Digital BW, The Print

Hi Tyler,

Yes, the transistions between dot sizes are blended -- much like the
transitions between partitioned inks.  Every kind of transition has to be gradual
to make it invisible.

Roy

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley" <tyler@...> 
wrote:
>
> Roy, something I've been wondering about, and perhaps you know- Do the
> dots have blended transitional areas? In other words, when increasing
> density requires going to the next larger dot size, will there be a
> blend of both dot sizes during the transition?
> Not an earth shaking question, but have been wondering.
> Imagine a channel limit that was set so that it ended at only 10% or
> so of say, the medium dot. So would there be considerable remaining
> small dot component?
> Tyler
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Roy Harrington"
> <roy@> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > I not sure I follow you exactly but I think what you want is already
> the way it works.
> > You always use the small dots first anyway so if you keep the amount
> of ink low i.e.
> > with low ink limits you will only use small dots.   In other words 3
> channels of
> > ink limit 25 is the same as 1 channel of ink limit 75 for how much
> ink is output.  But
> > its likely that you'll be using mostly small dots instead of the
> whole set of dots.
> > 
> > Roy
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "dlruckus"
> <dlruckus@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks Roy. I guess I worded that badly. What I had in mind actually
> > > was fixing the dot size at only one, usually the smallest, as an
> > > option, rather than a set. Then would make up for lesser dot coverage
> > > with multiple channels of K to get d'max and fill in. Am I wrong in
> > > assuming that one could then put maximum ink down with 100% limits for
> > > papers that soak it up, like uncoated ones, while still limiting other
> > > channels and partitioning across the scale? Or would the mechanical
> > > aspects of that smaller dot end up being the equivalent of reducing
> > > limits anyway and counteract the effect?
> > > 
> > > Regards
> > > Duane
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Roy Harrington"
> > > <roy@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > > Duane,
> > > > 
> > > > The set of dotsizes applies for all the channels on a page, so there
> > > is no variation
> > > > per channel.  I really don't think you'd find much benefit messing
> > > around with
> > > > lots of different dotsizes.
> > > > 
> > > > Roy
> > > > 
> > > > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "dlruckus"
> > > <dlruckus@> 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Roy.
> > > > > Any chance selectable dot size per channel could be used with
> QTR in
> > > > > that context? I've often thought that utilizing the multi BO
> concept
> > > > > Paul is working with here could quite possibly be of use with
> uncoated
> > > > > art papers. Perhaps a 2K approach could even be used with some
> of the
> > > > > older machines.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Regards
> > > > > Duane
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Roy
> Harrington"
> > > > > <roy@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I think one of the advantages of Paul's multi-eboni approach
> is that
> > > > > he can keep the
> > > > > > ink limits of the individual channels low enough to stay in the
> > > > > small dot range but
> > > > > > still get to dMax because he has multiple channels firing.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Roy
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>