A trap for a not so young player.

On Mon, 03 Apr 2017 11:59:39 +0200, android wrote:

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

On Mon, 03 Apr 2017 10:46:19 +0200, android wrote:

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

On Sun, 02 Apr 2017 20:26:29 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On Apr 2, 2017, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

I have a number of prints to produce. One of them is a long narrow
panorama and the others are about 220~240mm approximately square.

I thought I would print the panorama down one side of an A2 sheet (594
x 420) and two of the others in the space left on the sheet. The
non-panorama prints are intended to replace existing prints in
existing frames and therefore have to be accurately sized.

What are the actual dimensions of the Pano?

594 x 131.

I used Photoshop to make the print. I accurately sized each print in
separate (PS) files and then copied them to separate layers in the
print file.

When I printed (Epson P800) I ticked the 'Borderless' box in the print
setup. The printer supports borderless printing for certain papers and
sizes and I felt as though I could do with all the space available.
Then I pushed the 'Print' button.

With Borderless you are going to have sizing issues related to the bleed
settings you use. If you are tring to fit multiple images of different
dimentions Borderless is going to screw things up

Nothing to do with the bleed settings. The driver scaled things up to
use the additional space made available by 'Borderless'.

I was disconcerted to find that my prints were all larger than I
wanted. I carried out a variety of tests and the short of it is that
not only do you get extra printable space when as for 'Borderless' but
the Epson print driver expands the print image around the centre of
the printable space to utilise the additional area. While this might
be acceptable in some situations, in others it can be not at all what
you want.

So it resizes for you. Break out your ol' TI or HP and reverse engineer
it and you'll know that what you will get! :-))

Teach your grandma to do something or other with eggs.

But first you have to know that there is an effect to reverse
engineer. Talking of reverse engineering, I'm a fan of reverse polish
notation. Does that help?

There's a 15c in my desk... When you're ready for the Mac:

http://rpnscientific.freehostia.com/

I have a 35s at my right hand and a 17BII on the shelf at the back of
the desk.

Amazing what one can learn by doing stuff the wrong way. Fitting multiple
images on a single sheet of paper is going to require fixed sizing.

I thought I had fixed sizing, but apparently not. Hence my original
post in this thread.

Don't use 'Borderless' printing if you want accurately sized prints.
Or at least check first.

Yup.

BTW: I just saw this regarding using a cinemagraphic 2.39:1 aspect ratio
and
the overall effect is very interesting.
https://fujilove.com/why-crop-to-the-cinematic-aspect-ratio-2-391/

I got bogged down. What actually is the message?

I guess that the writer of the article means that cropping can replace
wideframe cameras using 35mm filmlike the Fujifilm TX:

http://img.over-blog-kiwi.com/1/28/9...1_2906ce70.jpg


Sold by Hasselblad after the Swiss takeover as XPan to replace the SWC,
BTW...

I do not replace the Widelux though:

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=widelux&iax=1&ia=images&iaf=size%3Am

Not sold new these days. But these a

http://www.peleng8.com/horizon-cameras.html

Don't have that one but a Peleng 8/3.5 that I'm quite happy with. You
can se some pictures taken with it in the gallery of my blog:

http://wp.me/P3strj-4O


Some of my tries with something old.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/vxnfnmw6kmclysg/DNC_6381-Edit-2.jpg
https://www.dropbox.com/s/mb0r6vsszp0454e/_DSF4386-2.jpg

I don't see that this has much to do with 'Borderless' printing.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Mon, 03 Apr 2017 08:42:13 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


What are the actual dimensions of the Pano?

594 x 131.

pixels? that's tiny. you don't need borderless for that.

mm

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


What are the actual dimensions of the Pano?

594 x 131.

pixels? that's tiny. you don't need borderless for that.

mm

that's the intended print, not the image.

On Mon, 03 Apr 2017 18:02:32 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


What are the actual dimensions of the Pano?

594 x 131.

pixels? that's tiny. you don't need borderless for that.

mm

that's the intended print, not the image.

Yep.

The picture framer is not interested in pixels.

At 360ppi I would not be needing an A2 sheet to print it out.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens