Close
The Graphics List
RE: Less than lettersized
I'm not sure I understand the problem. Is it that increased page count will result in a higher cost? If so, how about a lighter weight paper, say a 45# or 50# sheet rather than a 60#? You should be able to save both $$ and weight there.
On Thursday, March 26, 2009 4:18pm, "Michael Brady" <bradydesign-AT-embarqmail.com> said:
> A book client told me they wanted a book smaller than letter-sized
> (and they weren't thinking of any A-sizes either).
>
> Initially, I suggested 8x10, which after I started working with it
> just seemed to be an 8.5 x 11 put on the Xerox machine and reduced a
> tad. So I started looking at other proporitons. I noticed that a
> height of 10.5 inches, which is smaller than 11, is 21/2 (i.e., the
> numerator is a Fibonacci number), so I made the width 6.5 inches,
> i.e., 13/2. Just a wee bit narrow, but it does have that .619
> Fibonacci ratio. Also, it's 68.25 sq. in, which is close to the same
> surface as a 7x10 book.
>
> Downside: it's 73% of the area of 8.5 x 11, so the page count will go
> up by roughly 33%, too, which can't be recovered because the excess
> paper of the smaller trim will just be discarded as waste. I'm going
> to run the cost comparison by them again, but I think that will not be
> a big factor and they'll stick with the smaller size.
>
> What do you think of this? Any other ideas?
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> Michael Brady
> michaelb-AT-michaelbradydesign.com
>
>
> ——
> Message sent by The Graphics List.
> Want to be removed?
> Send blank email to graphics-off-AT-lists.graphicslist.org
>
>
On Thursday, March 26, 2009 4:18pm, "Michael Brady" <bradydesign-AT-embarqmail.com> said:
> A book client told me they wanted a book smaller than letter-sized
> (and they weren't thinking of any A-sizes either).
>
> Initially, I suggested 8x10, which after I started working with it
> just seemed to be an 8.5 x 11 put on the Xerox machine and reduced a
> tad. So I started looking at other proporitons. I noticed that a
> height of 10.5 inches, which is smaller than 11, is 21/2 (i.e., the
> numerator is a Fibonacci number), so I made the width 6.5 inches,
> i.e., 13/2. Just a wee bit narrow, but it does have that .619
> Fibonacci ratio. Also, it's 68.25 sq. in, which is close to the same
> surface as a 7x10 book.
>
> Downside: it's 73% of the area of 8.5 x 11, so the page count will go
> up by roughly 33%, too, which can't be recovered because the excess
> paper of the smaller trim will just be discarded as waste. I'm going
> to run the cost comparison by them again, but I think that will not be
> a big factor and they'll stick with the smaller size.
>
> What do you think of this? Any other ideas?
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> Michael Brady
> michaelb-AT-michaelbradydesign.com
>
>
> ——
> Message sent by The Graphics List.
> Want to be removed?
> Send blank email to graphics-off-AT-lists.graphicslist.org
>
>
Previous message in thread | Next message in thread
Thread
Less than lettersized / Michael Brady / 26 Mar 2009
Re: Less than lettersized / Daniel Johnson <johnsond-AT-mail.belmont.edu> / 26 Mar 2009
Re: Less than lettersized / Michael Brady <bradydesign-AT-embarqmail.com> / 26 Mar 2009
• RE: Less than lettersized / "Landry Butler" <landry-AT-strangefish.org> / 26 Mar 2009
Re: Less than lettersized / Michael Brady <bradydesign-AT-embarqmail.com> / 26 Mar 2009
Re: Less than lettersized / Daniel Johnson <johnsond-AT-mail.belmont.edu> / 26 Mar 2009
Re: Less than lettersized / Daniel Johnson <johnsond-AT-mail.belmont.edu> / 26 Mar 2009
Re: Less than lettersized / "Landry Butler" <landry-AT-strangefish.org> / 26 Mar 2009
List Archives