Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
In article <BE6D94AE.1DCB%nobody@nowhere.com.re>,
nobody <nobody@nowhere.com.re> wrote:
> Does the Epson 4000 print margin to margin? This would give a printing width
> of 17". Or is the actual print only 16" (allowing for the margin)?
> Nobody
From what I understand 16" on sheets, borderless on rolls.
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
>Does the Epson 4000 print margin to margin? This would give a printing
>width of 17". Or is the actual print only 16" (allowing for the
margin)
According to the manual you can print borderless on the 17" wide paper,
using either rolls or cut sheets, with the caveat that with 17x22"
sheets you can print borderless on the 17" side but not on the 22" side
since it needs space to grab the paper.
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
Thanks Bill, Mr. Inaccessible seems to disagree with you, who is right?
This means that I cannot have a 17" square picture, it would have to be 16"
then, or may bw 16.5?
On 28/3/05 3:29 pm, in article
1112020143.931144.306720@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com, "Bill Hilton"
<bhilton665@aol.com> wrote:
>> Does the Epson 4000 print margin to margin? This would give a printing
>
>> width of 17". Or is the actual print only 16" (allowing for the
> margin)
>
> According to the manual you can print borderless on the 17" wide paper,
> using either rolls or cut sheets, with the caveat that with 17x22"
> sheets you can print borderless on the 17" side but not on the 22" side
> since it needs space to grab the paper.
>
> Bill
>
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
In article <BE6DDD70.1E26%nobody@nowhere.com.re>,
nobody <nobody@nowhere.com.re> wrote:
> Thanks Bill, Mr. Inaccessible seems to disagree with you, who is right?
> This means that I cannot have a 17" square picture, it would have to be 16"
> then, or may bw 16.5?
You can check with Epson, barring that I would go with Bill he's
usually on top of this type stuff.
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
>Thanks Bill, Mr. Inaccessible seems to disagree with you, who is
right?
If I had actually printed 17" wide I'd be sure, but I always go 16x20"
or 16x24", I LIKE the margins for mounting purposes.
At any rate, I was just repeating what's in the manual but it might be
wrong, maybe Mark Morgan or another 4000 user has actually printed 17"
wide and can confirm. Here's a jpeg showing what's in the on-line
manual, it took two screen dumps to get it all so it's a big jpeg but
at least you can see what the manual says about printing borderless ...
http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/borderless.jpg
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
Thank again Bill.
On 28/3/05 5:28 pm, in article
1112027339.087069.56230@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com, "Bill Hilton"
<bhilton665@aol.com> wrote:
>> Thanks Bill, Mr. Inaccessible seems to disagree with you, who is
> right?
>
> If I had actually printed 17" wide I'd be sure, but I always go 16x20"
> or 16x24", I LIKE the margins for mounting purposes.
>
> At any rate, I was just repeating what's in the manual but it might be
> wrong, maybe Mark Morgan or another 4000 user has actually printed 17"
> wide and can confirm. Here's a jpeg showing what's in the on-line
> manual, it took two screen dumps to get it all so it's a big jpeg but
> at least you can see what the manual says about printing borderless ...
> http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/borderless.jpg >
> Bill
>
You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months. If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.