Peter, > > > Think of it this way - at maximum printer resolution it can only > > > represent 46 distinct tonal values in the surface area of the > > > paper > > > > I'm not sure who wrote this, but it's simply wrong as a general > statement. > > The printer resolution really has nothing to do with how many > distinct tonal > > values can be printed, only the dithering algorithm does, and it is > > technically infinite. > > The printer resolution has a LOT to do with how many distinct tonal > values can be printed in a given spot on the paper! That's why I > said, above, "in the surface area of the paper". Well, Peter...saying "in the surface area of the paper" is a VERY amorphous term. Perhaps if you said "in a given area" or something like that, but "surface area of the paper" doesn't give me any indication that you are bounding the area, as paper can be simply any size. If you could Please be more precise in your wording, there won't be any room for misunderstanding. Anyway, irrespective of your wording, as I said, it's simply wrong as a general statements that 46 tones is all you get "in the surface area of the paper", unless you define the resolution, dithering algorithm and size of paper, and printing methodology. Were you possibly talking black only printing? Would you please explain this claim further, and do you have a specific instance that you were basing your statement on, that I perhaps missed? Sorry I missed your original post. > That's why I said all dithering algorithms are tradoffs between > tonal resolution and spatial resolution. There's more to it than that. You can increase the number of available inks, which increases the number of tones per unit area. Or, you can decrease the area and get the same number of tones...or some combination there of. > > If you want more tones, you simply use more area. > > I.e., less resolution. How is using more area the same as less resolution? It is the same resolution, the resolution doesn't change with area used. Perhaps you meant keep the area the same and increase the resolution? Regards, Austin
Message
RE: [Digital BW] Re: Myth: was Any New 2200 BW for PC's?
2003-07-29 by Austin Franklin
Attachments
- No local attachments were found for this message.