Skip navigation
Currently Being Moderated

Indesign Doing The Maths

Jan 24, 2011 7:34 PM

In all Indesign dialogs you can let Indesign do the maths for you ie: witdth / 2 gives you half the width... great.

 

Question:

In page setup if you where doing a imposition and wanted page width (90mm) x 4 copies thats easy at 90mm*4 indesign gives you the answer

But then if you want to increase that by another 40mm to allow space between each 90mm can indesign work that out in one go

ie: something like this (which does not work) 90*4 +40mm this keeps coming up invalid numeric value (Can you tell indesign that there are two sums to work out)

Or do you have to do it in two sums

ie: 90*4

= 360mm

then 360mm +40

=400mm

 
Replies
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 25, 2011 12:56 AM   in reply to mckayk_777-PN6kWE

    No it can't but just type in 90*4 then press tab then shift tab and then insert +40mm

     

    Or use a calculator and input the numbers. It's fairly basic maths that I think most people should be able to work out in their head.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 25, 2011 8:35 AM   in reply to Eugene Tyson

    Just to fuel the fire, this is something that XPress has been able to do correctly since 1990...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 25, 2011 8:39 AM   in reply to heavyboots

    Yeh that doesn't impress me though.

     

    You should really know the final size of your document before you even turn the computer on. Something I learned from the first day. Plan ahead, think finishing at the beginning.

     

    There's really no excuse for trying to add up how big your document should be while inserting the dimensions into the fields. You should know these already.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 25, 2011 8:46 AM   in reply to heavyboots

    heavyboots wrote:

     

    Just to fuel the fire, this is something that XPress has been able to do correctly since 1990...

    Well they had to get ONE thing right in all those years. Personally, that isn't enough to make me give up all the other things that ID gets right and Xpress doesn't.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 25, 2011 9:12 AM   in reply to Peter Spier

    Eugene Tyson wrote:

     

    Yeh that doesn't impress me though.

     

    You should really know the final size of your document before you even turn the computer on. Something I learned from the first day. Plan ahead, think finishing at the beginning.

     

    There's really no excuse for trying to add up how big your document should be while inserting the dimensions into the fields. You should know these already.

     

    Well obviously page size is just one example of where this would be useful. Another is figuring out grids—eg, I want 4 boxes across the page with 1p6 gutters between, so how big should they be?

     

    (45p-(3*1p6))/4 is a valid entry in an XPress measurement field and will return the correct box size, which you can then clone across the page.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 25, 2011 9:29 AM   in reply to heavyboots

    heavyboots wrote:

    ...Another is figuring out grids—eg, I want 4 boxes across the page with 1p6 gutters between, so how big should they be?

     

    (45p-(3*1p6))/4 is a valid entry in an XPress measurement field and will return the correct box size, which you can then clone across the page.

    In ID you can do this pretty quickly in a single step (in CS5) while dragging the frame by using the "gridified" features. Put the cursor where you want the upper left corner and begin to drag the frame. Without releasing press the right arrow key to split the frame vertically, or the up arrow key to split it horizontally. The gap is controled by the setting for gutter in the document setup. You can build a perfect grid without touching step and repeat.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 25, 2011 9:48 AM   in reply to Peter Spier

    While this is useful info, the point is, there will always be situations where it would be nice to be able to do full-on math rather than the weak sauce Adobe has provided since ID 1.0.

     

    Like I said at the start of my first post, it's more fuel to the fire/flares sent up in case an engineer stumbles through the thread than anything I expect anyone in here to solve. Thanks though, Peter!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 25, 2011 10:23 AM   in reply to heavyboots

    If you wan the math abilities to change, file a request at

    Adobe - Feature Request/Bug Report Form

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 25, 2011 10:28 AM   in reply to Peter Spier

    Quark also offers multiple ways to clear frames via Alien Eradication, whereas InDesign hasn't been able to be able to remove any form of frame via laser gun, let alone via bazooka.

    quark pros.png

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 25, 2011 10:39 AM   in reply to macinbytes

    OK, I surrender.


     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 25, 2011 10:47 AM   in reply to macinbytes

    You had me laughing out loud!

     

    I'm glad there's no one around to look at me funny (besides the aliens).

     

    Harbs

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 25, 2011 12:34 PM   in reply to macinbytes

    Macinbytes makes an excellent point. Where's our alien death ray delete after 7 version?!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 25, 2011 1:28 PM   in reply to heavyboots

    Yep! Also no certificate border option to frames that generates postscript that will make a prepressman's cry over their Harlequin RIP like their wive's cry over their Harlequin romance novel.

     

    It's truly amazing how lukewarm the design community's reaction to the newer versions of Quark has been. They've revolutionized publishing…again. They love design http://www.ilovedesign.com/ but design doesn't love them back. Like Microsoft Adobe Killer Expressions Design. Vector. Raster. It doesn't care. Designers didn't care either.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 25, 2011 1:37 PM   in reply to macinbytes

    I abandoned Quark in 2001. Customer service was the pits, upgrades were outrageously expensive (and then they stopped letting you have old versions simultaneously installed), and it was twice as hard to almost anything as it is in ID due to the clunkiness of the interface (I used version 8 for an hour or two at a client's last year, and it didn't seem much better), so I never looked back. I suspect that's true of most ID users who made the switch.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 25, 2011 3:23 PM   in reply to Peter Spier

    Yeah, the XPress interface could use some work. I monkeyed with it about a year ago and it was pretty surreal how much like XPress 5 it felt—which was not a good thing. Mind you, IMHO Adobe is busy digging themselves a hole so deep with their current interface strategy that it will be difficult to climb out of eventually. Everything past CS2 has been a gradual decent into hell for me as a Mac user.

     

    There are only a few key things that XPress did/does better than InDesign. Not many, but they are there and I do wish that Adobe would see fit to implement them sometime before CS10, lol! But anyways, we've probably beaten the horse to dust by now...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 25, 2011 3:31 PM   in reply to heavyboots

    The interface is a matter of opinion. I love the CS5 interface and I especially like the fact that on the Mac there's an application frame for almost all of the CS5 apps. Why Acrobat and Dreamweaver don't have it is a mystery to me.

     

    I should point out that I have two large monitors. This makes it much easier to work.

     

    Bob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 26, 2011 12:47 AM   in reply to mckayk_777-PN6kWE

    mckayk_777 wrote:

     

    You did not read the OP properly, the size was know it was all to do with the imposition in preparing for film

     

    I couldn't really understand the first post, all I got out of it was that Quark can add up multiple sums at the same time and InDesign can't. My original point stands, know the math before you start. It's a real timesaver.

     

    I gave up doing impositions in Quark after I imposed a dictionary for film. I got imposition software after that that handles it better than Quark or InDesign ever could.

     

    Regardless of how Quark handles it, InDesign cannot do measurements like that.

     

    Besides, I never sat down to do an imposition on the computer without having it planned on paper first.

     

    I guess I'm "old school" at the tender age of 30, I'm still planning things on paper first, then doing them on the computer second.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 26, 2011 12:59 AM   in reply to heavyboots

    heavyboots wrote:

     

    Well obviously page size is just one example of where this would be useful. Another is figuring out grids—eg, I want 4 boxes across the page with 1p6 gutters between, so how big should they be?

     

    (45p-(3*1p6))/4 is a valid entry in an XPress measurement field and will return the correct box size, which you can then clone across the page.

     

    CTRL ALT U (Step and Repeat)

     

    Well if the width of the box(frame) is 9p and I want 4 of them to be 1p6 apart I step and repeat the object x4 with a value of 9p+1p6=10p6

     

    It's not that difficult to add 9p4 and 1p6; for example - which is "11p" for those out there.

     

     

    I don't really see what's so hard about that? It seems easier than typing in 45p-(3*1p6))/4

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 26, 2011 1:08 AM   in reply to Eugene Tyson

    I guess for some people they didn't do any technical drawing in their lifetime so figuring out things like this is a bit cumbersome. I find it quite easy, perhaps I'm doing it too long. Yes quark is handy in that regard of making the box (frames) using a calculation like that.

     

    But alas InDesign measurements don't work that way.

     

     

    There's a much simpler way to make the boxes fit though.

     

    Draw one frame the width of the measure.

     

    Then go the Scripts panel and in the Javascript folder theres a MakeGrid.JSX

     

    Just type in the amount of columns you want and the gutter width. And it's done.

     

    No need for fancy math.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 26, 2011 1:48 AM   in reply to mckayk_777-PN6kWE

    Ah yes the Scripts - very handy little area to get into

     

    Scripts are extremely powerful. There's plenty of people that write scripts for various reasons.

     

    http://indesignsecrets.com/how-to-install-scripts-in-indesign.php

     

    http://www.kasyan.ho.com.ua/my_scripts.html

    http://www.kahrel.plus.com/indesignscripts.html

    http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/exchange/index.cfm?l=-1&s=5&o=desc&exc=19 &cat=224&event=productHome

    http://indiscripts.com/

    http://www.danrodney.com/scripts/

     

    And many other free resources.

     

     

     

    Sorry I disagree that you say my *original reply had nothing to do with what was asked. You asked could InDesign do math like Quark and I said it couldn't.

     

    Is there something else you wanted answered?

     

    *edit* apologies you were referring to my last post not the original post.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 26, 2011 5:40 AM   in reply to Eugene Tyson

    Eugene Tyson wrote:


    It's not that difficult to add 9p4 and 1p6; for example - which is "11p" for those out there.

    Hmm. Maybe it's harder than you think. My picas have 12 pts per, so the sum above would be 10p10...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 26, 2011 5:53 AM   in reply to Peter Spier

    Oh dear ...

     

    Hmm yes - I'm going to save math for after morning coffee in future.

     

    I believe I meant 1p8 - sixes and eights look so similar.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 26, 2011 6:35 AM   in reply to Eugene Tyson

    I find it easier if you have six fingers or toes on each appendage.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 26, 2011 6:40 AM   in reply to Peter Spier

    That would help. Funny enough, I typed those figures in and added them up on the computer. Another reason I don't trust myself inserting calculations into a machine. Pen and paper for me. Much more reliable than relying on myself to press the right button.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 26, 2011 9:44 PM   in reply to Peter Spier

    Hey … I believe at this point we should definitely get into what the metric system can do vs. the imperial system! At least for five-fingered mammals, that is …

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 27, 2011 6:12 AM   in reply to Wolf Eigner

    As an American I'm never going metric. You'll have to pry my Schaedler C from my cold dead hands.

     

    http://www.schaedlerprecision.com/products.htm

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 2, 2011 12:35 PM   in reply to macinbytes

    Are those rulers available as 72 points per inch?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 2, 2011 12:41 PM   in reply to Fred Goldman

    That's exactly what they are.


     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 2, 2011 12:41 PM   in reply to Fred Goldman

    The B is. I really can't say enough awesome things about SPRs. I always assumed all graphic artists owned at least one.

     

    http://www.schaedlerprecision.com/46-dip.htm

     

    DTP Points & Picas (DTP = DeskTop Publishing) have been placed on the other edge of this rule. And this time, the points and picas do correspond to standard inches. 12 points = 1 pica; 6 picas = 1 inch. The scale is cumulatively marked in both points and picas for the entire length of the rule (72 picas or 864 points = 12 inches).

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 2, 2011 12:52 PM   in reply to macinbytes

    I see, the B ruler is what we need. We have the A ruler, all the old stuff from our old publishing system is in printer picas (which by the way is not 72.27 as Adobe may want you to believe). The problem is now that we have been using InDesign the ruler isn't exact anymore.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 2, 2011 12:55 PM   in reply to Fred Goldman

    Echhhh....

     

    (which by the way is not 72.27 as Adobe may want you to believe)

     

    I read about that ratio, and Adobe's rounding-off to 72, when I started working with PostScript (raw PostScript, yay!), and have been telling this as an "inside joke" for literally years to graphic school interns.

     

    So ... what is it, then?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 2, 2011 1:03 PM   in reply to [Jongware]-9BC6tI

    Echhh is right, now when we try and paste text from the converted stuff into new documents they come in with point sizes like 13.994 instead of 14. It's a real pain.

     

    According to the Schaedler site "six picas are equal to .99576 of an  inch". That would bring you to about 72.30658.

     

    When I had to convert these old documents I had to compare the printed stuff and I came out to 72.29 points per inch. I didn't know at the time there was an official measurement. I used Adobe's 72.27 and my boss told me right away the things weren't converting correctly. I had to then do try trial and error until they matched up.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 2, 2011 1:04 PM   in reply to [Jongware]-9BC6tI

    There are actually several "traditional" picas in use (or formerly in use) in various parts of the world, all near 72 pts per inch, but not the same, and possibly not a value that can be reperesented by a non-repeating decimal. The exact 72 pt/inch postscript pica seems like a good idea to me, as much as a convenience, and cumulative error between postscipt picas and any of the traditionals is practically microscopic at small increments.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 2, 2011 1:07 PM   in reply to Fred Goldman

    @ Fred,

     

    I wouldn't rust the accuracy of scale  for any printed printed piece that used photography or digital platemaking in the print process, and with dot gain, I'm not sure I'd trust letterpress except the actual galleys.

     
    |
    Mark as:

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)

Answers + Points = Status

  • 10 points awarded for Correct Answers
  • 5 points awarded for Helpful Answers
  • 10,000+ points
  • 1,001-10,000 points
  • 501-1,000 points
  • 5-500 points