Epson printers - 2400 vs. 4800 ??
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Mark? on 6 Jan 2006 21:15 Kennedy McEwen wrote: > In article <43bdf773$0$6297$822641b3(a)news.adtechcomputers.com>, David > Nebenzahl <nobody(a)but.us.chickens> writes >> Kennedy McEwen spake thus: >> >>> In article <w9bvf.7874$V.6727(a)fed1read04>, Mark? >>> <mjmorgan(a)cox.?.net.invalid> writes >>> >>>> I contend that there isn't ANY media capable of showing a benefit >>>> of dpi that high. >>> There are plenty of such media, they just aren't papers. :-) >> >> Like what--stainless steel? Precision-buffed to a high gloss? >> > I was thinking specifically of chrome on glass at the time I wrote > that, but there are lots of examples. The data on this CD in my PC > is more than 5760dpi and DVDs are even higher. The entire electronic > industry relies on semiconductor media with details on them at higher > dpi still. ;-) > > It was a slightly tongue in cheek comment in any case because what > Mark appears to have failed to notice is that the whole point of > printing at such resolutions is that the dots are *NOT* resolved on > the media - it is merely a means to achieve multi-tonal results from > monotone inks in resolutions which are visually perceptible. No, I quite understand that each dot is not intended as an individually perceived unit, but rather a basis through which ink is combined to form perceived color. Still...can anyone point to the realization of a visually-perceived benefit of 9600dpi over, say, 4800?
From: Mark? on 6 Jan 2006 21:17 David Nebenzahl wrote: > Mark? spake thus: > >> Kennedy McEwen wrote: >> >>> In article <n5mvf.7911$V.719(a)fed1read04>, Mark? >>> <mjmorgan(a)cox.?.net.invalid> writes >>> >>>> Kennedy McEwen wrote: >>>> >>>>> In article <w9bvf.7874$V.6727(a)fed1read04>, Mark? >>>>> <mjmorgan(a)cox.?.net.invalid> writes >>>>> >>>>>> I contend that there isn't ANY media capable of showing a >>>>>> benefit of dpi that high. >>>>> >>>>> There are plenty of such media, they just aren't papers. :-) >>>> >>>> Who said anything about papers? I still challenge anyone to >>>> produce evidence that ANY media will show the useful exhibition >>>> of 9600dpi from an ink jet type printer. >>> >>> You didn't say anything about injet printers either! ;-) >> >> What is the Canon in question if not an ink-jet type printer (a >> poorly selected generic term for ink-based printers, since "ink-jet" >> tends to refer only to HP printers...). > > They're all inkjets, even those (like Canon) called "bubble jets" or > some such other. Inkjet is a generic term for printers what squirt ink > onto paper (or other substrate), regardless of what the marketroid > types say. (Including "gicl?e", the ultimate $2 snob-appeal term.) > Even includes some non-consumer types that use solvent-based (as > opposed to water-based) inks. > > Not poorly-selected at all; describes how they work admirably. Yes. And oops... -My tired little brain was thinking of "desk-jet" -which has been nabbed by HP...not ink-jet.
From: Arthur Entlich on 6 Jan 2006 21:51 The real question about companies that claim 9600 dpi inkjet resolution or what have you is can this be accomplished with the minimum dot size they offer? In other words, using inkjet media, even with the best available in terms of minimum dot gain or bleed, could that many dots occupy the space provided (1/9600th of an inch). In general, this spec is not stating that this resolution can be created in a real world situation (such as a photographic image) but that the printer could "place" any one dot with that accuracy. Art Kennedy McEwen wrote: > In article <w9bvf.7874$V.6727(a)fed1read04>, Mark? > <mjmorgan(a)cox.?.net.invalid> writes > >> >> I contend that there isn't ANY media capable of showing a benefit of >> dpi that high. > > > There are plenty of such media, they just aren't papers. :-)
From: Mark? on 6 Jan 2006 23:45 Kennedy McEwen wrote: > In article <UmFvf.8032$V.3630(a)fed1read04>, Mark? > <mjmorgan(a)cox.?.net.invalid> writes >> Kennedy McEwen wrote: >>> In article <n5mvf.7911$V.719(a)fed1read04>, Mark? >>> <mjmorgan(a)cox.?.net.invalid> writes >>>> Kennedy McEwen wrote: >>>>> In article <w9bvf.7874$V.6727(a)fed1read04>, Mark? >>>>> <mjmorgan(a)cox.?.net.invalid> writes >>>>>> >>>>>> I contend that there isn't ANY media capable of showing a benefit >>>>>> of dpi that high. >>>>> >>>>> There are plenty of such media, they just aren't papers. :-) >>>> >>>> Who said anything about papers? >>>> I still challenge anyone to produce evidence that ANY media will >>>> show the useful exhibition of 9600dpi from an ink jet type printer. >>>> >>> You didn't say anything about injet printers either! ;-) >> >> What is the Canon in question > > An Epson! (read the subject) ;-) Yes... But the 9600dpi comment came from a Canon printer comment. Threads change. Here's the quote for ya: >> Take a look at the Canon iP4200. It'll print at 9600x2400dpi.
From: Mark? on 6 Jan 2006 23:46
Kennedy McEwen wrote: > In article <vtFvf.8033$V.4113(a)fed1read04>, Mark? > <mjmorgan(a)cox.?.net.invalid> writes >> >> No, I quite understand that each dot is not intended as an >> individually perceived unit, but rather a basis through which ink is >> combined to form perceived color. Still...can anyone point to the >> realization of a visually-perceived benefit of 9600dpi over, say, >> 4800? > Reduces tonal noise at the visual acuity limit, which is all that a > finer dither matrix is intended to achieve. Yes. We know that. But is the difference between 4800 (for example) and 9600 able to be visually perceived without a loupe? |