Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

   


   


   















      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI





Austin Franklin wrote:

  >>The process used a type
  >>of overprinting - laying down more than one ink drop per location,
  >>
  >
  > If true, that would be interesting.  My understanding is the inks 
used in
  > these types of inkjet printers can't do that, simply because the (I
believe
  > it's because they are pigmented?) inks don't mix.  I know that is
true with
  > the Epson inks.  Perhaps that particular printer used special inks?
  >


The HP/Kodak Photo RET printing process relies upon overprinting.  They
do not use pigmented inks, in fact hardly any consumer printers do.
Non-photo HP printers use a pigmented black ink.  Other than that the
only consumer "out of box" printers using pigmented inks that I'm aware
of are the Epson 2000P and the new C80.

Others that use pigmented inks, although I wouldn't refer to them as
consumer grade, are the Epson 5500, 7500 and 9500, some of the Rolands,
and some other larger carriage printers. The other Epsons, including the
3000, and even the 870/890 1270/1290 use dyes, although the later were
supposed to be specially designed for longer fade resistance than the
average ones.


  > Perhaps at the time, this printer (HP PhotoSmart) looked good, but I
doubt
  > it would hold a candle to today's technology.  I also believe printer
  > technology is independent of input PPI to the printer driver in the
quality
  > of image you will get out of it.  That's not to say that different
printer
  > technologies don't give different levels of quality output, but that
100 ppi
  > to any technology isn't going to give a very good 8x10...
  >


I'll agree that the original HP Photosmart printer looks no better than
most drug store snaps.  HP sent me a 4x6" and 8x10" sample in 1995, and
I still have them.  They don't appear to have lost any color (they were
not displayed, however), and they look at least as good as typical color
"machine prints", but with higher saturation, more like a Ilfochrome,
and with a nice glossy surface too.  The deepest shadow areas show a bit
of streaking/banding, which I suspect was due to the inks not drying
fast enough. They look pretty similar to Epson Photo or Photo 700
prints, but not as good as 1270/1290 prints.  Then again, at the time
(1995) a fairly low fading photo quality inkjet printer was a pretty
amazing concept.

Regardless, the input was 100-150 dpi, and the results were as
photographic as a good machine photo print, which I think anyone would
call a "photograph" back then or today.


Speaking of inkjets, I was on the Epson website yesterday, and they have
lowered the price of the 980 to $99 US!  This is an amazing deal.  This
is a 2880 x 720 printer, with a variable dot going down to a 3 picolitre
dot and it is fast.  It also has the second largest ink cartridges of
all the consumer letter width carriage printers.  What I really like
about it is that with that size dot, the need for the 6 color printing
design is very nearly eliminated, saving a lot of ink by using very
small dot instead.


This printer, which basically is the upgrade of the 900, is a sturdy
printer too, of the older squarer design.  The 900 didn't have the
chipped cartridge, but I'm not sure if the 980 does or not.

Anyway, it is a very good deal for anyone looking for a dye based inkjet
that is 4 color, fast and well built, with a letter size carriage.

Art







 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.