On Fri, 2006-10-20 at 19:56 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi, Yes you can post it to the list, I was not sure if attachments were > allowed so that is why I didn't.
Oh yeah, I didn't think about the screenshots... :) > I did some testing and I found out that I did have a bug in my code that > produced part of the problem. But after correcting it I still have the > other part of the problem. The screenshots speak for themselves. The last > one (printed.jpg) is a picture of the actual print out I took with my > digital camera. > > I get the same result with both my IV program and Mozilla, so I know it's > somewhere between X Print and my Deskjet 870 now. When I use GIMP to print > the same image I get the full quality so I know GIMP's print plugin has it > right (but it dosen't use X Print). > > Any suggestions on what I should look into? I think I'm still using X11 R6. > The middle one displaying gv, is that viewing the Xprint output postscript file on screen? If so, that suggests Xprint is doing the right thing, at least for a certain value of "right". If that's the case, then I might suggest the error is in the physical printing subsystem, that is the system which Xprint invokes to actually process and send the image to file. That is, whatever the lp or lpr command uses to process postscript files. If your printer is not a postscript printer (which I believe is the case with the Deskjets) then lp will probably preprocess a postscript file using ghostscript (gs). You could try printing the original file using gs (the command line options will no doubt be rather fiddly) and see if it's just as bad as the Xprint result. Or you could use gimp to save the original file to postscript and then print that with lp (easier than gs) rather than using gimp's print plugin. If the problem is in lp/gs preprocessing, the reason you don't see the problem from gimp is that the gimp's print plugin does its own processing, and it seems to be somewhat cleverer about it (I'm not sure why gs don't just use the same code, if it's better, but I've noticed before with my own B&W printer that gimp does it better). On the same note, to further exonerate Xprint, you could load the Xprint output postscript file into gimp, and then print using gimp's print driver. I'm guessing it will give you the correct result, same as printing the original via gimp. If you prove gs preprocessing to be the problem, you could check your gs version or the print driver (for CUPS?) you're using (look for an update at linuxprinting.org)? If on the other hand none of this helps, then it might be a good idea to post the Xprint output postscript file. I could find a colour printer to try it on. Another last possibility is to activate the Xprint PCL driver, if the Deskjet model supports PCL (I'm not sure if it does), and try it rather than the postscript one. But I've never tried that option myself, I only know it exists! By the way, which X11R6 are you using? Drew _______________________________________________ Xprint mailing list [email protected] http://mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/xprint
