Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/12/08
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]- --On Sunday, December 8, 2002 7:36 PM -0500 Austin Franklin <darkroom@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > Hi Jim, > >> My 20x24 & 30x40 optical prints are sharper (they're dead sharp!) >> than the >> same film, scanned on a Tango drum scanner (300mb files), and >> printed on a >> LightJet printer. > > The LightJet prints are spectacular. The issue I have with the LightJet > is it's only 200 PPI output, though it is "continuous" tone. The Piezo > output can take advantage of up to 720 PPI to the printer, so for B&W, > I'd still say the Piezo output is going to be sharper than the LightJet. > > Now, as far as comparing chemical prints to inkjet, well, I don't believe > that chemical prints can sustain the resolution of an inkjet. I did know > the exact data at one time, but I don't recall it off the top of my head, > but I seem to remember that chemical prints can sustain much usable > resolution over 160 lines/inch (80 lp/inch). Does anyone have any links > to "factual" information on the sustainable resolution of photochemical > paper? The other issue with respect to optical enlargers versus the LightJet is that the resolution of the traditional enlarger print will obviously decrease as one increases the enlargement, while the LightJet maintains a constant resolution regardless of the size of the print. It follows, therefore, that the LightJet advantage increases as one makes larger and larger prints. There are several LightJet models, and I don't actually know what maximum size is possible. - -- Rolfe Tessem rolfe@ldp.com Lucky Duck Productions, Inc. - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html