Re: Document Format changes in Word 2004
From: Elliott Roper (nospam_at_yrl.co.uk)
Date: 11/14/04
- Next message: TimH: "Follow-up to - Document Format changes in Word 2004"
- Previous message: Phillip M. Jones, CE.T.: "Re: Document Format changes in Word 2004"
- In reply to: Phillip M. Jones, CE.T.: "Re: Document Format changes in Word 2004"
- Next in thread: Phillip M. Jones, CE.T.: "Re: Document Format changes in Word 2004"
- Reply: Phillip M. Jones, CE.T.: "Re: Document Format changes in Word 2004"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 20:57:06 +0000
In article <OQsQmznyEHA.2568@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl>, Phillip M. Jones,
CE.T. <pjones@kimbanet.com> wrote:
> Clive Huggan wrote:
> > On 14/11/04 12:16 PM, in article e5pBJeeyEHA.2624@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl,
> > "Phillip M. Jones, CE.T." <pjones@kimbanet.com> wrote:
> >
> > <snips>
> >
> >>there is a ratio that at work usually
> >>
> >>Mac = 72 dpi
> >>PC = 96 dpi
<more snippage>
> If Mac has switched to 96dpi, I am unaware of it. I use a ATI Radeon Pro
> 9000 Card to use my Mitsubishi DiamondPoint NX86LCD DVI monitor and as
> far as I an tell it 72dpi.
You were probably still in nappies. Somewhere about 1986. ;-)
This 72/96 only applied to bitmap fonts. Nobody, but nobody, uses
bitmap fonts any more.
Ever since, with Postscript, Truetype, OTF, whatever, there is no such
thing as dots per inch. And not only that, *those* inches were
fictional anyway.
The font size in points, of which there are more or less 72 in every
real inch, is the distance between the top of ascenders (think lower
case b) and descenders (think y) plus an historical little bit. The
historical little bit was when type was set in hot metal. The font size
was what you measured with a micrometer with a slug of type in its
jaws.
Slugs were whole lines of type cast in some daft tin lead zinc alloy.
OK, I exaggerate and over-simplify, but that was part of the history.
Nowadays the pixels per inch on a screen are all over the shop. This
Powerbook of mine has 1024*768 pixels on a 12.1 diagonal screen.
Lemme see now. sqrt(1024^2+768^2)/12.1 = 105.785123966942 pixels /inch
Mitsubishi Diamond Point NX86LCD is 1280*1024 and 18.1" viewable
Shoving the same pythagoras at it yields 90.563525126122 pixels /inch
You will find the same thing over on the dark side. Every screen is
different.
When it comes to printing, everyone is using the same inches and points
and the same document with the same typeface and the same margins with
the same printer drivers *should* look exactly the same, no matter how
'magnified' the screen picture is. The size of the on-screen imaage is
utterly irrelevant to the point size. For instance, displaying the
exact same file on my Powerbook and your gorgeous Mitsubishi Lancer
EVO-6 turbo would show your characters as being almost 17% larger than
mine. And we are both on Maccas.
After all that, some fonts *look* bigger than others, both on-screen
and printed. Fonts whose x-height is large compared with their font
size - in other words - the ascenders and descenders are relatively
short, such as Times New Roman, look a lot bigger on the page than say,
Adobe Garamond or Zapfino to choose a ridiculous example.
If your associate is substituting fonts, that might explain why the
printed page seems to have bigger type, but it has nothing to do with
72 or 96 bits per inch. That went out with Mac Paint.
>
> I have a friend that's in a Association I am in and we work together on
> Asssociation matters (we are officers) and stuff he sends show up larger
> that should be for me. And if I send him something he usually has to
> change font size.
>
> If he types something in 9 point it looks 12 pt to me.
>
> May be the Va Hummidity 8-).
>
> Although sometimes he send s stuff with Shiruti(?) font (i'd love to
> have it just to see what it looked like, i've tried to locate a place to
> download on ms website. OSx can use MS TT fonts natively.) Most of the
> time he sends in TNR.
Finally, I wouldn't trust TNR on Windows and Mac to be utterly
identical. They should be awfully close, but I'm willing to bet there
is more than one version of the font out there with slightly different
metrics just to frustrate Word users trying to preserve pagination
across printers and platforms. Remember that heaps of printers have TNR
resident. That will come to bite you in some programs (not Word) that
leave the Postscript in the printer to break left justified lines.
Other printers may turn your type into ransom notes, because their font
width tables differ from yours.
-- I thought I would be the last on earth to mung my e-mail address. fsnospam$elliott$$
- Next message: TimH: "Follow-up to - Document Format changes in Word 2004"
- Previous message: Phillip M. Jones, CE.T.: "Re: Document Format changes in Word 2004"
- In reply to: Phillip M. Jones, CE.T.: "Re: Document Format changes in Word 2004"
- Next in thread: Phillip M. Jones, CE.T.: "Re: Document Format changes in Word 2004"
- Reply: Phillip M. Jones, CE.T.: "Re: Document Format changes in Word 2004"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
