A5 Page Size anomaly in Designer Pro+

[XByrne]

Just had a bit of frustration printing an A5 portrait page (but solved it!)

In Page Options, Page Size, I choose A5.

When printing, I select my printer and set to A5, then the DP+'s print dialogue says Automatic Page Fit not okay.

I'm trying to understand this. So I check what size an A5 page actually is.
It's 148mm x 210mm.
BUT, one website says (amazingly!) that 148.5mm is okay too!

Back into Page Options, Page Size, DP+'s greyed out dimensions for A5 are 148.5mm x 210mm.
I check my printer and it says A5 is 148mm x 210mm.
Hence the 'Automatic Page Fit not okay'.

Back into Page Options, Page Size, I choose Custom and make the size 148mm x 210mm.
Back in the Print dialogue, it now says 'Automatic Page Fit okay'.

Back into Page Options, Page Size, and the size name 'Custom' has disappeared.
Now it says A5, and the greyed out dimensions are 148mm x 210mm!!

Can we make A5 standard at 148mm x 210mm?

Seamus

[Acorn]

Technically, ISO 216 states A0 is 1m². That sides are in ratio 1:√2 (1:1.4142). That sides are rounded down to the nearest mm. That the areas A(n) and 2A(n+1) are the same with the higher index's sides rounded down so the two smaller sheets always fit within the single larger one.

A0 is 841 x 1189mm (0.999949m²). A5 is 148 x 210mm, which is smaller that the perfect ratio.

32 sheets of A5 weight the same as one A0.
80gsm paper means one A5 sheet weights 2.5g.

ISO 216 indicates actual dimensions around A5 have a tolerance of ±2mm.

So you could be a purist and start with 1m² and halve areas for each paper size down or take the 210mm and divide by root 2 or its approximation and get 148.49.

Xara has played safe by allowing 148.00 to 148.99mm to be legitimate values for A5's shorter side with 209.51 to 210.50mm for the longer side.

However, it was probably your printer saying it can't print to the edge.

Acorn

[Chris M]

Technically, ISO 216 states A0 is 1m². That sides are in ratio 1:√2 (1:1.4142). That sides are rounded down to the nearest mm. That the areas A(n) and 2A(n+1) are the same with the higher index's sides rounded down so the two smaller sheets always fit within the single larger one.

A0 is 841 x 1189mm (0.999949m²). A5 is 148 x 210mm, which is smaller that the perfect ratio.

32 sheets of A5 weight the same as one A0.
80gsm paper means one A5 sheet weights 2.5g.

ISO 216 indicates actual dimensions around A5 have a tolerance of ±2mm.

So you could be a purist and start with 1m² and halve areas for each paper size down or take the 210mm and divide by root 2 or its approximation and get 148.49.

Xara has played safe by allowing 148.00 to 148.99mm to be legitimate values for A5's shorter side with 209.51 to 210.50mm for the longer side.

However, it was probably your printer saying it can't print to the edge.

Acorn

[wizard509]

Technically, ISO 216 states A0 is 1m². That sides are in ratio 1:√2 (1:1.4142). That sides are rounded down to the nearest mm. That the areas A(n) and 2A(n+1) are the same with the higher index's sides rounded down so the two smaller sheets always fit within the single larger one.

A0 is 841 x 1189mm (0.999949m²). A5 is 148 x 210mm, which is smaller that the perfect ratio.

32 sheets of A5 weight the same as one A0.
80gsm paper means one A5 sheet weights 2.5g.

ISO 216 indicates actual dimensions around A5 have a tolerance of ±2mm.

So you could be a purist and start with 1m² and halve areas for each paper size down or take the 210mm and divide by root 2 or its approximation and get 148.49.

Xara has played safe by allowing 148.00 to 148.99mm to be legitimate values for A5's shorter side with 209.51 to 210.50mm for the longer side.

However, it was probably your printer saying it can't print to the edge.

Acorn

Ma-o-man what a brain, but I knew that anyway me and math don't get along that well. I agree with Chris "HUH".

[handrawn]

Technically, ISO 216 states A0 is 1m². That sides are in ratio 1:√2 (1:1.4142). That sides are rounded down to the nearest mm. That the areas A(n) and 2A(n+1) are the same with the higher index's sides rounded down so the two smaller sheets always fit within the single larger one.

A0 is 841 x 1189mm (0.999949m²). A5 is 148 x 210mm, which is smaller that the perfect ratio.

32 sheets of A5 weight the same as one A0.
80gsm paper means one A5 sheet weights 2.5g.

ISO 216 indicates actual dimensions around A5 have a tolerance of ±2mm.

So you could be a purist and start with 1m² and halve areas for each paper size down or take the 210mm and divide by root 2 or its approximation and get 148.49.

Xara has played safe by allowing 148.00 to 148.99mm to be legitimate values for A5's shorter side with 209.51 to 210.50mm for the longer side.

However, it was probably your printer saying it can't print to the edge.

Acorn

care now to define SRA0 ?

once [like 25 years ago] I unthinkingly asked a library assistant to xerox and reduce an A3 copy by 50% - what I got was A4, what I wanted was A5

A4 is 50 % by surface area, but I wanted it set to reduce 50% x and y [which you could set the machine to do] ie A5 ...

[XByrne]

There's no end to this stuff!!

[Acorn]

care now to define SRA0 ?

SRA0 is the Supplementary RAW paper size that printers used to allow bleed before trimming and cutting back to A0.
It is 860 x 1280mm (c.f., A0 - 841 x1189mm) and so scaled in the same way as the ISO 216 spec; the actual spec is ISO 217:2013 paper size standard.

There is no SRA5 or RA5 defined.

Useful site: https://papersizes.io.

Acorn

P.S. Your sizing story is why today photocopiers use A3 --> A5 as options rather than just percentages (25%) as you combined two concepts that seem to baffle: percentage and surds.

[handrawn]

in my notes it says 1 metre is 39.370078740157 inches - I cannot remember if that is a surd or not, but converting between metric and US measurements always seemed irrational to me.. so lets just say it sounds right....

don't get me onto a system that measures dry goods by volume instead of weight; a cup of flour, yes sir, and just how well tamped down would you like it

[Acorn]

in my notes it says 1 metre is 39.370078740157 inches - I cannot remember if that is a surd or not, but converting between metric and US measurements always seemed irrational to me.. so lets just say it sounds right....
don't get me onto a system that measures dry goods by volume instead of weight; a cup of flour, yes sir, and just how well tamped down would you like it

handrawn, it's the wrong way to look at it. One inch is exactly 2.54 centimetres.
Remembering 0.39370078740157477 (JavaScript console result) inches is one centimetres is awkward as you really need to go for 42 d.p.s before it repeats:

0.393700787401574803149606299212598425196850^_
(period 42) [Wolfram Alpha: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1/2.54] so it is not irrational or a surd (same thing).
Note, it shows JavaScript is inaccurate in the last digit.

Nothing wrong in measuring by cups (volume) as long as you tamp everything down equally, like water.

Acorn

[handrawn]

yes I was just running the joke - 2.54mm to the inch, still a bit of a surd when you have to convert between metric and a country that cannot be bothered to change to be in sync with the rest of the world [hubble anyone ?]

yes you need to tamp - who does that when baking for example, quicker and less of a waste of time to weigh, and more accurate, which in baking at least is important