Digital BW, The Print

1:51 for an 11x14? I can get that on an 8x10 on an R800..........BUT, it's  
not at the highest quality setting.
 
Kinda reminds me of Hi-Fi ads in the Seventies for cheap stereos "200 watts  
IPP" (15 wrms),
 
The first number was gross exaggeration by an optimistic measurement  
technique, the second, in really small type in parentheses was the truth.
 
Reminds me of Kodak's 75 second claim on their dye sub printers. They never  
mention file rasterization time, which is real world, not putting a stopwatch 
on  pre-rasterized multi-copies, which is laboratory fantasy.
 
I'm assuming most people want the best quality possible with those  printers, 
so the real time is much longer. Just don't base your production on  those 
figures and you will be fine.
 
Claude


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

You are correct.

But even if it does it in 3 mins., I'd be happy.


Scott


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, claudej1@a... 
wrote:
> 1:51 for an 11x14? I can get that on an 8x10 on an 
R800..........BUT, it's  
> not at the highest quality setting.
>  
> Kinda reminds me of Hi-Fi ads in the Seventies for cheap 
stereos "200 watts  
> IPP" (15 wrms),
>  
> The first number was gross exaggeration by an optimistic 
measurement  
> technique, the second, in really small type in parentheses was the 
truth.
>  
> Reminds me of Kodak's 75 second claim on their dye sub printers. 
They never  
> mention file rasterization time, which is real world, not putting a 
stopwatch 
> on  pre-rasterized multi-copies, which is laboratory fantasy.
>  
> I'm assuming most people want the best quality possible with those  
printers, 
> so the real time is much longer. Just don't base your production 
on  those 

> figures and you will be fine.
>  
> Claude
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]