Re: [OT] Dot shape prevalence
Re: [OT] Dot shape prevalence
- Subject: Re: [OT] Dot shape prevalence
- From: Roger Breton <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 22:30:06 -0400
> The 1-bit TIFF based
> junk that passes for quality output in current workflows seems like a
> huge step backwards to me- powerful for it's ability to open up
> workflows and drive many different kinds of output, but quality? Not
> part of the equation.
Funny you mention it. When I look at the dot shape out of an AGFA CTP, with
a 10x loupe, it's plain to see that even though it says "2400 dpi" on the
box, the dot shape is not all that *sharp* if you ask me, unlike the
traditional film-based so-called hard dot. For example, take a 10% 150 lpi
AM "round" dot. Well, the shape of that dot is anything but nicely circular:
it is circular "in intention" but it has a highly irregular geometry, akin
to a circle scan with a too low resultion having the appearance of a
collection of tiny-itty-bitty pixels all bunched together, randomly sticking
out of the "main" shape in every direction. If that's what "state of the
art" in halftone screening mean, in current workflows, and I'm talking
Prinergy, Harlequin and Rampage here, then I say we've actually taken a step
backward in quality.
Has anybody ever tried or seen a CTP halftone at 3600 dpi? Never mind how
long more it takes to image each plate: do we gain anything in terms of
forming a sharper dot shape that way?
BTW, thank's for all those of you who generously responded here on this list
or who contacted me offlist regarding my informal prevalance of dot shape in
industry today survey. I'm indebted to you :-))
Roger Breton | Laval, Canada | email@hidden
http://pages.infinit.net/graxx
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden