Digital BW, The Print

Guys,

I don't have any major technical data, but here are a few thoughts for you,
based on the last few posts on 'dithering'.
I don't believe that Piezography uses variable dot sizes - that is, I do not
believe it changes dot-sizes during a print. It may do so for different
'quality' output settings. And it my use different dot-sizes for different
printers at the same quality setting... which I think to get some of the
extra performance of the newer machines.

One of you mentioned 'curves' and I'd like to suggest that using that term
is misleading (perhaps not entirely innacurate, but misleading). What _I_
would do to print greyscale images using quads (using a program) is to map
'image tones' to 'output tones' using some kind of map of which dither / dot
/ whatever pattern achieves that tone on a particular media. And, that may
sound familiar to you - page 6 of the plugin manual shows the workflow...
and I think this would come under 'QMM'. So, although it's a minor point, I
see this as a once-off mapping, rather than applying curves to channels or
anything like that some have used. Just my world view.

Whichever way, hope the thought might be useful to you,
Nij


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tyler Boley [mailto:tyler@...]

>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "TerryR" <terryr1028@h...>
> wrote:
> snip...
> the Piezo driver actually does the
> > same thing in one row of nozzles that the Epson driver does in
> > multiple rows while dithering. This allows the increase in dpi (at
> > least in the older models). The Epson driver dithers intentionally
> to
> > hide the misalignment that may exist between the row of nozzles as
> it
> > progresses through the print as well as less than perfect feed. This
> > may also partly explain the banding that takes place when the feed
> is
> > not dead on, since the dithering is not there to hide it.
>
> one more thing, as long as I'm clarifying my terminology. I always
> thought what you describe above was "super microweave". No?
>