Why such odd paper sizes?

[mercphoto]

When I look at printers I'm surprised at the paper sizes they support. Letter-sized printers at 8.5x11" is obvious, though honestly I wish someone made an 8.5" by 12" paper so I could print 8x12's at home.

But 13x19"? The largest standard frame that fits is 11x14. The 12x18 size is nice but odd. And you can't find a 13x19 frame (from what I can find). The next size up is 17x22, again an odd size. You can get a 16x20 (and without going borderless), but can't go 16x24.

Is there a historical reason for these paper sizes?

[pathfinder]

When I look at printers I'm surprised at the paper sizes they support. Letter-sized printers at 8.5x11" is obvious, though honestly I wish someone made an 8.5" by 12" paper so I could print 8x12's at home.

But 13x19"? The largest standard frame that fits is 11x14. The 12x18 size is nice but odd. And you can't find a 13x19 frame (from what I can find). The next size up is 17x22, again an odd size. You can get a 16x20 (and without going borderless), but can't go 16x24.

Is there a historical reason for these paper sizes?
13x19 accepts a 12x18 frame which is the standard 35mm rectangle full frame image or 24mm by 36mm or 2/3 ratio. 14 x 21 is also a 2/3 ratio.

Not sure of any other historical reason. 16 x 20 is a 4 x 5 ratio and matches standard 8x10.:dunno

[Andy]

When I look at printers I'm surprised at the paper sizes they support. Letter-sized printers at 8.5x11" is obvious, though honestly I wish someone made an 8.5" by 12" paper so I could print 8x12's at home.

But 13x19"? The largest standard frame that fits is 11x14. The 12x18 size is nice but odd. And you can't find a 13x19 frame (from what I can find). The next size up is 17x22, again an odd size. You can get a 16x20 (and without going borderless), but can't go 16x24.

Is there a historical reason for these paper sizes?

here's a good source for 13x19 mattes, frames (http://www.framedestination.com/wood_picture_frame.html)

[mercphoto]

Ok, the size thing is making more sense. Now I'm looking at the Epson 2200, which accepts paper rolls. I thought this would be cheaper, but according to Epson website, the roll is not cheaper than cut sheets. Sometimes it is a big more expensive per foot. I'm guessing the benefit to roll paper is less waste?

[Angelo]

If you really want to know all about paper sizing go to: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/iso-paper.html

but I think you're really only interested in the best printer. I have an Epson Stylus / Photo 1270 which does a great job (although it's a bit older model). It feeds up to 13 x 19 paper which allows me to print graphics up to 11x17 (standard tabloid size) with room for a full trim to bleed. This means that if you want a finished product to fill a certain size, such as your 8x12s, you would need to load 8.5 x 14 (legal size), print and trim. This allows for the up to 1/2" margin most printers require for feed before laying down ink.


When I look at printers I'm surprised at the paper sizes they support. Letter-sized printers at 8.5x11" is obvious, though honestly I wish someone made an 8.5" by 12" paper so I could print 8x12's at home.

But 13x19"? The largest standard frame that fits is 11x14. The 12x18 size is nice but odd. And you can't find a 13x19 frame (from what I can find). The next size up is 17x22, again an odd size. You can get a 16x20 (and without going borderless), but can't go 16x24.

Is there a historical reason for these paper sizes?

[mercphoto]

If you really want to know all about paper sizing go to: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/iso-paper.html

That explains a ton! Thanks.

If only we went metric... sigh.

[GREAPER]

Ok, the size thing is making more sense. Now I'm looking at the Epson 2200, which accepts paper rolls. I thought this would be cheaper, but according to Epson website, the roll is not cheaper than cut sheets. Sometimes it is a big more expensive per foot. I'm guessing the benefit to roll paper is less waste?

Ya gotta have roll paper to print those LONG panos