Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: HP Z3200 44" Pricing  (Read 8352 times)
gromit
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 133


« Reply #40 on: July 11, 2011, 12:15:31 AM »
ReplyReply

I think it is because 42 inches is exactly divisible by 8 inches, so you can cut seven 8 inch wide (by 10 inch long) prints across the width with no waste.

I'm glad I didn't post this.

:-)
Logged
Richowens
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 845



« Reply #41 on: July 11, 2011, 01:22:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Uhhhhh..... Mark, recheck your math. Seven 8" prints are 56" wide. One could get five 8" prints with one inch left over on each end, or six 5"x7"or seven 4"x6" or three 11"x14" all in landscape position with no waste.

Rich
Logged

Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2868


« Reply #42 on: July 11, 2011, 02:01:18 AM »
ReplyReply

There have always been 42"printer models in HP's catalog. I do not think there is more logic about it than that. I recall that we had a discussion way back why the Epson printer size was ever set at 44", nobody could understand that either.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst

Dinkla Gallery Canvas Wrap Actions for Photoshop

http://www.pigment-print.com/dinklacanvaswraps/index.html

« Last Edit: July 11, 2011, 02:02:52 AM by Ernst Dinkla » Logged
Sensi
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9



WWW
« Reply #43 on: July 18, 2011, 06:43:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Just order it online...
Logged

Referrals: InkFarm.com, Cheap
Photo Printer Ink & Toner
deanwork
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 722


« Reply #44 on: July 18, 2011, 07:40:45 PM »
ReplyReply

It certainly isn't a huge deal, it's just that I don't understand why they do it. If you have a 44" printer it is nice to have that extra space for nice borders, especially on say a 40x60 inch print you can have 2" boarders on each side for either matting or if using magnets to display. You have a nice looking border to do that with. It looks a lot nicer than 1" borders on each side.

There is something to this 42" size though because Breathing Color makes their canvas in both 42" an 44" widths. But if all these printers using this media are 44" it just seems odd to me to have to buy a roll 2" shorter than that capability. And yes I make all my test prints 8.5x11 which comes out perfectly on the 44" width.




I don't understand the 42" either.  But do you really need the extra 2"?  I mean, I don't think I print over 40".  I guess it all depends what you're doing though.
Logged
MHMG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 623


« Reply #45 on: July 18, 2011, 08:24:59 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm glad I didn't post this.

:-)

me bad  Wink Brain freeze.  I was thinking 6 times 7 but wrote 8 times 7.  Six times seven is still in line with the point I was originally trying to make, that 42 inches will fit multiples of many standard US photo sizes, e.g. 4x6 inch, 5x7 inch, 11x14, and even 4 8x10 inch portrait mode where 10 inch left over can then be used to lay out landscape 8x10 and other multiples of smaller standard US photo print sizes).  Many photo labs get requests for print packages of these multiple sizes, so 42 inch width does make some sense for nesting prints that have standard US photo sizes.
« Last Edit: July 19, 2011, 10:36:11 AM by MHMG » Logged
CUclimber
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 19


« Reply #46 on: July 21, 2011, 05:44:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Wow, thanks for the heads-up on Atlex.com!

It seems crazy that a Canon 8300 is only $400 more than the 6300, and now I'm considering a 44" printer just for kicks.  Shocked
Logged
deanwork
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 722


« Reply #47 on: July 21, 2011, 07:04:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Just make sure you have at the very least 4 strong guys to move it. We moved mine with only three of us moderate strength guys and it was not the way to do it. It could have been a bad scene.

Canon recommends using 6 people. With my HP Z, my little 110 lb girlfriend and I turned it over and set it up ourselves. The Canon is a monster but I don't regret the effort one bit. Just be careful and plan ahead.

j



Wow, thanks for the heads-up on Atlex.com!

It seems crazy that a Canon 8300 is only $400 more than the 6300, and now I'm considering a 44" printer just for kicks.  Shocked
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad