I need to draw some pictures for my LaTeX documents, and I've found that hand-made PostScript seems to be a good fit (I want to do stuff programatically, need math functions, etc.). I've also tried TikZ but that just seemed overcomplicated and hard to use.
However, using plain standard PostScript is a bit painful since there aren't really any standard functions for drawing shapes (e.g. not even rectangles).
Is there any PostScript library that would include functions for common shapes and make life a bit easier? Seems to me this problem should be fairly common.
Or should I skip PostScript and move on to some superior system? Which one?
A few people and many PostScript drivers define their own set of procedures for drawing shapes. A PostScript driver may output the following shortcuts:
/bd{bind def} bind def
/cp{closepath}bd
/gs{gsave}bd
/gr{grestore}bd
/m{moveto}bd
/rm{rmoveto}bd
/l{lineto}bd
/rl(rlineto}bd
/s{stroke}bd
/f{fill}bd
/sf{gs s gr f}bd
/xx{exch}bd
/rect {4 2 roll m 1 index 0 rl 0 xx rl neg 0 rl cp} bd
Then, a rectangle would be drawn like this:
0 0 100 100 rect sf
The cumbersomeness of this does make PostScript particularly hard to deal with. MetaPost may be a better fit if you your drawings are programmatically/mathematically generated. MetaPost generates encapsulated PostScript (which you can include in your LaTeX document) but it is more suitable for drawing images with algebraic definitions.
I like using matplotlib. It can generate both postscript and PDF directly, it's in python, and it can also do pretty sophisticated plots (hence its name). If you want to hack PostScript directly you'll be able to use psticks in LaTeX, but you'll need to run-trip everything through dvi2ps and then ps2pdf to make PDFs. Do you really want PostScript or PDFs? I think that you want PDFs, right?
OK, I've decided that Asymptote is the best thing since sliced bread. Handles drawing both graphs and arbitrary figures really well, and has a vast number of extension modules (including MetaPost compatibility if you care about that). Additionally it typesets text using LaTeX which is just incredibly cool. As an added bonus it even outputs directly to PDF (or EPS).
I still think it's a bit sad there's no good libraries of routines for good ol' PostScript though.
I have used Asymptote (for graphs though) but I found it tiresome to learn yet another custom language. If you're familiar with Python, you can give PyX a try. Its feature set is similar to that of Asymptote. For example, it can also use LaTeX for typesetting text/math.
Another option is Enthought Enable, but that is probably less suited.
I've had good results constructing images directly in postscript. One helpful convention I've found is to treat objects like glyphs in a font. So each object expects the currentpoint to be set at, say, the bottom left corner, and leaves the currentpoint at the bottom right. The you can put them in an array and forall through it: each object leaves the currentpoint ready for the next one.
Generate SVG, then use something like iText and/or Inkscape to programmatically convert to PDF/PS. I built a publishing stack this way and it worked out really nice.
There are lots of postscript libraries
look here
http://www.ericlindsay.com/computer/printing.htm
and here
http://www.tinaja.com/post01.shtml
and here
http://seit.unsw.adfa.edu.au/staff/sites/gfreeman/qs.html
Related
Is there a library/tool that can be used in C/C++ that would convert the PS (post script) file to .PDF file, on embedded platform (proprietary operating system, no windows, no linux)?
I was looking for some kind of library that could be ported to our OS. I have found basically only Ghostscript, but issue there is with the license, if i understood it correctly, we would have to make our source public, which is not possible for us...
Maybe a little bit more background, we are trying to find format that will be easily viewable by user. We already have our output in PS for other reasons (printer). But now we want to provide this output in file by itself, so we are trying to find feasible file format. We are considering the PS itself, but usual user does not have PS viewer, so that's why I am trying to find something to convert this to PDF. So perhaps alternative question could be, is there some another format that can be easily acquired from PS, such that "regular" user can view it?
The main complexity for converting PostScript to something else comes from the fact, that PostScript is a programming language and PostScrip files in fact are programs executed on the printer.
In contrast to PostScript, PDF is not a programming language. When converting PostScript to PDF (or anything else), you actually have to run the PostScript program and record the graphic primitive calls, executed during the execution of the PostScript program.
This general approach is needed, when you want to convert PostScript programs from any source to PDF.
But you wrote, that you are creating the PostScript code yourself. Perhaps your PostScript program is just a linear sequence of calls to drawing primitives and does not use anything like subroutines or control structures.
If not, it might be easy to change your generator to do those computation at creation time,that currently are performed at print time. You would end up in a linear sequence of calls to drawing primitives.
When there are no more computations done at print-time, it should not be too hard to directly create PDF instead of PostScript. This answer mentions an open source PDF generation library, that uses an MIT style license.
The AGPL licence for Ghostscript would require you to make your source open, yes. However Ghostscript is dual licenced, in addition to the AGPL licence you can purchase a commercial licence, which doesn't require you to open source your own code.
Rather than converting to PDF you can, of course, also simply use Ghostscript to render the PostScript to a bitmap, its usually pretty easy to wrap a viewer around that.
I should point out that there are other companies offering commercial licences for PostScript interpreters which are capable of creating PDF files and/or rendering PostScript. Adobe is the obvious one, there's also Global Graphics.
These days there are not many players left in the field, if you want to handle PostScript, and the AGPL or similar licences won't suit you, then you will need to go commercial.
Once upon a time I read in some book on an interesting idea of of Source code syntax visualization: they did not use colors like any (average) text editor nowadays does. Instead they tried to format the code like text in a book, thus: using different fonts, font sizes, boxes, bars, indentation etc. The code revealed its task in the way it was formatted, not as it was colored.
A function was basically a new section's headline in large font size (maybe underlined), the argument variables that followed were a dotted list (the example was Pascal code) - or a grey box or something. Loops might had boxes around etc. I can't remember the details, but you might get the idea.
I can not find any trace of projects that tried this again, maybe the benefit was not evident enough or the effort to implement it in some editor was too high (admittedly, it is easier to just use some different color for the same courier font).
But I am still interested whether anybody knows what happened to that idea and these projects or implementations. If you had a parse tree generator front end for a distinct programming language, say, C++, and an engine that generates this pretty printed output from a parse tree (could be done with LaTeX, probably), it might be easy to create some nicely readable code documentation just in black-white.
Edit: an example, basically taken from the TinyXml library.
The code with some common syntax highlighting using colors and a bit italic, underline would look like:
might be, just using grayscale elements like:
There is a Visual Studio extension called TextHighlighterExtension. It was mainly a text colour formatter, but it could be configured with a lot of customisation to change the font type and size as well. This had a couple of defaults where 'class' and 'interface' was increased in size, for example.
I know of other extensions that are similar, if limited in scope - for example, the "I hate regions" extension that appears to fit your question well, or the CodeBubbles concept.
I'm coding a physical simulation on 2d array and I'm now thinking that I could benefit from having a graphical output. My system is an array of cells (up to 2048*2048 of them) taking binary values, until now I used a prompt or text file output of '+' and '-' but it's not efficient for 2048*2048 lattice and maybe outputting in an image would be quicker and neater. Still, I've never done that. Ideally a library allowing me to write blue and red pixels/cell while parsing my lattice would get the job done. Are there some pre-existing not too long tools for doing it in c++?
Edit: I think that I just found what I was looking for: png++
After no more than 10 lines of coding I got the following output:
All I was asking for! Thank you for the suggestions ;)
You can easily get away without using an external imaging library by outputting a very simple format such as PGM or PBM. Refer to the wikipedia page on Netbpm for more details, but you're essentially outputting all the values as either ASCII or binary numbers, then any image viewer or editor that supports PGM (many of which do) can open and display them. Even if you don't have an editor, something like ImageMagick can easily convert it to a PNG or any other more accessible format.
I've used this technique in the past to quickly visualize 2D data, as you're intending to.
C++ does not have native support for graphics. You need an additional C++ library.
Personally, I suggest you to use Qt, which is free, powerful and cross-platform.
i'm developing some kind of heuristics for a variation of the vehicle-routing-problem in C++.
After generating a solution, i want to plot this solution. The solution is a composite of various tours, all starting and ending at a common depot.
Therefore i have a vertex-set with all the coordinates and edges defined by two vertex-id's each. Furthermore i have all the distances between vertex-pairs of course.
It would be helpful to plot this in an extra-window opening in my program, but writing a plot to a graphics-file should be okay too.
What is an easy way to plot this? How would you tackle this?
First i tried to look for common graph-visualization packages (graphviz, tulip, networkx (python)), but i realized that all of them are specialized at graph-layouting (when there are no coordinates). Correct me when i'm wrong.
I don't know if it is possible to tell these packages that i already have the coordinates, helping the layouting-algorithms.
Next thing i tried is the CGAL library with geomview output -> no luck until now -> ubuntu crashes geomview.
One more question: Is it a better idea to use some non-layouting 2d-plot-libraries risking a plot, which isn't really good to view at (is there more to do than scaling?) or to use some layout-algorithm-based-libraries (e.g. graphviz, tulip, networkx), feed them with the distances between the vertices and hope the layouting-algorithms are keeping the distances while plotting in a good-to-view-at way?
If non-layouting-plotting is the way to do it: which library do you recommend?
If layout-based-plotting is the way to do it: how can i make use of the distances/coordinates in these libraries? And which library do you recommend?
Thanks for all your input!
Sascha
EDIT: I completed a prototype implementation using the PLplot library (http://plplot.sourceforge.net/). The results are nice and should be enough for the moment. I discovered and chosed this library because a related project (VRPH Software Package / Groer) used this plot and the source code was distributed. So the implementation was done in a short amount of time. The API is in my opinion bit awkward and low-level. Maybe there are some more modern (maybe not a c-based library) libraries out there? MathGL? Dislin? Maybe i will try them too.
The nice thing about drawing multiple tours in a vehicle routing problem is that "not so bad" algorithms tend to discover nice non-overlapping and divergent tours which is really good for the eye ;-)
It is not quite clear what you are trying to archive, but if I understand your question correctly, then you could do it using OpenGL. Having vertex coordinates, it should be fairly easy.
You can use Gnuplot with a input text file that contains your solution.
It is convenient to draw the points (vertex) then lines (agents paths) than link them.
To make the plot script easy, you can have a separate file for each vehicle, if the number
of vehicles is known.
check out:
http://www.cleveralgorithms.com/nature-inspired/advanced/visualizing_algorithms.html
Last night before going to bed, I browsed through the Scalar Data section of Learning Perl again and came across the following sentence:
the ability to have any character in a string means you can create, scan, and manipulate raw binary data as strings.
An idea immediately hit me that I could actually let Perl scan the pictures that I have stored on my hard disk to check if they contain the string Adobe. It seems by doing so, I can tell which of them have been photoshopped. So I tried to implement the idea and came up with the following code:
#!perl
use autodie;
use strict;
use warnings;
{
local $/="\n\n";
my $dir = 'f:/TestPix/';
my #pix = glob "$dir/*";
foreach my $file (#pix) {
open my $pic,'<', "$file";
while(<$pic>) {
if (/Adobe/) {
print "$file\n";
}
}
}
}
Excitingly, the code seems to be really working and it does the job of filtering out the pictures that have been photoshopped. But problem is many pictures are edited by other utilities. I think I'm kind of stuck there. Do we have some simple but universal method to tell if a digital picture has been edited or not, something like
if (!= /the origianl format/) {...}
Or do we simply have to add more conditions? like
if (/Adobe/|/ACDSee/|/some other picture editors/)
Any ideas on this? Or am I oversimplifying due to my miserably limited programming knowledge?
Thanks, as always, for any guidance.
Your best bet in Perl is probably ExifTool. This gives you access to whatever non-image information is embedded into the image. However, as other people said, it's possible to strip this information out, of course.
I'm not going to say there is absolutely no way to detect alterations in an image, but the problem is extremely difficult.
The only person I know of who claims to have an answer is Dr. Neal Krawetz, who claims that digitally altered parts of an image will have different compression error rates from the original portions. He claims that re-saving a JPEG at different quality levels will highlight these differences.
I have not found this to be the case, in my investigations, but perhaps you might have better results.
No. There is no functional distinction between a perfectly edited image, and one which was the way it is from the start - it's all just a bag of pixels in the end, after all, and any other metadata you can remove or forge all you want.
The name of the graphics program used to edit the image is not part of the image data itself but of something called meta data - which may be stored in the image file but, as others have noted, is neither required (so some programs may not store it, some may allow you an option of not storing it) nor reliable - if you forged an image, you might have forged the meta data as well.
So the answer to your question is "no, there's no way to universally tell if the pic was edited or not, although some image editing software may write its signature into the image file and it'll be left there by carelessness of the editing person.
If you're inclined to learn more about image processing in Perl, you could take a look at some of the excellent modules CPAN has to offer:
Image::Magick - read, manipulate and write of a large number of image file formats
GD - create colour drawings using a large number of graphics primitives, and emit the drawings in various formats.
GD::Graph - create charts
GD::Graph3d - create 3D Graphs with GD and GD::Graph
However, there are other utilities available for identifying various image formats. It's more of a question for Super User, but for various unix distros you can use file to identify many different types of files, and for MacOSX, Graphic Converter has never let me down. (It was even able to open the bizarre multi-file X-ray of my cat's shattered pelvis that I got on a disc from the vet.)
How would you know what the original format was? I'm pretty sure there's no guaranteed way to tell if an image has been modified.
I can just open the file (with my favourite programming language and filesystem API) and just write whatever I want into that file willy-nilly. As long as I don't screw something up with the file format, you'd never know it happened.
Heck, I could print the image out and then scan it back in; how would you tell it from an original?
As other's have stated, there is no way to know if the image was doctored. I'm guessing what you basically want to know is the difference between a realistic photograph and one that has been enhanced or modified.
There's always the option of running some extremely complex image recognition algorithm that would analyze every pixel in your image and do some very complicated stuff to determine if the image was doctored or not. This solution would probably involve AI which would examine millions of photos that are both doctored and those that are not and learn from them. However, this is more of a theoretical solution and isn't very practical... you would probably only see it in movies. It would be extremely complex to develop and probably take years. And even if you did get something like this to work, it probably still wouldn't be 100% correct all the time. I'm guessing AI technology still isn't at that level and could take a while until it is.
A not-commonly-known feature of exiftool allows you to recognize the originating software through an analysis of the JPEG quantization tables (not relying on image metadata). It recognizes tables written by many applications. Note that some cameras may use the same quantization tables as some applications, so this isn't a 100% solution, but it is worth looking into. Here is an example of exiftool run on two images, the first was edited by photoshop.
> exiftool -jpegdigest a.jpg b.jpg
======== a.jpg
JPEG Digest : Adobe Photoshop, Quality 10
======== b.jpg
JPEG Digest : Canon EOS 30D/40D/50D/300D, Normal
2 image files read
This will work even if the metadata has been removed.
There is existing software out there which uses various techniques (compression artifacting, comparison to signature profiles in a database of cameras, etc.) to analyze the actual image data for evidence of alteration. If you have access to such software and the software available to you provides an API for external access to these analysis functions, then there's a decent chance that a Perl module exists which will interface with that API and, if no such module exists, it could probably be created rather quickly.
In theory, it would also be possible to implement the image analysis code directly in native Perl, but I'm not aware of anyone having done so and I expect that you'd be better off writing something that low-level and processor-intensive in a fully-compiled language (e.g., C/C++) rather than in Perl.
http://www.impulseadventure.com/photo/jpeg-snoop.html
is a tool that does the job almost good
If there has been any cloning , there is a variation in the pixel density..or concentration which sometimes shows up.. upon manual inspection
a Photoshop cloned area will have even pixel density(my meaning is variation of Pixels wrt a scanned image)