Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: filmscanners: File sizes, file formats, etc. for printing 8.5 x 11and 13 x 17...
> No, I mean the dots are printed on top of one another, not near, and not
> partially overlapped.
I have a 90x microscope, and I looked. I do not find any dots printed
precisely on top of one another. They do overlap, and I believe that is
caused by dot gain.
> > The printers to NOT mix inks. If you place one ink over the other,
> you will
> > get the color of the top ink.
> >
> >
>
> Did your "power" tell you that, too? Epson inks, other than those for
> the 2000P, 5500, 7500 and 9500, are dye based, and fully transparent.
Yes, of course it depends on the inks.
> The printer doesn't "mix" the inks, per say, but the inks are placed on
> top of one another on the paper. I suspect this is done through
> successive passes, rather than on the same line at the same pass.
Get a better loupe...and you will see they aren't place on top of each
other.
> I'd would like to get the opportunity to email your "power man" him
> directly and ask him for clarification of the statements you are making.
I would prefer to leave him out of this.
> Take a good look at the print under a loupe, and tell me
> that the dots do not completely cover each other in solid areas, and
> even in some that are not solid.
Send me a file that you believe will give me the result you are saying, I
will print it and look at it under the 90x microscope.
> And finally, don't tell me you don't nitpick.
It is certainly not nitpicking to refute or substantiate a claim that these
printers print more than one ink dot at the exact same spot. What may be
'nitpicking' to one person, may be a very important distinction to someone
else.
> Even if it were the case that
> inkjet printers could not place droplets of ink directly on one another,
> this trite issue had little to no relevance to the substance of the
> posting,
Agreed as it related to your original point, but substantial in and of
itself.
> Yet, for some reason which only you and perhaps your
> shrink can explain,
If you want to discuss this matter in a technical manner then do so. Do NOT
engage in personal attacks. It is unwarranted and certainly undeserved. I
have treated you with respect, and not once demeaned you in any way. I
expect the same in return.
> When you engineers come up with a computer that doesn't crash
It's typically the software that crashes, don't blame the hardware ;-)
|
