2

I'm using Beamer to do some slides and figured out how I could put some pictures where I wanted at the top of the slide using the textpos package. However, I would like to redefine the \textheight of the slide to be able to adjust pictures to the remaining height of the slide. The idea of such a slide is to replace the usual title by the association of the journal's cover and the title of the published article. Then, I'd use the slide to show the results.

Here is a mwe:

    \documentclass{beamer}
    \usepackage{graphicx}
    \usepackage[absolute,showboxes,overlay]{textpos}
    \textblockorigin{10mm}{10mm} 
    \begin{document}

    % cover of the journal
    \begin{textblock*}{15mm}[0.5,.5](0cm,0.5cm) 
    \includegraphics[height=20mm, keepaspectratio]{path-to-pictureA-file}
    \end{textblock*}

    % title of the journal
    \begin{textblock*}{100mm}[.5,.5](60mm,0.5cm)
    \includegraphics[height=20m]{path-to-pictureB-file}
    \end{textblock*}

    % main result
    \includegraphics[height=\textheight, width=\textwidth, keepaspectratio]{image.eps}

Thanks a lot for your help

PS: I would like to use this modification only in the slides I want to show as explained above. The other slides will be shown as usual. My goal is to figure out then how to define a new environment to get a more efficient code.

enter image description here

  • Can you draw a sketch of what the result should look like? I don't really understand what exactly you're asking. – user36296 Feb 26 '17 at 22:17
  • And what is this texts package you mention in the text? In the MWE there is only the textpos package? – user36296 Feb 26 '17 at 22:19
1

Why not something simpler?

\documentclass{beamer}
\usepackage{calc}
\begin{document}
\begin{frame}
  \centering
  \includegraphics[height=20mm]{example-image-16x9}
  \includegraphics[height=20mm]{example-image-16x9}
  \includegraphics[height=20mm]{example-image-16x9}

  \includegraphics[height=\textheight-20mm, width=\textwidth, keepaspectratio]{tiger}
\end{frame}
\end{document}

graphical layout

  • Thanks, I have to say that it is much simpler and more logical. Great! – Guillaume Feb 27 '17 at 1:14

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.