Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 51 to 55 of 55

Thread: Resolution loss from transparency to print

  1. #51
    Abuser of God's Sunlight
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    brooklyn, nyc
    Posts
    5,774

    Re: Resolution loss from transparency to print

    Quote Originally Posted by Nathan Potter View Post
    Paul I hadn't contemplated possible advantages of a 20 Ám dot size for halftone dots but inkjet prints are not halftones so I assume you are only comparing the advantages of very fine halftone to what might be a similar advantage with inkjet.
    The relationship between dots and pixels is the same. Halftone is ordered and uses amplitude modulation; stochastic is (pseudo)random and uses frequency modulation. But both can create a greater number of smooth tones if they can use finer ink dots relative to the pixel size.

    But I've been thinking about the inkjet method of generating large format negatives for direct contact printing, a technique being more widely used for carbon and Pt/Pd contacts and employed by a number of workers here and other places. With 20 Ám dot technology a significantly finer digital master could be generated on a transparency film such as pictorico. Such detail on film could even stand a 4X enlargement to paper and still yield around 300 DPI for acceptable print quality.
    I've seen this done and it looks great.

    I'm not familiar with the line of Epson printers you're talking about.

  2. #52
    Jac@stafford.net's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Winona, Minnesota
    Posts
    4,084

    Re: Resolution loss from transparency to print

    What of the issue of 'dot gain'? Not relevant today?

    Tia

  3. #53
    Abuser of God's Sunlight
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    brooklyn, nyc
    Posts
    5,774

    Re: Resolution loss from transparency to print

    Quote Originally Posted by Jac@stafford.net View Post
    What of the issue of 'dot gain'? Not relevant today?

    Tia
    You don't have to think about it. It's mimimal, because of the coatings on the paper, and any effect it has on densities gets compensated for in the paper/ink icc profile.

  4. #54

    Re: Resolution loss from transparency to print

    Ooops off by one decimal point.

    Still, I'm not convinced that LPM or DPI is a good overall metric to measure image quality or how we may perceive images. The visual process is far more complex than LPM, MTF, DPI or...

    It looks like digital printing continues to advance and improve. At some point, the digital technology will be extremely good. There is market demand for this kind of development at this time.

    The real question is where will this all ended up, what will the mature digital imaging technology look like?

    Film had a long time to mature into very fine image creation technology which is the results of many, many years of development by both technical folks and artist.
    Just think of the billions upon billions of images made on film over it's history.

    For now, I'm going to stick to them old ways that works for me.. for now.


    Bernice


    Quote Originally Posted by Nathan Potter View Post
    Bernice, your dimensions of 0.000001 to 0.000005 inch for equivalent film resolving power is much too small if you speak of equivalent grain size to dot size. Modern films after development have a typical grain size from 0.5 Ám to maybe 10 Ám for large clumps. Your figure implies size 0.025 Ám to 0.125 Ám. (20,000 lp/mm to say 5000 lp/mm). Even the finest emulsions made by Eastman Kodak (Kodak High Resolution Glass Plates) could resolve about 2000 lp/mm. under extraordinarily precise exposure and processing conditions.

    By the way I just saw an advertisement by Epson of a new printer with a dot size capability of 25 Ám on paper (very smooth paper I assume). Thats 20 lp/mm, 1016 dots/inch. Seems almost overkill for what the human unaided eye can perceive at close viewing distance.
    If the print is an enlargement from an original diminutive source then the source film needs to have greater than 20 lp/mm or the information conveyed is emply of the detail that would be possible.

    Nate Potter, Austin TX.

  5. #55
    Jac@stafford.net's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Winona, Minnesota
    Posts
    4,084

    Re: Resolution loss from transparency to print

    The average thickness of a human hair is 0.004".. which is quite visible
    to most individuals when places on a sheet of white paper at a distance of 12".
    A trivial aside: the human vision system (eye, but especially brain) can distinguish a human hair but it cannot resolve a dot of the same thickness. We 'see' it through the brain, so-to-speak. This is what makes some subjects susceptible to seeming sharp, while others are not.

Similar Threads

  1. Printing Service that will print a 16x20 or larger Transparency
    By mcallisk in forum Digital Processing
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 31-Dec-2012, 18:06
  2. Format- Print vs Transparency
    By Greg Liscio in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 13-Nov-2009, 09:23
  3. How to print high resolution From Autocad?
    By luis_ortho in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 20-Dec-2006, 09:03
  4. Print Quality Via 4X5 transparency /Scanned/Photoshop/Digital Printed
    By Al Cherman in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 4-Feb-2002, 16:30
  5. Resolution increases with print size?
    By Douglas Broussard in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 20-Jul-2000, 13:00

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •