Different Formats for Different Countries -- Variable Density B&W Film

In message m, David
Nebenzahl writes
Jean-David Beyer spake thus:

Now ordinary printing paper, in USA, came from the size of the frame
commonly used for making paper by hand that turned out 17 by 22 inch sheets
after the deckle edge was trimmed off. This was about the largest they could
make sheets for a long time. These where cut in half both ways making 8½ by
11 sheets as standard for printing (and later, typewriting).

OK, so where did that Yurpeen standard, A4, come from?

A4 is NOT European It is International and is used EVERYWHERE except
the USA.

see http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/iso-paper.html

Some points from the link:

"The United States, Canada, and in part Mexico, are today the only
industrialized nations in which the ISO standard paper sizes are not yet
widely used."

"If you live in the U.S. and have never been abroad, you might not be
aware that paper and accessories in the North-American sizes are not
commonly available outside the U.S. or Canada. They are very difficult
to obtain in any other country"

Interestingly:-
"Although it is rarely advertised, ISO A4 laser printer and copying
paper, as well as suitable files and folders, are available today from
many U.S. office supply companies. A4 paper and supplies are regularly
ordered in the U.S. today, especially by companies and organizations
with a lot of international correspondence, including patent lawyers,
diplomats, universities, and some government agencies. It seems that in
the U.S., at the moment, only higher-quality paper brands are easily
available in A4, i.e. the types of paper preferred for important
documents, such as international patent applications. Many of the larger
stationery chains do offer at least one type of A4 paper in their
catalogues, but not all shops keep it on stock routinely and might have
to order it first."


So eventually the US might start using standard paper sizes that fit in
with the rest of the world.


--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

dj_nme wrote:

One of the first hits on Google:
http://www.paulschou.com/a4/

Perfect explanation, thanks for that.

It is interesting that we have the tendency to prefer rectangles to squares,
otherwise we would have gone to the Golden Mean (1.618) instead of 1.414.

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 06:52:36 -0600, "j" wrote:

dj_nme wrote:

One of the first hits on Google:
http://www.paulschou.com/a4/

Perfect explanation, thanks for that.

It is interesting that we have the tendency to prefer rectangles to squares,
otherwise we would have gone to the Golden Mean (1.618) instead of 1.414.


Worth noting that the aspect ratio of A4 is *very* handy
for printing uncropped 35mm images (or any other images
with 2:3 aspect ratios.)


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

Chris Hills spake thus:

In message m, David
Nebenzahl writes

Jean-David Beyer spake thus:

Now ordinary printing paper, in USA, came from the size of the frame
commonly used for making paper by hand that turned out 17 by 22 inch
sheets
after the deckle edge was trimmed off. This was about the largest
they could
make sheets for a long time. These where cut in half both ways making
8½ by
11 sheets as standard for printing (and later, typewriting).

OK, so where did that Yurpeen standard, A4, come from?

A4 is NOT European It is International and is used EVERYWHERE except
the USA.

see http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/iso-paper.html

Some points from the link:

"The United States, Canada, and in part Mexico, are today the only
industrialized nations in which the ISO standard paper sizes are not yet
widely used."

"If you live in the U.S. and have never been abroad, you might not be
aware that paper and accessories in the North-American sizes are not
commonly available outside the U.S. or Canada. They are very difficult
to obtain in any other country"

Interestingly:-
"Although it is rarely advertised, ISO A4 laser printer and copying
paper, as well as suitable files and folders, are available today from
many U.S. office supply companies. A4 paper and supplies are regularly
ordered in the U.S. today, especially by companies and organizations
with a lot of international correspondence, including patent lawyers,
diplomats, universities, and some government agencies. It seems that in
the U.S., at the moment, only higher-quality paper brands are easily
available in A4, i.e. the types of paper preferred for important
documents, such as international patent applications. Many of the larger
stationery chains do offer at least one type of A4 paper in their
catalogues, but not all shops keep it on stock routinely and might have
to order it first."

So eventually the US might start using standard paper sizes that fit in
with the rest of the world.

And why, pray tell, would I want to do that? Just as I may ask why we
(the U.S., and even, for that matter, parts of the UK) should abandon
our venerable measurement system in favor of the metric system? (Don't
know if you're aware of it, but there's *trememdous* oppostion to
metrificiation both here in the U.S. and abroad.)

Why should I embrace a system that's cold and based on some abstract
notions, such as an aspect ratio based on the square root of two, where
the primary size (A0) from which the others are derived is defined,
arbitrarily, as having an area of one square meter? It's all neat and
consistent--and totally arbitrary, having nothing to do with real-world
historical proportions and dimensions.

No thanks. I'll stick to *my* "letter" and "legal" and "tabloid" sizes
any day. Which is what appears to be the case for the forseeable future
here, despite the urgent wishes of the Internationalizers and the
Yurpeenizers.


--
Just as McDonald's is where you go when you're hungry but don't really
care about the quality of your food, Wikipedia is where you go when
you're curious but don't really care about the quality of your knowledge.

- Matthew White's WikiWatch (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm)

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
s.com...

And why, pray tell, would I want to do that? Just as I may ask why we (the
U.S., and even, for that matter, parts of the UK) should abandon our
venerable measurement system in favor of the metric system? (Don't know if
you're aware of it, but there's *trememdous* oppostion to metrificiation
both here in the U.S. and abroad.)


Much more rational to measure things based on the
standard of the Supreme Leader's body parts!

The USA has its head up its ass in far more ways
than I can enumerate in one post... But then again,
we've long since given up being "reality based."


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

rafe b spake thus:

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
s.com...

And why, pray tell, would I want to do that? Just as I may ask why we (the
U.S., and even, for that matter, parts of the UK) should abandon our
venerable measurement system in favor of the metric system? (Don't know if
you're aware of it, but there's *trememdous* oppostion to metrificiation
both here in the U.S. and abroad.)

Much more rational to measure things based on the
standard of the Supreme Leader's body parts!

Well, at least it was based on *someone's* body parts, instead of an
arbitrary, disembodied, intangible numerical concept.

The USA has its head up its ass in far more ways
than I can enumerate in one post... But then again,
we've long since given up being "reality based."

Certainly no argument there from this quarter, Rafe. But in this case,
we're right: kind of like the stopped clock and all that.


--
Just as McDonald's is where you go when you're hungry but don't really
care about the quality of your food, Wikipedia is where you go when
you're curious but don't really care about the quality of your knowledge.

- Matthew White's WikiWatch (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm)

In message m, David
Nebenzahl writes
Chris Hills spake thus:

In message m,
David Nebenzahl writes

Jean-David Beyer spake thus:

Now ordinary printing paper, in USA, came from the size of the frame
commonly used for making paper by hand that turned out 17 by 22
inch sheets
after the deckle edge was trimmed off. This was about the largest
they could
make sheets for a long time. These where cut in half both ways
making 8½ by
11 sheets as standard for printing (and later, typewriting).

OK, so where did that Yurpeen standard, A4, come from?
A4 is NOT European It is International and is used EVERYWHERE
except the USA.
see http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/iso-paper.html
Some points from the link:
"The United States, Canada, and in part Mexico, are today the only
industrialized nations in which the ISO standard paper sizes are not
yet widely used."
"If you live in the U.S. and have never been abroad, you might not
be aware that paper and accessories in the North-American sizes are
not commonly available outside the U.S. or Canada. They are very
difficult to obtain in any other country"
Interestingly:-
"Although it is rarely advertised, ISO A4 laser printer and copying
paper, as well as suitable files and folders, are available today from
many U.S. office supply companies. A4 paper and supplies are regularly
ordered in the U.S. today, especially by companies and organizations
with a lot of international correspondence, including patent lawyers,
diplomats, universities, and some government agencies. It seems that
in the U.S., at the moment, only higher-quality paper brands are
easily available in A4, i.e. the types of paper preferred for
important documents, such as international patent applications. Many
of the larger stationery chains do offer at least one type of A4
paper in their catalogues, but not all shops keep it on stock
routinely and might have to order it first."
So eventually the US might start using standard paper sizes that fit
in with the rest of the world.

And why, pray tell, would I want to do that? Just as I may ask why we
(the U.S., and even, for that matter, parts of the UK)

The UK has been metric for some time. In fact you will be hard pressed
to find anyone under the age of 35 who even knows what the non-metric
systems are.

should abandon our venerable measurement system

Venerable.... How old is the US? There is nothing Venerable it the USA.

in favor of the metric system? (Don't know if you're aware of it, but
there's *trememdous* oppostion to metrificiation both here in the U.S.
and abroad.)

There is tremendous opposition in the US but I have not seen any
opposition in industry or commerce anywhere else in the world. Where it
is it is from people over 50 who want to use the old systems in the
markets.

Why should I embrace a system that's

Universally used in the rest of the world?

No thanks. I'll stick to *my* "letter" and "legal" and "tabloid" sizes
any day. Which is what appears to be the case for the forseeable future
here, despite the urgent wishes of the Internationalizers and the
Yurpeenizers.

The don't expect to be part of the rest of the world.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
s.com...

Well, at least it was based on *someone's* body parts, instead of an
arbitrary, disembodied, intangible numerical concept.


What's so arbitrary about this: one cubic centimeter of water
equals one gram. Sounds pretty rational to me. Is there any
substance more ubiquitous (or more germane to human life)
than H2O?

I've lived with them all my life but English units of weight,
length and volume are utterly irrational. 5280 feet per mile.
What were they thinking?

For smallish distances I'm much more comfortable with
millimeters than fractions-of-an-inch. For smallish volumes,
I'm much more comfortable with milliliters than "ounces."

First-order conversion is trivial. A meter is a yard.
A liter = a quart. An inch = 2.5 cm. Etc. etc.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

In article m,
David Nebenzahl wrote:
Why should I embrace a system that's cold and based on some abstract
notions, such as an aspect ratio based on the square root of two, where
the primary size (A0) from which the others are derived is defined,
arbitrarily, as having an area of one square meter? It's all neat and
consistent--and totally arbitrary, having nothing to do with real-world
historical proportions and dimensions.

Because in metric world the use of units is much more practical. I guess
that people in the US want to slow down daily life, because of some false
sense of tradition.

You don't have to know whether a measurement is supposed to be expressed in
centimeters or in meters, because most people can easily divide or multiply
by hundred. I wonder how many people in US can converted between inches,
feet, yards and miles without resorting to tables of calculators?

The same thing with the ISO paper series. You always know the name of the
size one bigger or smaller than the one you are currently using.
If you layout for A3, you can just proof on A4. Or print two A4s on an
A3 and put a staple in the middle.

Fortunately, the US did decide to go metric for the electricity
(Volt, Ampere, Watt).

And for some strange reason, focal lengths are metric, and are using the
strange square root of two series for aperture stops.

Another strange thing is that money in the US is metric, whereas most
European countries had very long traditions with non-metric systems.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

(Philip Homburg) writes:

Another strange thing is that money in the US is metric, whereas most
European countries had very long traditions with non-metric systems.

Money in the US is now; however only a few years ago some US
stock markets used something resembling a "pieces of eight"
system for expressing stock prices.