That's exactly right. They're *NOT* defined in any 'theoretical' manner. They are _measured_.
Oddly enough, when you measure something, there is 'uncertainty' in the results.
Yup. I've seen "approximations" of the relationship, out to 15+ decimals. Which, even so, claim to be nothing more than approximations.
6 sig figs is generally sufficient to reduce the 'error' to the level of 'undetectable by the unaided eye', over reasonable (for printing purposes) spans of distance, i.e. to around 30 inches. 72.27 pt/in is sufficient for 8-1/2x11 work, to the same standard.
Try doing 8' wide wall charts, and you find you _do_ need extra precision to deal with 'cumulative errors'.
As usual, Clinton, you know not that of which you speak.
*MEASURE* the side of a square, and it's diagonal. Now, tell me, *exactly* how much longer is the diagonal than the side? No uncertainty for measurement error, not an 'expression' as the difference of two theoretical terms, just the simple, single quantative value that is an _exact_ answer. Can't do it? Then, by your logic, the notion of a 'square' is nonsense.
Are you trying to be an asshole or are you really that stupid. You say that your system can not be defined by a known standard. If that is the case, there is no standard. The increments on your scale won't necessarily be anything close to the next guys scale. Why would it be if there was no standard? Just put a couple of marks on a scale, any distance, it doesn't matter, and call it a printers point.
were the original drawer guides center undermounted? in any case either type can be bracket mounted without screwing directly to the side of the cabinet- although I prefer to directly mount them. it's a more solid attachment. Bridger
Oh, OH, OH!!!! He _almost_ gets it. There _are "a couple of marks" on a reference; said marks _do_ constitute the "official standard". The distance between those marks is a pica (_by_definition, a point is 1/12 of a pica). No math, no theory, no 'definition' in terms of other units -- an actual _physical_ standard.
Just like the present-day definition of the kilogram, and the pre-1965 definition of the meter. Or the pre-1967 definition of the liter.
Until roughly the 1960s, the 'state of the art' in measurement was such that one could _compare_ two physical distances with a higher degree of precision than one could, for example, count wavelengths of light.
The printing world simply _hasn't_needed_ a more precise 'definition' than "a couple of marks" on a reference, "Comparative" accuracy of a 'copy' can be determined to about 1 part in "ten to the tenth" power, using only
1950's technology. In an environment where the difference between exactly 72:1 and 72.27:1 _usually_ doesn't matter, an 'error' of one or even two orders of magnitude greater than 1950's 'state of the art' is far smaller than what could affect any 'real-world' printing task. An approximation error of one part in ten-to-the-eighth, translates to an error of 1/10 of a point (approximately 10/7227 of an inch) in a distance _in_excess_of_ a fifth of a mile.
you know Robert, what I find hilarious is that you, as a person so well versed in the typesetting world over punctuate to the point that your writings are painful to read.
I did mostly precision typesetting, but the precision was in the placement of rules and boxes for computer imprinting of data. Since we never used lead type requiring shim stock to align, 72 points to the inch was the measurement that we used. We found that humidity and temperature could throw measurements off by more than the variation between true points and nominal 72 per inch points. Since we were using hand ruled artwork, then photo-typesetting and finally computer typesetting direct to film (and plate), we would have to add or subtract an occasional 1/4 point in order to effect the precision spacing.
As I said in an earlier posting, in my 39 years of precision business forms, I have found that the difference between the old true point and a nominal 72 point per inch point really doesn't matter much. There are more variances in dot spread, paper swelling in humidity, and film size changes after drying, not to mention plate stretch or blanket distortion on the printing press. When doing precision computer form printing these all must be allowed for, with various adjustments and quality control checks, it is the finished product that counts as there will always be an assorted number of adjustments that have to be made in the pre-press or work-up materials, just as one would do in woodworking. We tried to work to be within .003" across the entire printed image which could be up to 11" x 17". This is similar to the accuracy that people who worked in four colour printing aimed for.
Traditional USENET stuff. One doesn't have type-sizes, faces, or any of the other traditional means of indicating degree-of-emphasis/mood/intonation/etc., so one has to make do with what _is_ available. (example: that sentence can have quite different connotations when read aloud; depending on whether it is read with or without emphasis on the word "is".)
In addition, "Spoken" English, and "written" English are actually _separate_ languages. (This is true, by the way, of many languages besides English.) The 'rules' are generally similar, but there are significant differences.
Traditional USENET style is much closer to the spoken word than formal writing, but without the benefit of inflection, intonation, emphasis, accent, and the raft of other 'hints' present in actual verbalizations. Attempting to convey such nuances leads to use of lots of "supplemental grammatical symbols".
Yes, one _could_ regard this as a "smart-ASCII" answer. *grin*
I never found temperature to be much of an issue. Humidity, on the other hand, could be a _real_ bugbear.
Just wait till you get involved in publishing straight technical graphics.
An early project involved producing charts on a 36" (wide) roll-feed pen plotter, overlaid with a graph-paper grid transparency for shooting the plates. _Moderate_ humidity changes could cause things to 'move' by a _full_ grid square. When the data value for point 224 ends up on the line for 223 this *isn't* good. Not to mention point 112, which is "smack dab in the middle" of the box between the grid-lines for points 111 and 112.
A later project involved computer-driven photo-typesetting directly to film positive, several layers of which got 'sandwiched' together for the actual plate-making. (It wasn't practical to set everything at once; one of the overlays -- used on almost every page, naturally -- took more than an _hour_ _per_page_ to render on the typesetter; this was a time-critical production run, I only had about 5 hrs from the time I could start composing until the press had to be running. For a 64-page 'book', of which only 4-5 pages could be composed in advance.)
A quarter of a point was a _big_ error, in -that- environment. The typesetter I was using had a command language that "officially" supported addressing to 0.06 point increments. Unfortunately it was somewhat "inconsistent" in it's handling of those units. Found out the "why and wherefore" of that, when talking with the service engineer one day. The actual hardware resolution was 0.025 pt increments. Now, fortunately for me, the typesetter involved was somewhat on the "dumb" side -- when it encountered a command that was outside the range of valid movement/scaling commands, it turned on a light on the console that read "Illegal Instruction", and then went ahead and _DID_IT_ANYWAY_, to the best of it's ability. "Abusing" that 'feature' let me write files that reliably positioned to 1/40 pt. I couldn't hit 1/25th of a point, but I _could_ hit 1/40th.
Other, similar 'abuse of the rules' allowed me to produce honest-to-goodness
*gray-scale* output on *Ortho* film. Not half-tone, but _gray_. Even the vendor maintenance engineer didn't want to believe that _that_ came off his machine. :)
I just wanted to _thank_you_ for reminding me of a typesetting story that I have forgotten to tell my grandchildren. You reminded me about seeing my great-uncle making slugs on a Linotype, and reminded me of the clatter of the Linotype, the smell of the lead and the ink in his newspaper shop, and of picas, em's and en's too.
So now you say there is a standard. Can't even keep your story strait.
Which all had standards.
True. Comparison to a known standard.
But you claimed there was no standard. Can't have consistency without it. So which is it. Did you not know what you were talking about when you said there was no standard or do you not now know what you are taking about when you say that printing is done with precision?
Yes, we all have learned how to "bend" the capabilities of equipment, but no more than in computers and computer driven equipment.
All this brings back the first computer driven typesetter that I had purchased. I managed to automate the typesetting of a 36pp booklet with month calendars split over the binding. Today that is simple, but when you have to code all the rules and dates in commands, and get it all to run on a computer with 1k of memory available for the coding. It ran so slow that each page took 45 minutes to output. We would start it up when we went home and came in the morning to wait for it to finish, if there was a power problem or thunderstorm overnight, we had to start from the start again. The computer ran "core" memory, you could turn the power off and it would still remember its programs. However a thunderstorm would scramble the program, so you would have to reload from a paper tape.
I am glad after 39 years to be out of that business. The pressures of juggling 100 or more deadlines simultaneously were killing me. Now I do woodworking for a rest.
I stated that there was not an "exact relationship between points and inches."
*YOU* claimed that -- absent a definition in other units -- a standard didn't exist.
Do you know what the definition of a kilogram is? Can you recite it here?
Liar. Take your head out of your ass, and go re-read the thread to this point --
I said: "True printers points" vs. inches is -not- an exact relationship.
You responded: If that is the case, then "true printers points" are not accurately defined. What you are describing is an approximation and, that being the case, the notion of "precision printing" is nonsense. A precision approximation? What's that? Is it is similar to a smidge? Maybe closer to a gnat's ass?
To which, I replied: That's exactly right. They're *NOT* defined in any 'theoretical' manner. They are _measured_.
Whereupon, *YOU* said: Are you trying to be an asshole or are you really that stupid. You say that your system can not be defined by a known standard. If that is the case, there is no standard.
That is the first mention of a standard, or lack there of. Introduced by _YOUR_ lack of comprehension. I made no such claim. However, it _is_ true that there is *NOT* a "single, internationally-accepted" standard. The printing industries in various locales have settled on a reference standard for -their- locale. And are -not- necessarily consistent with each other. The old remark about "the nice thing about standards is that there are _so_many_ to choose from" applies with a vengeance in printing.
Since the premise is false -- that I said there was no standard -- the rest of your question is meaningless. In case it has escaped you, "precision" is a _relative_ term. If, in one area, an accuracy of 1:10**3 is generally acceptable, than a 1:10**5 can be regarded as high-precision. On the other hand, if the 'normal' accuracy is 1:10**8, then 1:10**5 is 'very crude'.
For a *lot* of printing, accuracy "+/- 1/2 pt" is 'good enough'. Measured against _that_ "standard", a job that _uses_ increments of "0.025 pt" _is_ "precision" printing. Don't take my word for it -- ask the platemakers, and the pressmen that had to _run_ that job. Ask why the 'composing' and 'paste-up' department was _completely_ bypassed.
To clarify:
0) "what's the definition of a 'point'?" "1/12 of a 'pica'"
1) "What's the definition of a 'pica'?" "THAT big (pointing)"
2) "How long is it?" "exactly 1 pica"
3) "What's that in inches?" "Measured as .166044 +/- .0000005 in."
4) "What's that in millimeters?" "Measured as 4.21752 +/- .000005 mm"
5) "Why not an exact value?" "it's *NOT* defined in terms of any other physical unit"
EVERYTHING I have said is absolutely consistent with those facts.
You persist in reading into my words things that I *did*not*say*. Followed by arguing against _your_ mis-interpretations.
And then *you* wonder out loud if _I_ am "trying to be an asshole or are really that stupid".
For those of us who have been on USENET for nearly 20 years, _yeah_, 'ultra modern' is an accurate description of "more than most" (i.e. more than 95%) of those using it today.
The USENET version of the 'older than dirt' survey --
Do you remember:
1) What a telebit trailblazer is? 2) The "Great Renaming"? 3) Mark V. Shaney? 4) "Bang path" email addresses 5) Where "cbosgd" was? 6) Who owned the original "ihnp4" 7) Who said "Always mount a scratch monkey"? 8) Kibo? 9) UUCP? 10) The names of (at least) three of the CABAL? 11) When did the first message originating from KREMVAX appear? 12) The deployment of DNS and hierarchical domain names? 13) acoustic couplers? 14) "talk", "finger", "who", and "write" 15) what "biff" does, and where the name comes from" 16) Who CJKIII was? 17) Where did Henry Spencer work? 18) What color was the LA-120? 19) What did the shift key on an ADM-3 do? 20) How many columns on a Burroughs punch card?
21) who A, W, and K, of AWK fame, are? 22) when the USENET 'flame' was an _art_form_? 23) Which government agency formerly owned the internet? 24) Where was 'seismo', and why was it important? 25) What does 'ick ack uck' refer to?
If you've never, for Internet access, used anything besides a: PC, Mac, Amiga, Commodore, or webtv, you're automatically disqualified.
"True printers points" vs. inches is -not- an exact relationship.
72.27 points for one inch is a 'good enough' approximation for almost all real-world work.
*YOU* are the one that claimed that that made the 'definition' of a point an "approximation".
To wit "If that is the case, then "true printers points" are not accurately defined. What you are describing is an approximation and, that being the case, the notion of "precision printing" is nonsense
A physical object has an 'exact' size _only_ in the system of measurement for which it _defines_ the size of a unit, and in secondary systems derived from that system.
Comparison with any system of measurement based on a _different_ physical standard, are, *BY*DEFINITION* approximations. Since the -only- way to establish the relationship is _by_ measurement, with the ensuing *unavoidable* errors and uncertainties.
Thus _any_ attempt to express the size of a printers point in inches (or even mm) _is_ an approximation.
That does *not* mean that the unit _itself_ is ill-defined, or an "approximation", in any way.
And it also should be obvious that 'the lack of an exact relationship' to a different system of measurement does _not_ preclude the existence of a reference standard for _this_ system of measurement.
However, that IS apparently what you believe. Since, based solely on my statements that: "True printers points" vs. inches is -not- an exact relationship. and They're *NOT* defined in any 'theoretical' manner. They are _measured_.
You state as incontrovertible fact: You say that your system can not be defined by a known standard. If that is the case, there is no standard. The increments on your scale won't necessarily be anything close to the next guys scale.
Either you are blind, or you are a deliberate liar, or both.
The value of _any_ "measurement" of a physical object is an approximation of it's true dimensions, *except* when that physical object _defines_ the system of measurement used.
If one _compares_ two physical objects, one can say: (A) they're the same size _within_the_limits_of_measurement_ (which does *not* mean that they are exactly the same) or (B) one is 'definitely' longer than the other, although we can't say "exactly" how much longer it is. (i.e. the _actual_ difference in size is greater than the possible measurement error.)
However, the reference object *itself* is not an approximation.
Since the measure in question _is_ defined by a reference object, and not in terms of any other unit of measure, then: (a) describing an _exact_ relationship between it and any other unit of measure is thus impossible. Because the _only_ way to determine the relationship is _to_measure_it. With unavoidable uncertainties and errors therein. (b) "approximations" *ARE* used in the real world. (c) The accuracy of the approximation that is required is determined by the nature of the work for which it is used.
I only stated that "72.27 points to the inch is a good enough approximation for almost all real-world work."
The pica does have an exact size.
Any attempt to express _what_ that size is, except in units _derived_ from the pica is an "approximation"
"Inches are derived from millimeters, which are derived from a _different_ physical standard than are picas."
Hence, any attempt to express the quantitative relationship between the two units of measurement is an approximation.
Using 2-place precision for the approximation, vs 4-place precision, makes a difference, across the entire width of a 21" display, of about 4 pixels. Or about 10 pixels, down the length of an 8.5x11 sheet of paper, on a 300DPI laser printer. It _is_ definitely noticeable, if you're looking for it. But usually _not_ enough to be a 'problem'. This is "why" low-end computer-based composing systems used 72 pts/in. instead of the 'closer' 72.27 pts/in. the math was 'simpler', and the system could be made 'less expensively'. The 'size error' wasn't enough to be a problem _to_the_target_customers_.
Go roughly another order of magnitude larger (say a 48" wide wall-chart), And impose an 'accuracy' requirement of less than 3 pixels (because you're drawing lines that are only 5 pixels wide), and the 4-place precision approximation isn't good enough any more. Almost, but not quite.
Double the size again, with the same 'absolute' precision required, and the 4-place approximation is "nowhere near" good enough.
There you go again. Claiming that it is defined then claiming it's not. You still don't know what you are talking about. I doubt you ever will. It's time I plonk you under the heading of hopeless. You're beginning to get boring.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.