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

[Radium]

Hi:

Is it true that in the days of B&W film and optical track audio, that
the films were formatted differently in different countries?

When magnetic videotapes were the norm, USA and Canada used NTSC,
France and Russia used SECAM, and the rest of the world used PAL.


Thanks,

Radium

[Geoffrey S. Mendelson]

Post by Radium
Is it true that in the days of B&W film and optical track audio, that
the films were formatted differently in different countries?

AFAIK no.

Post by Radium
When magnetic videotapes were the norm, USA and Canada used NTSC,
France and Russia used SECAM, and the rest of the world used PAL.

Actually the videotape systems accomodated the TV systems of the countries.
It wasn't quite so simple, the (former) Soviet Union and the
Warsaw pact countries use SECAM broadcast using PAL type signals. Some
Arab countries used it to, hence the name ME-SECAM on mnay VCRs.

The UK, South Africa and Austrailia use the same system for transmission,
which is different than the other PAL countries.

It still exists in DVDs. While they are YUV encoded digital video, the frame
rates are 24/1001, (NTSC film), 24 (PAL film), 25 (PAL) and 30/1001 (NTSC)
frames per second. This has nothing to do with zones and depending upon
the player, they convert it as needed to match the TV system.

Geoff.

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Radium
Is it true that in the days of B&W film and optical track audio, that
the films were formatted differently in different countries?

No.
--scott

[j]

Post by Radium
Is it true that in the days of B&W film and optical track audio, that
the films were formatted differently in different countries?

No, but there is sometimes confusion regarding certain sheet films which
were given in metric sizes. You can still get those oddball sizes from J&C.

[Radium]

Post by j

Post by Radium
Is it true that in the days of B&W film and optical track audio, that
the films were formatted differently in different countries?

No, but there is sometimes confusion regarding certain sheet films which
were given in metric sizes. You can still get those oddball sizes from J&C.

By "metric size", are you referring to the size of the film or are you
referring to the type of measurement used to measure the film?

[David Nebenzahl]

Post by Radium

Post by j

Post by Radium
Is it true that in the days of B&W film and optical track audio, that
the films were formatted differently in different countries?

No, but there is sometimes confusion regarding certain sheet films which
were given in metric sizes. You can still get those oddball sizes from J&C.

By "metric size", are you referring to the size of the film or are you
referring to the type of measurement used to measure the film?

"Metric sizes" are film sizes normally stated in, well, metric measures,
like 6x9 and 9x12 (both in centimeters), as opposed to "inch"-sized
films, like 4x5, 5x7, 8x10, etc. So, counterintuitively, 9x12 film is
smaller than 4x5 film.

[Tony Clarke]

Post by David Nebenzahl
"Metric sizes" are film sizes normally stated in, well, metric measures,
like 6x9 and 9x12 (both in centimeters), as opposed to "inch"-sized
films, like 4x5, 5x7, 8x10, etc. So, counterintuitively, 9x12 film is
smaller than 4x5 film.

Except metric film sizes aren't exactly what they say they are. The
frame size of a 120 film tends to be not 6cm wide but about 5.8 cm, with 120
film being about 62mm across. The other variations likwise are a bit smaller
than the nominal size. It allows a bit of masking in the film holder of the
enlarger, but nevertheless is not as precise as metricists might like you to
believe. I could claim that the pinhole camera I'm currently bashing from a
Kodak Brownie 2A is a "6x12" because it works by winding through alternate
frame numbers down the middle of the film (where the 6x6 numbers go) but the
actual image size is 54 x 108mm, being the old Kodak 116 film gate with a
strip of brass soldered each side to provide edge support for the slightly
smaller 120 film. It'll be printed using a 5 x 4 imperial enlarger (DeVere
54) with a black card mask over the neg glasses to minimise Callier flare
from the edges.

Of course 9 x 12 is smaller than 4 x 5! Those of us used to dealing in
metric know that 4 x 5 is 10 x 12.5cm - are at least it should be: if that's
the sheet film size then image size will be smaller because of the little
edge-retains in the film holder.

Someone on a forum - possibly not this one - confused me recently by
saying that "full plate" was 8 x 6 inches and all else was a division of
that. Sounds like the confusion over book binding classifications based on a
broadsheet being 15" x 20" except when it wasn't. I thought "full plate" was
10 x 8 inches, as the original master size for photos and respected to this
day in paper sizes. Am I wrong?

Tony Clarke

[dj_nme]

Post by Tony Clarke

Post by David Nebenzahl
"Metric sizes" are film sizes normally stated in, well, metric measures,
like 6x9 and 9x12 (both in centimeters), as opposed to "inch"-sized
films, like 4x5, 5x7, 8x10, etc. So, counterintuitively, 9x12 film is
smaller than 4x5 film.

Except metric film sizes aren't exactly what they say they are. The
frame size of a 120 film tends to be not 6cm wide but about 5.8 cm, with 120
film being about 62mm across.

That not quite correct.
With 120 film, the film is actualy 60mm wide and the paper backing is
62mm wide.

Post by Tony Clarke
The other variations likwise are a bit smaller
than the nominal size. It allows a bit of masking in the film holder of the
enlarger, but nevertheless is not as precise as metricists might like you to
believe.

With 120 film, most cameras have film rails that are about 1mm wide.
This results in a negative where the exposed Area is about 58mm tall.

Post by Tony Clarke
I could claim that the pinhole camera I'm currently bashing from a
Kodak Brownie 2A is a "6x12" because it works by winding through alternate
frame numbers down the middle of the film (where the 6x6 numbers go) but the
actual image size is 54 x 108mm, being the old Kodak 116 film gate with a
strip of brass soldered each side to provide edge support for the slightly
smaller 120 film. It'll be printed using a 5 x 4 imperial enlarger (DeVere
54) with a black card mask over the neg glasses to minimise Callier flare
from the edges.
Of course 9 x 12 is smaller than 4 x 5! Those of us used to dealing in
metric know that 4 x 5 is 10 x 12.5cm - are at least it should be: if that's
the sheet film size then image size will be smaller because of the little
edge-retains in the film holder.

Sometimes the conversion from Imperial measures to Metric isn't very exact.
1 inch equals 25.4mm, so 4 inches actualy equals 100.16mm
4"x5" is actualy 100.16mm x 126mm (10.02cm x 12.6cm).
The film rails probably take up about 2mm on each edge.
This makes the actual negative about 96.16mm x 122mm (96.2cm x 12.2cm)
on a sheet of 4x5 film.

Post by Tony Clarke
Someone on a forum - possibly not this one - confused me recently by
saying that "full plate" was 8 x 6 inches and all else was a division of
that. Sounds like the confusion over book binding classifications based on a
broadsheet being 15" x 20" except when it wasn't. I thought "full plate" was
10 x 8 inches, as the original master size for photos and respected to this
day in paper sizes. Am I wrong?
Tony Clarke

I think that would depend on which county you were asking for a "full
plate" in.
From memory, the UK usualy has smaller sizes and continental Europeam
countries tends to have longer or taller formats (depending on which
country).
In Australia, we seem to have tended to go with the USA on film sizes
and photographic paper.
Here a "full" plate would be 8x10 inches.

[Nicholas O. Lindan]

[someone said] "full plate" was 8 x 6 inches and all
else was a division of that ... broadsheet
being 15" x 20", "full plate" was 10 x 8 inches

I tried to figure this all out many times and gave up
many times.

As near as I can tell photographic paper sizes have nothing
to do with common ordinary paper sizes, which in the US are:

8.5 x 11" - American
8.5 x 14" - American legal
9 x 12" - Architectural, some artists' pads
A4 - DIN standard[s] - And see this for a mess'o'stanards:
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/iso-paper.html

None of which evenly divide or multiply into 4x6,
8x10/4x5, 5x7 or 11x14.

Which leads me to think that photographic sheet film and
paper sizes are drawn from standard sizes of:

o Pre-blanked sheet metal: Daguerreotypes & Tintypes
o Window panes: Glass negatives

All of which come in different standard sizes ... and
then there is metric.

except when it [they aren't].

Which seems to be the general case.

[Jean-David Beyer]

Post by Tony Clarke
Someone on a forum - possibly not this one - confused me recently by
saying that "full plate" was 8 x 6 inches and all else was a division of
that. Sounds like the confusion over book binding classifications based on a
broadsheet being 15" x 20" except when it wasn't. I thought "full plate" was
10 x 8 inches, as the original master size for photos and respected to this
day in paper sizes. Am I wrong?

I do not know if there is any such thing as "full plate" in photography.
Back in Daguerreotype days, the images were made on a sensitized sheet of
copper plated on one side with silver and then sensitized by the user. These
plates had standard sizes:

Full Plate: 6½ by 8½ inches
Half Plate: 4¼ by 5½ inches
Quarter Plate: 3¼ by 4¼ inches
Sixth Plate: 2¾ by 3¼ inches (a.k.a. "medium plate")
Ninth Plate: 2 by 2½ inches
Sixteenth Plate: 1 3/8 by 1 5/8 inches

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).

[David Nebenzahl]

Post by Jean-David Beyer
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?

[dj_nme]

Post by David Nebenzahl

Post by Jean-David Beyer
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?

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

[j]

Post by dj_nme
<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.

[Chris Hills]

Post by David Nebenzahl

Post by Jean-David Beyer
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.

[David Nebenzahl]

Post by Chris Hills

Post by David Nebenzahl

Post by Jean-David Beyer
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
"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.

[rafe b]

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

[David Nebenzahl]

Post by rafe b

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.

Post by rafe b
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.

[rafe b]

Post by David Nebenzahl
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

[John]

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

But as has been said before "The Devil is in the details".

==
John S. Douglas
Photographer & Webmaster
Legacy-photo.com - Xs750.net

[John]

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 10:32:00 -0800, David Nebenzahl

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

So you would prefer "de pedibus Sancti Pauli" ???? As Jefferson stated
"There exists not in nature, as far as has been hitherto observed, a
single subject or species of subject, accessible to man, which
presents one constant and uniform dimension.". Of course Jefferson
didn't know a whole lot about energy. Perhaps someday the meter will
be finally defined as the distance light travels in 1/300,000,000 of a
second. I like round numbers ;>)

==
John S. Douglas
Photographer & Webmaster
Legacy-photo.com - Xs750.net

[j]

Post by rafe b
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."

Tell your leaders to declare War on the USA. You might end up getting a
marvelous postwar settlement.

See "The Mouse that Roared"

Yes, certainly, the USA is truly f*ed up.

[Raphael Bustin]

Post by j
See "The Mouse that Roared"

Most excellent flick, as was most anything made
by or starring Peter Sellers.

"Dr. Strangelove" is a classic, quite literally.
And "Being There" is altogther too real to
want to think about, really.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

[John]

Post by j
Yes, certainly, the USA is truly f*ed up.

With such wonderful leadership, one can only wonder why.

==
John S. Douglas
Photographer & Webmaster
Legacy-photo.com - Xs750.net

[j]

Post by John

Post by j
Yes, certainly, the USA is truly f*ed up.

With such wonderful leadership, one can only wonder why.

When I was growing up in a first-generation family in America, we were told,
"Anyone can become President", but for God's sake, we never expected it to
become true! We got an Anyone!

Q: What is the difference between a C grade at any state university and the
same at Yale or Harvard?

A: Money.... and you have to WORK for a C at a state university.

[John]

Post by rafe b
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

Right on the money Rafe.

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/


==
John S. Douglas
Photographer & Webmaster
Legacy-photo.com - Xs750.net

[Chris Hills]

Post by David Nebenzahl

Post by Chris Hills

Post by David Nebenzahl

Post by Jean-David Beyer
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
"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.

Post by David Nebenzahl
should abandon our venerable measurement system

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

Post by David Nebenzahl
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.

Post by David Nebenzahl
Why should I embrace a system that's

Universally used in the rest of the world?

Post by David Nebenzahl
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.

[John]

Post by Chris Hills

Post by David Nebenzahl
Why should I embrace a system that's

Universally used in the rest of the world?

And agreed upon by the US government on May 20, 1875 ? But then we
don't really want to hold our governments accountable for their
agreements do we ? Heavens no ! The American Indians learned this
better than anyone.

==
John S. Douglas
Photographer & Webmaster
Legacy-photo.com - Xs750.net

[Philip Homburg]

Post by David Nebenzahl
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.

[Toni Nikkanen]

Post by Philip Homburg
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.

[David Nebenzahl]

Post by Philip Homburg

Post by David Nebenzahl
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.

Post by Philip Homburg
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.

Post by Philip Homburg
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.

Post by Philip Homburg
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.).

[rafe b]

Post by David Nebenzahl
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

[John]

Post by rafe b
Kinda like
my digicam with its synthesized shutter noise --
a pacifier for folks wedded to "tradition."

And rooted in ignorance ?

==
John S. Douglas
Photographer & Webmaster
Legacy-photo.com - Xs750.net

[Philip Homburg]

Post by David Nebenzahl
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?

Post by David Nebenzahl
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.

Post by David Nebenzahl
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?

Post by David Nebenzahl

Post by Philip Homburg
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?

Post by David Nebenzahl

Post by Philip Homburg
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.

[David Nebenzahl]

Post by Philip Homburg

Post by David Nebenzahl
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.)

Post by Philip Homburg
Are billboards sized in inches?

Yep.

Post by Philip Homburg

Post by David Nebenzahl
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.)

Post by Philip Homburg

Post by David Nebenzahl
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.

Post by Philip Homburg

Post by David Nebenzahl

Post by Philip Homburg
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.

[Philip Homburg]

Post by David Nebenzahl
(Unless, of course, you're a
paper manufacturer or wholesaler and have to figure shipping costs or
something.)

That's why metric works so well. It also works for the 'unless of course'
cases.

Post by David Nebenzahl

Post by Philip Homburg

Post by David Nebenzahl
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.

So, they do have to constantly convert between inches and feet.
That is why metric was invented.

Post by David Nebenzahl

Post by Philip Homburg
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.

Ah, so you do have a perfectly rational series of paper based on factors
of two, but instead of keeping a constant aspect ratio, you have to deal
with a more complicated system.

Thinking about, it looks like a missed opportunity to switch to a sqrt(2)
aspect ratio in digital cameras. Sqrt(2) is sort of the average between
4/3 and 3/2, and you can print to ISO standard paper without cropping.

[David Nebenzahl]

Post by Philip Homburg

Post by David Nebenzahl

Post by Philip Homburg

Post by David Nebenzahl
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.

So, they do have to constantly convert between inches and feet.
That is why metric was invented.

You sound as if carpenters and cabinetmakers have subnormal intelligence
and can't handle these sorts of simple calculations. Not true. They've
managed to deal with this problem for centuries with little difficulty.
Yours is a solution in search of a problem.

[John]

On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 09:50:36 -0800, David Nebenzahl

Post by David Nebenzahl
You sound as if carpenters and cabinetmakers have subnormal intelligence
and can't handle these sorts of simple calculations. Not true. They've
managed to deal with this problem for centuries with little difficulty.

And imagine how much better they would have done with a more precise
and easier to use system of measurement ? The mind simply reels at the
waste of time and effort spent supporting an antiquated system of
measurements that was superceded by international agreement in 1875.
131 years later we're still using a system based on kernels of corn,
the width of a finger or using 7000 Troy grains to define a pound.

Hmmmm, a metric system based on the measurements of light and water is
starting to sound pretty good isn't it ?

==
John S. Douglas
Photographer & Webmaster
Legacy-photo.com - Xs750.net

[David Nebenzahl]

Post by Philip Homburg

Post by David Nebenzahl
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?

Forgot the smaller one: that would be "invoice", which is 5-1/2" x 8-1/2".

[John]

Post by Philip Homburg
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.

LOL ! Yeah, nothin' at all !

==
John S. Douglas
Photographer & Webmaster
Legacy-photo.com - Xs750.net

[John]

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 14:04:17 -0800, David Nebenzahl

Post by David Nebenzahl
"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.

You obviously never had to measure in 64's !

==
John S. Douglas
Photographer & Webmaster
Legacy-photo.com - Xs750.net

[John]

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 14:04:17 -0800, David Nebenzahl

Post by David Nebenzahl
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.

Shoot ! What I'd give to see papers made in10X15,20X30 and 30X45 cm !


==
John S. Douglas
Photographer & Webmaster
Legacy-photo.com - Xs750.net

[Richard Polhill]

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

I presume for "metric" you meant "decimal".

Metric has nothing to do with the base, but more to do with the
standardisation around the density of water, which seems reasinable
enough, and the linking of most measurements to each other so that 1kg
water = 1l water. Helpfully, the base-10 numbering system we use was
chosen instead of vulgar fractions.

[Philip Homburg]

Post by Richard Polhill

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

I presume for "metric" you meant "decimal".
Metric has nothing to do with the base, but more to do with the
standardisation around the density of water, which seems reasinable
enough, and the linking of most measurements to each other so that 1kg
water = 1l water. Helpfully, the base-10 numbering system we use was
chosen instead of vulgar fractions.

No metric has everything to do with the base. The whole idea is to get rid
of all the weird factors in the inch/feet/yard/mile. Same story with
weights.

Even worse, it was common that there would be different units for the
same quantity. In most countries, the power of internal combustion
engines is expressed in bhp, and electrical power is expressed in watt.
Fortunately, in countries that went metric a long time ago, that is just
a rare exception. (The calorie is another)

The fact that the mass of 1 l of water is about 1 kg is only moderately
useful in practice. But it is important that the other units are derived
from that in a rational manner, instead of coming up with things like a
foot-pound of torque.

[John]

Post by Philip Homburg
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.

Nope. It's the engineers and machinists that are slowing down the
whole show. They would rather use what is loosely a base 8 system than
a more natural and precise base 10 system.

==
John S. Douglas
Photographer & Webmaster
Legacy-photo.com - Xs750.net

[Jeff R.]

Post by Chris Hills
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.

Why not just wait 'til all the old fogies die out - THEN make the change?

:-)

--
Jeff R.

QUICK: What's the next standard drill size down from 13/64" ?

[j]

Post by Jeff R.
Why not just wait 'til all the old fogies die out - THEN make the change?

I lived in England for some time through their conversion from the British
monetary system to decimal. It was slightly painful, but it worked out. If
the British can handle it, then anyone can... except the USA (for things
other than the dollar), although the USA does label just about everything in
Amerikan and also metric, there are no Amerikans who understand EITHER. They
are just stupid.

The only measure Amerikans understand is the gallon, as in a gallon of
gasoline. Or wine. They keep to what's important to them.

[Richard Polhill]

Post by j
I lived in England for some time through their conversion from the
British monetary system to decimal. It was slightly painful, but it
worked out. If the British can handle it, then anyone can... except the
USA (for things other than the dollar), although the USA does label
just about everything in Amerikan and also metric, there are no
Amerikans who understand EITHER. They are just stupid.
The only measure Amerikans understand is the gallon, as in a gallon of
gasoline. Or wine. They keep to what's important to them.

:-)

In fact at the moment there is talk of changing our road signs to
decimal here in the UK. that'll kick up a stink for about 10 years so
no giovernment wants to do it. Eventually all cars will have km/h
speedos and everyone'll forget how far a mile is anyway. Perhaps
they'll learn how much there is in a kg at the same time.

Personally I don't give a shit whch system is used but was brought up
on decimal and find multiplication by powers of ten easier - I defy
anyone not to. I bemoan the difficulty dividing by three in decimal but
that's another issue.

[j]

Post by Richard Polhill
In fact at the moment there is talk of changing our road signs to
decimal here in the UK. that'll kick up a stink for about 10 years so
no giovernment wants to do it. Eventually all cars will have km/h
speedos and everyone'll forget how far a mile is anyway.

At least your government hasn't proposed that you all drive on the other
side of the road. I was in England when Sweden (methinks) switched over like
that. They dropped the national speed limit to something like 20kph for the
transition.

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by j
The only measure Amerikans understand is the gallon, as in a gallon of
gasoline. Or wine. They keep to what's important to them.

In the US, wine now comes in liters and 750ml volumes. We still have a
"fifth" of whiskey, but it's normally rounded off to the nearest 50ml
increment.

The growth of the drug culture, however, has done more to familiarize
the younger generation with metric measurements than anything else. Alcohol
and illicit drugs are probably the two most familiar things the average
American sees in metric measurements.
--scott

[j]

Post by Scott Dorsey
The growth of the drug culture, however, has done more to familiarize
the younger generation with metric measurements than anything else.

Well, subtrefuge is a good thing, eh? Enlighten the b*st*ards.

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Jeff R.
Why not just wait 'til all the old fogies die out - THEN make the change?

We tried that in 1976. The problem is we keep getting new young fogies.
--scott


From my standpoint, I'm happy with English or Metric, just as long as folks
make up their MIND about it. I have too much equipment with BOTH English
and metric parts....

[John]

Post by Jeff R.
Why not just wait 'til all the old fogies die out - THEN make the change?
:-)

That is what's happening but unfortunately there was a tremendous
number of "boomers" born into "tradition" in the 50's. They resisted
change in the 70's when America made a significant effort to get
standardized on both decimal and metric standards. Fortunately many
are now retiring and their tools are wearing down and being replaced
with digital equipment which makes the conversion process simpler.
Eventually America will migrate completely to the metric system
however it will probably take another 60 years.

==
John S. Douglas
Photographer & Webmaster
Legacy-photo.com - Xs750.net

[Raphael Bustin]

Post by John

Post by Jeff R.
Why not just wait 'til all the old fogies die out - THEN make the change?
:-)

That is what's happening but unfortunately there was a tremendous
number of "boomers" born into "tradition" in the 50's. They resisted
change in the 70's when America made a significant effort to get
standardized on both decimal and metric standards. Fortunately many
are now retiring and their tools are wearing down and being replaced
with digital equipment which makes the conversion process simpler.
Eventually America will migrate completely to the metric system
however it will probably take another 60 years.

Ah yes, it's been a while since you had a good
anti-boomer rant, John. We surely are the root
of all evil. I for one have every intention of
stealing as much as I can of your inheritance.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

[John]

On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 21:15:54 -0500, Raphael Bustin

Post by Raphael Bustin
Ah yes, it's been a while since you had a good
anti-boomer rant, John. We surely are the root
of all evil. I for one have every intention of
stealing as much as I can of your inheritance.

Don't worry. Dubya's doin' it for ya !


==
John S. Douglas
Photographer & Webmaster
Legacy-photo.com - Xs750.net

[John]

On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 21:15:54 -0500, Raphael Bustin

Post by Raphael Bustin
Ah yes, it's been a while since you had a good
anti-boomer rant, John. We surely are the root
of all evil. I for one have every intention of
stealing as much as I can of your inheritance.

And I might be wrong but aren't you more than a little untraditional ?

==
John S. Douglas
Photographer & Webmaster
Legacy-photo.com - Xs750.net

[rafe b]

Post by John
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 21:15:54 -0500, Raphael Bustin

Post by Raphael Bustin
Ah yes, it's been a while since you had a good
anti-boomer rant, John. We surely are the root
of all evil. I for one have every intention of
stealing as much as I can of your inheritance.

And I might be wrong but aren't you more than a little untraditional ?

I might take that as a compliment but I doubt you
meant it as such. What exactly do you mean by
that, anyway?

And yes, I'm sure you're right -- Dubya will surely
get his cut (of your inheritance) long before I do.

I plan to squander mine on digital gear. The plan
is already well underway.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

[John]

Post by rafe b

Post by John
And I might be wrong but aren't you more than a little untraditional ?

I might take that as a compliment but I doubt you
meant it as such. What exactly do you mean by
that, anyway?

LOL ! Please take it as a compliment as it was meant as such. I look
around me at the "traditionalists" and my mind simply reels in
disbelief. I'm surrounded by Bush-hogs who are simply the most
stubborn and pathetic bunch I have ever had to contend with.

Post by rafe b
And yes, I'm sure you're right -- Dubya will surely
get his cut (of your inheritance) long before I do.

As will every politico on "The Hill" along with the warmongers and
contractors like Haliburton.

Post by rafe b
I plan to squander mine on digital gear. The plan
is already well underway.

Ouch ! Well I'm still saving up for a Canham.

==
John S. Douglas
Photographer & Webmaster
Legacy-photo.com - Xs750.net

[j]

Post by John
That is what's happening but unfortunately there was a tremendous
number of "boomers" born into "tradition" in the 50's. They resisted
change in the 70's when America made a significant effort to get
standardized on both decimal and metric standards.

Yup. Tis true. But I am older than the boomers and ain't one of them.

Now what IS strange is the fraction system is in accord with the metrics
(forgive me) of the Ancient Greeks, but Amerikans know nothing of that whole
thang.

So, let's Go Metric! Hey, that's got musical potential. Country Joe and the
Fish? Give me an M! Give me an E....

[John]

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 10:00:57 -0800, David Nebenzahl

Post by David Nebenzahl
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.)

As someone who considered being a machinist, I can think of a huge
number of instances where the metric system is vastly superior. For
starters is't a base 10 system. How many fingers do you have ? It's
natural to use a base 10 system of measurements. Now it might have
been quite different if we were all born with 5 fingers + 1 thumb ;>)
But just think of the implications of using a base 10 system of
centimeters/decimeters/meters and milliters/decaliters/liters versus
inches/feet/yards and ounces/pints/quarts/gallons. It's much the same
as using the precision of decimal versus fractions. It's still my
opinion that this was one of the major factors that helped Japan
production quality outstrip American engineering in the late 50's ~
70's. Have you ever worked on cars built in those years ? Man did they
have quality issues !

In short the metric system is far more precise and natural than using
any other common set of measurements.

==
John S. Douglas
Photographer & Webmaster
Legacy-photo.com - Xs750.net

[Chris Hills]

Post by John
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 10:00:57 -0800, David Nebenzahl

Post by David Nebenzahl
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.)

In short the metric system is far more precise and natural than using
any other common set of measurements.

Actually the reasoned justification is irrelevant. As the metric system
and in particular the paper sizes are in use world wide (including in
parts of the USA) why use a different and dying set of systems.

If you look at the comments and references in this discussion you will
find that even in the USA the metric system and ISO paper sizes are in
use. It is just that it is not in wide spread use as it is in every
other country in the world.

The world has standardised we just need the last few people in the US
to get with reality.

[Tom Phillips]

Post by John
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 10:00:57 -0800, David Nebenzahl

Post by David Nebenzahl
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.)

As someone who considered being a machinist, I can think of a huge
number of instances where the metric system is vastly superior. For
starters is't a base 10 system. How many fingers do you have ? It's
natural to use a base 10 system of measurements. Now it might have
been quite different if we were all born with 5 fingers + 1 thumb ;>)
But just think of the implications of using a base 10 system of
centimeters/decimeters/meters and milliters/decaliters/liters versus
inches/feet/yards and ounces/pints/quarts/gallons. It's much the same
as using the precision of decimal versus fractions. It's still my
opinion that this was one of the major factors that helped Japan
production quality outstrip American engineering in the late 50's ~
70's. Have you ever worked on cars built in those years ? Man did they
have quality issues !
In short the metric system is far more precise and natural than using
any other common set of measurements.

I would say it's more precise, but not more natural.
Listing my height as 1.8292682927 meters instead of
simply noting I'm 6 feet even seems rather clumsy..
In any case, I function perfectly well with both
systems (because I choose to...) and would always
resist any "one size fits all" system being forced
onto us citizens by any government.

[Raphael Bustin]

Post by Tom Phillips
I would say it's more precise, but not more natural.
Listing my height as 1.8292682927 meters instead of
simply noting I'm 6 feet even seems rather clumsy..

The issue you illustrate has nothing to do with
English vs. metric units. It has to do with
significant digits. You're conflating issues.

If you're going to limit the English-unit value to
1 digit, there's no rationale for using 11 digits
on the metric value.

There are conversions you do in a hurry, and
others you do when lives depend on the
numbers.

There's no law about what units to use for
casual use. There may -- and should be --
laws regarding units for commercial use or
in civil engineering, aviation, medicine, etc.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

[Tom Phillips]

Raphael Bustin wrote:

snip...

[Philip Homburg]

Post by Tom Phillips
I would say it's more precise, but not more natural.
Listing my height as 1.8292682927 meters instead of
simply noting I'm 6 feet even seems rather clumsy..

So, you are exactly 6 feet, 1/54.239581" high. Wow, how did measure that?

If it wasn't so sad, it would funny how many people don't understand
significant digits, and make a fool of themselves by holding that against
the metric system.

[Chris Hills]

Post by Philip Homburg

Post by Tom Phillips
I would say it's more precise, but not more natural.
Listing my height as 1.8292682927 meters instead of
simply noting I'm 6 feet even seems rather clumsy..

So, you are exactly 6 feet, 1/54.239581" high. Wow, how did measure that?
If it wasn't so sad, it would funny how many people don't understand
significant digits, and make a fool of themselves by holding that against
the metric system.

Exactly... I am 6 feet or 1.8 metres either is just as accurate.

It is irrelevant as the whole world is metric apart from *some parts* of
the USA.

To come back to the original questions on paper the whole world uses A4
etc including the parts of the US that need to work internationally.

It is only time before the fits in with the rest of the world.

BTW I did hear that just after the US announced that it was building a
Communist-Berlin style Iron Curtain wall between the US and Mexico the
Canadians started surveying for a wall on their southern border too.
:-)

[Morgan Montague]

Post by Chris Hills

Post by Philip Homburg

Post by Tom Phillips
I would say it's more precise, but not more natural.
Listing my height as 1.8292682927 meters instead of
simply noting I'm 6 feet even seems rather clumsy..

So, you are exactly 6 feet, 1/54.239581" high. Wow, how did measure that?
If it wasn't so sad, it would funny how many people don't understand
significant digits, and make a fool of themselves by holding that against
the metric system.

Exactly... I am 6 feet or 1.8 metres either is just as accurate.

This is why I like film: It's 35mm wide (metric) but travels at 90 feet
(English) per second in cameras and projectors.

Morgan

[David Nebenzahl]

Post by Chris Hills
It is irrelevant as the whole world is metric apart from *some parts* of
the USA.

Huh? Where are the "other parts" of the US that have gone metric? I know
of none. Please enlighten me.

Post by Chris Hills
To come back to the original questions on paper the whole world uses A4
etc including the parts of the US that need to work internationally.

I challenge you to find any business in the US, any office, that
*doesn't* use 8-1/2" x 11" paper in their office printers, for
correspondence, billing, etc. I have *never* seen anyone here who uses
A4. It's a virtually unknown paper size here. Where are you getting your
information?

Post by Chris Hills
It is only time before the fits in with the rest of the world.

Maybe.

Post by Chris Hills
BTW I did hear that just after the US announced that it was building a
Communist-Berlin style Iron Curtain wall between the US and Mexico the
Canadians started surveying for a wall on their southern border too. :-)

They ought to, if they're smart.

Just for the record, I share your antipathy for this "separation
barrier", which is just as wrong-headed as the Berlin Wall, or, more
pointedly, the Israeli wall around the Occupied Territories. But that's
a separate rant for another day.

[rafe b]

I challenge you to find any business in the US, any office, that *doesn't*
use 8-1/2" x 11" paper in their office printers, for correspondence,
billing, etc. I have *never* seen anyone here who uses A4. It's a
virtually unknown paper size here. Where are you getting your information?

We're in the business of developing printers and MFPs
for outfits like Canon, Lexmark, Dell, KM, et. al. We
have to keep all of the metric paper sizes in stock. Next
to LTR, A4 is the most popular size around our office.
Our OEMs and ODMs in Asia do most of their testing
on A4.

Like I said -- A4 comes in real handy for printing any
image in a 2:3 aspect ratio. Much better than LTR.
(LTR=Letter size=8.5x11")

A4 is "unknown" to most Americans because Americans
choose to be ignorant about the rest of the world.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

[David Nebenzahl]

Post by rafe b

I challenge you to find any business in the US, any office, that *doesn't*
use 8-1/2" x 11" paper in their office printers, for correspondence,
billing, etc. I have *never* seen anyone here who uses A4. It's a
virtually unknown paper size here. Where are you getting your information?

We're in the business of developing printers and MFPs
for outfits like Canon, Lexmark, Dell, KM, et. al. We
have to keep all of the metric paper sizes in stock. Next
to LTR, A4 is the most popular size around our office.
Our OEMs and ODMs in Asia do most of their testing
on A4.

Well, you're something of an anomaly because you're in the business of
developing printers. I'm talking about the vast majority of businesses
which are *users* of printers.

Post by rafe b
Like I said -- A4 comes in real handy for printing any
image in a 2:3 aspect ratio. Much better than LTR.
(LTR=Letter size=8.5x11")

Notice that nowhere did I argue the relative merits of U.S. letter vs.
A4. I'm sure that A4 is inherently beautiful and prolongs the longevity
of its users through its magical "golden proportion" qualities.

[rafe b]

Post by David Nebenzahl
Well, you're something of an anomaly because you're in the business of
developing printers.

That's me, a walking anomaly.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

[David Nebenzahl]

Post by rafe b

Post by David Nebenzahl
Well, you're something of an anomaly because you're in the business of
developing printers.

That's me, a walking anomaly.

Take it as a compliment, I guess.

[John]

Post by rafe b
A4 is "unknown" to most Americans because Americans
choose to be ignorant about the rest of the world.

Yes, it's quite deliberate and quite pathetic.

==
John S. Douglas
Photographer & Webmaster
Legacy-photo.com - Xs750.net

[rafe b]

Post by John

Post by rafe b
A4 is "unknown" to most Americans because Americans
choose to be ignorant about the rest of the world.

Yes, it's quite deliberate and quite pathetic.

It's not only deliberate but lots of Americans
take it as a point of pride. Recall that our
current.. cough... gag... president had hardly
ever traveled outside the USA before being
uh... err... appointed to that office.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

[Chris Hills]

Post by David Nebenzahl

Post by Chris Hills
It is irrelevant as the whole world is metric apart from *some parts*
of the USA.

Huh? Where are the "other parts" of the US that have gone metric? I
know of none. Please enlighten me.

Universities and professional institutes when dealing with the rest of
the world. Multinational companies in electronics and technology.
Government when dealing internationally.

Post by David Nebenzahl

Post by Chris Hills
To come back to the original questions on paper the whole world uses
A4 etc including the parts of the US that need to work internationally.

I challenge you to find any business in the US, any office, that
*doesn't* use 8-1/2" x 11" paper in their office printers, for
correspondence, billing, etc. I have *never* seen anyone here who uses
A4. It's a virtually unknown paper size here. Where are you getting
your information?

The people In the US I deal with professionally

Post by David Nebenzahl

Post by Chris Hills
It is only time before the fits in with the rest of the world.

Maybe.

Fits in or dies.

Post by David Nebenzahl

Post by Chris Hills
BTW I did hear that just after the US announced that it was building
a Communist-Berlin style Iron Curtain wall between the US and Mexico
the Canadians started surveying for a wall on their southern border
too. :-)

They ought to, if they're smart.

So that should isolate the USA from the rest of the world.... I wonder
if they will notice at first.

Post by David Nebenzahl
Just for the record, I share your antipathy for this "separation
barrier", which is just as wrong-headed as the Berlin Wall, or, more
pointedly, the Israeli wall around the Occupied Territories. But that's
a separate rant for another day.

I agree but I thought the Israeli wall might start another pointless
argument so I went for Berlin.

[David Nebenzahl]

Post by Chris Hills

Post by David Nebenzahl

Post by Chris Hills
It is irrelevant as the whole world is metric apart from *some parts*
of the USA.

Huh? Where are the "other parts" of the US that have gone metric? I
know of none. Please enlighten me.

Universities and professional institutes when dealing with the rest of
the world. Multinational companies in electronics and technology.
Government when dealing internationally.

Are you sure about that? I've printed stuff for universities (or at
least one university, a little place you might have heard of called the
University of California at Berkeley), and *all* of it was using
standard U.S. sizes. No A4 or A-anything else for that matter.

Do you mean to say that when they send correspondence to, say, Oxford,
they use their special stash of A4 paper? I don't think so.

[Chris Hills]

Post by David Nebenzahl

Post by Chris Hills

Post by David Nebenzahl

Post by Chris Hills
It is irrelevant as the whole world is metric apart from *some
parts* of the USA.

Huh? Where are the "other parts" of the US that have gone metric? I
know of none. Please enlighten me.

Universities and professional institutes when dealing with the rest
of the world. Multinational companies in electronics and technology.
Government when dealing internationally.

Are you sure about that? I've printed stuff for universities (or at
least one university, a little place you might have heard of called the
University of California at Berkeley), and *all* of it was using
standard U.S. sizes. No A4 or A-anything else for that matter.
Do you mean to say that when they send correspondence to, say, Oxford,
they use their special stash of A4 paper? I don't think so.

When dealing with institutes, professional bodies and conferences
outside the US they will have to use A4. Other Americans in this
discussion have said that A4 is used in the US for international work.

Of course if you are printing locally it will be in local sizes. They
probably use a more professional printer for the important international
stuff.

[David Nebenzahl]

Post by Chris Hills

Post by David Nebenzahl
Do you mean to say that when they send correspondence to, say, Oxford,
they use their special stash of A4 paper? I don't think so.

When dealing with institutes, professional bodies and conferences
outside the US they will have to use A4. Other Americans in this
discussion have said that A4 is used in the US for international work.

You say they "will have to use A4", which implies that they do not now
have to. When is this changeover planned?

I still say that if UC Berkeley corresponds with, say, the Universität
Bern, they still do so on US letter-size stationery. What, is there some
kind of "dimension police" who penalizes them for not using the proper
A4 paper? I don't think so.

[Raphael Bustin]

On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 10:17:31 -0800, David Nebenzahl

Post by David Nebenzahl
I still say that if UC Berkeley corresponds with, say, the Universität
Bern, they still do so on US letter-size stationery. What, is there some
kind of "dimension police" who penalizes them for not using the proper
A4 paper? I don't think so.

Unless I'm mistaken...

There are standard envelope sizes used for
postage. And these vary between the US and
"rest of world." Envelope size in turn dictates
the size of the enclosed paper. [I may have
causality backwards, but the effect is the same.]

Anyway, if one is preparing a mass mailing (say,
tens or hundreds of thousands of letters) then
one might do well to consult the postal rates
and regulations when choosing the size of
the original.

Not because of the polizei but to save serious $$.

I remember when I was young there was a
standard "Par Avion" form that one could buy
at the post office for international air mail. It was
a super-lightweight blue-tinted sheet that formed
its own envelope.

You'd take it home, write or type your letter
onto it, fold it up and drop in the mailbox.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

[John]

On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 09:49:23 -0800, David Nebenzahl

Post by David Nebenzahl
Huh? Where are the "other parts" of the US that have gone metric? I know
of none. Please enlighten me.

Probably means the parts of America that need precision and
international compatibility. I would hazard a guess that this would
include the auto makers, scientific institutions and most "high tech"
companies. As opposed to the US military machine which provides for
many engineering companies income and they still use the less precise
and antiquated systems.


==
John S. Douglas
Photographer & Webmaster
Legacy-photo.com - Xs750.net

[Chris Hills]

Post by John
On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 09:49:23 -0800, David Nebenzahl

Post by David Nebenzahl
Huh? Where are the "other parts" of the US that have gone metric? I know
of none. Please enlighten me.

Probably means the parts of America that need precision and
international compatibility. I would hazard a guess that this would
include the auto makers, scientific institutions and most "high tech"
companies. As opposed to the US military machine which provides for
many engineering companies income and they still use the less precise
and antiquated systems.

Correct. A lot of my work is in automotive electronics and it is all in
A4. I recall, some years ago a large US company sent out a whole lot of
stuff in some US paper size and everyone it was sent to around the world
asked for it in A4. They had to re do the lot.

I had the same problem with a small Us technology company. They wanted
to do a 4 page flyer for use all over the place. So they did it on A3
paper after it was explained to them that the US paper size would not
fit the storage racks and display rack anywhere else in the world.

Adapt or die. It is that simple.

[Geoffrey S. Mendelson]

Post by Chris Hills
I had the same problem with a small Us technology company. They wanted
to do a 4 page flyer for use all over the place. So they did it on A3
paper after it was explained to them that the US paper size would not
fit the storage racks and display rack anywhere else in the world.
Adapt or die. It is that simple.

The right adaption is to produce things with margins so it can be printed
locally on on whatever paper is available. This would be letter hight and
A4 width.

Financialy it does not make a lot of sense though, it's cheaper to
print something in China and ship it via boat than to print it locally
unless there are high import duties.

Letter paper is easily available in any large city just about everywhere.
The U.S. government allows many forms to be downloaded as PDF files and
printed locally, but requires them to be printed on letter paper.

Any company that does business with a company in the U.S., the U.S. government,
etc, uses letter paper and keeps copies in letter sized files.

Computer printers and copy machinces no longer care, the feed trays
are "universal".

Geoff.

[Chris Hills]

Post by Geoffrey S. Mendelson

Post by Chris Hills
I had the same problem with a small Us technology company. They wanted
to do a 4 page flyer for use all over the place. So they did it on A3
paper after it was explained to them that the US paper size would not
fit the storage racks and display rack anywhere else in the world.
Adapt or die. It is that simple.

The right adaption is to produce things with margins so it can be printed
locally on on whatever paper is available. This would be letter hight and
A4 width.

No. As 95% of the world uses the A series not just A4 the parts of the
US that don't use A4 should move to it. By changing the height of the
A4 will mean changes in A0 to A6 and the whole world changing

The obvious solution is for the parts of the US that are different to
the rest of the world to change their margins so that the US stuff will
work with the A4 the rest of the world uses.

Post by Geoffrey S. Mendelson
Financialy it does not make a lot of sense though, it's cheaper to
print something in China and ship it via boat than to print it locally
unless there are high import duties.

And the rest of the world including china uses the A series

Post by Geoffrey S. Mendelson
Letter paper is easily available in any large city just about everywhere.

Only in the USA. out side the US it is IMPOSSIBLE to get. However A4 is
available EVERYWHERE in the world including in the USA. Because it is
the world wide standard most printers in tjhe US can get it and most
large stationers can also get it.

Post by Geoffrey S. Mendelson
The U.S. government allows many forms to be downloaded as PDF files and
printed locally, but requires them to be printed on letter paper.

So format them so they will fit either A4 or the local US size.

Post by Geoffrey S. Mendelson
Any company that does business with a company in the U.S., the U.S. government,
etc, uses letter paper and keeps copies in letter sized files.

Nope.... For international stuff it is all A4. The US government also
uses A4 for international work.

Post by Geoffrey S. Mendelson
Computer printers and copy machinces no longer care, the feed trays
are "universal".

So what. The universal paper sizes are the ISO A series. There will
come a time when printer manufacturers won't bother with catering for
the no-standard US sizes. Parts of the US use the A series anyway.

[Geoffrey S. Mendelson]

Post by Chris Hills
And the rest of the world including china uses the A series

Chinese printers will print on any size paper their customer will pay for.

Post by Chris Hills

Post by Geoffrey S. Mendelson
Letter paper is easily available in any large city just about everywhere.

Only in the USA. out side the US it is IMPOSSIBLE to get. However A4 is
available EVERYWHERE in the world including in the USA. Because it is
the world wide standard most printers in tjhe US can get it and most
large stationers can also get it.

Have you actually tried? In Israel, almost every stationary store sells it.

Post by Chris Hills
So format them so they will fit either A4 or the local US size.

Go ahead, they won't accept them unless they are on letter paper. But no
one is forcing you to use it. Don't sell to the U.S., don't travel there,
etc.

Post by Chris Hills

Post by Geoffrey S. Mendelson
Computer printers and copy machinces no longer care, the feed trays
are "universal".

So what. The universal paper sizes are the ISO A series. There will
come a time when printer manufacturers won't bother with catering for
the no-standard US sizes. Parts of the US use the A series anyway.

Only those that send documents to people who are unwilling to accomdate
the U.S. standards. Until every houshold in China buys a printer, there
are a lot more paper and printers sold in the U.S. than everywhere else.

If a printer manufacturer wants to make the most profit with the least
effort, they would drop A4 long before they drop letter.

Standards are only standards if someone uses them. Right now the number
one consumer of high tech items is the U.S. more than anyone else
combined. Until China and India expand their economies to the point
where most of the popultion can afford things like paper and printers
and computers, metric paper sizes are a weak second.

What will eventually take over is a shortened A4, A4 width, letter length.
Works for everyone.

Geoff.

[Chris Hills]

Post by Geoffrey S. Mendelson

Post by Chris Hills
And the rest of the world including china uses the A series

Chinese printers will print on any size paper their customer will pay for.

Post by Chris Hills

Post by Geoffrey S. Mendelson
Letter paper is easily available in any large city just about everywhere.

Only in the USA. out side the US it is IMPOSSIBLE to get. However A4 is
available EVERYWHERE in the world including in the USA. Because it is
the world wide standard most printers in tjhe US can get it and most
large stationers can also get it.

Have you actually tried? In Israel, almost every stationary store sells it.

Isreal is part of the US. Also it's ,market is very small

Post by Geoffrey S. Mendelson

Post by Chris Hills
So format them so they will fit either A4 or the local US size.

Go ahead, they won't accept them unless they are on letter paper. But no
one is forcing you to use it. Don't sell to the U.S., don't travel there,
etc.

I won't travel to the US but the US wants to buy from me. :-) I have
several orders going through ALL documentation is on A4. If they want it
on US sizes they will have to convert it themselves.

Likewise is you don't want to sell to the rest of the world we don't
care.

Post by Geoffrey S. Mendelson

Post by Chris Hills

Post by Geoffrey S. Mendelson
Computer printers and copy machinces no longer care, the feed trays
are "universal".

So what. The universal paper sizes are the ISO A series. There will
come a time when printer manufacturers won't bother with catering for
the no-standard US sizes. Parts of the US use the A series anyway.

Only those that send documents to people who are unwilling to accomdate
the U.S. standards.

The US standards are LOCAL standards. If the US wants to trade with the
world it has to use International standards A4 is used world wide except
in some parts of the US

Post by Geoffrey S. Mendelson
Until every houshold in China buys a printer, there
are a lot more paper and printers sold in the U.S. than everywhere else.

Not true.

Post by Geoffrey S. Mendelson
If a printer manufacturer wants to make the most profit with the least
effort, they would drop A4 long before they drop letter.

Why? You mean make printers only for the US? Not likely.

Post by Geoffrey S. Mendelson
Standards are only standards if someone uses them. Right now the number
one consumer of high tech items is the U.S. more than anyone else
combined.

Completely untrue.

As we used to say the only difference between the Russian public and the
US public was the Russians knew when they were being fed propaganda

Post by Geoffrey S. Mendelson
What will eventually take over is a shortened A4, A4 width, letter length.
Works for everyone.

A4 currently works for everyone apart from some parts of the US. given
the current economic situation the US is starting to become irrelevant.

[Geoffrey S. Mendelson]

Post by Chris Hills
Isreal is part of the US. Also it's ,market is very small

First of all, you could learn to spell the name of the country. It's
ISRAEL I S R A E L.

Second, it is not part of the U.S. Israel is an independent country, been
so since 1948. Before that it was under England, but not a colony,
and before that the Ottoman Empire. Before that it was occupied by the
Romans and before that it was an independent country called Judeah.

I think you are familar with one of the residents of Judeah, you call
on him every Sunday. :-) You also probably sing a hymn about rebuilding
it's capital, Jerusaelm, in England.

It is the fourth largest (just slipped from third) place
for high tech investment in the world. Considering the top three are
parts of the U.S., it's the second far ahead of England, Erie, the E.U.
(combined), Japan, China (either or both) and India.

Post by Chris Hills
Likewise is you don't want to sell to the rest of the world we don't
care.
Sorry, but that sentence makes no sense, would you please restate it?
The US standards are LOCAL standards. If the US wants to trade with the
world it has to use International standards A4 is used world wide except
in some parts of the US

The ONLY places that use A4 in the U.S. are those that need to sell to
the U.K. The rest of the world happily will take anything they can get.

Post by Chris Hills
A4 currently works for everyone apart from some parts of the US. given
the current economic situation the US is starting to become irrelevant.

Funny, people have been saying that about England since 1945. You've
been watching too many Dr Who episodes showing England's manned space program.

With the U.K.'s rediculous taxes, dying national health system,
high unemployment, poor education system, almost dead industrial base,
racial and religeous unrest, low level of high tech investment, England
has been irrelevant for a long time.

Geoff.

[j]

Post by Chris Hills
So what. The universal paper sizes are the ISO A series. There will
come a time when printer manufacturers won't bother with catering for
the no-standard US sizes. Parts of the US use the A series anyway.

The British should know about standards - they have been mucking about with
different metrics (measures) for a long time. :) Never mind the pound
sterling (I believe we can thank Isaac Newton for that), consider their
fasteners: Whitworth? British Standard? Metric? And to top it all off, when
other manuactureres were moving from American Standard to metric, the
English Triumph Motorcycle company switched to American Standard! (1973).
Oh, and they used a perfectly nonstandard Russian steering bearing for a
brief period. Not even the esteemed Barry Bearing (US) could find an
equivalent.

And to get back On Topic - consider the British US (Unified Standared)
measure for lens apertures that went nowhere quick.

--
John formerly of Oxford, England - just to make it clear I am not
disrespecting the British.

[j]

Post by Geoffrey S. Mendelson
Financialy it does not make a lot of sense though, it's cheaper to
print something in China and ship it via boat than to print it locally
unless there are high import duties.

Depends on time requirements. US magazines and national newspapers are
printed at plants all over the country at the same time. It is hugely cost
effective.

Chinese production is not always profitable.

[rafe b]

Post by j
Depends on time requirements. US magazines and national newspapers are
printed at plants all over the country at the same time. It is hugely cost
effective.
Chinese production is not always profitable.

That's because they're looking at the long term. Whether
there's a profit or not is secondary: they're looking to
develop industrial infrastructure. Very smart.

Remember (well, maybe the younsters can't) that
Japanese goods were once considered junky. Then
the Taiwanese and Koreans beat the Japanese at
their own game. Now the mainland Chinese are
catching up. Hold on to your hats.

Meanwhile, the factories that were churning out
shoes by the millions in Lowell and Leominster
(100 years ago) are empty shells -- or being
converted into condos and shopping malls --
selling cheap Asian clothing, electronics, and
everthing else -- made anywhere *but* the USA.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

[John]

Post by rafe b
-- made anywhere *but* the USA.

Did I ever relate my experience with American Eagle Outfitters ? Just
try finding one item in their stores that's made in America !

==
John S. Douglas
Photographer & Webmaster
Legacy-photo.com - Xs750.net

[Raphael Bustin]

Post by John

Post by rafe b
-- made anywhere *but* the USA.

Did I ever relate my experience with American Eagle Outfitters ? Just
try finding one item in their stores that's made in America !

And where do you suppose those obnoxious yellow
magnetic SUV-adorning "Support The Troops" things
were made? Duluth? Des Moines?

Just got two beautiful shirts, by UPS, that I've been
searching for for ages. Heh. They're made in Vietnam.

(Try looking for synthetic soft flannel shirts at the mall.)


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

[John]

On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 19:21:06 -0500, Raphael Bustin

Post by Raphael Bustin
And where do you suppose those obnoxious yellow
magnetic SUV-adorning "Support The Troops" things
were made? Duluth? Des Moines?

You mean like this one ?

http://www.killerantennaballs.com/shop_support_our_troops.asp

Gag !!! But I have to admit I really like some SUV's for their
incredibly bad aerodynamics. You see I ride a motorcycle and drafting
a RAV4 is easy. You just have to be within 100 feet of the rear door.
I mean there is almost no way that thing could ever spin out of
control given the drag on the rear end ! And my fuel economy increases
about 10mpg when I'm behind one.

==
John S. Douglas
Photographer & Webmaster
Legacy-photo.com - Xs750.net

[j]

[...] You see I ride a motorcycle and drafting
a RAV4 is easy. You just have to be within 100 feet of the rear door.

:) I didn't know you rode, John. I did too, for over 30 years until a few
years ago when some old-age issues came up.

Here's to you!
j

[Matt Clara]

Post by John

Post by rafe b
-- made anywhere *but* the USA.

Did I ever relate my experience with American Eagle Outfitters ? Just
try finding one item in their stores that's made in America !

There's plenty there made in America--made in American protectorats, that
is!

[j]

Post by Chris Hills
Correct. A lot of my work is in automotive electronics and it is all
in A4. I recall, some years ago a large US company sent out a whole
lot of stuff in some US paper size and everyone it was sent to around
the world asked for it in A4. They had to re do the lot.

CDROM and DVD production of large documents are making a huge market to
obviate such issues. Print to the size you want, if you want a print. I did
the training CD manual for a famous boot manufacturer. The special virtue
there is that the training regime doesn't change but every few years and
updates are automatically pushed to the clients. The manufacturer saved a
million dollars in printing costs the very first year. You can imagine the
profit on such projects.

But I digress. Printing is still the only Real Thing in photography, IMHO.

[j]

Post by Chris Hills
A4 is NOT European It is International and is used EVERYWHERE except
the USA.

So that's a bad thing?

[David Nebenzahl]

Post by Radium
Is it true that in the days of B&W film and optical track audio, that
the films were formatted differently in different countries?
When magnetic videotapes were the norm, USA and Canada used NTSC,
France and Russia used SECAM, and the rest of the world used PAL.

Just wanted to apologize for accusing you of being someone else here
(Michael Scarpitti aka "UC"/Uranium Committee). You're clearly not him.

[Radium]

Post by David Nebenzahl
Just wanted to apologize for accusing you of being someone else here
(Michael Scarpitti aka "UC"/Uranium Committee). You're clearly not him.

No problem.

[Radium]

Post by David Nebenzahl
Just wanted to apologize for accusing you of being someone else here
(Michael Scarpitti aka "UC"/Uranium Committee). You're clearly not him.

No problem.

[UC]

Post by Radium
Is it true that in the days of B&W film and optical track audio, that
the films were formatted differently in different countries?

No.

Post by Radium
When magnetic videotapes were the norm, USA and Canada used NTSC,
France and Russia used SECAM, and the rest of the world used PAL.
Thanks,
Radium

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Radium
Is it true that in the days of B&W film and optical track audio, that
the films were formatted differently in different countries?

No.

Well, except for the soundtrack being in different languages for different
countries... from a distributor's standpoint that's the same thing.
--scott