Digital BW, The Print

> > > I only claim that your argument
> > > of 8-bit can't
> > > make 1000 levels is flawed.
> >
> > I never said it CAN'T make 1000 theoretically...just that I doubt it
> > actually DOES in reality.  What's flawed?  Where is the flaw?
> Precisely...
> > Don't simply say something is flawed, and not say what about it
> is flawed.
> > I've been VERY precise with my disbelief in the 1000 tone claim, citing
> > reasons why I believe the physical hardware and inks don't do it.
>
> The only reason I've seen is: 2^8 = 256 < 1000.

Roy,

The only reason for what you've seen?  I've given technical and practical
reasons why I don't believe the Pizeo system really prints "over 1000"
tones...have you simply ignored them?

> >
> > > The problem is you can't
> > > PROVE it false mathematically.
> >
> > I CAN PROVE it mathematically.
>
> Did you leave out the word "false" intentionally?

No, what I said is exactly what I mean.  I CAN prove I can THEORETICALLY
print an infinite number of tones with only a single ink, much less four,
given enough print area, and a large enough viewing distance.  But...simply
because it looks good on paper does not mean it will work in reality, at
least in the Piezo case.

> Why don't you ask Jon Cone if the claim is true or not.
> Realistically, I've never seen marketing material backed up with lots of
> absolute proof, examples, and test procedures.

I have, and I so far, have not gotten, what I would consider, a straight
answer to the questions I've asked.

>   Not mumbo jumbo theoretical fluff.  This is reality.
> > Does there exist a print that was printed with Piezo that has
> 1000 distinct
> > tones.  Can I print a 1000 tone step wedge and discern all 1000 tones.
> > Simple question.  Tyler was kind enough to give me a 256 step
> wedge.  I will
> > print it, and chart the results.  If I can't measure 256
> distinct tones with
> > my X-Rite 810, then I am even more skeptical that it can print 1000.
>
> I wish you luck in this try, but I wonder if you've thought this
> out.

Yes, of course.  I know how to conduct experiments correctly, being that
I've been doing so for over 25 years.

> As far as
> I can tell from the online spec sheet of the X-Rite 810, it reads
> in 0.01D units.
> Since the dmax you're likely to get is less than 2.00D the number
> of distinct
> readouts from your X-Rite has to be less than 200.  So I'm quite
> sure you'll
> get less than 256 distinct measurements regardless of whatever the piezo
> system prints.

I understand that.  If I get even near the max of the unit, that's more than
I was expecting, and I will simply move on to a higher resolution unit.  The
X-Rite is only a starting point.

> Also, did you consider the area of measurement for the
> X-Rite?

Yes, the pattern is much bigger than is required.  We're talking 256 patches
on an 8.5 x 11 sheet.  That would give a possible area of (25.4 x 8.5) x
(25.4 x 11) / 256 or ~235 sq mm per patch, and the X-Rite measuring area is
4mm (which, BTW, I believe means 4mm of area, as in a circle with an area of
4mm...).

> BTW, a 256 step wedge comes right on the piezo software
> CD -- that's what I used for the exact same test a couple of days ago.

Is the flush image a 256 step wedge?  The others certainly aren't...  I
thought you said you measured a gradient?

In fact, if the flush image is in fact a 256 step wedge, it may be better
suited to what I'm trying to see...as the "Z" pattern is more for visual
discernability, than for densitometer measurement...as the "Z" is in the
middle of the patch.

Regards,

Austin