>Have you had the opportunity to examine your artwork transparency
>mask) using a microscope? I wonder if it is better than mine. Wish
>I had some way to take a photomicrograph so I could post a photo.
A camera is the way to go in this regard. While a Trinocular scope
is ideal for extreme closeups, it cannot match the versatility of a
camera. Example;
An entire 6" X 4" board;
http://www.pbase.com/eldata/image/56497954/largeThe same shot at original (100%) size;
http://www.pbase.com/eldata/image/56497954/originalA macro shot of a portion of the board (100%);
http://www.pbase.com/eldata/image/56498030/original >So the question I now have is "Does an inkjet printer produce better
>masks than does a laserjet printer?".
These shots compare an Epson 2200 inkjet and a HP 2420D laserjet;
http://www.pbase.com/eldata/lasvsinkLaserjet on transparencies has sharper edges but is less opaque, has
tiny pinholes and dropouts even with the best transparency match.
Some use tracing paper or vellum instead of transparencies (not for
me). Furthermore, for CNC work, the dimensional accuracy of the
laser is worse than the inkjet. I prefer the injet over the laser
for artwork. Will post shots of a board being worked on later.
--- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, "Radra" <infositeus@...> wrote:
>
> Have you had the opportunity to examine your artwork transparency