|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
In article <addnhf+306r@eGroups.com>, igorw2001 <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes >> >Also, in the 2 plus years that I have been on this and other >printer lists, I >have never heard of 'banding' for odd input >resolutions. > > >This is where I got it: > >1.http://home.att.net/~arwomack01/#printbanding : read his second >cause. > >2.http://www.lyson.com/includes/frames.html: Go "technical", >then "Tips", read point 2 about how to get "optimum print quality" >(OK, he doesn't mention banding, but he suggest that you get the best >quality when you "prepare your file at a resolution, which is an >exact fraction of the print resolution") > I have checked your references and can tell you that in both cases it is **OLD** advice and is no longer relevant with drivers fro the past 2-3 years which use the stochastic dither approach. In fact, I doubt that it ever was relevant for banding as such, although at one time it was certainly able to produce some image artefacts. -- Kennedy Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed; A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed. Python Philosophers - Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.