Shop More Submit  Join Login
×




Details

Submitted on
June 5, 2011
Image Size
1.1 MB
Resolution
3085×2400
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
150,299 (2 today)
Favourites
6,859 (who?)
Comments
Disabled
×
SYAC - Inconvenienced by TomPreston SYAC - Inconvenienced by TomPreston
Read more episodes of “So, You’re A Cartoonist?” here: [link]

***

Everywhere I've looked art paper is 9x12, and yet your average scanner only scans 8.5x11. That just seems silly to me...

EDIT: Yes I am aware they make scanners which can scan larger than 8.5x11. But they are also expensive and I can't afford one right now just like I can't afford a Cintiq 21UX.

EDIT: Yes I am ALSO aware you can scan your large image in chunks and stitch them together, which is what I do (duh). Still doesn't stop it from being an "inconvenience" though...

EDIT: Yes I am ALSO aware you can simply "take a picture of it" with your camera. While there's nothing wrong with doing that, I personally wouldn't trust using a photograph as my line-art source. I need high crystal clear resolution, something which using my current camera isn't going to achieve.

EDIT: Yes you can just take it to Kinko's or Staples or some other sort of office/print store and get it scanned on one of their nice big scanners... but that costs money and still is an "inconvenience"

EDIT: Yes I am aware you could also cut down the paper to the appropriate size.

EDIT: Yes I am aware that I could just use copy paper.

EDIT: Yes I am aware that there are other brands other than Epson.

EDIT: Yes I am aware these multiple edits are getting out of hand.

EDIT: Yes I am aware that setting the scanner on fire is going to rob me of my ability to print.

Seriously guys, there's like a million different ways to get around this challenge effectively. But the point I was trying to make is that ALL of that could be avoided IF the industry just made art paper 8.5x11 instead of 9x12.
The owner of this deviation has disabled comments.