In the past I had a bunch of Lightjet prints made 'til the lab started using a Lambda. They explained, "...while the print isn't quite as sharp as a Lightjet, it's faster and, therefore, cheaper in terms of operator time". I'm sure I mentioned it at least once on this list, but the Lightjet prints I was able to compare with other optical and inkjet prints, were sharper under close scrutiny with the unaided eye. Resolution??
Jack --- William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: OT: Pogue debunks the megapixel myth. Somewhat > > > > You're probably right, Cotty. But I think the Durst Lambda is > reasonably > > high res. I imagine that what Pogue means is that the files were > sized at > > 400 DPI for printing. I suspect the printer prints at much higher > res than > > that. But it is a laser printer that's designed for pro labs. I > don't know > > how it compares to the best inkjets in terms of detail and > resolution. > > Perhaps Wheatfield knows. > > The Lambda, providing it is being run at it's highest resolution, is > 400 > PPI, and runs on the fly pixel interpolation. > This means it doesn't matter what you feed it, it will output 400 > PPI. > The wide body inkjets that I am aware of are 360 dpi native > resolution. I > wouldn't think the unaided eye will see a difference between the two > for > resolution. > > William Robb > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Don't pick lemons. See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos. http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
