[comp.text] The pointsize of type in "hotmetal" days

dns@sq.uucp (David Slocombe) (10/21/88)

In article <224@dcs.UUCP> wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) writes:

>I should also pass on what some have pointed out to me: in the traditional world
>of movable (lead) type, point size refers to the height of the slug on which
>the letters of a given font are mounted, not necessarily to any measurable
>feature of the printed image. Thus, you could have tiny characters mounted
>on a 28pt. slug and it would be considered -- technically -- a 28pt. font.

Not so!  I worked for many years in a hotmetal environment at a
large metropolitan newspaper, much of the time hacking at a
typesetting program that drove (via paper tape) some 16 "linecasters"
which produced the lead slugs you are referring to.

I can assure you that there was never any confusion in anybody's
mind between the size of the slug and the size of the type.

Hotmetal technology did not change significantly from the time it
was invented in the 1890s until its demise in the 1970s, except
for the addition of paper-tape interfaces in the 1950s which worked
like player-pianos (the keys actually "bounced" as the tape was
read).

We would say, "Set this 8 on 9 in 11 picas nut and nut."

That meant:  typeset it with 8-point type on a 9-point slug that was
11 picas long but with an en-space at the beginning and the end of
the line.

In troff terms, that's:

	.ps 8
	.vs 9
	.ll 11P-1n
	.in 1n

(Actually the slug, as cast by the machine, might be longer than 11
picas because of the mold being used, but it would then be "trimmed"
with a rotary table-saw to the 11-pica length.  That's right:  sawing
lead like wood!  Actually it was a lead alloy, bright like solder.)

The height (and length) of the slug was determined by the choice
of mold installed in the linecaster.  There were several molds
available on each machine which could be selected manually by a
mechanic, and the set of molds on a particular machine could also
be changed by a mechanic, although it took a while.  So you might
have a mold that cast 9-point slugs 15 picas long.  Or 10-point
slugs 11 picas long.  And so on.

The actual type came from "magazines" of brass "matrices", each
carrying the indented image of two symbols.  The positions of the
two symbols on a matrix were known as "on the rail" and "off the
rail" (I couldn't explain the origin of those terms without a
linecaster in front of me).  All the symbols off the rail would
represent, say, the Times Roman face, while all the symbols on the
rail would represent the Times Italic (or, alternatively, Times
Bold) face.  A given machine could thus typeset in only two faces,
both at a single pointsize, on a single size of slug.  (There WERE
linecasters, called "mixing", that could "change magazines" under
manual or paper tape control, but they were relatively rare.)

All the symbols on the matrices in a given magazine, both on and
off the rail, were in the same pointsize.  There was no relation
between this pointsize and the height of the mold being used except
that the font (magazine) pointsize could not be larger than the
mold's height.

The operating cycle of a linecaster was to "assemble" the matrices
making up the words in a line, with "spacebands" (double steel wedges)
between the words, then (if the line was to be justified) to force
the spaceband-wedges together to expand the interword spaces so
that the type filled the measure horizontally.  Then move the whole
assembly up against the one open side of the mold, and squirt hot
lead into the mold.  Then remove the assembly from the face of the
mold and distribute spacebands and brass matrices back to their
original places, and also dump the new too-hot-to-touch slug
into the tray holding the growing "galley" of type.  Then start over.

To watch one of these machines work at 10 to 15 slugs a minute while
the keys bounced up and down and uncountable moving parts clicked and
clacked was a wonderful experience.

----------------------------------

When I wish to measure the pointsize of type I set a row of fjfjfjfjf,
measure from the top of the f to the bottom of the j, add a few
pixels for shoulders, and call that the pointsize.  This is not
strictly true but usually the most desirable measure in an electronic
publishing environment, I think.

The more correct measure, I believe, would be to set a row of
hqhqhqhq and measure from the top of the h to the bottom of the q
and not add anything extra.  This is the real visual pointsize.  But
as the rounded part at the top of an f, for example, usually goes
slightly higher than the top of an h in order for them to LOOK the
same height, if you want to guarantee that, when you set lines
"solid" (e.g. 9 on 9 or 10 on 10), the descenders of the one line
don't actually touch the ascenders of the next line, then the
"fjfjfj" approach is necessary.

But keep in mind that the exact pointsize should not be taken too
seriously anyway:  the measure that really means something is not
the pointsize but the x-height of the font.

Perhaps Chuck Bigelow could be persuaded to comment...

----------------------------------------------------------------
David Slocombe				(416) 963-8337
Vice-President, Research & Development  (800) 387-2777 (from U.S. only)
SoftQuad Inc.				uucp: {uunet!attcan!utzoo, utai}!sq!dns
720 Spadina Ave.			Internet: dns@sq.com
Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 2T9

dik@cwi.nl (Dik T. Winter) (10/23/88)

In an excellent article <1988Oct21.134156.18568@sq.uucp> dns@sq.com (David Slocombe) writes:
 > We would say, "Set this 8 on 9 in 11 picas nut and nut."
 > 
 > That meant:  typeset it with 8-point type on a 9-point slug that was
 > 11 picas long but with an en-space at the beginning and the end of
 > the line.
 > 
 > In troff terms, that's:
 > 
 > 	.ps 8
 > 	.vs 9
 > 	.ll 11P-1n
 > 	.in 1n
 > 
That's right, the slug is always larger than the type itself.  However,
the difference between slug size and type size depends on the kind of
script used.  For latin, greek and cyrillic alphabets it is in general
about 10-20 % (8 on 9, 10 on 12 etc.).  For other scripts it is different,
for hebrew we have: 8 on 14, 10 on 16, or even 10 on 18.  For arabic it is
again similar to latin.  My question is now, if different scripts have to be
combined, what must match?  I think it is the slug size, and not the script
size, so when I have to put an hebrew word in a piece of times latin set in
12 on 14, for the hewrew part I would use 8 on 14.  However, arabic is still
more difficult, as arabic 18 on 20 has about the same clarity as latin
12 on 14.  So how to combine?
-- 
dik t. winter, cwi, amsterdam, nederland
INTERNET   : dik@cwi.nl
BITNET/EARN: dik@mcvax