May have to do with the Lightjet's paper exposure process. Jack --- John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 04:02:41PM -0800, Jack Davis wrote: > > 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 > > Depends on the model. I believe the original LightJet was 305ppi, > with a later version pushing this number up to 406ppi. > > (For the pedantic, I think the resolution was actually quoted > as 12 or 16 pixels/mm, rather than 305 or 406 ppi) > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never Miss an Email Stay connected with Yahoo! Mail on your mobile. Get started! http://mobile.yahoo.com/services?promote=mail -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
