Wide Format Confusing

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Most of the reasonable price wide format printers like the frontrunning
Canon i9900 print a maximum size of 13x19. Yes the typical frame sizes
that have been around for years are 8x10, 11x14 and 16x20 as well as 16x25.

While the typical wide format printer can accommodate an 8x10 and an
11x14 they stop short of the popular 16x20. They are 3 short on the
width and 1 short on the length.

Why would all of the printer mfg disregard this popular 16x20 size and
limit their printers to 13x19? Maybe they need to hear from their
customers.

Any comments?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Matting. Most people use matting to mount and frame their larger photos.
Plus, those larger sizes like the 16x20 are mostly produced using commercial
photo printers, costing thousands of dollars.

"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ZIzLd.9619$8Z1.3512@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> Most of the reasonable price wide format printers like the frontrunning
> Canon i9900 print a maximum size of 13x19. Yes the typical frame sizes
> that have been around for years are 8x10, 11x14 and 16x20 as well as
16x25.
>
> While the typical wide format printer can accommodate an 8x10 and an
> 11x14 they stop short of the popular 16x20. They are 3 short on the
> width and 1 short on the length.
>
> Why would all of the printer mfg disregard this popular 16x20 size and
> limit their printers to 13x19? Maybe they need to hear from their
> customers.
>
> Any comments?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Thats just it. I would like to produce a 16x20 myself. If I want to
use matting then I will get a larger frame. But the question is why do
the printer mfg stop at 13x19. The extra size should not cost all that
much more.

Kevin wrote:

>Matting. Most people use matting to mount and frame their larger photos.
>Plus, those larger sizes like the 16x20 are mostly produced using commercial
>photo printers, costing thousands of dollars.
>
>"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:ZIzLd.9619$8Z1.3512@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
>>Most of the reasonable price wide format printers like the frontrunning
>>Canon i9900 print a maximum size of 13x19. Yes the typical frame sizes
>>that have been around for years are 8x10, 11x14 and 16x20 as well as
>>
>>
>16x25.
>
>
>>While the typical wide format printer can accommodate an 8x10 and an
>>11x14 they stop short of the popular 16x20. They are 3 short on the
>>width and 1 short on the length.
>>
>>Why would all of the printer mfg disregard this popular 16x20 size and
>>limit their printers to 13x19? Maybe they need to hear from their
>>customers.
>>
>>Any comments?
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 00:05:13 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Most of the reasonable price wide format printers like the frontrunning
>Canon i9900 print a maximum size of 13x19. Yes the typical frame sizes
>that have been around for years are 8x10, 11x14 and 16x20 as well as 16x25.

I've never seen a 16x25 as a "typical" frame size.

>While the typical wide format printer can accommodate an 8x10 and an
>11x14 they stop short of the popular 16x20. They are 3 short on the
>width and 1 short on the length.

Making a printer 3 inches wider is not cheap or trivial undertaking.
Most people don't want to give up the desk space for a printer that
can print that wide, or pay the extra cost. Most people will never
want to print wider than 13 inches so the market for a wider printer
is very small, and the smaller the market the more the product will
cost because of the increased cost-per-unit for a small production
run.

It is much easier to build a printer that can print longer as this is
controlled by software and memory rather than by hardware (the width
of the printing area). This is how the Epson 2200 can print up to 44
inches long.

Finally, most people don't have the equipment or technical know-how to
produce an image that will still look good at 16x20 or larger.

jc

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Well, Epson does make 17" wide printers, and all of their printers print
either to 44" or 22" long, other than the PictureMate. There are a
number of reasons I can think of why the 13" maximum is so.

1) On a strictly mechanical basis it may be that the extra 3" means
having to build a much more rigid and more robust machine that costs a
lot more to make.

2) A 16" wide printer begins to muscle in on the 20" and above models
which typically sell for considerably more.

3) Most printed artwork is matted. A 13" or slightly less print could
easily be matted to 16" wide or more.

4) Selling sheet paper 16" X 20" or more is hard to transport without it
being damaged if sold in small quantity packages.

5) With prints of that size, a system using remote cartridges or CIS
makes more sense, rather than small ink cartridges. That ink delivery
adds considerably to the cost of the printer.

Both HP and Epson make printers in the 16-20" range, but you need to be
ready to pay $1000 to $2000 US for them.

Art


measekite wrote:

> Most of the reasonable price wide format printers like the frontrunning
> Canon i9900 print a maximum size of 13x19. Yes the typical frame sizes
> that have been around for years are 8x10, 11x14 and 16x20 as well as 16x25.
>
> While the typical wide format printer can accommodate an 8x10 and an
> 11x14 they stop short of the popular 16x20. They are 3 short on the
> width and 1 short on the length.
>
> Why would all of the printer mfg disregard this popular 16x20 size and
> limit their printers to 13x19? Maybe they need to hear from their
> customers.
>
> Any comments?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

HP makes such a printer. The DesignJet 130 takes tray sized paper up to
18" x 24" or single sheets up to 24" x 64". It can print up to 50 feet
long on roll. It sells for about $1300 US list, and uses separate
replaceable heads and cartridges, six color CcMmYK. Has
"fade-resistant" inks, but I have no idea what the heads life is or how
much the heads or ink cartridges cost.

Epson makes the 4000 a 17" wide version with up to 8 colors, I believe,
uses either pigment or dye inks. I think costs about $1700??? Replaces
the 4 color 3000.

Art

measekite wrote:

> Thats just it. I would like to produce a 16x20 myself. If I want to
> use matting then I will get a larger frame. But the question is why do
> the printer mfg stop at 13x19. The extra size should not cost all that
> much more.
>
> Kevin wrote:
>
>> Matting. Most people use matting to mount and frame their larger photos.
>> Plus, those larger sizes like the 16x20 are mostly produced using
>> commercial
>> photo printers, costing thousands of dollars.
>>
>> "measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:ZIzLd.9619$8Z1.3512@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>>
>>> Most of the reasonable price wide format printers like the frontrunning
>>> Canon i9900 print a maximum size of 13x19. Yes the typical frame sizes
>>> that have been around for years are 8x10, 11x14 and 16x20 as well as
>>>
>>
>> 16x25.
>>
>>
>>> While the typical wide format printer can accommodate an 8x10 and an
>>> 11x14 they stop short of the popular 16x20. They are 3 short on the
>>> width and 1 short on the length.
>>>
>>> Why would all of the printer mfg disregard this popular 16x20 size and
>>> limit their printers to 13x19? Maybe they need to hear from their
>>> customers.
>>>
>>> Any comments?
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

 

[Toby]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Epson makes an A2 size semi-home printer and a number of commercial printers
that go much larger--all easily available if you have the bucks.

Toby

"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ZIzLd.9619$8Z1.3512@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> Most of the reasonable price wide format printers like the frontrunning
> Canon i9900 print a maximum size of 13x19. Yes the typical frame sizes
> that have been around for years are 8x10, 11x14 and 16x20 as well as
> 16x25.
>
> While the typical wide format printer can accommodate an 8x10 and an 11x14
> they stop short of the popular 16x20. They are 3 short on the width and 1
> short on the length.
>
> Why would all of the printer mfg disregard this popular 16x20 size and
> limit their printers to 13x19? Maybe they need to hear from their
> customers.
>
> Any comments?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

JC Dill wrote:

>Most people will never
>want to print wider than 13 inches so the market for a wider printer
>is very small, and the smaller the market the more the product will
>cost because of the increased cost-per-unit for a small production
>run.
>
>
Then they should get a Canon IP8500 or an Epson R800.

>It is much easier to build a printer that can print longer as this is
>controlled by software and memory rather than by hardware (the width
>of the printing area). This is how the Epson 2200 can print up to 44
>inches long.
>
>
The 16x20 has a width to length ratio of 1.25 so using a 13" width you
would make the length 16.25". Now you have to cut and waste the balance
of a 13x19 sheet.

>Finally, most people don't have the equipment or technical know-how to
>produce an image that will still look good at 16x20 or larger.
>
>jc
>
>

The target audience for a wide format printer are the people that
purchase Nikon D70s, Canon 20D, the Canon DR etc. There are many of
these types. Outside labs charge $40 to $50 apiece for this size or
more. If you need to spend an extra $50 for a 16x20 printer there will
still be a market.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<font size="-1"><font face="Verdana">I think that your #2 may be
accurate.  They are probably trying to protect a lucrative ultra high
end market geared to photo labs.</font></font><br>
<br>
Arthur Entlich wrote:<br>
<blockquote cite="mid1nKLd.194602$KO5.77671@clgrps13" type="cite">Well,
Epson does make 17" wide printers, and all of their printers print
either to 44" or 22" long, other than the PictureMate.  There are a
number of reasons I can think of why the 13" maximum is so.
<br>
<br>
1) On a strictly mechanical basis it may be that the extra 3" means
having to build a much more rigid and more robust machine that costs a
lot more to make.
<br>
<br>
2) A 16" wide printer begins to muscle in on the 20" and above models
which typically sell for considerably more.
<br>
<br>
3) Most printed artwork is matted.  A 13" or slightly less print could
easily be matted to 16" wide or more.
<br>
<br>
4) Selling sheet paper 16" X 20" or more is hard to transport without
it being damaged if sold in small quantity packages.
<br>
<br>
5) With prints of that size, a system using remote cartridges or CIS
makes more sense, rather than small ink cartridges.  That ink delivery
adds considerably to the cost of the printer.
<br>
<br>
Both HP and Epson make printers in the 16-20" range, but you need to be
ready to pay $1000 to $2000 US for them.
<br>
<br>
Art
<br>
<br>
<br>
measekite wrote:
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Most of the reasonable price wide format
printers like the frontrunning Canon i9900 print a maximum size of
13x19.  Yes the typical frame sizes that have been around for years are
8x10, 11x14 and 16x20 as well as 16x25.
<br>
<br>
While the typical wide format printer can accommodate an 8x10 and an
11x14 they stop short of the popular 16x20.  They are 3 short on the
width and 1 short on the length.
<br>
<br>
Why would all of the printer mfg disregard this popular 16x20 size and
limit their printers to 13x19?  Maybe they need to hear from their
customers.
<br>
<br>
Any comments?
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 21:07:48 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>The target audience for a wide format printer are the people that
>purchase Nikon D70s, Canon 20D, the Canon DR etc. There are many of
>these types. Outside labs charge $40 to $50 apiece for this size or
>more. If you need to spend an extra $50 for a 16x20 printer there will
>still be a market.

I get 16x24 and 18x24 prints for under $20. Paper and ink costs for
prints that large will run over $5 per print so I'd have to print
quite a number of large prints for it to even begin to pay for me to
purchase a printer that can print that large. Most serious
non-commercial photographers (digital or film) don't print a lot of
large prints, at least not enough to make financial sense to own a
printer that can print this large, thus the market for this type of
printer just isn't there at a low price point, only at a higher price
point (sturdy enough and fast enough for commercial uses).

jc

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

If a 16x20 printer would sell for $500 and be a wide version of the
Canon PIXMA IP8500 that sells for $375 you are talking a difference of
about $125.00. Since you will save about $15 per print you are ahead of
the game after 9 prints. I am sure that many people have more than 9
pictures hanging on the walls of their home and might like to change
them every so often.

JC Dill wrote:

>On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 21:07:48 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>
>>The target audience for a wide format printer are the people that
>>purchase Nikon D70s, Canon 20D, the Canon DR etc. There are many of
>>these types. Outside labs charge $40 to $50 apiece for this size or
>>more. If you need to spend an extra $50 for a 16x20 printer there will
>>still be a market.
>>
>>
>
>I get 16x24 and 18x24 prints for under $20. Paper and ink costs for
>prints that large will run over $5 per print so I'd have to print
>quite a number of large prints for it to even begin to pay for me to
>purchase a printer that can print that large. Most serious
>non-commercial photographers (digital or film) don't print a lot of
>large prints, at least not enough to make financial sense to own a
>printer that can print this large, thus the market for this type of
>printer just isn't there at a low price point, only at a higher price
>point (sturdy enough and fast enough for commercial uses).
>
>jc
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

anyone4tennis@hotmail.com wrote:

> Most of the reasonable price wide format printers like the frontrunning
> Canon i9900 print a maximum size of 13x19. Yes the typical frame sizes
> that have been around for years are 8x10, 11x14 and 16x20 as well as 16x25.
>
> While the typical wide format printer can accommodate an 8x10 and an
> 11x14 they stop short of the popular 16x20. They are 3 short on the
> width and 1 short on the length.
>
> Why would all of the printer mfg disregard this popular 16x20 size and
> limit their printers to 13x19? Maybe they need to hear from their
> customers.
>
> Any comments?

Well. It's because of Standard paper sizes, well standard in the rest of the
world but not apparently in North America - the last 'luddite' holdouts.
Engineers have long used the A series of sheets (A0, A1, A2 etc) the
standard sheet for most printers being A4 (21cm x 29.7cm) or A3 (29.7cm x
42cm) A6 is virtually Postcard (14.8cm x 10.5cm). Most A3 printers will
print up to about 32.5cm width (13 inches).
There is also the B series in Japan (B6 - B0) B5 being 17.6cm x 25cm.

See http://home.inter.net/eds/paper/papersize.html for a more fuller
explanation.

These sheets are much better than the original fullscap size and slightly
better than the US 'legal' size. Although they don't conform to the perfect
'golden ratio' 1:1.618, they are more suited to digital photography than the
very long 35mm frame (24x36mm)

As most printers come from Japan and Japan is metric (so is Europe and a lot
of Asia), it should come as no surprise that manufacturers aim at these
markets, leaving North America to go it's own way with their unique paper
sizes as well as their weights and measures.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

In article <BE429ADB.804E%stewy@hotmail.com>, stewy@hotmail.com (stewy)
wrote:

> fullscap

Foolscap.

> As most printers come from Japan and Japan is metric (so is Europe and
> a lot of Asia), it should come as no surprise that manufacturers aim at
> these markets, leaving North America to go it's own way with their
> unique paper sizes as well as their weights and measures.

The UK is in the odd position of using some imperial and some metric
measures. Most things are now sold in kilos or litres but beer is still
sold in pints and we measure distances in miles. Milk is sold in
multiples, or fractions, of a litre but can also be bought in multiples of
one pint which are labelled in litres. E.g. in my fridge is a container
labelled 2.272 litres (4 pints). Many older people still order things such
as cold meats or cheese in ounces or pounds but the shop assistant will
weigh the amount in grammes. As someone once said: The UK is going metric
inch-by-inch!

Jon.