A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » General Hardware & Peripherals » Printers
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Wide Format Confusing



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 1st 05, 01:05 AM
measekite
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old February 1st 05, 01:11 AM
Kevin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old February 1st 05, 01:28 AM
measekite
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old February 1st 05, 10:11 AM
JC Dill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old February 1st 05, 01:12 PM
Arthur Entlich
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old February 1st 05, 01:29 PM
Arthur Entlich
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old February 1st 05, 10:07 PM
measekite
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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  
Old February 1st 05, 10:11 PM
measekite
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

!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  
Old February 2nd 05, 01:39 AM
Toby
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old February 4th 05, 01:34 AM
JC Dill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.