«

>Can anyone tell me how to calculate number of points per inch font type?

There are 72 points to an inch[1]. One-inch type is 72-point type.

But Photoshop lets you specify font sizes in pixels; no unit conversion
necessary.

[1] Historically, a typographer's point has been slightly smaller; thee are
72.27 points to an inch. For reasons of simplicity, Adobe has defined a "point"
for the purposes of computer design as 72 points per inch, a standard which has
become widely accepted in the prepress industry.

--
Rude T-shirts for a rude age: http://www.villaintees.com
Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

On 05 Aug 2003 22:00:35 GMT, (E-Mail Removed) (Tacit) wrote:


>
>There are 72 points to an inch[1]. One-inch type is 72-point type.
>

But, to further clarify just because 72 pts = one inch does not mean
that the height of any particular letter set in 72 pt will actually
measure one inch.

Even if you set the word "Pig" for instance in 72 pt, then I doubt
that the vertical measure from the top of the "P" to the botton of the
"g" would be 72 pts. And in some fonts the dimension would be less
than others.

Just thought I point that out.


-- JC

>But, to further clarify just because 72 pts = one inch does not mean
>that the height of any particular letter set in 72 pt will actually
>measure one inch.

Correct. The point size of a typeface is measured from the height of the
tallest ascender to the bottom of the lowest descender; so, for example, a
capital letter set in 72-point type will not be 1 inch tall.

--
Rude T-shirts for a rude age: http://www.villaintees.com
Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

On 06 Aug 2003 15:19:09 GMT, (E-Mail Removed) (Tacit) wrote:


>
>Correct. The point size of a typeface is measured from the height of the
>tallest ascender to the bottom of the lowest descender; so, for example, a
>capital letter set in 72-point type will not be 1 inch tall.

That's not correct.

I cannot think of a font in which the above would be true. Having
survived from the days of repro and using wax, boards, and matte
knives to slice lines of type, and cursing when what was ordered is
not what you thought you'd get, I can tell you that there's usually
empty space above the tallest letter and below the lowest decender.
Additionally, not all descenders descend the same amout (a "g"
sometimes goes lower than a "p" for example)

Test for example 72 pt Times and Helvetica. Type the word "High" in
both fonts at 72 pt with 72 pt leading and measure (you don't even
have to print it, you can simply measure it in Pagemaker by drawing
guides one inch apart). From the top of the "H" to the bottom of the
"g" measures less than 72 pts. The vertical measure of the word in
Times is 9 pts less than 72 and Helvetica's measure is about 4 pts
less.


-- JC

On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 17:21:55 GMT, J C <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On 06 Aug 2003 15:19:09 GMT, (E-Mail Removed) (Tacit) wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Correct. The point size of a typeface is measured from the height of the
>>tallest ascender to the bottom of the lowest descender; so, for example, a
>>capital letter set in 72-point type will not be 1 inch tall.
>
>That's not correct.
>
>I cannot think of a font in which the above would be true. Having
>survived from the days of repro and using wax, boards, and matte
>knives to slice lines of type, and cursing when what was ordered is
>not what you thought you'd get, I can tell you that there's usually
>empty space above the tallest letter and below the lowest decender.
>Additionally, not all descenders descend the same amout (a "g"
>sometimes goes lower than a "p" for example)
>
>Test for example 72 pt Times and Helvetica. Type the word "High" in
>both fonts at 72 pt with 72 pt leading and measure (you don't even
>have to print it, you can simply measure it in Pagemaker by drawing
>guides one inch apart). From the top of the "H" to the bottom of the
>"g" measures less than 72 pts. The vertical measure of the word in
>Times is 9 pts less than 72 and Helvetica's measure is about 4 pts
>less.

How about accents as in "É" or "Â" ?
....from the tallest ascender to the lowest descender....

Michael
>
>
>-- JC

On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 19:50:31 GMT, (E-Mail Removed) (Xalinai) wrote:

>
>How about accents as in "É" or "Â" ?
>...from the tallest ascender to the lowest descender....
>

Good question, try setting a line of 72 pt Helvetica with all the
"A's" that contain accents and mysteriously you will find out that the
distance from the accent mark on a capital letter to the lowest
descender on a "g" is MORE than 72 pts. Something that just should not
be.

But then again, back in the old days when the original point size
convention was created, English language font sets did not include ANY
letters containing accent marks (search "California Job Case" on
Google and take a look at the layouts).

Back in the days when type was metal and each letter forged as a
separate bit and all those little pieces were held in California Job
Cases, the point size designation was the size of the metal slug. The
actual font forged on top never reached all the way to the edge.
(Rumor has it that this protected the edges of the type from becoming
worn/chipped when loose type was handled and when leading bars were
placed between lines fo type. Whether that's true I'll leave to better
historians.)

BTW, the leading was a flat piece of metal that was placed between
lines of type. And when done the whole thing was locked in a frame and
put into a letter press.

Lastly, back in the olden days, 72 pts was not exactly one inch. For
simplicity, in the computer age, the point ruler was changed and now
72 pts equals one inch. But PageMaker, for instance, does give you the
option of working in the old system (but why would you want to).



-- JC

>I cannot think of a font in which the above would be true.

Well....that depends.

On most typefaces, the glyphs fit into a "block" whose size is slightly larger
than the distance from the lowest descender to the tallest ascender, though
this is not true of *all* typefaces; for example, in Emigre's typeface
"Arbitrary Sans," the glyphs fit within a block beginning at the bottom edge of
the descender of the letter "g".

A font's glyphs are not necessarily constrained to this space; in some
typefaces which contain extended characters, a circumflex over a vowel may
extend above what should nominally be the top of the box defining the maximum
height of a glyph. This is virtually impossible to do with old-fashioned metal
type, of course.

--
Rude T-shirts for a rude age: http://www.villaintees.com
Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

"Xalinai" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 17:21:55 GMT, J C <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >On 06 Aug 2003 15:19:09 GMT, (E-Mail Removed) (Tacit) wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >>Correct. The point size of a typeface is measured from the height of the
> >>tallest ascender to the bottom of the lowest descender; so, for example,
a
> >>capital letter set in 72-point type will not be 1 inch tall.
> >
> >That's not correct.
> >
> >I cannot think of a font in which the above would be true. Having
> >survived from the days of repro and using wax, boards, and matte
> >knives to slice lines of type, and cursing when what was ordered is
> >not what you thought you'd get, I can tell you that there's usually
> >empty space above the tallest letter and below the lowest decender.
> >Additionally, not all descenders descend the same amout (a "g"
> >sometimes goes lower than a "p" for example)

Well, in old days of manual work with those metallic thingies (in case you
ever seen them) the answer was very simple: the font size is the height of
that metal character thingie (sorry but I don't know how they there called
in English). The character itself does not have to fit this size, however,
obviously, type designers were quite economic so the character came rather
close to this "bounding box". So, character height depended both on font
size and particular typeface.

Ilyich.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ilya Razmanov (a.k.a. Ilyich the Toad)
http://photoshop.msk.ru/ - Photoshop plug-in filters
"How much longer is this story?" - Guybrush Threepwood, Monkey Island 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 06 Aug 2003 22:29:07 GMT, (E-Mail Removed) (Tacit) wrote:

> This is virtually impossible to do with old-fashioned metal
>type, of course.

Yes, the extended character sets possible in the computer age have
violated some of the old conventions.

I've never held a piece of metal type in my hand that was, for
example, a capital letter with a diacritical mark. I'm wondering what
the point size designation of an "Å" and a regular "A" would have been
such that the height of the "A" portion of a 72 pt piece of type would
have been the same. Or would the "A" with the accept mark been in a
different point size to accommodate the extra height.

Anyone know?


-- JC

Thanks for all the response, however something must be wrong with my
computer. I created a new 4"x4" image, clicked on the Type Tool, set font to
Times New Roman with 72 points. Actual measurement on screen and printed out
was a little less than 3/4". Arial font was about the same. My preferences
set at 300 ppi print resolution and 72 screen res.
Changed both to 72 and then 300. No difference in size of print. (In so
doing my original question was answered in the Units and Rulers
preference,ie, PS Fonts 72 per in, Traditional 72.27per in.) In ideas?

Jon


"J C" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:92gyP9X9t5OQOON=dRB=(E-Mail Removed)...
> On 06 Aug 2003 22:29:07 GMT, (E-Mail Removed) (Tacit) wrote:
>
> > This is virtually impossible to do with old-fashioned metal
> >type, of course.
>
> Yes, the extended character sets possible in the computer age have
> violated some of the old conventions.
>
> I've never held a piece of metal type in my hand that was, for
> example, a capital letter with a diacritical mark. I'm wondering what
> the point size designation of an "Å" and a regular "A" would have been
> such that the height of the "A" portion of a 72 pt piece of type would
> have been the same. Or would the "A" with the accept mark been in a
> different point size to accommodate the extra height.
>
> Anyone know?
>
>
> -- JC