Please consider Adding Page size wider than 92" tall and wide

[printchic]

Dear Xara,

Love the wonderful product. However, it sure would be really nice to be able to make a page size wider or taller than 92" (aka page margins)

Those of us that deal in oversize layouts for printing on wide format printers could really use this feature.

Now that adobe has gone cloud-ish and more buzz is made that xara is an alternative having a wider page size would make sense.

Signed,
Printchic

[Rob-Xar]

I get asked this quite a lot:

http://support.xara.com/index.php?/K...e-is-too-small

[mwenz]

I get asked this quite a lot:

http://support.xara.com/index.php?/K...e-is-too-small

Following the confirmation of a bug I reported, I mentioned to the person I was conversing with that now, especially with 64-bit being out, why at least Xara doesn't at least increase the page size to the maximum that Adobe Reader can display without distilling (cause with using Distiller one can go larger than the 200+ inch limit and still display the PDF)...and the response was why not indeed.

There is no reason good for an 8' limit. Unless it is hard-baked into the proprietary file format.

Especially when one realizes that one can force (or trick) XDP into a larger page size. I have one on-screen right now that is 120" wide by 96" tall.

Mike

[Rob-Xar]

There is no reason good for an 8' limit. Unless it is hard-baked into the proprietary file format.

There is no good reason that you know of, but the developers would know; It may be a technical limitation.

However at the same time, there is no reason to have a page this size as outlined in the article.

[mwenz]

There is no good reason that you know of, but the developers would know; It may be a technical limitation.

However at the same time, there is no reason to have a page this size as outlined in the article.

Rob, with all due respect, I have made booth signage for a whole lotta years. I have historically used CorelDraw for this. But I have used Xara Designer Pro as well.

I understand all about effective resolution required versus viewing distance. There are quite good reasons for larger documents than XDP natively will allow one to create. If you had worked in an industry that one makes large format signage and other documents, you would understand this.

Because one can trick XDP into doing it, it is simply an internal programming thing, not the file format per se (which I accidentally wrote above).

All this said, even in CD I often work at scale. But there is a big difference in designing at 50% scale to designing at 10% scale when it comes to the output. I would much rather work at as large a scale as possible. I have made a lot of signage in CD where, for instance, Photoshop assets approached 1 gig...and there were more than one. And that was still at scale. In XDP this would have been impossible.

[mwenz]

As a further follow-up (not meaning to necessarily prod the bear), I suspect the only code limiting the page size is in the page options dialog. I suspect this code checks for valid page sizes--wouldn't want someone to type a negative value by accident.

Not saying there shouldn't be a limit. But it is an artificial limitation to whatever degree.

Modern computers running a modern 64-bit OS can handle a larger page size. At least if XDP 64-bit is really capable of accessing all the memory available.

[handrawn]

it's certainly not a new issue:

http://www.talkgraphics.com/showthre...is-ever-change

[Rob-Xar]

As a further follow-up (not meaning to necessarily prod the bear), I suspect the only code limiting the page size is in the page options dialog. I suspect this code checks for valid page sizes--wouldn't want someone to type a negative value by accident.

Not saying there shouldn't be a limit. But it is an artificial limitation to whatever degree.

Modern computers running a modern 64-bit OS can handle a larger page size. At least if XDP 64-bit is really capable of accessing all the memory available.

Page size is not limited to to simply dialog box validation, this would be pointless, let's make a page limit and pull a number out of the air for fun?

There is a technical reason, and no its not an artificial limit (again, would be pointless otherwise).

Modern PC's running 64bit operating systems and programs can indeed handle larger documents, but this would be assuming everyone is running a 64 bit system, which they're not.

(on a personal note, not that I'm trying to be argumentative this is kind of what winds me up, when people make assumptions)

[mwenz]

Charles is incorrect in at least one of his statements in that thread. Magazines do not use such low DPI in images. A moderate quality image is printed at 150 lpi not to be confused with DPI in an image. Many high-quality magazines image at 200 lpi and higher. One needs the image resources between 1.5 and 2 times the lpi. I have seen this confusion when working at, and as a contractor, for several service bureaus.

In any case, if Charles is still going to be the deciding factor on such a change and doesn't desire to do so, :then all we can do is either force XDP into accepting larger page sizes or use other applications when needed.

And one doesn't need to create the PDF in another application. It can be done in XDP, at least for the page sizes I have needed. Just create a large rectangle in a photo document that page size plus bleed amount (if required) and export to PDF. Open the PDF in XDP. Delete the rectangle. What one cannot do is ever visit the page options dialog. But if needed, one can create new pages and they are the correct page size. Crop marks need to be manually placed.

[mwenz]

Page size is not limited to to simply dialog box validation, this would be pointless, let's make a page limit and pull a number out of the air for fun?

There is a technical reason, and no its not an artificial limit (again, would be pointless otherwise).

Modern PC's running 64bit operating systems and programs can indeed handle larger documents, but this would be assuming everyone is running a 64 bit system, which they're not.

(on a personal note, not that I'm trying to be argumentative this is kind of what winds me up, when people make assumptions)

You don't need to use hyperbole. No one is suggesting "pulling a number out of the air for fun."

Xara doesn't need to program for the lowest common denominator (computer-wise that is). Because of conditional compiling that Xara uses, document sizes can be limited to the 64-bit versions, 32-bit version retaining the limitation. Even so, the 32-bit version wouldn't need this limitation per se either. 32-bit CorelDraw hasn't had it for how long? Nearly since I began using CD in 1990 or so with version 1.1.

And on a personal note, companies that stubbornly insist they know better than its professional customers wind me up.