 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/19/2016 12:21 PM, Alain wrote:
> Print using the highest DPI setting available. Home printers should be
> able to go up to 1400 DPI or more without problem.
Also, here are the specs for my printer.
http://support.brother.com/g/b/spec.aspx?c=us&lang=en&prod=mfcj825dw_all
The highest quality has a pretty good dpi, but to me the images still
look fuzzy. I wonder if big box stores like Staples can print at higher
resolution. Or maybe a regular photo lab.
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/19/2016 1:38 PM, Mike Horvath wrote:
> On 1/19/2016 12:21 PM, Alain wrote:
>> Print using the highest DPI setting available. Home printers should be
>> able to go up to 1400 DPI or more without problem.
>
> Also, here are the specs for my printer.
>
> http://support.brother.com/g/b/spec.aspx?c=us&lang=en&prod=mfcj825dw_all
>
> The highest quality has a pretty good dpi, but to me the images still
> look fuzzy. I wonder if big box stores like Staples can print at higher
> resolution. Or maybe a regular photo lab.
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 ;) )
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/19/2016 6:21 PM, Mike Horvath wrote:
> 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
Never mind. Dots per inch is measured in a straight line, not an area.
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Can you tell from this page whether my other printer is better?
http://support.hp.com/us-en/document/c00856588#AbT1
I don't see the dpi listed anywhere except for the scanner.
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/19/2016 7:43 PM, Mike Horvath wrote:
> Can you tell from this page whether my other printer is better?
>
> http://support.hp.com/us-en/document/c00856588#AbT1
>
> I don't see the dpi listed anywhere except for the scanner.
>
>
> Mike
Here's a better link.
https://www.google.com/shopping/product/8050965094118643781/specs?sclient=psy-ab&espv=2&biw=1838&bih=995&q=hp+deskjet+f4180+specs&oq=hp+deskjet+f4180+specs&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.&bvm=bv.112064104,d.cGc&ion=1&tch=1&ech=1&psi=TdeeVvLgLYKSjwOnn5nABw.1453250382123.7&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwizhaTbk7fKAhVJyGMKHZMRBjwQuC8IhAE
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/19/2016 6:24 PM, Mike Horvath wrote:
> On 1/19/2016 6:21 PM, Mike Horvath wrote:
>> 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
>
> Never mind. Dots per inch is measured in a straight line, not an area.
>
>
> Mike
Wat the frig.
Did you get an email from me? Now I am trying Thunderbird for nntp and
I keep hitting "Reply" instead of "Followup". But there's no mail in my
outbox, so I don't know what happened.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/19/2016 6:24 PM, Mike Horvath wrote:
> On 1/19/2016 6:21 PM, Mike Horvath wrote:
>> 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
>
> Never mind. Dots per inch is measured in a straight line, not an area.
>
>
> Mike
[ yay, found the post that went out as email ]
Ha! Yes I was looking at the fax section (which is limited by the T4 and
T30 ancient FAX specs)
So 1200x6000 is very decent, but you still have the "size of dot" issue.
One thing you can do is photo paper, which has less bleeding/absorbancy
than regular paper. - Make sure to select the photo paper type driver as
this prints a lot more slowly to minimize the amount of wet ink sitting
on the paper.
A pro printing shop will have a loupe with a ruler in it so you can
measure the size and bleed of dots from your paper. Walmart (not a pro
shop) will do an 8x10 for $2.89 . Photo chemistry is going to give you
the best true resolution. (Although I don't know the resolution of the
Fuji gear at Walmart, in 2000 they used our Gretag[1] boxes which did
true 4800x4800).
[1] I worked on the UI and drivers for the machine. I bowed to the
superior intelligence of the Swiss engineers who used the width of
molecules in their chemistry calculations.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 16-01-19 23:56, dick balaska a écrit :
> On 1/19/2016 6:24 PM, Mike Horvath wrote:
>> On 1/19/2016 6:21 PM, Mike Horvath wrote:
>>> 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
>>
>> Never mind. Dots per inch is measured in a straight line, not an area.
>>
>>
>> Mike
>
> [ yay, found the post that went out as email ]
>
> Ha! Yes I was looking at the fax section (which is limited by the T4 and
> T30 ancient FAX specs)
>
> So 1200x6000 is very decent, but you still have the "size of dot" issue.
> One thing you can do is photo paper, which has less bleeding/absorbancy
> than regular paper. - Make sure to select the photo paper type driver as
> this prints a lot more slowly to minimize the amount of wet ink sitting
> on the paper.
>
> A pro printing shop will have a loupe with a ruler in it so you can
> measure the size and bleed of dots from your paper. Walmart (not a pro
> shop) will do an 8x10 for $2.89 . Photo chemistry is going to give you
> the best true resolution. (Although I don't know the resolution of the
> Fuji gear at Walmart, in 2000 they used our Gretag[1] boxes which did
> true 4800x4800).
>
> [1] I worked on the UI and drivers for the machine. I bowed to the
> superior intelligence of the Swiss engineers who used the width of
> molecules in their chemistry calculations.
One *BIG* limiting factor is the paper used.
Most paper will make the ink from an ink jet printer bleed and spread,
possibly a lot. For the best quality, you need a coated, low capilarity,
paper. That will make the ink take longer to dry, but prevent most
spreading of the ink.
It's not such a problem with laser printer that use dry inks, but it
still can affect the pring quality. For laser printers, the main
limiting factor is the quality of the optics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Here is the chromadepth scene again after changing the pattern from
gradient to spherical. Unfortunately, I don't really sense any 3D
effect. In fact the tree line in the distance is messed up. The leaves
of the trees appear much closer than the trunks. I don't consider this
experiment a success. :(
Mike
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'l3p_datsville_townview_boxed_chromadepth_03.png' (1263 KB)
Preview of image 'l3p_datsville_townview_boxed_chromadepth_03.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
