Thanks for all the replies so far!
On Dec 3, 2005, at 3:22 PM, davidhatton wrote:
> someone suggested printing a 16 bit rgb image at 1440 to overcome
> this banding.
Thanks for the suggestion, but unfortunately I've tried that.
On Dec 3, 2005, at 4:05 PM, Kai Hamann wrote:
> I assume you have tested various types of OHP foils and work with
> the one that gives the best results like e.g. Pictorico or Agfa
> Copy Jet. And I assume I understand it right that you are not
> talking about fine banding that can occur if the coating of the
> foil swells while the dot pattern is printed in several passes.
I'm using Pictorico OHP. I'm not familiar with banding due to
swelling---how would I recognize it vs. other sorts of banding? And
what might I do about it?
> At the end I had to open up the printer and lower the printhead
> more than the factory adjusted lever for the paper thickness
> allowed. That could be done by adjusting a gear next to the
> eccentrical bearing...
Sounds like touchy work.
On Dec 3, 2005, at 4:00 PM, David & Jan Harris wrote:
> I have had this same problem with my 2100. Are you using a colour
> fill which
> involves black inks? If any black ink at all is involved then
> banding is
> more pronounced.. Of course without using black you may struggle to
> achieve
> sufficient UV density and may need a higher contrast mix, though I
> can get
> away with a lower contrast mix than yours without needing black ink.
Whether or not there is black depends on the curve and driver I'm
using. I do get the banding when there is no black involved---in
fact, it is most pronounced when I use a lot of light black ink. It
seems to appear whenever I get full ink coverage on the OHP. Once
ink starts spraying on top of other ink, the banding seems to begin.
Is this maybe that swelling banding, Kai?
On Dec 3, 2005, at 3:23 PM, Clay wrote:
> I'm beginning to think that when we factor in the cost of an inkjet
> negative, we need to amortize the printer cost over 500 negatives
> or so. What with ink, pictorico and printer wear, the negatives
> have only one thing going for them, in my book: convenience and
> turnaround time. Given my druthers, I would rather work with an
> imagesetter negative any day.
Imagesetter negs were slow and expensive, but seemed pretty darn
reliable...
--clyde
Received on Sat Dec 3 16:30:45 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 01/05/06-01:45:09 PM Z CST