5

I find that when I use mathptmx, some math symbols, including the summation and product symbols, are rendered differently depending on whether I use pdfTeX or I work via DVI.

Here is sample code:

\documentclass[12pt]{article}
\usepackage{mathptmx} 
\begin{document}
\[
    \sum_{n = 1}^{\infty} A_n = \prod_{n = 1}^{\infty} B_n
\]
\end{document}

When I use pdfTeX, I get what I assume to be what is expected, but when I create a PDF via a DVI file, I still get the summation and product symbols, but they clearly belong to a different font (thin and elongated). The infinity symbol also changes. (It gets rounder via DVI). A_n and B_n do not change.

This is what I get when I use pdfTeX:

enter image description here

And this is what I get via DVI:

enter image description here

I want to use mathptmx, but at the same time, I need to work via DVI because of another package that requires it (tree-dvips).

Could somebody please help me out with getting the normal symbols even via DVI?

I use Mac OS X Mountain Lion and TeXShop.

Below is the console message that I get when I typeset with pdfTeX:

enter image description here

Below is the console message that I get when I typeset via DVI:

enter image description here

[Update]

I updated my LaTeX to version 3.1415926-2.5-1.40.14 (TeX Live 2013). The problem then disappeared! mafp, karlkoeller, thanks a ton for helping me with solving the problem. I still wonder, though, what that strange font was, and why this happened...

  • Are you sure? I could not see the difference! – user11232 Jun 22 '13 at 7:13
  • @HarishKumar Neither do I... – karlkoeller Jun 22 '13 at 7:39
  • 2
    You can add images, and remove the leading ! from your post. That way, you technically did not add an image. Then, someone with more reputation can add the ! back in. – mafp Jun 22 '13 at 9:10
  • 2
    This question appears to be off-topic because it is about an irreproducible problem. – mafp Jul 2 '13 at 9:28
  • 1
    @mafp: Sorry, I have to disagree, the problem is reproducible. It is a nice use case, why it is better to embed fonts into the PDF file. – Heiko Oberdiek Jul 2 '13 at 10:31
2

The messages of dvips show that only cmr10.pfb is embedded, not the fonts for the standard PostScript fonts. If the PDF file does not contain the fonts, if depends on the PDF viewer, which fonts are used. Newer versions of Acrobat Reader have replaced some of the standard fonts by other, e.g. Times Roman by Minion Pro.

Comparisons

Messages of dvips with embedded fonts:

This is dvips(k) 5.993 Copyright 2013 Radical Eye Software (www.radicaleye.com
' TeX output 2013.07.02:1150' -> test.ps
<[...]/texmf-dist/dvips/base/tex.pro>
<[...]/texmf-dist/fonts/enc/dvips/base/8r.enc>
<[...]/texmf-dist/dvips/base/texps.pro>. 
<[...]/texmf-dist/fonts/type1/public/amsfonts/cm/cmr10.pfb>
<[...]/texmf-dist/fonts/type1/urw/times/utmr8a.pfb>
<[...]/texmf-dist/fonts/type1/urw/times/utmri8a.pfb>
<[...]/texmf-dist/fonts/type1/urw/symbol/usyr.pfb>[1] 

Using option -Pbuiltin35:

This is dvips(k) 5.993 Copyright 2013 Radical Eye Software (www.radicaleye.com
' TeX output 2013.07.02:1150' -> test.ps
<[...]/texmf-dist/dvips/base/tex.pro>
<[...]/texmf-dist/fonts/enc/dvips/base/8r.enc>
<[...]/texmf-dist/dvips/base/texps.pro>. 
<[...]/texmf-dist/fonts/type1/public/amsfonts/cm/cmr10.pfb>
[1]

The latter looks quite similar to your messages of dvips. In theory-Poutline` should have embedded all available Type 1 fonts, thus there was an deficiency in your older LaTeX installation.

The result after converting to PDF (ps2pdf) shows that some fonts are not embedded in the latter case.

In the first case pdffonts reports:

name                                 type              encoding         emb sub uni object ID
------------------------------------ ----------------- ---------------- --- --- --- ---------
IAMTRI+CMR10                         Type 1C           WinAnsi          yes yes no      12  0
KJNPAU+NimbusRomNo9L-ReguItal        Type 1C           WinAnsi          yes yes no      10  0
AQAEUC+NimbusRomNo9L-Regu            Type 1C           WinAnsi          yes yes no      14  0
KXVNLY+StandardSymL                  Type 1C           Custom           yes yes no       8  0

And in the latter case:

name                                 type              encoding         emb sub uni object ID
------------------------------------ ----------------- ---------------- --- --- --- ---------
Times-Roman                          Type 1            Standard         no  no  no      12  0
Times-Italic                         Type 1            Standard         no  no  no       9  0
IAMTRI+CMR10                         Type 1C           WinAnsi          yes yes no      10  0
Symbol                               Type 1            Symbol           no  no  no       8  0

Viewing the result in AR9/Linux, first the PDF file with the embedded fonts (URW fonts):

Embedded fonts

Then the fonts that are used by the PDF viewer, Minion Pro instead of Times Roman in case of AR9/Linux:

Builtin fonts

Differences:

  • serifs of n
  • width/height ratio of \infty
  • thickness of the letters A and B

Summary

This example shows, why it is highly recommended to always embed fonts into the PDF file. Otherwise the PDF viewer is free to choose a font that it likes and not the font that the author of the PDF had in mind.

Why -Poutline has not worked, is probably difficult to investigate, unless you have a backup of your old system and are willing to investigate further. But I do not think it is worth the trouble, since the problem is solved on an updated system.

  • Thank you a lot for your detailed analysis and explanation. I now understand how the software works a bit better! – Usagi Jul 3 '13 at 3:40

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.