Talk:Paper size

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
 
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
WikiProject Technology (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 
WikiProject Measurement (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Measurement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Measurement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Literature (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Typography (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Typography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Typography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
 

Archived[edit]

For older discussions see Talk:Paper size/Archive1 --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Type scaling[edit]

The main part of this article states "The main disadvantage of the system is type does not scale the same way; " I do not understand what is meant by that. Surely if I reduce a given page of text by a factor equal in both directions, then everything is just smaller, and the statement " the proportion between the type's x-height, page margins, and leading are distorted" sounds to me very strange: the proportions remain exactly as they are. Or, is the meaning that if one uses smaller font sizes then the leading is different? That is true, but that is a different effect, which holds for any system of paper sizes. I think it would be good to distinguish explicitly between two important issues:

  1. the "photographic" type of reduction of an existing page onto a smaller size, for which the preservation of the aspect ratio is important; this is what happens e.g. when reducing a large page to a small one using a photocopier.
  2. the production of printed text using a small font or a large font, and choosing a paper size that suits the font's size. In this case, the type on the page must be reset to take into account that small sizes of a certain font are not simply scaled-down versions of larger sizes. But that is true for any set of sizes, and if smaller sizes have a different aspect ratio the "problem" is likely to be greater.

For point 1 the ISO standard provides a solution, for point 2 no system provides a solution and thus I would propose that the paragraph is either removed or clarified.

RobertCailliau (talk) 16:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your analysis. The two criticisms of A-series paper are either (1) wrong ("the proportion between the type's x-height, page margins, and leading are distorted", or (2) a criticism of linear scaling of fonts to different sizes, which is a valid criticism in general, but has nothing to do with the proportions of particular types of paper -- photographic reduction or enlargement of text on letter-sized paper, for example will have the same issues with legibility as it would with A-series paper. Since no one has defended inclusion of this nonsense for almost a year, I'm removing it.Turjan (talk) 16:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Arch size chart[edit]

I threw together a size chart for Arch sizes to complement the ISO and ANSI charts. feel free to use it as you please.

Schmidt455 (talk) 01:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)



2010-02-02, 12:15 PM

Sorry i have no account here and dont know how to add a new discussion thread. I found 3 different sizes for Paper size "Foolscap". What is correct? please investigate!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foolscap_folio http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-foolscap.htm

Compare this two pages with this article. 3 different sizes of foolscap. Is there no international ISO for or something like that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.144.60.99 (talk) 11:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Trim size[edit]

Although the whole idea of metric (what is called "international" here) paper size was initially some sort of mathematician's wet dream to have a size that can be just cut in half to produce another metric size, as anyone in the publishing business knows this is a fantasy. A3 copier paper can be cut to make A4. But beyond that 90 percent of paper is used in ways that requires a bleed margin or a trim margin. So paper is actually manufactured in non metric sizes in order to end up with metric sizes after printing or binding.

The upshot of all of this is that the implicit moral superiority of metric ("international") paper sizes is BS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.148.77.146 (talk) 01:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


OK, let's calm down: the only "metric" part of A-sizes is that A0 is 1m2 in area. But bleed & trim exists for whatever size system one may select, so this does not add or subtract from the merits of whatever system. Still it remains that I can fold an A-size sheet in half and retain the aspect ratio. The intermediate manufacturing sizes that are never seen by the end users are irrelevant to those users. RobertCailliau (talk) 15:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Merger with ISO 216 page[edit]

Given the existence of the ISO 216 article, I think the corresponding information in this one should be deleted with a reference to that one. It might be worthwhile to have historical information about pre-metric paper sizes. 18.24.0.120 00:32, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I see a slight argument for keeping the information, since it's nice to have a side-by-side comparison of US vs ISO paper sizes. Kaszeta 15:50, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This page is today widely referenced as a description of the ISO paper sizes. It would be rather odd if an article about paper size did not cover prominently the by far most widely used ones. Markus Kuhn 13:43, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I would rather suggest to remove the ISO 216 article and merge it with this one. Markus Kuhn 13:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the above suggestion. Theshibboleth 03:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
It's clear that one of two things should happen; either ISO 216 should be merged into this article, or the ISO-216 information in this article should be deleted from here and merged into the other. My personal preference would be the latter, since I think this article is too long as it is. Maybe do that, plus rename this article to be Non-ISO paper sizes, and make Paper size a dab page pointing to both of them? ---- RoySmith (talk) 17:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with RoySmith that one of those things should happen, however my preference is for ISO 216 to be merged into this article. Thryduulf 18:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Thryduulf. This article is very complete. 158.42.188.203 11:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Same for me. I think we should merge IS0 216 into this article - CyrilB 12:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the neatest solution would be to have the sizes and "basics" in both articles (using transclusion if that's the only way), while moving the historical discussion to the ISO-216 article. Shinobu 10:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


Seems that The USA et. al. just like to be different. I mean no one else in the world uses Imperial measurement any more - GET WITH THE TIMES PEOPLE!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.35.43 (talk) 09:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment to the annon poster: Some people don't seem to understand the enormous size of the US economy. It may be just one country, but its one big country in terms of economic power. :) Anyway, to the point, ISO should be merged with this article. When coming across this article today, I was actually quite impressed with its completeness and organization. fcsuper (How's That?, That's How!) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) 15:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Oversized for printing?[edit]

I've recently been looking the exact size for the oversized paper sizes used in printing processes where you want print to the edge. But I can't seem to find those sizes anywhere. Is this because there's no exact standard, or is just not here because the author doesn't have the knowledge of this?

The article currently lacks a description of the ISO 217 RA and SRA untrimmed format series used in the printing industry [1]. Markus Kuhn 16:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

A0 Oversize is (as I understand it) a classical size in the printing industry. I believe A0 Oversize is 905x1245 mm. ISO 217 SRA specs [[2]] provide dimensions close to that, but not exaclty the same. Are they the same? I feel that A0 Oversize should be added to the page, somehow.--Svenjick (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Other sizes[edit]

I have "thrown in" a list of paper sizes I made some time ago. If someone can pretty up the tables it would be good. Rich Farmbrough, 10:56 20 August 2007 (GMT).

Missing from the article is the 12" by 12" size commonly seen in Scrapbooking. SpareSimian (talk) 20:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

jeppesen auronatical chart format[edit]

It might be noteworth to mention at the main article that Jeppesen, (the de-facto publischer of aeronatical charts worldwide) use the 5-1/2" x 8-1/2" paper -half letter- half letter format. (punced with 7 holes). This information is not well known for outside the US, and very handy to know for i.e. 'poor men' flight simmers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.28.9.104 (talk) 12:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This seemed like a good idea so I added it. Frankk74 (talk) 08:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculous precision[edit]

Can we get rid of the four-decimal-place numbers and the properly-annotated repeating decimals? It's ridiculous. This isn't physics. You can't possibly cut paper to this precision. It's just visual noise and an ignorance of the concept of 'significant figures.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.195.47 (talk) 00:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

A4R[edit]

Curious about references to paper size 'A4R'. Searches result in lots of printer manuals. What is it, please? Nick Wilkinson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.83.139 (talk) 14:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It usually means A4 Rotated by 90 degrees... That is, same dimensions as A4, but wider than high Ratfox (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of non-standard sizes?[edit]

Should there be a section listing common criticisms of non-standard sizes and aspect ratios? This is hinted at in the article but no detail is given. Turkeyphant 16:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

External links[edit]

I recently added a link to an article on BeLight Software's website. Yes, the website is commercial, but the article in no way promotes a product. The article contains diagrams and information that is not found in this article or within other articles in the External Links section. There are at least two other commercial sites in the external links section that sell printing services. The articles don't add much to the discussion of ISO and ANSI paper sizes. I find absolutely no reason why this link should not be included here, seeing as it offers something to the readers. You can view the article at http://www.belightsoft.com/products/resources/paper-sizes-and-formats-explained.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by MacMan77 (talkcontribs) 15:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Your contributions to wikipedia under MacMan77, consist entirely of adding external links to belightsoft.com and is considered WP:Spam. Looking through your contributions as a whole, the all seem to be belightsoft.com related only. It appears that your account is only being used for spamming inappropriate external links and for self-promotion. Wikipedia is NOT a "repository of links" or a "vehicle for advertising" and persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted. Any further spamming may result in your account and/or your IP address being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines. You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to promote BeLight Software right? --Hu12 (talk) 15:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I would agree with you if this article (and other articles) didn't add something to the content found on the Wikipedia page. I have also added other links to Tom's Software, but those were somehow overlooked. Did you read the article on paper size? I would suggest that you read both the Wikipedia page and the article. If indeed there is something additional, I would leave the link in the external links section. Nothing promotional, and the site definitely won't jump in ranking since Wikipedia uses the no follow tag. MacMan77 (talk) 15:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

American Sizes[edit]

I always find it curious that while the rest of the world has one size, America has two. But if they combined the lengths of the Arch series with the widths of the ANSI series there could be one series with the same ratios as ISO paper. Like so:

Name in × in mm × mm Ratio
USP A 8½ × 12 216 × 305 1.4
USP B 12 × 17 305 × 432 1.4
USP C 17 × 24 432 × 610 1.4
USP D 24 × 34 610 × 864 1.4
USP E 34 × 48 864 × 1219 1.4

Dyaimz (talk) 07:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

While your comment is perhaps interesting it is of no use to the article - see WP:OR. You are unfortunately wrong about the ratios - ISO paper's ratio is not 1.4, it is √2. Roger (talk) 15:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

American Quarto[edit]

From article: 'Outside of North America, Letter size is also known as "American Quarto".[2]'

I live in Britain and have never heard of American Quarto, in my experience it's always been referred to as letter paper or possibly 'that weird American paper'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.14.22.72 (talk) 09:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you'll find you're talking American not English. You know the "Letter" name from American sources like laser printers and operating systems from Redmond US. The only actual English appellation I've ever come across is a couple of (usually obscene) variations of 'that weird American paper' 2.126.196.74 (talk) 10:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

end of US government size[edit]

I don't understand the given reasoning for this. There is no problem copying an 8x10.5 sheet unto an 8.5x11 sheet, except that you will have somewhat larger margins. I worked for the government prior to the change in size and routinely photocopied documents where the original was on the smaller size, even though the copier had normal letter sized sheets. The site referenced for this section does not have any mention of the idea that there was a problem photocopying government sized documents and forms, merely the Reagan ended the 2 different sizes. Wschart (talk) 21:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

A0 paper size[edit]

I think that it is important to let people know where the 841 x 1149 mm are coming from. And thus it corresponds to rectangle area of 1m² with a ratio of √2. Thus the vertical of an A0 paper is \sqrt{\sqrt{2}}. But TeX doesn't display well and thefore I am using the notation 2¼. And the formulation is:

The base A0 paper size is a sheet of paper measuring 1 in area, which corresponds to 2 by 2¼ metres rounded to 841 by 1,189 millimetres (33.1 in × 46.8 in).

Would you prefer the TeX notation ? --Nbrouard (talk) 17:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I vote for TeX - the current notation is obscure. The average reader of this article is unlikely to be into advanced mathematics. Alternatively you could also simply say it in prose: "the square root of the square root of two". Roger (talk) 17:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I know this isn't Simple Wikipedia, but if you did a random survey, how many would know what 2 means, much less what it is. And there's no reason to (ab)use expr, it's not like the math is going to change. Q T C 00:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your remarks. The key thing is to let people know where this 1149 comes from and this is simply the square root of the square root of 2 metres rounded in millimetres. Apparently it wasn't so obvious to everybody and thus an explanation seems necessary. I agree that saying it in prose is enough but I would like wikipedia doing the computation itself (like converting millimetres into inches):
1149 = \sqrt{\sqrt{2}} =\sqrt[4]{2} = 2¼= \exp{(\frac{1}{4}\log 2)}
The right expression can be computed by wikipedia which currently knows only exponential and logarithm:
{{#expr:exp(1/4*ln(2))*1000 round 0}}.
I still believe that most people have a mobile with a calculator and, in three clicks, "2 √ √" can get the result 1.189207115 . Here is the proposed formulation:
The base A0 size of paper is defined to have an area of one . With the given aspect ratio of square root of two, this corresponds to a piece of paper which height is the square root of the square root of two and its width being the inverse of this value. Rounded to millimetres the A0 paper size is 841 by 1,189 millimetres (33.1 in × 46.8 in).--Nbrouard (talk) 09:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Just to complete the formulation add in "...which height is 1 metre multiplied by the square root of the square root of two and its width being the inverse of this value." Roger (talk) 09:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
OK, much better formulation. Thanks.--Nbrouard (talk) 10:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Post Quarto[edit]

I find it interesting that Post Quarto isn't included. I have found it as a size, which is basically the same size as Imperial and is produced by a number of correspondence paper manufacturers (At least here in the UK), and is widely available. J.P.Lon (talk) 01:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source please be italic and add it. Roger (talk) 17:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Thicknesses?[edit]

Are there any specifications on thicknesses?12.53.10.226 (talk) 17:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

In South Africa the common everyday plain A4 paper used in copiers and PC printers etc is 80gsm. I don't know if it is a specific standard as such and I don't know about other countries. Roger (talk) 18:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
thickness you can do something like this:

Paper weigh in US is 2.8ounce squarefeet. You take as many sheet as you like and weigh it. Let`s say you lay in a weigh 500pcs of paper, that`s one stack. If I\m guessing right you\ll read 1410ounce, measure it and divide it accordingly. Allow me to do the height measure for you:2.05in. 2in is close to a tall girl big thumb up. Don`t let her pass, peep her and let`s do some math x\cdot 500pcs=2.05in;
x=2.05in/5/100pcs;
x=10.4*10^2 in^-3/pcs;

An interessting enough fact is that japanesse factory probably honda, built a width slicing cutter to slice down a sheet width by 7. Th\t gives
10.4/7 *10^2in-3/pcs width a paper piece

korean paper[edit]

A secondly interessting thing to mention is the koreean paper. I will come back withe link. Korean paper from 1700on is manufactured from tree-coating and China had said its great import quality had misled people confusing it with silk. A documentary on paper was also on air but in outside Europe countries the stte television apppies censrship & wasn`t able to find refferences on thickness of paper_external silk road website-188.25.49.173 (talk) 14:13, May 31,Bogdan

ISO paper sizes[edit]

Guys I work at a print shop in the states and atempted to use the Rounded inch measurements to cut American 11x17 down to A4. I'm not sure how we can do it but we need to change the inchs part to exact measurments or add a disclamer that the rounded numbers won't work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozmarlu (talkcontribs) 02:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Surely the word "rounded" should be enough of a clue. In any case WP is not a how-to guide Roger (talk) 14:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
It would, however, make more sense to round to the nearest 0.01" instead of 0.1". Dicklyon (talk) 20:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
The official ISO standard specifies rounding to the nearest whole millimetre which is about half a hairbreadth less than 0.04 inch. Roger (talk) 17:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Right, so to get close to the in inches, you need 0.01". Dicklyon (talk) 22:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I see the specified tolerances are OK with errors up to 0.05" that you get by rounding to 0.1"; so I don't know why Ozmarlu was complaining. Of course, you'd be more likely to stay within the 0.06" tolerance limit if you weren't starting with up to 0.05" rounding error, so putting another decimal place is still a good idea. Dicklyon (talk) 23:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Unclear passage[edit]

I think this is wrong, particularly in its use of the word "which", but I'm nervous about changing it, because I don't really understand it.

With the given aspect ratio of square root of two, this corresponds to a piece of paper which its longer side is one metre multiplied by the square root of the square root (that is, the fourth root) of two and the shorter side being the inverse of this value.

And if this passed vetting by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team, then they are not doing a very good job, are they? Myles325a (talk) 09:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

A user has changed the "which" to "with". & I think the "which its" probably means "whose" in pure grammar aspect. --LunarShaddowღIvy (talk) 03:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I replaced the passage by something clearer (I hope). Geke (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

An ambiguous question mark in the table "Other sizes"[edit]

In the table "Other sizes", there is a strange question mark after title "Legal, Monarch". It is quite ambiguous when I am trying to find what the "Monarch" size paper is. Since I'm not familiar with this topic and the fact, please someone help me to check whether the question mark is a sign of uncertain, or just a typo bug. Thanks a lot! --LunarShaddowღIvy (talk) 03:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't find any reference for this, and the only Monarch size I've ever encountered was for the size used in executive stationery. I'll remove it from the table. (As an aside, in my experience in the Canadian printing industry, we hardly ever referred to the paper sizes by name – we used the dimensions.) Modal Jig (talk) 14:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Entertainment industry?[edit]

Anyone understands this sentence: "This system has also been adapted by the entertainment industry for the purposes of entertainment drafting." ? I guess it should read "adopted", but some more details would be very welcome! What in the world is "entertainment drafting"? Geke (talk) 18:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I took it out as nonsense, anyone putting it back needs to explain it properly. Roger (talk) 16:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Confusing switch from good to bad[edit]

In the three paragraphs surrounding the reference to Lichtenberg, there is a confusing switch. In the paragraph just before (starting with "The significant advantage of this system is its scaling:") it is explained how using the square root of two makes things so much easier. Then the next paragraph talks about how Lichtenberg's system was formalised. The very next paragraph (still apparently talking about the same square root of two system) starts off with "The main disadvantage of the system is that type does not scale the same way".

I suppose my confusion is where did the change of topic take place?? Either the system discussed scales well or it does not, right?

Can someone with more expertise in this history please look into it?

Thanks, WesT (talk) 17:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Add info on Choukei envelope[edit]

My Word says there is a envelope size "Choukei 3". This wikipedia page should explain it to me what "Choukei 3" is, but it does not. My guess is that it's one of the Japanese (JIS) sizes. I suggest that somebody adds this information, who is knowledgeable about it. 83.77.253.211 (talk) 16:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Some such info is available under http://www.edsebooks.com/paper/env.html 83.77.253.211 (talk) 16:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

An unclear "Jepps*" entry in the table "Other sizes"[edit]

In the table "Other sizes", the 5.5 x 8.5 inch size had "Jepps*" added to the list of names by Frankk74 in this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paper_size&diff=prev&oldid=310508971 There does not appear to have been any related entry made for the asterisk, which is confusing. Can the asterisk at least be removed or have a corresponding note added? Owen Genat 09:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Owen.genat (talkcontribs)

Images[edit]

File:A size illustration2 with letter and legal.svg should be improved with an overlay for ledger/tabloid size atop the A3 box, to compare the size of the relatively common North American Ledger/Tabloid with the European A3. -- 65.94.76.3 (talk) 13:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)




Diagrams at Commons suggest more standards[edit]

I accidentally found these diagrams at commons, which suggest there was a separate soviet standard for paper sizes and a (proprietary?) J series with golden ratio for A-series sides. — Christoph Päper 09:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

If I understand the diagram correctly, the SU standard (GOST?) was the same as the A series but used numeric designations. If there was reliable source, it should be included.

Unsourced former Soviet standard designations
ISO GOST? Size Aspect ratio
A1 24 594 mm × 840 mm 1:√2 = 2√2:4 0.707 1.414
23 594 mm × 630 mm ⅔√2:1 = 2√2:3 0.943 1.061
A2 22 594 mm × 420 mm √2:1 = 2√2:2 1.414 0.707
(A5×4) 21 594 mm × 210 mm 2√2:1 2.828 0.354
(A4×4) 14 297 mm × 840 mm ? 1:2√2 = ¼√2:1 = 1√2:4 0.354 2.828
(A4×3) 13 297 mm × 630 mm ? 2:3√2 = ⅓√2:1 = 1√2:3 0.471 2.121
A3 12 297 mm × 420 mm 1:√2 = ½√2:1 = 1√2:2 0.707 1.414
A4 11 297 mm × 210 mm √2:1 = 1√2:1 1.414 0.707

I’m less sure about that “J series”, which is the A series cut to the Golden ratio. The file description says it was “created by contemporary artist Joshua Bryan”, so perhaps WP:OR. The sizes provided therein are wrong for J4 and J5, though.

Unsourced J series with Golden ratio
Designation Short side Long side
A0 841 mm × 1189 mm
J0 735 mm ×
A1 594 mm × 841 mm
J1 520 mm ×
A2 420 mm × 594 mm
J2 368 mm ×
A3 297 mm × 420 mm
J3 260 mm ×
A4 210 mm × 297 mm
J4 179 184 mm ×
A5 148 mm × 210 mm
J5 123 130 mm ×

We could include a table showing the A series cut to various popular aspect ratios, of course, but I don’t see how that’s very useful.

A series cut to common aspect ratios with minimal loss (the long side is cut for 4:3, otherwise the short side)
Ratio 9:16 (0.5625) 3:5 = 9:15 (0.6) 1:φ (0.618…) 5:8 = 10:16 (0.625) 2:3 (0._6) 1:√2 (0.707…) Base 4:3 (1._3)
Designation J? A
0 669 713 735 743 793 841 1189 1121
1 473 505 520 526 561 595 841 793
2 334 356 367 371 396 420 594 560
3 236 252 260 263 280 297 420 396
4 167 178 184 186 198 210 297 280
5 118 126 130 131 140 148 210 197
6 59 63 65 66 70 74 105 99
7 29 31 32 33 35 37 52 49
8 15 16 16 16 17 18 26 24
9 7 8 8 8 9 9 13 12

Christoph Päper 09:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

They could be from ЕСКД ГОСТ 2.301-68 (= ESKD GOST 2301:1968). A Russian site says the designations of those longish formats are not purely numeric, but the ISO label followed by an ‘x’ (possibly multiplication sign ‘×’ actually) and the factor, e.g. DIN 2A0 = GOST A0x2, but DIN 4A0 ≠ GOST A0x4, also listed are: A0×3, A1×3, A1×4, A2×3–A2×5, A3×3–A3×7, A4×3–A4×9. I’ve added the resulting names to the first table where possible and necessary. Note that …×1 and …×2 usually would be aliases for existing formats.

ОСТ 5115 and ГОСТ 9327-60 seem related. The latter lists formats down to A13, B12 and C8 and also specifies ½, ¼ and ⅛ prefixes for halving the shorter side (repeatedly), e.g. ½A4 = 105 mm × 297 mm. — Christoph Päper 01:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)