On Apr 12, 2006, at 8:29 AM, Katharine Thayer wrote:
>
> There's a page on my website that compares continuous tone to a
> stochastic dot for printing gum. It's not quite the same as
> halftone, which is what Peter was suggesting the other day would be
> the best kind of negative for gum, but it does address the more
> general question of whether dots are better for gum than continuous
> tone.
>
> http://www.pacifier.com/~kthayer/html/dotcont.html
>
I should specify that the stochastic dot here is from a bitmap file;
the reason I used bitmap is that I did the test prints shown on that
page in response to a statement made here that a stochastic bitmap
was better for gum than continuous tone.
kt
Received on Wed Apr 12 09:59:39 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 05/01/06-11:10:24 AM Z CST