Printing 3 inch high numbers?

  • Thread starter Thread starter LB
  • Start date Start date
Want to print my phone number which I will then physically cut and tape to
a
sign.
Am willing to print one or a few numbers and then cut / tape as needed.

LB
Click to expand...
Did you check out the website?
 
Anyone know of a program I can use to print 3" high numbers?

TIA

LB
Click to expand...


LB,
Not much of an expert, but, in several word processing progs I have, if one
selects the 'font size' box, rather than scroll down to maximum listed (72),
and types in '300' (not including quotes), then 3" high numbers get printed.
ie:- 100 points per inch height.
Certainly MS Word - Notepad - Wordpad - Works - all do this

dfrog
 
dfrog said:
LB,
Not much of an expert, but, in several word processing progs I have, if one
selects the 'font size' box, rather than scroll down to maximum listed (72),
and types in '300' (not including quotes), then 3" high numbers get printed.
ie:- 100 points per inch height.
Certainly MS Word - Notepad - Wordpad - Works - all do this

dfrog
Click to expand...

Damn! Your way works - after I used Pilbs method.

So thanks to both of you.

LB
 
Not much of an expert, but, in several word processing progs I have, if one
selects the 'font size' box, rather than scroll down to maximum listed (72),
and types in '300' (not including quotes), then 3" high numbers get printed.
ie:- 100 points per inch height.
Certainly MS Word - Notepad - Wordpad - Works - all do this
Click to expand...

Another thing to keep in mind. When wanting a number of numbers/words
to look large I have printed them then photocopied them larger. If
still not large enough I have copied the copy etc.

Regards, John.
--
****************************************************
,-._|\ (A.C.F FAQ) http://clients.net2000.com.au/~johnf/faq.html
/ Oz \ John Fitzsimons - Melbourne, Australia.
\_,--.x/ http://www.vicnet.net.au/~johnf/welcome.htm
v http://clients.net2000.com.au/~johnf/
 
Not much of an expert, but, in several word processing progs I have,
if one selects the 'font size' box, rather than scroll down to maximum
listed (72), and types in '300' (not including quotes), then 3" high
numbers get printed. ie:- 100 points per inch height.
Click to expand...

A point is usually defined as being 1/72 inch (not 1/100). A 3 inch
distance would correspond to a point size of about 216.

Regards,
Wald
 
Wald said:
A point is usually defined as being 1/72 inch (not 1/100). A 3 inch
distance would correspond to a point size of about 216.

Regards,
Wald
Click to expand...

Hiya Wald,

Yes, I thought the same..........but.........I printed out a letter at 72
point, and when I measured it (old fashioned 12" rule on printed piece of
paper) it measured 0.72" high, hence my advice of point size 100 for each
inch height. (All my print settings being 100% also, although there may be
an explanation somewhere along the line)
Nice thing is, the original poster (and maybe some others) has got the hang
of it now whether its 72ths or 100ths
Thanks for your contribution.
dfrog
 
dfrog said:
...


Yes, I thought the same..........but.........I printed out a letter at
72 point, and when I measured it (old fashioned 12" rule on printed
piece of paper) it measured 0.72" high, hence my advice of point size
100 for each inch height.
Click to expand...

Okay, I admit that I did not try it. Let's just say this is one of the
things that MS seems to know better ;-)

Regards,
Wald
 
Okay, I admit that I did not try it. Let's just say this is one of the
things that MS seems to know better ;-)
Click to expand...

I just tested this on Word97 by selecting Times New Roman with a "72"
font size. The resulting uppercase letters were approximately 0.75
inches high. They could easily actually be 0.72 inches to a younger
pair of eyes.

Perhaps MS decided to ignore conventions and standards. As usual.
 
Vic Dura said:
I just tested this on Word97 by selecting Times New Roman with a "72"
font size. The resulting uppercase letters were approximately 0.75
inches high. They could easily actually be 0.72 inches to a younger pair
of eyes.

Perhaps MS decided to ignore conventions and standards. As usual.
Click to expand...

Point size is measured from the top of the ascender to the bottom of the
descender; uppercase letters have no descenders.

Maybe this is one place where MS do stick to the standard.
 
thoss said:
Point size is measured from the top of the ascender to the bottom of the
descender; uppercase letters have no descenders.

Maybe this is one place where MS do stick to the standard.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that Thoss.

One of the things I like about these newsgroups, is the opportunity we have
to learn from those with knowledge, who are prepared to share it

dfrog
 
Okay, I admit that I did not try it. Let's just say this is one of the
things that MS seems to know better ;-)
Click to expand...
I was under the impression that a Point was actually a percentage
point hence the 100 points to the inch however in my Concise Oxford
Dictionary I found this definition

Point: 25 Printing a unit of measurement for type bodies (in the UK
and US 0.351 mm, in Europe 0.376 mm).

The 0.351mm corresponds to 0.01381886 inches while the 0.376mm
corresponds to 0.0148031inches.

Obviously the first corresponds closely to your interpretation while
the second is roughly equivalent to 1/67 inches. It seems that M$ only
did a calculation to two decimal places hence the 0.01 inch size in
their output.

I have now revised my mental definition.
 
David said:
I was under the impression that a Point was actually a percentage
point hence the 100 points to the inch however in my Concise Oxford
Dictionary I found this definition

Point: 25 Printing a unit of measurement for type bodies (in the UK
and US 0.351 mm, in Europe 0.376 mm).

The 0.351mm corresponds to 0.01381886 inches while the 0.376mm
corresponds to 0.0148031inches.

Obviously the first corresponds closely to your interpretation while
the second is roughly equivalent to 1/67 inches. It seems that M$ only
did a calculation to two decimal places hence the 0.01 inch size in
their output.

I have now revised my mental definition.

--
David
Remove "farook" to reply
At the bottom of the application where it says
"sign here". I put "Sagittarius"
Click to expand...

To all who may be following this thread :-
There is no wonder that there appears to be so many different
'understandings' of font point size
This site is Google's attempt to define 'Point Size'
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=define:+point+size&meta=

One of the definitions is :-
A unit of measurement for font height; 72 points equals 1 inch as measured
from slightly above the top of the uppercase letters to slightly below the
bottom of the lowercase descenders.

I wonder what 'slightly' means in real terms :-) :-) :-)

It's now giving me a big smile
dfrog
 
dfrog wrote:
[SNIP]
To all who may be following this thread :-
There is no wonder that there appears to be so many different
'understandings' of font point size
This site is Google's attempt to define 'Point Size'
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=define:+point+size&meta=

One of the definitions is :-
A unit of measurement for font height; 72 points equals 1 inch as measured
from slightly above the top of the uppercase letters to slightly below the
bottom of the lowercase descenders.

I wonder what 'slightly' means in real terms :-) :-) :-)

It's now giving me a big smile
Click to expand...

It's all really easy, but you have to have been involved in printing
using "cold-metal". Or have looked at the print heads on a manual
typewriter.

The point size is really the size of the block that glyph is raised from.

ASCII art follows, representing an Upper-case 'I' and a lower-case 'j':

+------+ +------+
| | | |
| I | | |
| I | | |
| I | | j |
| I | | |
| I | | j |
| I | | j |
| I | | j |
| I | | j |
| | | j |
| | |j j |
| | | jjj |
| | | |
+------+ +------+

See the extra line above and below the highest ascender and lowest
descender?

Presumably there are some pictures on line of (damn it, it's been over
20 years, I can't recall the term for the bits of metal). Go ogle "cold
metal type setting" and you should find some.

Cheers,
Gary B-)
 
dfrog wrote:
[SNIP]

The point size is really the size of the block that glyph is raised from.

ASCII art follows, representing an Upper-case 'I' and a lower-case 'j':

+------+ +------+
| | | |
| I | | |
| I | | |
| I | | j |
| I | | |
| I | | j |
| I | | j |
| I | | j |
| I | | j |
| | | j |
| | |j j |
| | | jjj |
| | | |
+------+ +------+

See the extra line above and below the highest ascender and lowest
descender?
Click to expand...
Thanks for the explanation.
Presumably there are some pictures on line of (damn it, it's been over
20 years, I can't recall the term for the bits of metal). Go ogle "cold
metal type setting" and you should find some.
Click to expand...
Were you thinking of "linotype" perhaps?
 
Back
Top