In article <eRxbk.797$al3.36@trnddc06>,
"Talal Itani" <titani@verizon.net> wrote:
> > Changing the RIP won't improve you printer's performance in this area.
> >
> > Most, if not all, modern inkjet printers simulate the very high dpi
> > figures they quote by varying the amount of ink deposited at a given
> > location (hence the change in dot size). The actual hardware resolution,
> > as defined by the distance between dot centers is often much lower (eg
> > 600dpi rather than 2400dpi).
> >
> > AFAIK, Laser printers, however, only quote the actual hardware resolution
> > as they're unable to vary the amount of toner at a given location - it's
> > an all-or-nothing affair.
>
> So, with a LaserJet, the advertised DPI is true DPI, right?
"Torbjorn Lindgren" <tl@none.invalid> wrote in message
news:6d7ur5F1b3l2U1@mid.individual.net...
> Talal Itani <titani@verizon.net> wrote:
> [...]
>>> AFAIK, Laser printers, however, only quote the actual hardware
>>> resolution
>>> as they're unable to vary the amount of toner at a given location - it's
>>> an all-or-nothing affair.
>>
>>So, with a LaserJet, the advertised DPI is true DPI, right?
>
> Not necessarily, most or all modern laster printers are also capable
> of varying the amount of toner, though more often than not they
> document the "real" resolution in addition to the simulated one.
>
> There was a period when it was only inkjets that did this but stopped
> many years ago (5+ years IIRC). My understanding is that lasers tends
> to have less different spot sizes than inkjets (3-5 instead of 10 or
> more).
>
> However, most lasers do seem to list both their "native" resolution
> and the higher "up to" figures, inkjets often requires quite a bit
> more digging to find out the real HW dpi, so it IS different.
>
> Real laser printer resolution is often 600x600/600x1200/1200x1200,
> though there's still some older 300x300 or 300x600 models out there in
> the lower end (ick).
>
> As an example most recent B&W HP LaserJets seems to have "HP FastRet
> 1200" and "up to 1200x1200 dpi". That's the only thing they list for
> their lower & mid-range printers, while the bigger ones says that and
> notes the real resolution is 600x600 dpi.
>
> HP's color lasers seems to be a mix of 600x600 and 600x1200, with HP
> ImageREt 3600 (most) or HP ImageREt 4800 (some but not all of the
> 600x1200 models), there's some additional tricks that can be done on
> color images.
>
> OKI and Lexmark seems to be operating with similar resolution figures,
> though both are better at printing the native resolution than HP is
> (it's on all models I saw). Samsung doesn't seem to have usefull
> specifications on their printers at all...
I need to achieve 2400 x 2400 dpi. Real 2400 x 2400. I used imagesetters
in the past, but the output is expensive. I am trying very hard to find a
printer that can produce 2400 x 2400 dpi. Do you have any thoughts? Thanks.
I am printing tiny text, called micro text, or microscopic text. An
imagesetter at 2400 dpi does it well, but it is an expensive solution.
Rasterizing with Photoshop also indicates that I need true 2400 x 2400 dpi.
In article <EFDbk.456$4a3.237@trnddc04>,
Talal Itani <titani@verizon.net> wrote:
> ...
>I am printing tiny text, called micro text, or microscopic text. An
>imagesetter at 2400 dpi does it well, but it is an expensive solution.
Well yeah... of course it is, why would you expect it to be cheap?
I wouldn't consider an imagesetter to fall into the competive mass
market category.
In article <g4ob54$ib3$1@reader1.panix.com>, rodd@panix.com (Rod Dorman) wrote:
> In article <EFDbk.456$4a3.237@trnddc04>,
> Talal Itani <titani@verizon.net> wrote:
> > ...
> >I am printing tiny text, called micro text, or microscopic text. An
> >imagesetter at 2400 dpi does it well, but it is an expensive solution.
>
> Well yeah... of course it is, why would you expect it to be cheap?
>
> I wouldn't consider an imagesetter to fall into the competive mass
> market category.
>
It depends how small the text, the kind of material on which it is
printed, and the font used.
As an experiment ! printed a range of sizes from 1 point to 2 points on a
Xerox 2025 at 1200 x 1200 genuine set at 120 lpi.
On uncoated papeer 1 point is illegible and 1.5 is readable under the loupe.
On coated paper 1 point is readable under the loupe using a bold font.
Xerox has produced a MicroText system to 'print' at 1/100 of an inch for
security douments so I assume 0.75 point is the size to emulate.
> Inkjet printers, like the Canon I have, have a
>resolution of 4800 x 2400 dpi. When I use a loupe, I can see the very very
>tiny dots. The dots are tiny when the colors are light. When the colors
>are dark, the high-resolution is not maintained.
I wonder if you are seeing halftone dots. Some inkjets will use
halftones, others dithering. Where halftones are used you will see
dots that grow from very small to large and eventually join. The
separation of these dots is the "lpi" value, and probably something
like 150-200. This is the effective resolution of color detail. The
finest colour detail, in highest quality professional printing, is
probably around 300 lpi (wild guess).
However, it's worth noting that, unlike many lasers and imagesetters,
the high resolutions quoted for inkjets are nominal; 2400 dpi does not
imply a smallest possible dot of 1/2400 inch.
----------------------------------------
Aandi Inston
Please support usenet! Post replies and follow-ups, don't e-mail them.
> It depends how small the text, the kind of material on which it is
> printed, and the font used.
>
> As an experiment ! printed a range of sizes from 1 point to 2 points on a
> Xerox 2025 at 1200 x 1200 genuine set at 120 lpi.
> On uncoated papeer 1 point is illegible and 1.5 is readable under the
> loupe.
> On coated paper 1 point is readable under the loupe using a bold font.
>
> Xerox has produced a MicroText system to 'print' at 1/100 of an inch for
> security douments so I assume 0.75 point is the size to emulate.
>
> Would microfilm techniques be another method?
>
I tried microfilm, yet since microfilm is gray-scale, things did not look
nice and sharp. The output looks very good on a black/white film
imagesetter, also good on coated imagesetter paper. I did read about the
MicroText from Xerox. This is a font. I assume the Xerox MicroText font can
be used on some of their printers. There is also the option of a digital
printing press, which I have not tried. Surely I will not buy one, but I
will try a service.
"Aandi Inston" <quite@dial.pipex.con> wrote in message
news:486fed4e.2038240224@read.news.uk.uu.net...
> "Talal Itani" <titani@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Inkjet printers, like the Canon I have, have a
>>resolution of 4800 x 2400 dpi. When I use a loupe, I can see the very
>>very
>>tiny dots. The dots are tiny when the colors are light. When the colors
>>are dark, the high-resolution is not maintained.
>
> I wonder if you are seeing halftone dots. Some inkjets will use
> halftones, others dithering. Where halftones are used you will see
> dots that grow from very small to large and eventually join. The
> separation of these dots is the "lpi" value, and probably something
> like 150-200. This is the effective resolution of color detail. The
> finest colour detail, in highest quality professional printing, is
> probably around 300 lpi (wild guess).
>
> However, it's worth noting that, unlike many lasers and imagesetters,
> the high resolutions quoted for inkjets are nominal; 2400 dpi does not
> imply a smallest possible dot of 1/2400 inch.
> ----------------------------------------
What about digital printing presses that are advertised as 2400 x 2400 dpi?
These are the big machines, made by Xerox, Oce, Indigo, and a few others.
>> However, it's worth noting that, unlike many lasers and imagesetters,
>> the high resolutions quoted for inkjets are nominal; 2400 dpi does not
>> imply a smallest possible dot of 1/2400 inch.
>What about digital printing presses that are advertised as 2400 x 2400 dpi?
>These are the big machines, made by Xerox, Oce, Indigo, and a few others.
These million dollar machines should be true to their quoted
resolution. They aren't inkjet. But they can be expected to use
halftones. One key reason for this is that many paper/ink conbinations
have a minimum effective dot size. They may not be suitable for your
highly specialised application. Indeed, it's hard to imagine that
ordinary paper can deliver at all. Printing on photographic paper with
an imagesetter may deliver what you need.
----------------------------------------
Aandi Inston
Please support usenet! Post replies and follow-ups, don't e-mail them.
Re: Why a Rasterizer ? 
Linear Mode
