Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

What's the point?

Expand Messages
  • Harold Kyle
    I was delighted to see in the Adobe Creative Suite 2, InDesign has an option to select the Traditional point measurement instead of the Postscript point
    Message 1 of 7 , Jun 21, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      I was delighted to see in the Adobe Creative Suite 2, InDesign has an option
      to select the Traditional point measurement instead of the Postscript point
      (InDesign>Preferences...>Units & Measurements...). In this dialog box, the
      Postscript point measures 72 points to the inch where the Traditional point
      measures 72.27 (also available are 72.3 and 72.23). Unfortunately, according
      to www.onlineconversion.com, the REAL traditional printers' measurement was
      actually 72.5714286 to the inch. This website converts a TeX point to be
      72.27. Although TeX does predate Postscript, I'd hardly call it traditional.
      Nice try, though.

      Harold

      Boxcar Press
      Fine Printing / Digital Letterpress Supplies
      Delavan Center / 501 W. Fayette St. / Studio 222 / Syracuse, NY 13204
      315-473-0930 phone / 315-473-0967 fax / www.boxcarpress.com
    • Peter Fraterdeus
      ... Hi Harold Thanks for the tip on www.onlineconversion.com. Certainly the web is deeper and wider all the time ;-) JEEZ. Those traditional printers had
      Message 2 of 7 , Jun 21, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        At 3:40 PM -0400 6/21/05, Harold Kyle wrote:
        >I was delighted to see in the Adobe Creative Suite 2, InDesign has an option
        >to select the Traditional point measurement instead of the Postscript point
        >(InDesign>Preferences...>Units & Measurements...). In this dialog box, the
        >Postscript point measures 72 points to the inch where the Traditional point
        >measures 72.27 (also available are 72.3 and 72.23). Unfortunately, according
        >to www.onlineconversion.com, the REAL traditional printers' measurement was
        >actually 72.5714286 to the inch. This website converts a TeX point to be
        >72.27. Although TeX does predate Postscript, I'd hardly call it traditional.
        >Nice try, though.

        Hi Harold
        Thanks for the tip on www.onlineconversion.com. Certainly the web is deeper and wider all the time ;-)

        JEEZ.
        Those traditional printers had better measuring sticks than I thought ;-)

        Where exactly does this degree of precision arise in the conversion?
        Looks a lot like statistical fudge to me.

        I note also that the British/US point is= 0.0005 arms-length
        or reverse, 2000 points to the arm's length...

        Also, 1 pica = 12.0500503 point [Britain, US]
        but
        1 pica = 11.9999999 point [TeX]

        Was that King John's arm?

        ;-)
        P

        --
        AzByCx DwEvFu GtHsIr JqKpLo MnNmOl PkQjRi ShTgUf VeWdXc YbZa&@

        Peter Fraterdeus http://www.fraterdeus.com http://www.galenaphotos.com
        http://www.dezinecafe.com - designdigerati (r)
        Global Design Community - Free Intercultural Review - now Plone driven!

        http://www.semiotx.com Web Strategy Consulting
        "Words that work."(tm) Communication Design and Typography
      • Carole Aldrich
        All my traditional pica rulers always read 6 picas per inch, 12 points/pica, 72 points/inch. I have heard the traditional vs postcript dialogue for quite some
        Message 3 of 7 , Jun 21, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          All my traditional pica rulers always read 6 picas per inch, 12
          points/pica, 72 points/inch. I have heard the traditional vs postcript
          dialogue for quite some time. How is this not reflected on our old pica
          rulers? Does anyone know?
        • Gerald Lange
          Carole Don t know if this will answer your question but its an interesting read. http://home.att.net/~tom.brodhead/points.htm Somewhere or other I read a long
          Message 4 of 7 , Jun 23, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Carole

            Don't know if this will answer your question but its an interesting read.

            http://home.att.net/~tom.brodhead/points.htm

            Somewhere or other I read a long long discourse about the magic of the
            number 72, mathematically. Something about its divisibility which made
            it appropriate in the printing industry, and then as used digitally.
            Apparently 72 was used in the computer industry based on traditional
            grounds, and somewhat unfortunately, in regard to screen resolution.
            As I recall NeXT computer (late 80s/early 90s)) used Display
            PostScript, which did not conform to the standard (I think). Though
            the current Mac OSX incorporates a lot of the technical developments
            associated with the NeXT, including Display PostScript, it's not
            exactly the same thing.

            Gerald

            --- In PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com, Carole Aldrich
            <carolealdrich@e...> wrote:
            > All my traditional pica rulers always read 6 picas per inch, 12
            > points/pica, 72 points/inch. I have heard the traditional vs postcript
            > dialogue for quite some time. How is this not reflected on our old pica
            > rulers? Does anyone know?
          • John Cornelisse
            Gerald, The information in the link is interesting, but by no means accurate and complete. Fournier based his system on the Paris Foot, Didot on the
            Message 5 of 7 , Jun 23, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              Gerald,

              The information in the link is interesting, but by no means accurate
              and complete.

              Fournier based his system on the Paris Foot, Didot on the Kings-foot.
              And because Kings live on bigger feet, than their subjects... the paris foot
              is 11/12 part of the Kings foot.

              That's why Didot is a little bit bigger.

              Paper will shrink, when you wet it before printing, and in a time that all
              paper was watted, its obvious that you cannot use the paper as a reference.

              All towns in ancient France had their different measurement standards, and
              this had a devasting effect on commerce. For this very reason the French
              central
              goverment (the Court in those days, and long before Napoleon Bonaparte)
              that government
              decided, to standardize.

              Point-sizes differed if you bought your type in Marseille or in Paris, or
              any other big
              town, although the underlaying system was equal... 1/6 of a foot = 1 thumb
              = 6 cicero = 72 point
              Even there is that link inaccurate in their info.

              The English inch however is not body based at all, but based on the
              measurement of 3 corns of rye.

              ......

              The Didot system was implemented by demanding that all printing made for
              the court
              should be printed in Didot sizes.

              And the Didot-system was carried througout mainland Europe by the conquest of
              Napoleon Bonaparte.

              This was not the end of Fournier, by no means, lots of printshops kept
              their old material
              and typefounders were willing to cast Fournier based type. Monotype England
              made Fournier based moulds, I have a few of them, one 14 point... almost 13
              points Didot
              but not quite...

              There was not one French Inch, each town in France had its own body based
              standards
              in the middle ages, and those standards survived long times.

              The Fournier-system has been used in pintshops until the very end of commercial
              letterpress (somewhere 1980)....

              Best wishes

              John Cornelisse


              At 06:13 24-06-2005, you wrote:
              >Carole
              >
              >Don't know if this will answer your question but its an interesting read.
              >
              ><http://home.att.net/~tom.brodhead/points.htm>http://home.att.net/~tom.brodhead/points.htm
              >
              >Somewhere or other I read a long long discourse about the magic of the
              >number 72, mathematically. Something about its divisibility which made
              >it appropriate in the printing industry, and then as used digitally.
              >Apparently 72 was used in the computer industry based on traditional
              >grounds, and somewhat unfortunately, in regard to screen resolution.
              >As I recall NeXT computer (late 80s/early 90s)) used Display
              >PostScript, which did not conform to the standard (I think). Though
              >the current Mac OSX incorporates a lot of the technical developments
              >associated with the NeXT, including Display PostScript, it's not
              >exactly the same thing.
              >
              >Gerald
              >
              >--- In PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com, Carole Aldrich
              ><carolealdrich@e...> wrote:
              > > All my traditional pica rulers always read 6 picas per inch, 12
              > > points/pica, 72 points/inch. I have heard the traditional vs postcript
              > > dialogue for quite some time. How is this not reflected on our old pica
              > > rulers? Does anyone know?
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >----------
              >Yahoo! Groups Links
              > * To visit your group on the web, go to:
              > *
              > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PPLetterpress/>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PPLetterpress/
              >
              > *
              > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              > *
              > <mailto:PPLetterpress-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>PPLetterpress-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              >
              > *
              > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
              > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.


              Letter-press & Typefounding, Monotype-composition

              Vaartstraat 23
              4553 AN Philippine
              (Zeeuws Vlaanderen)
              The Netherlands

              + 31 - (0) 115 - 491184
              email: enkidu@...

              So she spoke to him and her word found favour,
              he knew by instinct, he should seek a friend.


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • alex brooks
              Dear Friends... (sorry id this doesn t relate directly to ppp) Can anyone help date a C&P Guillotine? Its a 26 and apart from the casting numbers, the only
              Message 6 of 7 , Jul 6 8:37 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                Dear Friends... (sorry id this doesn't relate directly to ppp)
                Can anyone help date a C&P Guillotine?
                Its a 26" and apart from the casting numbers, the only identifiable
                feature i can pick out is the nameplate, which i think is different in
                the newer models. here is a photo:

                http://sweb.uky.edu/~arbroo0/guillotine.html

                Does anyone know when they started/stopped using this nameplate style?
                The guillotine also has a brass ruler inlaid in the bed, which also
                might help to date it (or not).
                Is there a serial number anywhere on these machines?

                Thanks for your time-
                alex brooks
                press eight seventeen
                lexington kentucky
              • alex brooks
                Dear Friends... (sorry if this doesn t relate directly to ppp) Can anyone help date a C&P Guillotine? Its a 26 and apart from the casting numbers, the only
                Message 7 of 7 , Jul 6 8:41 AM
                • 0 Attachment
                  Dear Friends... (sorry if this doesn't relate directly to ppp)
                  Can anyone help date a C&P Guillotine?
                  Its a 26" and apart from the casting numbers, the only identifiable
                  feature i can pick out is the nameplate, which i think is different in
                  the newer models. here is a photo:

                  http://sweb.uky.edu/~arbroo0/guillotine.html

                  Does anyone know when they started/stopped using this nameplate style?
                  The guillotine also has a brass ruler inlaid in the bed, which also
                  might help to date it (or not).
                  Is there a serial number anywhere on these machines?

                  Thanks for your time-
                  alex brooks
                  press eight seventeen
                  lexington kentucky
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.