they don't have 8.5 x 11 because in the book-making process you cut down from larger sheet sizes... their books started out at 11x17 (trimmed, and folded over and glued or stitched).
if you did 8.5x11 final size you'd have to start from 18x24 - which is a huge waste of paper.
There is an archaic form of paper size referred to as the "long tabloid" which is 11" by 23.5".
But it seems to be a bit of a legend.
But yeah, 8.5" by 11" (forgetting a saddle stitch) and went with a glue binding... You would have to cut the paper down from broadsheet and many people don't make broadsheet sized quality paper.
Even then, the actual layout size of 8 by 10 is 7 by 9.
Dec 22, 09 4:57 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
Blurb: no 8.5x11?
No, I believe 8x10 is the closest, though the actual sheet measurements come out to something like 8x9.5
they don't have 8.5 x 11 because in the book-making process you cut down from larger sheet sizes... their books started out at 11x17 (trimmed, and folded over and glued or stitched).
if you did 8.5x11 final size you'd have to start from 18x24 - which is a huge waste of paper.
There is an archaic form of paper size referred to as the "long tabloid" which is 11" by 23.5".
But it seems to be a bit of a legend.
But yeah, 8.5" by 11" (forgetting a saddle stitch) and went with a glue binding... You would have to cut the paper down from broadsheet and many people don't make broadsheet sized quality paper.
Even then, the actual layout size of 8 by 10 is 7 by 9.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.