bb@swamp.cis.ufl.edu (Brian Bartholomew) (01/14/90)
In an attempt to RAISE the signal to noise (s/n) ratio, I am posting
code for a point/inch ruler. To make the most use of it, load your
laserprinter with transparencies designed for xerox copiers. All the
ones that I have seen have an opaque white bar along one long edge,
as well as a certain "tacky" feel.
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Bartholomew UUCP: ...gatech!uflorida!beach.cis.ufl.edu!bb
University of Florida Internet: bb@beach.cis.ufl.edu
----- CUT HERE ----- CUT HERE ----- CUT HERE ----- CUT HERE ----- CUT HERE ----
%!
%!Creator: bb@beach.cis.ufl.edu - 12/30/89.
%
% This program is Copyright 1989 by Brian Bartholomew. It may be used,
% modified, or copied, as long as it is not for direct commercial advantage.
% Please send any interesting modifications to me at b@beach.cis.ufl.edu.
%
%
% I wrote this file while learning Postscript, in an attempt to get a handle
% on exactly how big a point is. It prints what looks like a measuring
% ruler that shows 12 inches on one edge, and the matching number of points
% on the other edge. It prints the ruler diagonally on the page, to allow
% a 12 inch ruler to fit on a 11 inch page. The actual rotation angle is
% very touchy - if you change it half a degree in either direction, the
% ends of the ruler are clipped a bit, at least on this Apple LW NT II.
% Share and enjoy.
%
%
% 12-inch point ruler. Prints diagonally to fit on an 8.5" x 11" page.
%
/pointruler {
% origin is at ruler's top left corner
save
currentpoint translate % make (0,0) be right where we are
newpath
0 0 moveto
% box around ruler
gsave
0.5 setlinewidth
900 0 rlineto
0 -72 rlineto
-900 0 rlineto
closepath
stroke
grestore
/Helvetica-Narrow findfont 12 scalefont setfont
% point scale
gsave
18 0 moveto % move off edge of ruler box, at top
17 pointscale
grestore
% inch scale
gsave
18 -72 moveto % move off edge of ruler box, at bottom
12 inchscale
grestore
% label the ruler
gsave
/Bookman-Demi findfont 12 scalefont setfont
(Point/Inch Ruler - Courtesy of bb@beach.cis.ufl.edu)
dup stringwidth pop 2 div neg 450 add -40 moveto show
grestore
restore
} bind def
/pointscale { % stack: number of 50 point increments
% make the loop args
dup % extra copy for the last label
0 1
3 -1 roll
1 sub % fencepost error fix
{
% first, the label
gsave
-2.5 -25 rmoveto
50 mul % change the for loop index to points count
5 string % change the number to a string
cvs
show
grestore
% next, the increments for 50 points of scale
gsave 0.75 setlinewidth 0 -14 rlineto stroke grestore
10 0 rmoveto
0.25 setlinewidth
4 {
gsave 0 -7 rlineto stroke grestore
10 0 rmoveto
} repeat
} for
% end line and label
0.75 setlinewidth
gsave 0 -14 rlineto stroke grestore
-2.5 -25 rmoveto
50 mul % change the for loop index to points count
5 string % change the number to a string
cvs
show
} bind def
/inchscale { % stack: number of inches
% make the loop args
dup % extra copy for the last label
0 1
3 -1 roll
1 sub % fencepost error fix
{
% first, the label
gsave
-2.5 17 rmoveto
4 string % change the for loop counter to a string
cvs
show
grestore
% next, the increments for 1 inch of scale
gsave 0.75 setlinewidth 0 14 rlineto stroke grestore
9 0 rmoveto % 1/8" = 9.0 points
0.25 setlinewidth
3 {
gsave 0 7 rlineto stroke grestore
9 0 rmoveto
} repeat
0.75 setlinewidth
gsave 0 10.5 rlineto stroke grestore
0.25 setlinewidth
9 0 rmoveto
3 {
gsave 0 7 rlineto stroke grestore
9 0 rmoveto
} repeat
} for
% end line and label
0.75 setlinewidth
gsave 0 14 rlineto stroke grestore
-2.5 17 rmoveto
4 string % change the for loop counter to a string
cvs
show
} bind def
306 396 translate % go to center of page
54.5 rotate % touchy - a bit past the paper's diagonal
-450 36 moveto % move towards corner to place ruler
pointruler
showpage
--
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Bartholomew UUCP: ...gatech!uflorida!beach.cis.ufl.edu!bb
University of Florida Internet: bb@beach.cis.ufl.edubruce@trigraph.uucp (Bruce Freeman) (01/15/90)
The great thing about points is that there are so many of them to the inch. PostScript has decided that there are exactly 72 to the inch but the industry standard is generally that there are 72.3 points to the inch. As a typesetting company this causes us great fun since we have both Autologic typesetters that use 72.3 points to the inch and Compugraphic PostScript typesetters that use 72 points to the inch. We have to use two different point rulers depending on where the output is from. It is even more fun when a publisher says I thought I told you to make this 35 picas 6 points not 35 picas 8 points (actually at this distance the discrepancy is only 0.02" but you get the idea). The other interesting thing about point rulers is that is impossible to get nice looking ones with fine gradations off a digital typesetter. Since digital typesetters must round to the nearest dot you either get uneven spacing between lines or even spacing with uneven thickness of rules. Either way it looks bad to the eye. We had to give up on half point spacing for our PostScript point ruler. The new Autologic typesetters being digital can't do them either but our APS 5C being an analog typesetter can knock off fine evenly spaced rules any time. Just shows there are some things the old generation can still do better than the new. Just some of those things that makes typesetting so interesting! -- Bruce Freeman Trigraph Inc., Toronto, Canada utzoo!trigraph!bruce
woody@rpp386.cactus.org (Woodrow Baker) (01/15/90)
In article <1990Jan14.180821.18711@trigraph.uucp>, bruce@trigraph.uucp (Bruce Freeman) writes: > The great thing about points is that there are so many of them to the inch. > PostScript has decided that there are exactly 72 to the inch but the industry > standard is generally that there are 72.3 points to the inch. As a typesetting Yup, For whatever reason, Adobe definitly decided to thumb it's nose at the very industry that it was/is trying to bring into the 20th centry. Methinks that perhaps they wanted to use integers or some such, so they decided to use integral "point" size. They certainly, with a tad bit more effort could have used a scaled binary integer i.e. a fixed point integer format to do the work , but I can certainly understand why they might have decided to use 72 points rather than 72.3. Of course floating point is be fine, but it does indeed slow things down, and with no FPU in the standard printers, you need all the speed that you can get. Actually, you can make your user space be 72.3 if you want to. consider that 300/72 is 4.1666 pixels per point and 300/72.3 is 4.14937 pixels per point, you certainly can modify the scaling matrix to get exactly 72.3 points per inch. There will still be the problem with the varying dot boundries. 1/300 inch is .0033333 inches .003333+4.14937 is 4.15270. If you are using a finer resolution than 1/300th of an inch, it can be made exact. All in all, the decision to use 72 points per inch probably had it's roots in some fairly sound reasoning. I can only hope that it was not because they decided that they could change a centuries old standard. I'm sure that we will or I will hear from them on this point, (no pun intended) but it is indeed a problem. Remember the language DOES give you a way around it. g > where the output is from. It is even more fun when a publisher says I thought > I told you to make this 35 picas 6 points not 35 picas 8 points (actually at > this distance the discrepancy is only 0.02" but you get the idea). The Postscript point ruler that I use all the time, has divisions about every 2 points. At 300 dpi it is legable enough that I can get measurements close enough for government work. cheer Woody > > Just some of those things that makes typesetting so interesting! > -- > Bruce Freeman Trigraph Inc., Toronto, Canada utzoo!trigraph!bruce
woody@rpp386.cactus.org (Woodrow Baker) (01/15/90)
in reference to my prior posting on this topic, it should be remembered that a multiply by 72 is a cheap operation ((n<<3)+(n<<6)) which is likely the reason that 72 was picked for points. Since the language gives you a way around this, (simply change the scaling matrix), it is not one of my sore points with Adobe. They picked a reasonable approximation, and then gave you the ability to override it. Unfortunaly developers of applications were not familiar with 72.3 in general, and so did not bother to change the scaling matrix in thier software like they should. For most cases it really does not matter, but in the case where you are working with printers (people) and other typesetters it is important. Cheers Woody
kent@decwrl.dec.com (Christopher A. Kent) (01/16/90)
This is an interesting exercise in laser printer tolerances. Print the ruler on more than one printe and see whether the grids really overlap. Then check against a standard metal ruler. You might be surprised to find that they're all somewhat different, depending on the technology used in the printer to move the laser across the page! chris -- Chris Kent Western Software Laboratory Digital Equipment Corporation kent@decwrl.dec.com decwrl!kent (415) 853-6639
amanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker) (01/16/90)
In article <1990Jan14.180821.18711@trigraph.uucp>, bruce@trigraph.uucp (Bruce Freeman) writes: > The great thing about points is that there are so many of them to the inch. > PostScript has decided that there are exactly 72 to the inch but the industry > standard is generally that there are 72.3 points to the inch. It's actually even worse, especially if you take European conventions into account. "Conventional" Amrican 72.27 ppi PostScript and some others 72 ppi Didot point 67.54 ppi And then there's the pica (12pt), which is therefore sometimes 1/6th of an inch, and sometimes 1/6.022th of an inch, the cicero, which is 12 didot points, ... For example, I usually use TeX to format things, and so when I ask for a 10pt font in TeX, it turns into a 9.96264 point font in PostScript. There is very little visible difference, but my documents take a while to start up, since there usually aren't any 9.96264 point fonts in the font cache :-). "The nice thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from," as someone whose name I have temporarily forgotten once said... Amanda Walker InterCon Systems Corporation (Our news & mail machine swallowed its tongue last week, so some mail may have bounced or evaporated, and I've missed a week of news...). --
barry@reed.UUCP (Barry Smith) (01/16/90)
While improving the signal/noise ratio, you might correct a common error: there are slightly more than 72 points to the inch. (72.27 is also easy to remember.) Of course the arithmetic would be easier if pi WAS three... References: any real type ruler The TeXbook, D.E.Knuth, p. 57 an NBS standard, don't have it handy... ---- Barry Smith, Blue Sky Research
jaap+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jaap Akkerhuis) (01/16/90)
The discussion about the size of the point seems to pop up every couple of points. And yes, there is an official size defined by certain standard committees, which of course mobody cares about for obvious reasons as stated by Amanda. Speculations why Adobe choose 72 points/inch and the relation to floating point, phases of the moon etc. are of course just speculations. Excerpts from netnews.comp.lang.postscript: 15-Jan-90 Re: ruler.ps - an inch/poin.. Amanda Walker@mermaid.in (1282) > It's actually even worse, especially if you take European conventions > into account. European conventions. Ha! Tell me about Europe. There are no such things as European conventions. There are a couple of different systems in use, what is in use in the U.S, is known as the Pica point system elsewhere in the world. Then of course there is the Didot, there are the augustijns etc. Anyway, officially, there is no need to use these old names which doesn't have any legel meaning, one should use the metric system! jaap
wvenable@spam.ua.oz (Bill Venables) (01/16/90)
In article <17662@rpp386.cactus.org> woody@rpp386.cactus.org (Woodrow Baker) writes: : In article <1990Jan14.180821.18711@trigraph.uucp>, bruce@trigraph.uucp (Bruce Freeman) writes: :> The great thing about points is that there are so many of them to the inch. :> PostScript has decided that there are exactly 72 to the inch but the industry :> standard is generally that there are 72.3 points to the inch. As a typesetting : Yup, For whatever reason, Adobe definitly decided to thumb it's nose at : the very industry that it was/is trying to bring into the 20th centry. TeX has always allowed "points" (72.3 to the inch) and "big points" (72 to the inch) and I am pretty certain this predates Adobe's use of its (big) points. I suspect it has more to do with the usual American/European hiatus on units, but I am not sure. -- Bill Venables, Dept. Statistics, | Email: wvenable@spam.ua.oz.au Univ. of Adelaide, South Australia. | Phone: +61 8 228 5418
cet1@cl.cam.ac.uk (C.E. Thompson) (01/16/90)
In article <17663@rpp386.cactus.org> woody@rpp386.cactus.org (Woodrow Baker) writes: > >in reference to my prior posting on this topic, it should be remembered >that a multiply by 72 is a cheap operation ((n<<3)+(n<<6)) which is likely >the reason that 72 was picked for points. ... This has to be rubbish. The numbers the interpreter has to multiply by a lot are the contents of the default transformation matrix; e.g. 4.16667 for a 300 dpi printer. I very much doubt if the choice was made on the basis of such any such bit-grubbing; more likely it was `keep it simple for the users'. Anyone from Adobe care to say? One shouldn't forget, in this context (1) the inter- and intra-printer reproducability of the bit density (2) paper shrinkage. Such differences are liable to wipe out the difference between 72 ppi and 72.27 ppi. Chris Thompson JANET: cet1@uk.ac.cam.phx Internet: cet1%phx.cam.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
woody@rpp386.cactus.org (Woodrow Baker) (01/16/90)
In article <cZgXrfy00VswM_8qsa@andrew.cmu.edu>, jaap+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jaap Akkerhuis) writes: > The discussion about the size of the point seems to pop up every couple > of points. And yes, there is an official size defined by certain > standard committees, which of course mobody cares about for obvious > reasons as stated by Amanda. Speculations why Adobe choose 72 > points/inch and the relation to floating point, phases of the moon etc. > are of course just speculations. > > Excerpts from netnews.comp.lang.postscript: 15-Jan-90 Re: ruler.ps - an > inch/poin.. Amanda Walker@mermaid.in (1282) > > > It's actually even worse, especially if you take European conventions > > into account. > > > European conventions. Ha! Tell me about Europe. There are no such things > as European conventions. There are a couple of different systems in use, > what is in use in the U.S, is known as the Pica point system elsewhere > in the world. Then of course there is the Didot, there are the > augustijns etc. Anyway, officially, there is no need to use these old > names which doesn't have any legel meaning, one should use the metric > system! > > jaap I'm curious. What is the measurement name for the metric system, and what measure does it use. I stand corrected on the 72.3 vs 72.27 Cheers Woody A
news@bbn.COM (News system owner ID) (01/16/90)
Reply-To: cosell@BBN.COM Followup-To: Organization: BBN Systems and Technologies, Inc, Cambridge, MA Keywords: From: cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) Path: bbn.com!cosell In article <1990Jan15.183143.7677@intercon.com> amanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker) writes: } In article <1990Jan14.180821.18711@trigraph.uucp>, bruce@trigraph.uucp (Bruce } Freeman) writes: } > The great thing about points is that there are so many of them to the inch. } > PostScript has decided that there are exactly 72 to the inch but the industry } > standard is generally that there are 72.3 points to the inch. } } It's actually even worse, especially if you take European conventions } into account. } } "Conventional" Amrican 72.27 ppi } PostScript and some others 72 ppi } Didot point 67.54 ppi } } And then there's the pica (12pt), which is therefore sometimes 1/6th of an } inch, and sometimes 1/6.022th of an inch, the cicero, which is 12 didot } points, ... You've left the original definition of the point (by Fournier in 1764) out of your list: At the head of the table is a fixed and standard scale which I have divided into two inches, the inch into 12 lines, the line into 6 of these typographical points, making 144 points in all... Didot actually _tried_ to define a point that was the same size as Fournier's, but defined his point to be one-72nd of a *french* foot [do the french ALWAYS insist on inventing their own standards for things??? :-):-)]. The "conventional American" point IS kind-of metricized: The 1886 standard from the United States Type Founders' Association was based on the observation that the American-pica had an almost-relationship to the cm: 83 picas ~= 35 cm and so they standardized on exactly "83 picas = 35 cm". They then defined the 'point' to be 1/12 of a pica. THAT's where the funny decimal at the end came from --- you can thank a metric-conversion for the non-integral value. /Bernie\
woody@rpp386.cactus.org (Woodrow Baker) (01/16/90)
> such any such bit-grubbing; more likely it was `keep it simple for the users'. > Anyone from Adobe care to say? > > One shouldn't forget, in this context (1) the inter- and intra-printer > reproducability of the bit density (2) paper shrinkage. Such differences > are liable to wipe out the difference between 72 ppi and 72.27 ppi. You may well be right. Paper shrinkage probably doesn't effect things so much, especially with the custom laser papers. The inter/intra printer spacing, however could be quite significant. I have seen some strange results. Consider a .5 % tolerance. at 300 dpi you could be off as much as +/- 1.5 dots. A more logical tolerance would be 5%, at least most of the components would have that tolerance rating, and I'd suspect that the mechanical tolerance would be a tad closer than that, but that gives you 15 dots over an inch. considering that 4.1666 or so dots per point, and we have 3.6 points diffrence over an inch. A 1% tolerance would be nearly 1 point. That's pretty small, but I suppose it is possible. There is more likely, going to be a greater effect due to spot size of the laser than anything. That is adjustable a bit, and the power to the laser is adjustable . I have seen some significant problems with the laser drive not being adjusted right in the repair department where I used to work. Cheers Woody
amanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker) (01/16/90)
In article <17668@rpp386.cactus.org>, woody@rpp386.cactus.org (Woodrow Baker) writes: > I'm curious. What is the measurement name for the metric system, and what > measure does it use. Giggle. You must have gone through grade school before the 1970's... Think centimeters & millimeters... Amanda Walker InterCon Systems Corporation --
nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) (01/16/90)
In article <1728@gannet.cl.cam.ac.uk> cet1@cl.cam.ac.uk (C.E. Thompson) writes:
One shouldn't forget, in this context (1) the inter- and intra-printer
reproducability of the bit density (2) paper shrinkage. Such differences
are liable to wipe out the difference between 72 ppi and 72.27 ppi.
Also paper slippage. I've run both paper and transparencies through it and
they don't like up when I hold them up to each other.
--
--russ (nelson@clutx [.bitnet | .clarkson.edu]) Russ.Nelson@$315.268.6667
Violence never solves problems, it just changes them into more subtle problemsjaap+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jaap Akkerhuis) (01/17/90)
This discussion is getting really silly. Excerpts from netnews.comp.lang.postscript: 16-Jan-90 Re: ruler.ps - an inch/poin.. Woodrow Baker@rpp386.cac (1309) > I'm curious. What is the measurement name for the metric system, and > what measure does it use. The metric system has as measurement name meter and deriverates, like centimeter. It is exactly 1 meter long.
woody@rpp386.cactus.org (Woodrow Baker) (01/17/90)
In article <1990Jan16.154513.10892@intercon.com>, amanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker) writes: > In article <17668@rpp386.cactus.org>, woody@rpp386.cactus.org (Woodrow Baker) > writes: > > I'm curious. What is the measurement name for the metric system, and what > > measure does it use. > > Giggle. You must have gone through grade school before the 1970's... > Think centimeters & millimeters... > > Amanda Walker > InterCon Systems Corporation > > -- Taking things out of context is neither nice or polite. I asked for the name that the metric typesetting point was called, and what the measure was, i.e. mm, microns or what. Dropping out the middle of the message to make it look funny, is not kosher. As to when I went to grade school, you are correct. I graduated from high-school in 1974 and got my degree in 1979. So yes, I spent my gradeschool years prior to 1970. So what. They taught metric then. Cheers Woody Perhaps someone can answer my original question? ,
ifarqhar@mqccsunc.mqcc.mq.OZ (Ian Farquhar) (01/17/90)
In article <17662@rpp386.cactus.org> woody@rpp386.cactus.org (Woodrow Baker) writes: >In article <1990Jan14.180821.18711@trigraph.uucp>, bruce@trigraph.uucp (Bruce Freeman) writes: >> The great thing about points is that there are so many of them to the inch. >> PostScript has decided that there are exactly 72 to the inch but the industry >> standard is generally that there are 72.3 points to the inch. As a typesetting >Yup, For whatever reason, Adobe definitly decided to thumb it's nose at >the very industry that it was/is trying to bring into the 20th centry. >Methinks that perhaps they wanted to use integers or some such, so they >decided to use integral "point" size. They certainly, with a tad bit more >effort could have used a scaled binary integer i.e. a fixed point integer >format to do the work , but I can certainly understand why they might >have decided to use 72 points rather than 72.3. Of course, if Adobe wanted to really join the rest of the world they would use metric. >Of course floating point is be fine, but it does >indeed slow things down, and with no FPU in the standard printers, you need >all the speed that you can get. Actually, you can make your user space be >72.3 if you want to. consider that 300/72 is 4.1666 pixels per point >and 300/72.3 is 4.14937 pixels per point, you certainly can modify the >scaling matrix to get exactly 72.3 points per inch. There will still be >the problem with the varying dot boundries. 1/300 inch is .0033333 >inches .003333+4.14937 is 4.15270. If you are using a finer resolution than >1/300th of an inch, it can be made exact. Actually, if memory serves correctly, postscript does practically everything in floating point anyway (save the internal procedures that we don't know about ;-) ). If you look at the printer drive optimization case study (p.6) you will notice that Adobe states that: 0 0 moveto is slower than: 0.0 0.0 moveto because the interpreter does not need to perform integer to floating point conversion. Actually, considering the price of many of the Postscript printers on the market it is surprising that more do not include FPU's. In quantity they would be fairly cheap. It is also interesting to ponder that if you REALLY wanted to speed up PostScript, then it might be best to develop a processor that is optimized for it. Such optimizations would include: String comparison instruction Bit-blit operators Floating point instructions Graphics primitives etc. Such a RIP could be highly pipelined to increase throughput. It could JUST be done in a couple of VLSI chips with today's technology. After all, the Amiga already has a chipset with hardware line draw, area fill and a highly sophisticated bit-blitter in a low-cost machine. Worth thinking about... +-----------------------------------+-------------------------------+ | Ian Farquhar | Phone : (02) 805-7420 (STD) | | Microcomputer Support | (612) 805-7420 (ISD) | | Office of Computing Services | Fax : (02) 805-7433 (STD) | | Macquarie University NSW 2109 | (612) 805-7433 (ISD) | | Australia | Also : 805-7205 | +-----------------------------------+-------------------------------+ "A cynic is what an idealist calls a realist." Sir Humphrey Appleby (Patron Saint of Public Servants) Yes, Minister. Yes, Prime Minister. +-----------------------------------+-------------------------------+ | Ian Farquhar | Phone : (02) 805-7420 (STD) | | Microcomputer Support | (612) 805-7420 (ISD) | | Office of Computing Services | Fax : (02) 805-7433 (STD) | | Macquarie University NSW 2109 | (612) 805-7433 (ISD) | | Australia | Also : 805-7205 | +-----------------------------------+-------------------------------+ D
cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) (01/17/90)
woody@rpp386.cactus.org (Woodrow Baker) writes: }I asked for }the name that the metric typesetting point was called, and what the }measure was, i.e. mm, microns or what. I know that this doesn't help you any, but far as I know there is no "metric typesetting measure". The SI system, in general, is pretty stingy about providing really-useful units, and overall usually takes the attitude that 1.89257 whatevers is just as handy and intuitive as having a properly-sized special measure and being able to say "four whatsits". On the other hand, a whole bunch of "nonofficial" unit have precise SI definitions [even though the units, themselves, are not sanctioned]. [e.g., there is no such SI unit as a "light year", although that distance is precisely defined and we can figure out how many meters long it is]. In poking around some, it appears that the US definition of the point has won out: the 'official' point is defined to be 1/72.27th of an inch. Since the inch has an SI equivalent [by def'n the standard international 'foot' is 0.3048 meters], you get the semi-official 'point' as being 0.351 mm. /Bernie\
woody@rpp386.cactus.org (Woodrow Baker) (01/18/90)
In article <100@macuni.mqcc.mq.oz>, ifarqhar@mqccsunc.mqcc.mq.OZ (Ian Farquhar) writes: > In article <17662@rpp386.cactus.org> woody@rpp386.cactus.org (Woodrow Baker) writes: > >In article <1990Jan14.180821.18711@trigraph.uucp>, bruce@trigraph.uucp (Bruce Freeman) writes: > >> The great thing about points is that there are so many of them to the inch. > > > It is also interesting to ponder that if you REALLY wanted to speed up > PostScript, then it might be best to develop a processor that is > optimized for it. Such optimizations would include: > > String comparison instruction > Bit-blit operators > Floating point instructions > Graphics primitives etc. > > Such a RIP could be highly pipelined to increase throughput. It could > JUST be done in a couple of VLSI chips with today's technology. After > all, the Amiga already has a chipset with hardware line draw, area fill > and a highly sophisticated bit-blitter in a low-cost machine. > hmmm, I wonder what a PS interpreter written to use the Amiga chipset would do? Maybe someday someone will write a PS interpreter for the Amiga. It would seem to be a better machine to do it for than the mac....
spqr@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Sebastian Rahtz) (01/18/90)
>>>>> On 17 Jan 90 02:38:49 GMT, woody@rpp386.cactus.org (Woodrow Baker) said: >> Giggle. You must have gone through grade school before the 1970's... >> Think centimeters & millimeters... >> >> Amanda Walker >> InterCon Systems Corporation > Taking things out of context is neither nice or polite. I asked for > Woody I'm BORED with this the Amanda vs Woody sniping; I'm interested in PostScript, not their personality clash. It really isn't that enlightening to most of us to have dirty linen washed in public. I am sure they both know lots more about PS than I do, and I'm interested in their technical thoughts, so could they stick to that? Sorry to be a dull dog :=> -- Sebastian Rahtz S.Rahtz@uk.ac.soton.ecs (JANET) Computer Science S.Rahtz@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Bitnet) Southampton S09 5NH, UK S.Rahtz@sot-ecs.uucp (uucp)
woody@rpp386.cactus.org (Woodrow Baker) (01/19/90)
In article <kZgrwXq00VswQCglNy@andrew.cmu.edu>, jaap+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jaap Akkerhuis) writes: > This discussion is getting really silly. > > Excerpts from netnews.comp.lang.postscript: 16-Jan-90 Re: ruler.ps - an > inch/poin.. Woodrow Baker@rpp386.cac (1309) > > > I'm curious. What is the measurement name for the metric system, and > > what measure does it use. > > > The metric system has as measurement name meter and deriverates, like > centimeter. It is exactly 1 meter long. I know that. PLEASE read messages in context. I was asking what the name for the metric system of "points" was. We call them points, and measure them in 1/100 ths of an inch. What is the metric equivelent name, and is the measure given in mm, cm, dm, microns or just what. You are the second person to not read what was asked for, and make a comment. One individual did read the message and understood it, out of the 3 people who have responded to this, it appears that this individual was the only one who read the message carefully.
ifarqhar@mqccsunc.mqcc.mq.OZ (Ian Farquhar) (01/19/90)
In article <17668@rpp386.cactus.org> woody@rpp386.cactus.org (Woodrow Baker) writes: >I'm curious. What is the measurement name for the metric system, and what >measure does it use. I stand corrected on the 72.3 vs 72.27 It is called the millimetre, and is well defined in a totally reproducable way (as a fraction of the distance light travels in one second). That is one of the many nice things about metric, it does not multiply things unnecessarily. Okkam would have doubtless approved. Of course, that standard excuse I get from printer manufacturers when I challenge them over providing metric units in their printers - particularly laser printers - is that round off errors become a problem. This is total garbage. The processors in even my DP-80 (which for the record are an 8039 and an 8041) are quite powerful enough to handle the fixed point math required. To 68000 in my LC-89-00 at work, measure conversion is child's play. All hail Saint Fubar, parton saint of computer programmers. +-----------------------------------+-------------------------------+ | Ian Farquhar | Phone : (02) 805-7420 (STD) | | Microcomputer Support | (612) 805-7420 (ISD) | | Office of Computing Services | Fax : (02) 805-7433 (STD) | | Macquarie University NSW 2109 | (612) 805-7433 (ISD) | | Australia | Also : 805-7205 | +-----------------------------------+-------------------------------+ | ACSNet ifarqhar@macuni.mqcc.mq.oz | | ifarqhar@mqccsuna.mqcc.mq.oz | +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ D
jaap+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jaap Akkerhuis) (01/20/90)
Excerpts from netnews.comp.lang.postscript: 18-Jan-90 Re: ruler.ps - an inch/poin.. Woodrow Baker@rpp386.cac (1032) > In article <kZgrwXq00VswQCglNy@andrew.cmu.edu>, jaap+@andrew.cmu.edu > (Jaap Akkerhuis) writes: > > This discussion is getting really silly. > > > > Excerpts from netnews.comp.lang.postscript: 16-Jan-90 Re: ruler.ps - an > > inch/poin.. Woodrow Baker@rpp386.cac (1309) > > > > > I'm curious. What is the measurement name for the metric system, and > > > what measure does it use. > > > > > > The metric system has as measurement name meter and deriverates, like > > centimeter. It is exactly 1 meter long. > I know that. PLEASE read messages in context. I was asking what the name > for the metric system of "points" was. We call them points, and measure them > in 1/100 ths of an inch. What is the metric equivelent name, and is the > measure > given in mm, cm, dm, microns or just what. > You are the second person to not read what was asked for, and make a > comment. One individual did read the message and understood it, out of > the 3 people who have responded to this, it appears that this individual > was the only one who read the message carefully. It is getting even more silly then I thought it would. Since I used the phrase ``metric system'' the first time in this duscussion, everybody kind of accepted the intended meaning as ``the system using SI units'', like meters. There is no point in this system, so nobody can be confused whether one talks about Didot Points, American Pica points or Floating Points. Everybody gets the point? jaap
ifarqhar@mqccsunc.mqcc.mq.OZ (Ian Farquhar) (01/21/90)
In article <51011@bbn.COM> cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) writes: > >I know that this doesn't help you any, but far as I know there is no >"metric typesetting measure". The SI system, in general, is pretty >stingy about providing really-useful units, and overall usually takes >the attitude that 1.89257 whatevers is just as handy and intuitive as >having a properly-sized special measure and being able to say "four >whatsits". On the other hand, a whole bunch of "nonofficial" unit have >precise SI definitions [even though the units, themselves, are not >sanctioned]. [e.g., there is no such SI unit as a "light year", >although that distance is precisely defined and we can figure out how >many meters long it is]. Utter garbage. It is the "stinginess" as you call it that is one of the three most useful things about the metric system (the other two being the subdivision of units by powers of tens, and the fact that all except weight can be generated independent of a physical item such as a standard length bar). I am just amazed by the above argument. It basically says that the metric system is unintuitive because it is impossible to express four whatsits in a integer number of millimeters! I could just as easily criticise the imperial system for not providing an integer number of yards the the meter. What nonsense. Incidentally, I believe that you will find the parsec is defined. The light year is a bit difficult - what sort of year do you take? A siderial year, or a calendar year, and EXACTLY how long is the later? >In poking around some, it appears that the US definition of the point >has won out: the 'official' point is defined to be 1/72.27th of an >inch. Since the inch has an SI equivalent [by def'n the standard >international 'foot' is 0.3048 meters], you get the semi-official >'point' as being 0.351 mm. I was once a science teacher, and any student that used an imperial measure in an assignment got zero marks. I was never taught imperial, but have picked up a bit over the years. I fail to see that the system has even one single virtue. How can sensible people cling to a measure such an an acre that was originally defined as the area that one man and an ox could plough in one day? Even sillier is the point: a unit defined so that 72.27 fit within an inch, which is further defined in terms of the metric system! I think that this stream has diverged well away from the subject of postscript. Perhaps we should either make it a little more relevant to the subject, or continue it by e-mail. All hail Saint Fubar, parton saint of computer programmers. +-----------------------------------+-------------------------------+ | Ian Farquhar | Phone : (02) 805-7420 (STD) | | Microcomputer Support | (612) 805-7420 (ISD) | | Office of Computing Services | Fax : (02) 805-7433 (STD) | | Macquarie University NSW 2109 | (612) 805-7433 (ISD) | | Australia | Also : 805-7205 | +-----------------------------------+-------------------------------+ | ACSNet ifarqhar@macuni.mqcc.mq.oz | | ifarqhar@mqccsuna.mqcc.mq.oz | +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ D
amanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker) (01/22/90)
In article <17690@rpp386.cactus.org>, woody@rpp386.cactus.org (Woodrow Baker) writes: > I know that. PLEASE read messages in context. I was asking what the name > for the metric system of "points" was. We call them points, and measure them > in 1/100 ths of an inch. What is the metric equivelent name, and is the measure > given in mm, cm, dm, microns or just what. Sigh. Woody, I didn't mean to take you out of context, but it seemed a strange (or silly) question. One of the features of the metric system is that for every type of quantity that you can measure in it, there is one and only one unit of measure, with standard prefixes for commonly used powers of ten multipliers for that unit. A typesetter using the metric system would use cm, or mm, or microns, depending on the size of the quantity being measured. A ten point font, for example, would be specified as a 3.5mm font. Of course, it's quite possible that the European printing industry hasn't switched to the metric system and thus still uses points of one flavor or another. However, you seem to be the only person that thought the original poster was referring to some special metric unit of type size. I think that the reason people have been making silly comments at you is because you mis-read the original article, not that they mis-read yours. Amanda Walker InterCon Systems Corporation --
spqr@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Sebastian Rahtz) (01/22/90)
>>>>> On 19 Jan 90 11:09:49 GMT, ifarqhar@mqccsunc.mqcc.mq.OZ (Ian Farquhar) said: >>I'm curious. What is the measurement name for the metric system, and what >>measure does it use. I stand corrected on the 72.3 vs 72.27 .. > It is called the millimetre, and is well defined in a totally > reproducable way (as a fraction of the distance light travels in one > second). is it merely my ignorance that makes me think the Napoleonic government invented the metre, and that it is a fraction of the circumference of the globe? did someone redefine it later in terms of the speed of light? > That is one of the many nice things about metric, it does not multiply > things unnecessarily. Okkam would have doubtless approved. Occam would not have approved of your spelling though. -- Sebastian Rahtz S.Rahtz@uk.ac.soton.ecs (JANET) Computer Science S.Rahtz@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Bitnet) Southampton S09 5NH, UK S.Rahtz@sot-ecs.uucp (uucp)
matoh@sssab.se (Mats Ohrman) (01/22/90)
woody@rpp386.cactus.org (Woodrow Baker) writes: >In article <kZgrwXq00VswQCglNy@andrew.cmu.edu>, jaap+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jaap Akkerhuis) writes: >> This discussion is getting really silly. >> >> Excerpts from netnews.comp.lang.postscript: 16-Jan-90 Re: ruler.ps - an >> inch/poin.. Woodrow Baker@rpp386.cac (1309) >> >> > I'm curious. What is the measurement name for the metric system, and >> > what measure does it use. >> >> >> The metric system has as measurement name meter and deriverates, like >> centimeter. It is exactly 1 meter long. >I know that. PLEASE read messages in context. I was asking what the name >for the metric system of "points" was. We call them points, and measure them >in 1/100 ths of an inch. What is the metric equivelent name, and is the measure >given in mm, cm, dm, microns or just what. The "metric system": You measure character heights, distances, etc in millimeters (mm) instead of points/picas/etc, and screen frequency in lines/mm (lines/cm) instead of lines/inch. As simple as that - no special names necessary. Real life: Printshops here in Sweden, however, (as far as my limited contact with those in Linkoping goes) mostly uses mm to measure page size, column width, picture and art size, etc, and still uses points to measure font size and line spacing. Screen spacing is given in either lines/mm or lines/inch (you may use whatever suits your fancy). I.E. Where you use inch, we use mm. Where you use point, we use point (or may use mm - if you are a fanatic supporter of Standards). [All this AFAIK - As Far As I Know] Does that answer your questions? /Mats ____________________________________________________________________________ _ : matoh@sssab.se / Mats Ohrman, : {mcvax,munnari,uunet}!sunic!sssab!matoh Scandinavian System Support AB, : Phone: Nat. 013-11 16 60 Box 535, S-581 06 Linkoping, Sweden : Int. +46 13 11 16 60
ecsv24@castle.ed.ac.uk (J Bradfield) (01/23/90)
In article <SPQR.90Jan22081257@drake.ecs.soton.ac.uk> spqr@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Sebastian Rahtz) writes: >is it merely my ignorance that makes me think the Napoleonic >government invented the metre, and that it is a fraction of the >circumference of the globe? did someone redefine it later in terms of >the speed of light? They did; it was (1/4E7); someone did. If I recall, the metre was in turn 1E-7 of the distance from the North Pole to longtide 0, lat 0; the length of a platinum/iridium standard metre; a number of wavelengths of some light emitted by krypton; and the distance travelled by light in a certain time.
ivanlan@urbana.mcd.mot.com (Ivan Van Laningham) (01/24/90)
>>>From: spqr@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Sebastian Rahtz) writes: >>>I'm BORED with this the Amanda vs Woody sniping; I'm interested in >>>PostScript %%[stack overflow] yup. if i want to hear people trashing each other, i can always watch daytime tv....PLEASE, we are here to trade information. about PostScript. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ivanlan@urbana.mcd.mot.com (Ivan Van Laningham) motorola MCD urbana UDC 1101 e. university urbana IL 61801 39N 88W ----------------------------------------------------------------------- signature under construction, watch this space -----------------------------------------------------------------------