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
Message
Re: [Homebrew_PCBs] Re: 600x600 printer resolution it's OK ?
2006-02-07 by Stefan Trethan
Attachments
- No local attachments were found for this message.