On 1/19/2016 3:19 PM, dick balaska wrote:
> Actually, those are nominally poor specs for graphics printing.
> (203x196) Sure, print your iPhone photos, but for the density of your
> pic, it's pretty weak.  And they don't mention the size of the smallest
> dot, usually on low end 300x300 printers it's 1/72 inch for black and
> 1/40 inch for color.  I'll bet you get lots of bleed.
>
> 203x196 (not even 300x300!) means they used cheap servos that can't
> accurately position the head and paper and were too cheap to even use a
> reduction gear.
>
> Definitely go check out the photo shop at walmart. You can run some
> 1200x1200 (or maybe 1440x1440) photo-chemistry test prints fairly cheap.
> Alain, 1400 dpi on a home/inkjet printer is only a half truth. That
> defines how accurately the paper and head can be positioned, but there
> is no chance of spraying 3 colored dots of ink in a 0.0007 inch square.
> It's not chemically possible. You need to know the size of the dot to
> determine actual resolution.
>
> (I'm not a printing expert, but I played one on TV
> http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=4728783 ;) )
>
>
>


For regular printing, the spec sheet says "Resolution Up to 1200 × 6000 
dpi", which works out to 1 dot in 0.01290994448735805628393088466594 
inches. Maybe you were looking at the Fax section?


Mike

Post a reply to this message