On 02/07/08 09:07, Hamish wrote:
Hi,
I notice in ps/ps.map/paper.h that A0 is slightly different than other
published values. Actually other values found on the 'net are all over
the place.
In an effort to "do it right" I've recalculated them as follows, from the
fundamental A0=1m^2; W:H = 1:sqrt(2) definition:
size|width_mm|height_mm|width_inch|height_inch
A0|840.90|1189.21|33.106|46.819
A1|594.60|840.90|23.410|33.106
A2|420.45|594.60|16.553|23.410
A3|297.30|420.45|11.705|16.553
A4|210.22|297.30|8.277|11.705
A5|148.65|210.22|5.852|8.277
A6|105.11|148.65|4.138|5.852
A7|74.33|105.11|2.926|4.138
A8|52.56|74.33|2.069|2.926
A9|37.16|52.56|1.463|2.069
A10|26.28|37.16|1.035|1.463
the Matlab (should work in GNU Octave) script to do that is attached.
I notice these still don't line up exactly with the more trusted values I
can find. Usually the error is minor rounding in the wrong direction on
the least significant digit, or truncation. I assume cascading rounding
or conversion errors are generally to blame. (width becomes length from
the previous size, etc)
I'm not too concerned if ps.map paper sizes end up being off < 1/72"
(1pt), but as there is so much noise out there on this I though it
would be nice to use trusted values.
Before I commit the above values, does anyone see a problem in my script
or know if the sizes are actually defined by ISO as "rounded" values in
some unit, versus the mathematical approach that I've taken?
any requests on what sizes we should include? currently for ISO sizes we
only define A0-A4.
I've never seen these sizes with decimals (my usual sources: [1],[2]),
so I actually think that they are defined rounded to mm.
And quite honestly, I don't think that submillimetric measurements are
really of any importance...
[1] http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/iso-paper.html
[2] http://www.edsebooks.com/paper/papersize.html
Moritz
_______________________________________________
grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
