On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 13:25:18 +0100, adicont2 <
adicont2@...> wrote:
> This "fake" dpi confused me. In my knowledge, the real resolution
>
> depends on factors like ink and paper. For example, if I use a porous
>
> paper, all lines will be deformed. The ink dot will be larger because
>
> of paper absortion.
>
> I forgot to mention that I use an "original" transfer method whith
>
> combine both TT and foto method. I print on normal paper whith inkjet
>
> printer (at home)and than copy this print whith a Xerox on transfer
>
> paper (at work).
What i mean is the 1200x1200 stated was in reality some "image
enhancement" mumbo jumbo. For photos the resolution is supposed to be
equivalent to a 1200dpi printer. Me thinks the only thing equivalent is
the text 1200dpi on the box.
The real resolution is 600dpi, that's also mentioned somewhere in the back
of the manual printed so small you first think it is only a line dividing
the other "features".
Of course you are right, not only the dpi count, also ink or toner and
paper makes often much more of a difference. With lasers the really high
resolutions often claim to have a special fine toner, not sure if real.
What i do know is the LJIIID with 300dpi was not good enough to make 0.5mm
pitch smd, 600DPI is.
ST