Canon v Epson Printer issue

[Phil777]

My old Canon PIXMA Pro 9000 which was working earlier this year had a malfunctioning printhead after I fitted a CISS to it for $170 from Rihac in Victoria. How odd! So then I bought a replacement print head from E-Bay from China but it would not work even with all cartridges fitted. So I bought another one from Melbourne saying it was Brand New but that failed too!!! Not happy, I complained and they sent me some instructions part of which was difficult to understand. So I asked again and they replied again. I still cannot understand that specific instruction. As yet I still have to remove the ET-8550 from my PC and put the Pro 9000 back in place to check out the specific instructions! This will be very time-consuming and detailed so it is yet to be trialled!!! If I can fix the Pro 9000 I will sell it of course. But I can't do that while it won't print. But in the meantime I got a little annoyed and had been looking for a new printer with ecotanks in an effort to save some money from continually replacing cartridges. I found the Epson ET-8550 which is an A3+ printer and have printed an A4 photo and an A3 photo and the stitched panorama sunset which I fitted on the 13" wide roll of Epson semi-gloss photo paper cu toff at 50.5". I have to say that I was excited at the result and was so pleased to see the print head do it's magical work!
One problem though is that the normal 16:9 camera format is nowhere near the A3 paper size!
The standard A3 frames available in all the shops are nowhere near the photo size at 16:9.
So you have to go to a picture framer to get your standard 16:9 aspect photo fitted to an A3 photo mount.
Why have all the makers/deciders got us into this situation? Is someone digging in their heels?
Or am I missing something here?

[ameerat42]

Hi, Phil.
Commiserations on your Pixma problem. - All that money gone to probable waste!
I spent bigly once on repairs to an Epson printer. Ultimately I trashed it, because
it only worked again for some months afterwards. It's not the brand, but I suspect
that they're designed to be irreparable, no matter what.

Anyway, to your other problem... The aspect ratio for A4 and A3 paper is approx 1:1.4,
while for 16:9 format it is 1:1.777. To fit that format to an A3 sheet, you will end up
with some blank top and bottom borders. You'll have to wear them if using a normal
A3 frame.

Nevertheless, I'm surprised that you find there's a death of suitable 16:9 frames. Maybe
this is the case in general retail outlets, but have you tried frame makers?

[arthurking83]

Just to be clear tho ... 16:9 is not a "normal" aspect ratio, it is a cropped aspect ratio.

The two most normal or common aspect ratios for cameras are either 4:3 or 3:2. If your camera has a 16:9 aspect ratio it's set to a cropped aspect ratio.

I see that you use the 4/3rds forma6t system, so it's 'native' aspect ratio is actually 4:3. That you have 16:9 as an aspect ratio as an option is just that ... another option for you to choose.

Many device screens use a 16:9 aspect ratio, but this is not the same as a "normal" camera aspect ratio.

Anyhow, irrespective of these details, you can buy off the shelf almost standardly made photo frames in an almost(but not quite!) 16:9 aspect ratio that could suit an A3-ish output.

I dunno how much you expect a frame to cost, but IKEA have varying sizes of frames, that come close. But also note that do you expect to use a mounting board for the photo too?
You can, and I have ... way wayyyy in the past, purchase board from an art supplies place and cut the opening to suit the photos I wanted to frame.
Not a simple process, but not hard too either.

And after writing all this, you can get frame made to order for reasonable pricing, having just done a search, on ETSY they have a picture frame section where you can set sizes up to your preference. There is an option for the 16:9 aspect ratio available. Frame itself looks ok, I randomly set it to walnut, and while it looks OK on the internet .. expect it to be different in real life tho! .. haha. Decently priced at AU$17, without any delivery charges.

But always keep in mind, the aspect ratio issue you present is not due to any differences of opinion by manufacturers, or some kind of conspiracy of mega corporations into subverting the course of human history or anything like that. It's simply due to the normal standard formats of cameras(and film before it) set to those previous values of 4:3(4/3rds format), 3:2(APS-C and 35mm film) and then 1:1(medium format in general).

[Phil777]

Hi, Phil.
Commiserations on your Pixma problem. - All that money gone to probable waste!
I spent bigly once on repairs to an Epson printer. Ultimately I trashed it, because
it only worked again for some months afterwards. It's not the brand, but I suspect
that they're designed to be irreparable, no matter what.

Anyway, to your other problem... The aspect ratio for A4 and A3 paper is approx 1:1.4,
while for 16:9 format it is 1:1.777. To fit that format to an A3 sheet, you will end up
with some blank top and bottom borders. You'll have to wear them if using a normal
A3 frame.

Nevertheless, I'm surprised that you find there's a death of suitable 16:9 frames. Maybe
this is the case in general retail outlets, but have you tried frame makers?

Thanks for that - yes I am going to see a framer for the A3 16:9 photo.
For the panorama 13"x50.5" I am seeing a printer who can mount it a couple of different ways.

- - - Updated - - -

Thanks Arthur for all that useful info. I guess I just wasn't aware of all that historic (?) information on aspect ratios etc.
I will have a look at IKEA and Etsy.
I am still a little non-plussed as to why using the 16:9 aspect ratio for landscape type photos is a stumbling block for bigger papers and frames but is ok for A4.

[arthurking83]

.....
I am still a little non-plussed as to why using the 16:9 aspect ratio for landscape type photos is a stumbling block for bigger papers and frames but is ok for A4.


Keep in mind that the common-ness component of the 16:9 aspect ratio was in PC screens back in the day. the other common aspect ratio was 16:10.

IIRC, the only camera making company that had offered the native 16:9 ratio in camera was Panasonic.
Of my 4 Nikon cameras, and one Samsung camera, none offer 16:9. I commonly crop to 16:9 for displaying widescape images, but only ever in photo editing software.

So, hopefully you can see the dilemma here. How do you justify making a product, in this case a commonly available 16:9 ratio picture frame, when the aspect ratio itself is only commonly used for digital displays!