Nick Makris (nick@mcn.org)
Fri, 30 Jul 1999 09:54:24 -0700
Judy,
I have not ever seen any reference to the actual printer resol. used at
print time - maybe someone else has some info.
Nick
-----Original Message-----
From: Judy Seigel <jseigel@panix.com>
To: alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca
<alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca>
Cc: alt-photo-process list <alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca>
Date: Friday, July 30, 1999 9:51 AM
Subject: Re: More on the limits of Grayscale
>
>
>On Fri, 30 Jul 1999, Nick Makris wrote:
>> So, the moral of the story is use fewer colors and fewer lines in the
above
>> formula to force the desired printer output. In the above formula
>> 130Xsquare root(130)=1482 and therefore the max printer resolution (1440)
>> will prevail. In my reading, I have found that the numbers used for
colors
>> (130) and LPI (130) above are acceptable for many outputs. Test, Test,
>> Test!!!!!
>>
>> As with all investigation, some questions remain unanswered. In this
case,
>> I don't understand what the association between LPI (as in screened
output
>> or halftones) and that of stochastic output which supposedly has no
defined
>> lines.
>>
>> If you have any answers, comments or corrections, please post.
>
>
>Nick, you touch on, or at least evoke, what I have myself noticed --
>although my understanding to date is still at what I'll call an
>*early* stage...
>
>No matter what resolution I scan at or work in, the printer makes up its
>own "mind" -- and does NOT send me an announcement. My current printer
>(about to be augmented by inkjet) is a laser with only 4 mb of memory. I
>gather that that's the limiting factor, at least with the laser.
>
>But in any form of printer is there a way to make it reveal what
>resolution it's actually printing in?
>
>Judy
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Oct 28 1999 - 21:40:39