If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Wide Format Confusing
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? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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" wrote in message m... 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? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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" wrote in message om... 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? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 00:05:13 GMT, 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. 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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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" wrote in message m... 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? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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 $50 for a 16x20 printer there will still be a market. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
html head meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type" title/title /head body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000" font size="-1"font face="Verdana"I think that your #2 may be accurate. They are probably trying to protect a lucrative ultra high end market geared to photo labs./font/fontbr br Arthur Entlich wrote:br blockquote cite="mid1nKLd.194602$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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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" wrote in message m... 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? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 21:07:48 GMT, measekite
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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Please Help me choose momory for AMD64 | Synapse Syndrome | Asus Motherboards | 11 | August 26th 04 02:43 PM |
Wide Format Color Printers | Mark | Printers | 2 | June 24th 04 02:10 PM |
wide format (11x17 - 13x19) printer recommendations? | matt wilkie | Printers | 2 | October 4th 03 01:13 AM |
Help buy wide format plotter? | [email protected] | Printers | 1 | August 30th 03 02:38 AM |
Large format printers on wide range of meterials | Steve | Printers | 2 | August 9th 03 04:09 AM |