484). I used \includegraphics(width=6.5cm){filename) to add them into my paper but the pictures appearing in the pdf document have different heights.

In my opinion, because the pictures have the same size and I set the same widths, their heights should be the same. Has anybody met this problem? Please give me a solution for this. Many thanks in advance.

Hai

[localghost]

If you could provide these graphics files (as attachment), we could examine them and test that ourself. Without that it is very difficult to get a clue. Perhaps an additional piece of code in the sense of a minimal working example (MWE) could also be helpful.


Best regards
Thorsten¹

[nphaibk]

Thanks Thorsten for your reply. Here are the pics and the MWE and the pdf result as well.

[localghost]

At first I was really at a loss, because I never faced such a problem. But then I had the idea of examining the files with GIMP. What I found out is that the two images have different resolutions in x- and y-direction. Here are the facts.

• d152-2k.png
  • x-resolution: 72.009 px/in
  • y-resolution: 72.009 px/in
• d164-2k.png
  • x-resolution: 74.981 px/in
  • y-resolution: 67.996 px/in

Where px/in means pixels per inch. Any other image manipulation software should yield the same results. All you have to do now is adjust the resolutions to the same values. The reason for the wrong representation in the final output is the fixed relation between pixel and postscript point (px and pp).

[brlnd]

An alternative to editing the (wrongly set) aspect ratio within the file using GIMP, you may explicitly set the height as well in the includegraphics call,

Code: Select all

1
 \includegraphics[width=6cm,height=4.08cm]{d152-2k}
 
 
הההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההההה
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

where I calculated 4.08cm by hand (assuming 1:1 aspect ratio for the pixels in the original picture).

[nphaibk]

Thank you very much.

That's the perfect answer. I knew that I was wrong, not Latex but I did not know what it was.

Hai