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

"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.

Philip Homburg spake thus:

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.

"More practical"? Not necessarily; that's a glib assumption, based on
the supposed ease of doing arithmetic in decimal units, that's not
always borne out in reality.

I can tell you that in at least two fields which rely heavily on
measurements, here in the U.S., both the printing and building
industries happily and reliably use non-metric measurements, and are
likely to do so for the forseeable future.

In the case of printing, I have *never*--not once--been in a situation
where it would be advantageous--or even possible--to divide a
measurement by 10. Not even if one is printing something 10-up on a
sheet does this ever arise. So much for the vaunted advantage of metric
measure.

Every single shop I've worked in over here, including one I owned, used
inches and fractions of inches exclusively. The one concession that
printers must make to the great Metric gods is that foreign presses
(namely Heidelberg) require you to make settings in mm and cm; what most
printers do at this point is simply convert the sheet size in inches to
mm and input it.

Even carpenters and cabinetmakers, who one would imagine would have more
opportunities to divide a length into equal parts which might
conceivably be easier with metric measures, happily, easily and
accurately use feet, inches and fractions of inches. Also not likely to
change in the forseeable future.

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?

For the most part, we can't "converted" (sic) without use of a
calculator. But again, the much-hyped ability to multiply or divide by
tens just by moving a decimal point is, in most cases, not useful.

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.

Well, we primitives over here have the same thing. For instance, two
letter-size sheets (8-1/2 x 11") fit exactly on one tabloid sheet (11 x
17"). And remembering a small number of paper sizes doesn't tax one's
brain too much.

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

Well, that's because there's no alternative system for those quantities.
Besides, I don't see what's particularly "metric" about any of those
measures, apart from the use of decimal multiples and divisions
(millivolt, kilowatt, etc.).


--
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...

I can tell you that in at least two fields which rely heavily on
measurements, here in the U.S., both the printing and building industries
happily and reliably use non-metric measurements, and are likely to do so
for the forseeable future.


Fortunately in certain places where these things
matter (eg., pure science, high-tech, wafer
fabrication, etc.) metric measurements are
well established and accepted.

It still strikes me as strange that when I fire
up Indesign I have to deal with points, picas,
em-dashes, and similar arcanery. Kinda like
my digicam with its synthesized shutter noise --
a pacifier for folks wedded to "tradition."


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

In article m,
David Nebenzahl wrote:
In the case of printing, I have *never*--not once--been in a situation
where it would be advantageous--or even possible--to divide a
measurement by 10. Not even if one is printing something 10-up on a
sheet does this ever arise. So much for the vaunted advantage of metric
measure.

So, if you have a roll of paper, is the length listed in inches? (Is that
called a web-press?)

Are billboards sized in inches?

Every single shop I've worked in over here, including one I owned, used
inches and fractions of inches exclusively.

How how do you deal with the weight of paper. Is that the weight per
square inch.

Even carpenters and cabinetmakers, who one would imagine would have more
opportunities to divide a length into equal parts which might
conceivably be easier with metric measures, happily, easily and
accurately use feet, inches and fractions of inches. Also not likely to
change in the forseeable future.

And I guess they also buy their wood in inches?

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.

Well, we primitives over here have the same thing. For instance, two
letter-size sheets (8-1/2 x 11") fit exactly on one tabloid sheet (11 x
17"). And remembering a small number of paper sizes doesn't tax one's
brain too much.

So what is one bigger than tabloid of one smaller than letter?

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

Well, that's because there's no alternative system for those quantities.
Besides, I don't see what's particularly "metric" about any of those
measures, apart from the use of decimal multiples and divisions
(millivolt, kilowatt, etc.).

Apart from the factor that a watt is one joule per second and a
joule is one newton meter, and a newton is one kilogram meter per
second squared. And the ampere is specified as two (infinite) parallel wires
at a distance of one meter with a resulting force of 2e-7 N per meter wire.

No, it has nothing to do with metric.


--
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 spake thus:

In article m,
David Nebenzahl wrote:

In the case of printing, I have *never*--not once--been in a situation
where it would be advantageous--or even possible--to divide a
measurement by 10. Not even if one is printing something 10-up on a
sheet does this ever arise. So much for the vaunted advantage of metric
measure.

So, if you have a roll of paper, is the length listed in inches? (Is that
called a web-press?)

Yep, although we dispense with the hyphens; it's just a web press. (The
paper is the web.)

Are billboards sized in inches?

Yep.

Every single shop I've worked in over here, including one I owned, used
inches and fractions of inches exclusively.

How how do you deal with the weight of paper. Is that the weight per
square inch.

Now *that* is a mess under our system; every type of paper has what's
called a "basis weight", which is the weight of 500 sheets (a ream) at
the "basis size", which of course is different for every type of paper.
So we have, for example, 50 lb. "offset" or text paper, which is
(approx.) the same weight as 20 lb. bond. Go figure.

But we still manage, and it really doesn't make that much difference.
Why? Because you never have to do arithmetic with the weights; they're
simply used to specify weights of paper, and everyone in the trade
(designers & printers) knows what they are. (Unless, of course, you're a
paper manufacturer or wholesaler and have to figure shipping costs or
something.)

Even carpenters and cabinetmakers, who one would imagine would have more
opportunities to divide a length into equal parts which might
conceivably be easier with metric measures, happily, easily and
accurately use feet, inches and fractions of inches. Also not likely to
change in the forseeable future.

And I guess they also buy their wood in inches?

Yep. 2x4s (nominally 2 x 4", actually 1-1/2" x 3-1/2" due to planing),
and almost everything flat comes in 4x8' sheets.

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.

Well, we primitives over here have the same thing. For instance, two
letter-size sheets (8-1/2 x 11") fit exactly on one tabloid sheet (11 x
17"). And remembering a small number of paper sizes doesn't tax one's
brain too much.

So what is one bigger than tabloid of one smaller than letter?

If I understand your question, that would be 17 x 22", long a standard
size of paper.


--
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)