Filmscanners mailing list archive (firstname.lastname@example.org)
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: filmscanners: repro wars (was drum scanning services)
In a message dated 23/5/01 2:24:45 pm, TonySleep@halftone.co.uk writes:
<< Bob, I know what you say makes perfect sense - the 150-180LPI screen needs
no more than ~300dpi at repro size. But the run-ins I have had with these
guys suggest that they regard 12,000ppi as necessary, because that's what
they get out of their drums and send to the imagesetter. They frighten
production eds silly with this sort of nonsense, and I have come across it
enough to think it isn't just lack of communication or different
conceptual frameworks of different industries. They just want to hang on
to magazine scanning as it's their bread and butter. >>
12,000 ppi is definately not what they send to the image setter. Image
setters are quite slow beasts and many repro houses run them through the
night to get enough use out of them. To get the RIP and Setter to run at its
fastest the scan will most likely be automatically cut to the minimum
required. 12,000 lpi is the resolution of some film setters but that is s
omething else altogether.
I have now done some self publishing via CTP (computer to plate printing) The
Scitex platemaker changes the entire Quark document and associated TIFFs to a
special Scitex file which is a bit like a PDF because it includes the text
instructions too. 115mm x 165mm high quality postcards require and use an
11Mb Scitex file. An A4 on the same system would be about 30Mb.
I agree that some repro houses are desperate to hang onto what work they can.
They lost film makeup with DTP and imposed film output. They are losing
proofing and film output with CTP. They are also losing scanning work to
other repro houses who have invested in modern scanners which have much
greater throughput and can afford lower prices.