From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 03/28/02-01:12:34 AM Z
On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Sandy King wrote:
> The fact that the *blue* rose up to the same point in all tests"
> would suggest the opposite to me, i.e, that there was no gain in
> speed with different height?
The point I am trying & clearly failing to make is that the blue rose up
to about the same point but the number of steps changed -- more d-max in
the 3-1/2 inch print, so the bottom two steps separated adding a
step. Nine instead of eight. In the other tests, D-max was less & the
bottom two steps blocked up.
I don't think I called that "speed" -- I think of it more as range. In any
event seems to me the term "speed" is not precise enough to apply here.
> Let me cut to the chase on this. I really don't know on what point
> you and I are said to have bet a million dollars and on which we
> disagree. If it is a question of speed gain with tube clearance from
Actually you & John were (as I recall) talking in terms of betting $100. I
rarely bet less than a million, though.
> the printing frame, let me say that I have never said that there is
> *no* speed gain with decreased clearance, only that it is very small
> and in no way approaches the level one would expect from the inverse
> square law. It is only in this context that I recall having
> previously discussed speed gain as it relates to tube clearance.
Sandy, I thought that the change in the CHARACTER of the image was
interesting, relevant, and possibly useful, that is, worth noting --
whatever name you call it by.
> If your understanding of the bet has anything to do with banding or
> uneven distribution of light based on *tube spacing* I must confess
No... I said (twice I believe) that the tube spacing exploration was
over, previous and finished.
> that I don't ever recall stating anything that is in conflict with
> the tests that you carried out for the last issue of PF. Not that I
> necessarily agree with the finding, mind you, because to speak quite
> frankly, it hardly seems possible to me that one could carry out
> reliable and consistent tests with the light source you described in
> the article.
They were reliable & consistent enough for the purpose -- repeat tests
gave similar results. Also since those are the lights I print by (& what's
wrong with them pray tell?) any more "reliable and consistent tests" would
be overkill.
> ...But if angels can find their way through the head of a
> needle, who knows!!!
Not around here. We angels do DANCING on head of pin... For going through
needles it's camels.
Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 04/10/02-09:28:55 AM Z CST