Digital BW, The Print

Europe waited a while longer, even though they invented TV, to have a better quality image. They got it . . . 625 vs 525 lines. Eurpoe has long used metric, while other countries held out. Over the last twenty to thirty years most countries joined on the metric bandwagon . . . it makes sense if most of the world is using it. About the only holdout still using the quaint, antiquated Avoirdupoids system is the US and the reason for it is simple. At the time that Canada, Britain and others were changing over, the US once again decided that THEY would guide? the world and opted to stay in the dark ages . . . no one would tell them what to do (a lot like the little brat crying and running home, screaming "it's my ball, and my bat, and I'm going home!"). Most (americans) would argue that it is of little consequence because everybody has a calculator or a computer and they do conversions readily . . . true, but there is NO reason to do conversions. America just needs to wake up.

Any precision business . . . machining, scientific product or manufacture, medical, etc., all work in metric. Most page layout and printing programs all use metric (they automatically convert from Avoirdupoids . . . though you don't see it).

I grew up with Avoirdupoids, still use it to a large degree, but do mental conversins as fast as a calculator. I used to be highly amused at my daughters when they were in grade school and I would say something like . . . "oh, about 2 miles", or "3 pounds" or whatever, and I would get the quizzical look, "what the hell are you talking about, daddy?". Today when I measure things, I finally have come to grips with metric . . . it is more precise, and I make fewer mistakes.

Paul Aparycki


  There must be some interesting explanation about how and why England 
  and Europe use A4 etc. paper and US uses Letter sized (and other 
  sizes).

  How and why did they get different standards.

  I see that A4 fits a 35mm aspect ratio full frame. Letter size 
  doesn't fit either full frame or 8x10 (probably another explanation 
  about 8x10).

  Just interested in this...I think about it every month when I see the 
  two paper sizes. It's funny how we've reduced the size of the world 
  digitally but not on paper <g>.

  thanks and cheers,

  Tom O'Connell

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Tom,

The whole world, apart from USA and Canada, uses the ISO paper sizes, not 
just UK and Europe.

They are basically the German DIN standards from 1922, which were adopted by 
most countries such as Belgium (1924), Netherlands (1925), Norway (1926), 
Switzerland (1929), Sweden (1930), Soviet Union (1934), Hungary (1938), 
Italy (1939), Uruguay (1942), Argentina and Brazil (1943), Spain (1947), 
Austria (1948), Romania (1949), Japan (1951), Denmark and Czechoslovakia 
(1953), Israel and Portugal (1954), Yugoslavia (1956), India and Poland 
(1957), United Kingdom (1959), Venezuela (1962), New Zealand (1963), Iceland 
(1964), Mexico (1965), South Africa (1966), France/Peru/Turkey (1967), Chile 
(1968), Greece/Simbabwe/Singapur (1970), Bangladesh (1972), Thailand and 
Barbados (1973), Australia and Ecuador (1974), Columbia and Kuwait (1975). 
In 1975 it became an international ISO standard.

The practical and aesthetic advantages of the sqrt(2) aspect ratio for these 
paper sizes were apparently first noted by the physics professor Georg 
Lichtenberg in 1786.

An article which describes the standards and discusses the history of the 
ISO standards and the American standards is 
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/iso-paper.html. That is where I got the 
above, and the history stuff is about halfway down the article - headed 
'History of the ISO paper formats' and followed by the history of the USA 
formats. Quite interesting.

Bob Frost.

 ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tom OConnell" <tomoc@...>


There must be some interesting explanation about how and why England
and Europe use A4 etc. paper and US uses Letter sized (and other
sizes).

How and why did they get different standards.

On 18 Sep 2004 at 20:54, Bob Frost wrote:

> Tom,
> 
> The whole world, apart from USA and Canada, uses the ISO paper sizes, not 
> just UK and Europe.

Actually you can get metric size paper in Canada, even metric size photo paper, it's 
not as common as the imperial sizes, but it is available.  When you consider the 
silver print sizes, they run from 3.5x5,  5x7, 8x10, 11x14, 16x20 are based on the 
older view camera sizes, 4x5 was added later, I think by photographers who wanted 
to avoid having more paper sizes, so they took a sheet of 8x10 and cut it into 4 
smaller prints.  4x6 was invented much more recently, because the ratio fit 35mm 
better.  I find it weird though that they don't make the inkjet photo paper in silver 
print sizes, it would make more sense......

W

Actually, television was invented in the United States by a very young man 
named Philo T. Farnsworth, just for the record.

Jay


>From: "bhhc" <tawow@...>
>Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
>To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
>Subject: Re: [Digital BW] OT - U.S vs. Europe paper sizes???
>Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 15:14:28 -0400
>
>Europe waited a while longer, even though they invented TV, to have a 
>better quality image. They got it . . . 625 vs 525 lines. Eurpoe has long 
>used metric, while other countries held out. Over the last twenty to thirty 
>years most countries joined on the metric bandwagon . . . it makes sense if 
>most of the world is using it. About the only holdout still using the 
>quaint, antiquated Avoirdupoids system is the US and the reason for it is 
>simple. At the time that Canada, Britain and others were changing over, the 
>US once again decided that THEY would guide? the world and opted to stay in 
>the dark ages . . . no one would tell them what to do (a lot like the 
>little brat crying and running home, screaming "it's my ball, and my bat, 
>and I'm going home!"). Most (americans) would argue that it is of little 
>consequence because everybody has a calculator or a computer and they do 
>conversions readily . . . true, but there is NO reason to do conversions. 
>America just needs to wake up.
>
>Any precision business . . . machining, scientific product or manufacture, 
>medical, etc., all work in metric. Most page layout and printing programs 
>all use metric (they automatically convert from Avoirdupoids . . . though 
>you don't see it).
>
>I grew up with Avoirdupoids, still use it to a large degree, but do mental 
>conversins as fast as a calculator. I used to be highly amused at my 
>daughters when they were in grade school and I would say something like . . 
>. "oh, about 2 miles", or "3 pounds" or whatever, and I would get the 
>quizzical look, "what the hell are you talking about, daddy?". Today when I 
>measure things, I finally have come to grips with metric . . . it is more 
>precise, and I make fewer mistakes.
>
>Paul Aparycki
>
>
>   There must be some interesting explanation about how and why England
>   and Europe use A4 etc. paper and US uses Letter sized (and other
>   sizes).
>
>   How and why did they get different standards.
>
>   I see that A4 fits a 35mm aspect ratio full frame. Letter size
>   doesn't fit either full frame or 8x10 (probably another explanation
>   about 8x10).
>
>   Just interested in this...I think about it every month when I see the
>   two paper sizes. It's funny how we've reduced the size of the world
>   digitally but not on paper <g>.
>
>   thanks and cheers,
>
>   Tom O'Connell
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee\ufffd 
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

----- Original Message ----- 
  From: bhhc 

   About the only holdout still using the quaint, antiquated Avoirdupoids system is the US and the reason for it is simple. At the time that Canada, Britain and others were changing over, the US once again decided that THEY would guide? the world and opted to stay in the dark ages . . . no one would tell them what to do (a lot like the little brat crying and running home, screaming "it's my ball, and my bat, and I'm going home!"). Most (americans) would argue that it is of little consequence because everybody has a calculator or a computer and they do conversions readily . . . true, but there is NO reason to do conversions. America just needs to wake up.


  Hmmmmmmm, next thing you know they'll be trying to get us to speak ENGLISH!!!!!  ;-\

  John



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Frost" 
<bob@f...> wrote:
> Tom,
> 
> The whole world, apart from USA and Canada, uses the ISO paper 
sizes, not 
> just UK and Europe.
> 
> They are basically the German DIN standards from 1922, which were 
adopted by 
> most countries such as Belgium (1924), Netherlands (1925), Norway 
(1926), 
> Switzerland (1929), Sweden (1930), Soviet Union (1934), Hungary 
(1938), 
> Italy (1939), Uruguay (1942), Argentina and Brazil (1943), Spain 
(1947), 
> Austria (1948), Romania (1949), Japan (1951), Denmark and 
Czechoslovakia 
> (1953), Israel and Portugal (1954), Yugoslavia (1956), India and 
Poland 
> (1957), United Kingdom (1959), Venezuela (1962), New Zealand 
(1963), Iceland 
> (1964), Mexico (1965), South Africa (1966), France/Peru/Turkey 
(1967), Chile 
> (1968), Greece/Simbabwe/Singapur (1970), Bangladesh (1972), 
Thailand and 
> Barbados (1973), Australia and Ecuador (1974), Columbia and Kuwait 
(1975). 
> In 1975 it became an international ISO standard.
> 
> The practical and aesthetic advantages of the sqrt(2) aspect ratio 
for these 
> paper sizes were apparently first noted by the physics professor 
Georg 
> Lichtenberg in 1786.
> 
> An article which describes the standards and discusses the history 
of the 
> ISO standards and the American standards is 
> http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/iso-paper.html. That is where I got 
the 
> above, and the history stuff is about halfway down the article - 
headed 
> 'History of the ISO paper formats' and followed by the history of 
the USA 

> formats. Quite interesting.
> 
> Bob Frost.
> 
> 
> 
>  ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Tom OConnell" <tomoc@y...>
> 
> 
> There must be some interesting explanation about how and why England
> and Europe use A4 etc. paper and US uses Letter sized (and other
> sizes).
> 
> How and why did they get different standards.

It is not really US vs Europe. It is North America vs. the rest of 
the world. But that's not the point here :-).

I used to work for Philips USA, and it was always a pain printing 
out word documents from HQ and having the page numbers all be off. I 
finally started just making a pdf and printing that instead.

Don't know dates, but the A2, A3, etc. sizes are designed to have 
the same aspect ratio, so you can resize documents without having to 
reformat your word document (or leave blank space etc.). There is 
also supposed to be some psychological basis for the aspect ration 
chosen, but don't remember the details. 

A2, A3, etc. are part of the metric system, which means the US will 
never convert :-).

Note that 8.5x11 was not officially standard until the 80s, which 
would have been a good opportunity to convert. Of course, it was 
unofficially the standard, so it probably would have been too 
painful to convert. 

Manoj

jimpatel63 wrote:


> I used to work for Philips USA,

Nice to see Philips written as it should be.  This week Philips 
launched a new marketing campaign to make their brand better 
known, especially in the US.  Something with "simple" in the 
phrase.  I actually think they should add an L to the name to get 
it better known in the US, a bit more complicated for us but very 
simple for Americans.

> Don't know dates, but the A2, A3, etc. sizes are designed to have 
> the same aspect ratio, so you can resize documents without having to 
> reformat your word document (or leave blank space etc.). There is 
> also supposed to be some psychological basis for the aspect ration 
> chosen, but don't remember the details. 

The only psychological reason I can think off is that they got a 
headache in trying to find another method of cutting sheets in 
half and keeping the same aspect ratio through the range :-)   I 
don't think it has a good aesthetic ratio but there's no other 
choice.

Ernst

> Actually, television was invented in the United States by a very young man
> named Philo T. Farnsworth, just for the record.
>
> Jay

If one believes in "urban" or perhaps in this case "country" myth. The first
cathode tube was invented by a Russian, Nipkow, in the early 1920's, then a
Scotsman by the name of Baird (the same or the following year as Nipkow's
discovery), presented a mechanical version of the concept of TV. The
Farnsworth story is cute, but there is very, very little to back it up
rather than a lot of heresay.

Regardless, whoever invented it, it has become the world's largest garbage
can as opposed to a "medium" of communication.

Paul Aparycki

We are not allowed here in Quebec . . . actually we are, but if the xenophobic nationalists had their way it would be outlawed. We are however, not allowed to operate a business in English, nor a web site, nor have any printed business media in English, unless you have it in french first . . . even if you don't do any business here!

Anyway, my point was that life would be a lot easier if everybody was singing the same tune . . . not to mention the incredible amounts of stress and money it would save.

enjoy your day
Paul Aparycki

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: John K. Stacy 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 7:36 PM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] OT - U.S vs. Europe paper sizes???



    Hmmmmmmm, next thing you know they'll be trying to get us to speak ENGLISH!!!!!  ;-\

    John



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

But it doesn't seem to have accepted the Internations Standards for paper 
sizes, which is where we started. Why not?

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "xspamxken.schuster" <xspamxken.schuster@...>

In short, the US Government has championed the Metric System for almost 200
years, and has mandated its internal use for the past 22 years, but can not
require it of the private sector. We consumers, have to pressure US 
industry.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "bhhc"
<tawow@s...> wrote:
> We are not allowed here in Quebec . . . 

Your political rantings are out of place here. Please take them to a
more appropriate newsgroup.

André

Sorry wrong again.  It was a Scot named John Baird.

(And also for the record, it is debateable as to whether the Wright brothers
were the first to fly - or was it a young New Zealander....)

> From: Jay Gladwell <jaygladwell@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 23:28:56 +0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] OT - U.S vs. Europe paper sizes???
> 
> Actually, television was invented in the United States by a very young man
> named Philo T. Farnsworth, just for the record.
> 
> Jay
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "bhhc" 
<tawow@s...> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> > Actually, television was invented in the United States by a very 
young man
> > named Philo T. Farnsworth, just for the record.
> >
> > Jay
> 
> If one believes in "urban" or perhaps in this case "country" myth. 
The first
> cathode tube was invented by a Russian, Nipkow, in the early 
1920's, then a
> Scotsman by the name of Baird (the same or the following year as 
Nipkow's
> discovery), presented a mechanical version of the concept of TV. 
The
> Farnsworth story is cute, but there is very, very little to back 
it up
> rather than a lot of heresay.
> 
> Regardless, whoever invented it, it has become the world's largest 
garbage
> can as opposed to a "medium" of communication.
> 
> Paul Aparycki

Paul--

Your reply is full of errors.  Nipkow was not Russian. He did not 
invent the cathode ray tube. The cathode ray tube does not equal a 
television set. Presenting a concpet and building a working 
prototype are two entirely different things. 

Like it or not, whether you believe it or not is immaterial. The 
fact is in 1927, Philo Farnsworth was the first inventor to transmit 
a television image comprised of 60 horizontal lines. The image 
transmitted was a dollar sign. Farnsworth developed the dissector 
tube, the basis of all current electronic televisions. 

Jay

Ernst,

What sizes of paper do you find aesthetic?

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ernst Dinkla" <E.Dinkla@...>

> Don't know dates, but the A2, A3, etc. sizes are designed to have 
> the same aspect ratio, so you can resize documents without having to 
> reformat your word document (or leave blank space etc.). There is 
> also supposed to be some psychological basis for the aspect ration 
> chosen, but don't remember the details. 

The only psychological reason I can think off is that they got a 
headache in trying to find another method of cutting sheets in 
half and keeping the same aspect ratio through the range :-)   I 
don't think it has a good aesthetic ratio but there's no other 
choice.

Bob Frost wrote:

> Ernst,
> 
> What sizes of paper do you find aesthetic?
> 
> Bob Frost.

Many sizes, depending on the image shape, but not the in my view 
long A sizes. While it was my choice when I printed 35mm in the 
past (as a student).  But that was more a cost aspect, it filled 
the size well with small margins.  With wider margins around the 
image the A sizes become problematic, the image shape gets even 
longer than the 35 mm (or close to  6x9) aspect ratio is. And I'm 
not doing panoramas (yet) so it isn't my choice.

I used to print posters (in silkscreen) for an old designer who 
couldn't get beyond the golden rule aspect ratio, I assure you 
that that size can become boring after 8 years printing. And that 
size is even longer than an A size.

The 24x30 cm photo paper size (ratio 5:6) etc are too close to 
square, while I like square again since I'm using the Iskra 6x6 
folder :-)

The US letter size may not be the standard, it has however almost 
the same aspect ratio as 56 x 72 mm (Linhof's ideal format, 6x7 
in practice) is usable for 35mm full frame (or 6x9) with wider 
margins and I personally find its shape nicer. it isn't a photo 
size but the much smaller 18x24 cm comes close to its aspect ratio.

Using roll paper now and the customer decides so it isn't my 
problem. As an amateur I don't think I use shapes that come near 
A size ratios or longer but I'm not dogmatic.

The best rectangle would be one that gives equal margins around 
with every scale of enlargement, pity that only the square works 
like that :-)

You see it is an arbitrary, subjective, conflicting mix of 
opinions like most aesthetic values are :-) And they change in 
time like they should.

Ernst

P.S.
A  sizes serve a purpose but don't add too much value to them. 
Lots of other sized papers available here and even in Japan that 
is more metric than Europe.  While it is nice that an A2 can be 
cut in half to get two A3's and an A3 can be cut in half to get 
two A4's there's something odd going on. How many users actually 
do that ?  The paper distribution chain can use that nice aspect 
only for unprinted stock that goes to the customer unprinted. But 
the printer needs a sheet that is larger than an A size for grip 
on the press, cutting it straight before it gets on the press, 
etc. That larger sheet can't be halved before the printrun on 
another smaller press because the margin for grip has to stay as 
wide as it was on the double sheet. All kinds of paper sizes that 
are a bit larger than A sizes available at the printer supplier 
and they can't be halved. I doubt that there's less waist in 
Europe with A sizes than there's in the US with a more sloppy 
standard. Small sheets usually are made of a lower weight paper 
than larger sheets as they are used for different tasks. When it 
is possible to cut a sheet in halves on its thickness the picture 
changes but that's not happening in my time :-)
The standard is a good thing for equipment that has to work with 
it and a worldwide standard will even be better. But I'm printing 
56x76 cm serigraphs right now on halved Arches Velin sheets of 
80x120 cm on a 100x140 cm Thieme silkscreen machine. Only the 
last has some relation to B size (same ratio as A size but 1.4 
larger in M2). Metrification of the whole world (including paper 
weight) is far more important than paper size standarisation.

Watching the last Ryder cup seems that the metric system is more
precise....;- )

Regards
Aitor

On 20 Sep 2004 at 13:07, Ernst Dinkla wrote:

> A  sizes serve a purpose but don't add too much value to them. 
> Lots of other sized papers available here and even in Japan that 
> is more metric than Europe.  While it is nice that an A2 can be 
> cut in half to get two A3's and an A3 can be cut in half to get 
> two A4's there's something odd going on. How many users actually 
> do that ?  The paper distribution chain can use that nice aspect 
> only for unprinted stock that goes to the customer unprinted. But 
> the printer needs a sheet that is larger than an A size for grip 
> on the press, cutting it straight before it gets on the press, 
> etc. That larger sheet can't be halved before the printrun on 
> another smaller press because the margin for grip has to stay as 
> wide as it was on the double sheet. All kinds of paper sizes that 

There is a standard for raw paper stock as well, the A series sizes are for finished 
(trimmed) paper sizes, there is a RA standard for raw (untrimmed) sizes.  An A4 
sheet is 210 x 297mm A3 is 297 x 420.  RA4 is 215 x 310 RA3 is 305x430.  This 
gives you 5-10mm for trimming, considering that presses most likely across the 
longer dimension, this gives adequate room.  There is also the larger SRA sizes, but 
unless you work in the press industry, it's unlikely that you would see those.  Most 
likely the printing company would buy rolls of SRA width stock, then trim that to RA 
size before feeding the press, and then the bindery would receive that, and trim as 
needed.

The last time I saw printing press output, it was at a bindery, 4 finished letter sized 
pages, printed duplex to give 8 actual book pages, on one sheet of paper, this was 
then folded by a big machine, and trimmed using a machine that would stamp out 
the pages on three sides, and stitch or staple the fourth.  There is a set of rules as to 
the order of the pages on the paper, some are upside down, hint, they are not in 
numerical order!

> are a bit larger than A sizes available at the printer supplier 
> and they can't be halved. I doubt that there's less waist in 
> Europe with A sizes than there's in the US with a more sloppy 
> standard. Small sheets usually are made of a lower weight paper 
> than larger sheets as they are used for different tasks. When it 
> is possible to cut a sheet in halves on its thickness the picture 
> changes but that's not happening in my time :-)

Often though thickness is dependant on aplication, for example a sheet of onion 
skin paper, letter paper,  and photographic paper will all have different thicknesses, 
even if they are the same physical dimensions.  However the metric grams per 
square metre actually makes more sense then pounds, which is based on the weight 
of an arbitrary number of sheets of an arbitrary size.  

Now, in the darkroom, metric sizes make even more sense, each time you increase 
one size, you need one stop more exposure, due to light loss,  each time you 
decrease one size, you need one stop less exposure.  I used to know the formula for 
inch sizes, and man was it UGLY.   

> The standard is a good thing for equipment that has to work with 
> it and a worldwide standard will even be better. But I'm printing 
> 56x76 cm serigraphs right now on halved Arches Velin sheets of 
> 80x120 cm on a 100x140 cm Thieme silkscreen machine. Only the 
> last has some relation to B size (same ratio as A size but 1.4 
> larger in M2). Metrification of the whole world (including paper 
> weight) is far more important than paper size standarisation.
> 

The only real holdout left is the United States, and you can get metric sized paper 
there.  What is also an issue though, is digital sensor sizes, there should be 
standards there as well, at this point, it would make sense to have sensors with the 
same aspect ratio as metric paper sizes, but I think 35mm aspect ratio will probably 
end up more likely.   What will really help, in Canada and the US is the schools, if 
they use metric sized paper when children are first learning, then they will be 
familiar with those sizes, when they are older, and will ask for metric sizes, because 
they are used  to them.  This will be much easier in Canada, then in the US, 
because the inch sizes are not mandated over the metric ones by law.

Paper isn't the only holdout though, couriers are the other one, they still weigh in 
pounds, simply because they haven't figured out that if the drop is 100g you can 
make more money on a 400g shipment, then if the drop is 1lb (454g).

W

What's a Ryder cup?

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "aitor Pe\ufffda Incl\ufffdn" <aitor.pinclan@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 7:08 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] OT - U.S vs. Europe paper sizes???


Watching the last Ryder cup seems that the metric system is more
precise....;- )

Regards
Aitor




Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.

Yahoo! Groups Links

Major golf tournament . . . and the US who had the most superstars, are unfortunately coming home with their heads hung very, very low. Go to the BBC news site to read about it http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/golf/3672902.stm , the article is quoting US news media, and they are being cruel to say the least.

Paul (only golfed once) Aparycki

  What's a Ryder cup?

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: "aitor Peña Inclán" <aitor.pinclan@telefonica.net>
  To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
  Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 7:08 AM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] OT - U.S vs. Europe paper sizes???


  Watching the last Ryder cup seems that the metric system is more
  precise....;- )

  Regards
  Aitor



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

"- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital 
B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be 
removed from the membership."






On Monday, September 20, 2004, at 01:01 PM, bhhc wrote:

> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital 
> B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be 
> removed from the membership.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

The Wogster wrote:
> On 20 Sep 2004 at 13:07, Ernst Dinkla wrote:

> There is a standard for raw paper stock as well, the A series sizes are for finished 
> (trimmed) paper sizes, there is a RA standard for raw (untrimmed) sizes.  An A4 
> sheet is 210 x 297mm A3 is 297 x 420.  RA4 is 215 x 310 RA3 is 305x430.  This 
> gives you 5-10mm for trimming, considering that presses most likely across the 
> longer dimension, this gives adequate room.  There is also the larger SRA sizes, but 
> unless you work in the press industry, it's unlikely that you would see those.  Most 
> likely the printing company would buy rolls of SRA width stock, then trim that to RA 
> size before feeding the press, and then the bindery would receive that, and trim as 
> needed.

Correct, that are the sizes for printing.  RA3 is 310x430
however. In practice the paper suppliers here keep stock of all
the (S)RA sizes  and as much of non ISO sizes, some of the sizes
in two paper fiber directions and all in different weights.
The printshops have the sizes in stock that run on their offset
presses and cutting them in half before printing isn't done.
Either the presses have all the same size or there are ISO (S)RA
and B types. That you can design for one A size and use it on a
sheet that has twice the size seems handy. But that can be done
on any range of papers that share the same ratio between the
sizes.  Then they can't be cut in half with the same ratio as a
result but nobody does that in practice or its importance is
limited to the paper industry. As I have written before I don't
think the economy is in less waste or lower stock. Too many other
formats still used here that show that demand isn't ISO A dictated.

Cutting the (S)RA sizes to (multiple) A sizes after the press job
is done on a large press is another matter. An American shop with
a large offset press uses the same practice but doesn't get A
sizes in the end.

So I'm in favor of a standard ratio in sizes (if there has to be
a standard) but the advantage that the sheet can be cut in half
and keeps its ratio is minor in my opinion.


> Now, in the darkroom, metric sizes make even more sense, each time you increase 
> one size, you need one stop more exposure, due to light loss,  each time you 
> decrease one size, you need one stop less exposure.  I used to know the formula for 
> inch sizes, and man was it UGLY.   

That translates in print time on printers but feeding the sheet
landscape style (if possible) will always be faster. BTW, I have
not seen many darkrooms here that worked with A sizes. Not many
darkrooms left either.


> The only real holdout left is the United States, and you can get metric sized paper 
> there.  What is also an issue though, is digital sensor sizes, there should be 
> standards there as well, at this point, it would make sense to have sensors with the 
> same aspect ratio as metric paper sizes, but I think 35mm aspect ratio will probably 
> end up more likely.   

I find it difficult to set a ratio standard for image taking.
Given the ever changing market for pro photographers, the
difference of that market if compared with the amateur market,
what the consumers expects for their wedding pictures, the change
in use of digital pics compared to analogue pics (80% never gets
printed) and what is changing in monitor and TV sizes and ratios,
there's a long list of desired formats and they do not resemble
one another.  I doubt that A paper sizes can be a reference for
sensor sizes, it could have been for film formats over the last
40 years but that is passed and ISO A never had an influence on
that either. Kodak tries to set its standards again (with some
Japanese companies) wonder whether that list of sensor formats
will get as long as Kodak's film formats list. At this moment the
wafer size is the dominant factor for consumer sensors, the more
that fit the disc the better. The ratio and sizes of those
sensors are still based on the old video camera vacuum tubes if I
recall it correctly.  Nikon's latest 12 MP pro sensor isn't full
frame 35 (0.66x) but has the 35 mm aspect ratio. Don't think I 
will see a standard image sensor size in my life.

Ernst

----- Original Message -----

From: Jeff Magidson <jef.jef@...>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 13:15:19 -0400
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] OT - STOP
To: digitalblackandwhitetheprint@yahoogroups.com

"- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital 
B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be 
removed from the membership."

From my training as a printer many years ago I understand that ISO series is 
based on formulae on 1000 square centimetres equals A0 used in outdoor 
advertising hoardings in Europe down to A7 credit card size.  All dimensions 
are propionate to each other, wither your using SRA, RA or A sizes the 
diagonal length of the short side is always equal to length of the long 
side.  \ufffdA\ufffd sizes are standard finished sizes.  \ufffdRA\ufffd is a standard print 
production size that facilitates trimming to \ufffdA\ufffd size to give a clean 
professional finish.  \ufffdSRA\ufffd is used to accommodate registration marks, 
colour scale bars, which help monitor quality control in multicolour 
printing.  Most printing done today is not mono colour therefore most paper 
on the market is \ufffdSRA\ufffd.

>From: Ernst Dinkla <E.Dinkla@...>
>Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
>To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [Digital BW] OT - U.S vs. Europe paper sizes???
>Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 21:50:50 +0200
>
>The Wogster wrote:
> > On 20 Sep 2004 at 13:07, Ernst Dinkla wrote:
>
> > There is a standard for raw paper stock as well, the A series sizes are 
>for finished
> > (trimmed) paper sizes, there is a RA standard for raw (untrimmed) sizes. 
>  An A4
> > sheet is 210 x 297mm A3 is 297 x 420.  RA4 is 215 x 310 RA3 is 305x430.  
>This
> > gives you 5-10mm for trimming, considering that presses most likely 
>across the
> > longer dimension, this gives adequate room.  There is also the larger 
>SRA sizes, but
> > unless you work in the press industry, it's unlikely that you would see 
>those.  Most
> > likely the printing company would buy rolls of SRA width stock, then 
>trim that to RA
> > size before feeding the press, and then the bindery would receive that, 
>and trim as
> > needed.
>
>Correct, that are the sizes for printing.  RA3 is 310x430
>however. In practice the paper suppliers here keep stock of all
>the (S)RA sizes  and as much of non ISO sizes, some of the sizes
>in two paper fiber directions and all in different weights.
>The printshops have the sizes in stock that run on their offset
>presses and cutting them in half before printing isn't done.
>Either the presses have all the same size or there are ISO (S)RA
>and B types. That you can design for one A size and use it on a
>sheet that has twice the size seems handy. But that can be done
>on any range of papers that share the same ratio between the
>sizes.  Then they can't be cut in half with the same ratio as a
>result but nobody does that in practice or its importance is
>limited to the paper industry. As I have written before I don't
>think the economy is in less waste or lower stock. Too many other
>formats still used here that show that demand isn't ISO A dictated.
>
>Cutting the (S)RA sizes to (multiple) A sizes after the press job
>is done on a large press is another matter. An American shop with
>a large offset press uses the same practice but doesn't get A
>sizes in the end.
>
>So I'm in favor of a standard ratio in sizes (if there has to be
>a standard) but the advantage that the sheet can be cut in half
>and keeps its ratio is minor in my opinion.
>
>
> > Now, in the darkroom, metric sizes make even more sense, each time you 
>increase
> > one size, you need one stop more exposure, due to light loss,  each time 
>you
> > decrease one size, you need one stop less exposure.  I used to know the 
>formula for
> > inch sizes, and man was it UGLY.
>
>That translates in print time on printers but feeding the sheet
>landscape style (if possible) will always be faster. BTW, I have
>not seen many darkrooms here that worked with A sizes. Not many
>darkrooms left either.
>
>
> > The only real holdout left is the United States, and you can get metric 
>sized paper
> > there.  What is also an issue though, is digital sensor sizes, there 
>should be
> > standards there as well, at this point, it would make sense to have 
>sensors with the
> > same aspect ratio as metric paper sizes, but I think 35mm aspect ratio 
>will probably
> > end up more likely.
>
>I find it difficult to set a ratio standard for image taking.
>Given the ever changing market for pro photographers, the
>difference of that market if compared with the amateur market,
>what the consumers expects for their wedding pictures, the change
>in use of digital pics compared to analogue pics (80% never gets
>printed) and what is changing in monitor and TV sizes and ratios,
>there's a long list of desired formats and they do not resemble
>one another.  I doubt that A paper sizes can be a reference for
>sensor sizes, it could have been for film formats over the last
>40 years but that is passed and ISO A never had an influence on
>that either. Kodak tries to set its standards again (with some
>Japanese companies) wonder whether that list of sensor formats
>will get as long as Kodak's film formats list. At this moment the
>wafer size is the dominant factor for consumer sensors, the more
>that fit the disc the better. The ratio and sizes of those
>sensors are still based on the old video camera vacuum tubes if I
>recall it correctly.  Nikon's latest 12 MP pro sensor isn't full
>frame 35 (0.66x) but has the 35 mm aspect ratio. Don't think I
>will see a standard image sensor size in my life.
>
>Ernst
>
>
>
>
>
>

I normally print B&W on a 7600. The PC (win2k) communicates to it over 
Ethernet. But I've got a tiny bit of color work to do, so I borrowed a 
2200 printer. My only choices for connecting to it are parallel or USB, 
so naturally I picked on USB.

I spent a couple of days getting it installed, what with OS upgrades 
(win2k, fully patched), loading the driver from the Epson website, doing 
the funny little dance if you have a certain "hot fix" patch installed, 
etc. But, I got it to work. It's been printing fine for a couple of weeks.

Today it printed fine too, for a while. Then I switched images. When I 
tried to print this image, the first time it got half way through and 
quit. No errors. Nothing in the event log. It left no clues. Second try, 
same thing. It got about half an inch farther along this time.

I played with the USB cable (plug and unplug), rebooted the printer and 
the computer. Now when I try to print from Photoshop, I get a 
"communication error" pop-up. Still nothing in any of the logs to give 
me a clue as to what is actually wrong.

Finally, I deleted the printer and did a reinstall of the printer 
driver. Same symptom.

I've run through all my ideas. Would any of you 2000 / windows / USB 
users please tell me what you think could be causing this?

--
Hogarth Hughes

My printer reacted in a similar manner when I had more than one USB 
printer connected to the computer at the same time.  I now disconnect my 
second printer and all has been well. 
Mike

Hogarth Hughes wrote:
> ...When I 
> tried to print this image, the first time it got half way through and 
> quit. 

I had the exact same thing happen ... but only when printing 13x19 and
it was solved by connecting the printer to a USB 2.0 port directly on
the computer i.e. I removed the computer from my USB hub.

There seems to be alot of weirdness which happens with USB hubs and
various combinations of USB devices. I am going to try putting my
printers on Ethernet print servers so that I can minimize my use of
USB ports on the computer :-/

Yup. The printer is the only printer, and it's on a USB port on the 
motherboard, not a USB hub. This problem isn't making me like USB any 
better.....

--
Hogarth Hughes


Jonathan Borden wrote:

>Hogarth Hughes wrote:
>  
>
>>...When I 
>>tried to print this image, the first time it got half way through and 
>>quit. 
>>    
>>
>
>I had the exact same thing happen ... but only when printing 13x19 and
>it was solved by connecting the printer to a USB 2.0 port directly on
>the computer i.e. I removed the computer from my USB hub.
>
>There seems to be alot of weirdness which happens with USB hubs and
>various combinations of USB devices. I am going to try putting my
>printers on Ethernet print servers so that I can minimize my use of
>USB ports on the computer :-/ 
>
>
>
>
>Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated.
>
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
>If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
>
>Please follow these basic guidelines:
>- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
>- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice.
>- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership.
>- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd in the Files section:
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
>BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> 
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
>  
>

Hogarth Hughes wrote:

> Yup. The printer is the only printer, and it's on a USB port on the 
> motherboard, not a USB hub. This problem isn't making me like USB any 
> better.....
>

I have heard that USB is an acronym for "you son of B....",

usually uttered whilst trying to get it to work

On 24 Sep 2004 at 10:03, Glenn Barry wrote:

> Hogarth Hughes wrote:
> 
> > Yup. The printer is the only printer, and it's on a USB port on the 
> > motherboard, not a USB hub. This problem isn't making me like USB any 
> > better.....
> >
> 
> I have heard that USB is an acronym for "you son of B....",

It's supposed to stand for Universal Serial Bus, but Utterly Stupid Bus seems to 
make more sense.  The key, from another post, is communication error, that means 
that the printer and the computer are not on speaking terms.  Well over 90% of the 
time, that kind of error is caused by a flakey or improperly installed cable.  

1) Turn off printer, and shutdown the computer
2) Disconnect the printer cable at both ends
3) Examine the cable, do the connectors look good, does the cable have any kinks 
or sharp bends in it.
4) Reinstall the cable
5) Reinstart the computer
6) turn on the printer, and try it.

If this does not work, beg, borrow or buy another cable, repeat except that you skip 
step three, and swap cables for step 4.  

W

The answer turns out to be (drum roll please)... the status monitor. I 
reinstalled it, and the system is running just like it was before, 
through the spooler. Everything is the same - both the driver and status 
monitor are, and were, the latest version.

Something killed some part of the status monitor. Ain't computers grand?

Hogarth Hughes


Hogarth Hughes wrote:

>I normally print B&W on a 7600. The PC (win2k) communicates to it over 
>Ethernet. But I've got a tiny bit of color work to do, so I borrowed a 
>2200 printer. My only choices for connecting to it are parallel or USB, 
>so naturally I picked on USB.
>
>I spent a couple of days getting it installed, what with OS upgrades 
>(win2k, fully patched), loading the driver from the Epson website, doing 
>the funny little dance if you have a certain "hot fix" patch installed, 
>etc. But, I got it to work. It's been printing fine for a couple of weeks.
>
>Today it printed fine too, for a while. Then I switched images. When I 
>tried to print this image, the first time it got half way through and 
>quit. No errors. Nothing in the event log. It left no clues. Second try, 
>same thing. It got about half an inch farther along this time.
>
>I played with the USB cable (plug and unplug), rebooted the printer and 
>the computer. Now when I try to print from Photoshop, I get a 
>"communication error" pop-up. Still nothing in any of the logs to give 
>me a clue as to what is actually wrong.
>
>Finally, I deleted the printer and did a reinstall of the printer 
>driver. Same symptom.
>
>I've run through all my ideas. Would any of you 2000 / windows / USB 
>users please tell me what you think could be causing this?
>
>--
>Hogarth Hughes
>
>  
>