This may be a question I should send to specific printers, but I was wondering if any of you folks who are experienced in printing could help me out here.

I'm doing the writing and layout for Storypunk at the same time, because I feel there's a synergy between the two that I'm trying to capture. Anyway, I'm trying to design the PDF with an eye towards a possible future in print, so here's what I'm imagining:

-- probably 48 pages, printed on fairly-thick paper
-- layout done landscape-style, 11"x8.5" or proportional
-- greyscale cover
-- saddle stitch or perfect bound, BUT ON THE SMALLER (8.5") SIDE

Now, there's been a minor theme in recent comics to bind books strangely (see the "MarvelScope" format or the amazingly cool fold-out business of Image's "The Clock Maker"), but I was wondering if it would be more expensive to get a printer to do this, especially for a very small run (under 1000).

Basically, I was hoping that Storypunk's physical form could call to mind a children's picture book, with it's wide pages and short spine, even though the bulk of the book is going to be text. However, if it's going to be prohibitively costly to do this, I might have to reconsider (and that might make a difference in how I layout the PDF).

Thanks.
Jonathan

Kinky.

When you bind on the side like that for a saddle-stitch, the sheet size would be 22 x 8.5. Most small shops can only print to 17.5" max. A perfect bind would be easier to do like that. I still would eliminate most "quick print" shops though.

To answer you questions "but I was wondering if it would be more expensive to get a printer to do this, especially for a very small run (under 1000)." Yes, anytime you deviate from standard, it will cost more.

Chris is right; in my experience, anything that deviates from traditional binding costs more at a printer's. Obviously, smaller print runs tend to have a much higher cost-per-book than larger print runs. Thicker paper costs more as well, but very well might be worth the extra expense. A publisher I'm friends with used too-thin paper on his first book, and ended up paying a penny a page more on later books to get the paper stock up to what it should have been.

It might not make a big difference with a more discerning product, but its worth noting that I've heard a lot of complaints about the unusual size of Hoghead's Nobilis. Many people are a little annoyed that it simply doesn't fit in most book shelves very easily. That might be something to keep in the back of your mind as you plan your print run.

So, if I'm reading you right, Chris, for saddle-stitch, it might be easier/cheaper to have the book be something like 8.5"x6.5" (binding it on the 6.5" side), since that would fit on a standard-size sheet. Still, that would mean I'd have to make the text fairly large on the PDF, so it would shrink down and still be legible when I get it printed.

Does that sound like a fair assessment?

Piratecat wrote: It might not make a big difference with a more discerning product, but its worth noting that I've heard a lot of complaints about the unusual size of Hoghead's Nobilis.

Jonathan Walton wrote: So, if I'm reading you right, Chris, for saddle-stitch, it might be easier/cheaper to have the book be something like 8.5"x6.5" (binding it on the 6.5" side), since that would fit on a standard-size sheet. Still, that would mean I'd have to make the text fairly large on the PDF, so it would shrink down and still be legible when I get it printed.

Doh! Yeah, Adam, that does make more sense.

Actually, I was messing with the layout today and came up with another good option, both for the PDF and for printing.

-- Go with 8.5 x 5.5", it fits nicely on the screen for a PDF and you could have a "printable" PDF version that fits 2-pages on a standard US Letter sized sheet. Then, anyone with access to a paper cutter would be happy.

-- When I get it printed, bill it as a standard 8.5 x 11" book that they're just cutting in half. You could almost saddle-stitch it and then re-cut it, but you'd only have one staple holding each book together, which might be a problem (or might not).

What do you think?

Jonathan Walton wrote: -- Go with 8.5 x 5.5", it fits nicely on the screen for a PDF and you could have a "printable" PDF version that fits 2-pages on a standard US Letter sized sheet. Then, anyone with access to a paper cutter would be happy.

-- When I get it printed, bill it as a standard 8.5 x 11" book that they're just cutting in half. You could almost saddle-stitch it and then re-cut it, but you'd only have one staple holding each book together, which might be a problem (or might not).

Jonathan Walton wrote: Doh! Yeah, Adam, that does make more sense.

Actually, I was messing with the layout today and came up with another good option, both for the PDF and for printing.

-- Go with 8.5 x 5.5", it fits nicely on the screen for a PDF and you could have a "printable" PDF version that fits 2-pages on a standard US Letter sized sheet. Then, anyone with access to a paper cutter would be happy.

-- When I get it printed, bill it as a standard 8.5 x 11" book that they're just cutting in half. You could almost saddle-stitch it and then re-cut it, but you'd only have one staple holding each book together, which might be a problem (or might not).

What do you think?