Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [PPLetterpress] Re: Maximum 30,000 pixels?

Expand Messages
  • Gerald Lange
    Mike When you generate the PDF you would need to create a custom PDF style rather than selecting the printer style. And choose document page setup instead
    Message 1 of 24 , Aug 12, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Mike

      When you generate the PDF you would need to create a custom PDF style rather
      than selecting the "printer style." And choose "document page setup" "instead
      of "same as current printer." Though as I recall you can set up a special
      Acrobat printer style for such purposes. Been a while since I've had to do this.

      I normally do not send PDFs to the service bureau. I'd be interested in
      hearing of the successes/failures that others have encountered in this regard.

      At the Adobe site there are some documents that describe setting up high
      resolution PDFs (for professional applications or something), though you do
      have to poke around a bit.

      Gerald


      Michael T Metz wrote:
      >
      > What if one is sending a pdf to the platemaker? a pdf produced
      > with Pagemaker? Does one still need to set the Document Setup
      > printer resolution so high?
      >
      > Mike
      >
      > Gerald wrote:
      >
      > Though the final imagesetter needs to read your Pagemaker or Quark
      > document at 2560 or higher, and you DO need to set this as your
      > printing resolution in the page layout program, any line art that is
      > imported into that document only needs to be at 1200dpi (camera ready
      > quality) to avoid the bitmap jaggies.
      > ...
      >
    • Erik Desmyter
      ... length (or width) above 30,000 pixels (or 12.5 x 2400 dpi) ... line art tiff files in Photoshop at 16 x 24 inches and 1200 dpi and have never encountered
      Message 2 of 24 , Aug 13, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        >>....Adobe Photoshop did not allow in a TIFF file to increase
        length (or width) above 30,000 pixels (or 12.5" x 2400 dpi)

        >..........I don't understand why this should be so. I've worked with
        line art tiff files in Photoshop at 16 x 24 inches and 1200 dpi and
        have never encountered the limitations you are describing.

        I would guess the reason is 24 inch x 1200 dpi = 28800 what is less than the
        30000 pixels maximum that I encountered.

        Erik
      • Erik Desmyter
        ... 600 dpi. This scan is brought into Photoshop and I double the resolution to 1200dpi I guess you also do this because your scanner has a maximal optical
        Message 3 of 24 , Aug 13, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          > My usual procedure is to scan line art in grayscale at
          600 dpi. This scan is brought into Photoshop and I double the
          resolution to 1200dpi

          I guess you also do this because your scanner has a maximal optical
          resolution of 600dpi?
          I use an Epson 1640XL scanner that has an optical resolution of 1600dpi x
          3200dpi with A3 paperformat (16.5"x11.7") and I scan in line art at such
          high resolutions.

          My experience is that a lineart scan at 2400 dpi gives a better result than
          one at 1200 dpi that is afterwards doubled (or a 600 dpi x 4) in Photoshop.
          I do agree with all the comments about memory space, avoiding bitmap
          jaggies, won't see difference with the eye, losing more quality with all the
          other steps too, etc... but if the imagesetters or films are made at
          resolutions of 2400 or higher for quality reasons and you can go for that
          immediately in the scanning step then you have one step in the process that
          has nearly no loss of quality.

          Erik
        • bielerpr
          ... Actually, no. I need to be able to work with the image, drop out page material (foxing, show-through, etc), correct ink spread and errant presswork, and
          Message 4 of 24 , Aug 13, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In PPLetterpress@y..., "Erik Desmyter" <erik.desmyter@s...>
            wrote:
            > > My usual procedure is to scan line art in grayscale at
            > 600 dpi. This scan is brought into Photoshop and I double the
            > resolution to 1200dpi
            >
            > I guess you also do this because your scanner has a maximal optical
            > resolution of 600dpi?
            > I use an Epson 1640XL scanner that has an optical resolution of 1600dpi x
            > 3200dpi with A3 paperformat (16.5"x11.7") and I scan in line art at such
            > high resolutions.
            >
            > My experience is that a lineart scan at 2400 dpi gives a better result than
            > one at 1200 dpi that is afterwards doubled (or a 600 dpi x 4) in Photoshop.
            > I do agree with all the comments about memory space, avoiding bitmap
            > jaggies, won't see difference with the eye, losing more quality with all the
            > other steps too, etc... but if the imagesetters or films are made at
            > resolutions of 2400 or higher for quality reasons and you can go for that
            > immediately in the scanning step then you have one step in the process that
            > has nearly no loss of quality.
            >
            > Erik

            Actually, no. I need to be able to work with the image, drop out page
            material (foxing, show-through, etc), correct ink spread and errant
            presswork, and the like. In some cases, adjusting line widths to
            match other similar images. So I need to work in grayscale. These
            things are quite difficult to correct if you are working with a
            bitmap (b/w line art) image.

            The higher the resolution the more difficult it is to work with an
            image, especially if you might later need to use it as a halftone
            (which doesn't require much "information" at all ([2x lpi]). In most
            cases, you really don't need all the "data" that a higher resolution
            scan will bring in.

            I'm not working with color though so perhaps then you might?

            Perhaps because very few laser printers can run at 2400 there has
            been felt no need for it (in terms of images, and proofing). I really
            can't tell the difference between a 1200 and 2400 image at the
            printing (letterpress) end, except for type, which is rendered quite
            differently.

            Gerald
          • Mats Broberg
            ... Well, whether or not the eye can see the difference or not is not the issue. The reason you d want to scan with a resolution as high as possible is due to
            Message 5 of 24 , Aug 14, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              > because of them, and many others not mentioned here, there is
              > a point beyond which the naked eye will not be able to notice
              > the difference between 1200dpi and 2450dpi, for example, and
              > any effort to get "higher" quality will be a waste of time.

              Well, whether or not the eye can see the difference or not is not the
              issue. The reason you'd want to scan with a resolution as high as
              possible is due to the issue of loss of quality between the generations
              of the artwork - i.e. original artwork - scanning - imagesetting -
              platemaking - impression etc.

              Regards,
              Mats Broberg
              ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
              ARS IMPRIMIS PRESS
              Hauptvägen 102
              SE-123 58 Farsta — Sweden
              ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
              Telephone: +46 8 604 59 81
              http://www.arsimprimispress.com
              ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
            • Mats Broberg
              ... I always send high-end PDF files to the service bureau, and have had no problem whatsoever. However, it does require a custom *.joboptions file with no
              Message 6 of 24 , Aug 14, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                > I normally do not send PDFs to the service bureau. I'd be
                > interested in hearing of the successes/failures that others
                > have encountered in this regard.

                I always send high-end PDF files to the service bureau, and have had no
                problem whatsoever.

                However, it does require a custom *.joboptions file with no compression
                and complete inclusion of all typefaces.

                Regards,
                Mats Broberg
                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                ARS IMPRIMIS PRESS
                Hauptvägen 102
                SE-123 58 Farsta — Sweden
                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                Telephone: +46 8 604 59 81
                http://www.arsimprimispress.com
                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
              • Mats Broberg
                ... By re-sampling the resolution? Beware! Resampling the resolution in Photoshop - or any other software - is nothing else than having these software guess
                Message 7 of 24 , Aug 14, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  > > My usual procedure is to scan line art in grayscale at
                  > 600 dpi. This scan is brought into Photoshop and I double the
                  > resolution to 1200dpi

                  By re-sampling the resolution? Beware! Resampling the resolution in
                  Photoshop - or any other software - is nothing else than having these
                  software guess the statistically most plausible distribution of pixels.

                  It is one thing to scan with an optical resolution of 600 dpi and then
                  double the resolution in Photoshop to 1200 dpi, and a completely
                  different thing to scan with an optical resolution of 1200 dpi in the
                  first place.

                  Regards,
                  Mats Broberg
                  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                  ARS IMPRIMIS PRESS
                  Hauptvägen 102
                  SE-123 58 Farsta — Sweden
                  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                  Telephone: +46 8 604 59 81
                  http://www.arsimprimispress.com
                  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                • bielerpr
                  ... Mats I d certainly agree with what you have to say here, however, I believe Katie s point in making this statement is quite valid. It is the letterpress
                  Message 8 of 24 , Aug 14, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In PPLetterpress@y..., "Mats Broberg" <mats.broberg@a...> wrote:
                    > > because of them, and many others not mentioned here, there is
                    > > a point beyond which the naked eye will not be able to notice
                    > > the difference between 1200dpi and 2450dpi, for example, and
                    > > any effort to get "higher" quality will be a waste of time.
                    >
                    > Well, whether or not the eye can see the difference or not is not the
                    > issue. The reason you'd want to scan with a resolution as high as
                    > possible is due to the issue of loss of quality between the generations
                    > of the artwork - i.e. original artwork - scanning - imagesetting -
                    > platemaking - impression etc.
                    >
                    > Regards,
                    > Mats Broberg

                    Mats

                    I'd certainly agree with what you have to say here, however, I
                    believe Katie's point in making this statement is quite valid. It is
                    the letterpress printed page that must be kept in mind as we are
                    working through this process. It has its own requirements that have
                    nothing to do with digital technology. To completely rely on
                    advancing technology does to some extent remove us from our purpose
                    if we do not at the same time retain our focus. A 2400dpi image (and
                    the ability to generate it) is not better than a 1200dpi image if it
                    wrongly leads us to not consider other possibilities. It is not only
                    useful to have the right tools (or, in the context of this thread,
                    should I say best, or better than?), it is useful to know how to use
                    tools.

                    A friend of mine had to give a digital demonstration of page layout
                    to a group and the system failed. She immediately dragged out pencil
                    and paper and demonstrated page layout. Quite frankly, I doubt many
                    graphic desigers today could do that.

                    Gerald
                  • bielerpr
                    ... Hi again I suspect you are quite right about this, and I d agree, but in regard to re-sampling, I have not discerned a loss of detail. Though I m not
                    Message 9 of 24 , Aug 15, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In PPLetterpress@y..., "Mats Broberg" <mats.broberg@a...> wrote:
                      > > > My usual procedure is to scan line art in grayscale at
                      > > 600 dpi. This scan is brought into Photoshop and I double the
                      > > resolution to 1200dpi
                      >
                      > By re-sampling the resolution? Beware! Resampling the resolution in
                      > Photoshop - or any other software - is nothing else than having these
                      > software guess the statistically most plausible distribution of pixels.
                      >
                      > It is one thing to scan with an optical resolution of 600 dpi and then
                      > double the resolution in Photoshop to 1200 dpi, and a completely
                      > different thing to scan with an optical resolution of 1200 dpi in the
                      > first place.
                      >
                      > Regards,
                      > Mats Broberg


                      Hi again

                      I suspect you are quite right about this, and I'd agree, but in
                      regard to re-sampling, I have not discerned a loss of detail. Though
                      I'm not certain,

                      for the sake of argument,

                      why we should trust (re: "Beware!") software at higher dpi than we would
                      at lower dpi. Why should we trust, or not trust, any of it? Ten years from
                      now should we have not trusted 2400dpi? I am really not trying to act the
                      part of the Luddite here but quite frankly, digital technology went beyond
                      our basic needs about a half a decade ago.

                      Gerald
                    • Mats Broberg
                      ... Oh come on, Gerald! You spend hours in front of the monitor writing and posting e-mails about the most minuscule details of finer letterpress typography -
                      Message 10 of 24 , Aug 15, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        > why we should trust (re: "Beware!") software at higher dpi
                        > than we would
                        > at lower dpi. Why should we trust, or not trust, any of it?
                        > Ten years from
                        > now should we have not trusted 2400dpi? I am really not
                        > trying to act the
                        > part of the Luddite here but quite frankly, digital
                        > technology went beyond
                        > our basic needs about a half a decade ago.

                        Oh come on, Gerald!

                        You spend hours in front of the monitor writing and posting e-mails
                        about the most minuscule details of finer letterpress typography - such
                        as ink traps and tweaking typefaces and artwork with regards to ink
                        squeeze - and they you say that digital technology went BEYOND our basic
                        needs 50 years ago?

                        Regards,
                        Mats Broberg
                        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                        ARS IMPRIMIS PRESS
                        Hauptvägen 102
                        SE-123 58 Farsta — Sweden
                        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                        Telephone: +46 8 604 59 81
                        http://www.arsimprimispress.com
                        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                      • bielerpr
                        ... Mats A decade is a period of ten years. Gerald
                        Message 11 of 24 , Aug 15, 2002
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In PPLetterpress@y..., "Mats Broberg" <mats.broberg@a...> wrote:
                          > > why we should trust (re: "Beware!") software at higher dpi
                          > > than we would
                          > > at lower dpi. Why should we trust, or not trust, any of it?
                          > > Ten years from
                          > > now should we have not trusted 2400dpi? I am really not
                          > > trying to act the
                          > > part of the Luddite here but quite frankly, digital
                          > > technology went beyond
                          > > our basic needs about a half a decade ago.
                          >
                          > Oh come on, Gerald!
                          >
                          > You spend hours in front of the monitor writing and posting e-mails
                          > about the most minuscule details of finer letterpress typography - such
                          > as ink traps and tweaking typefaces and artwork with regards to ink
                          > squeeze - and they you say that digital technology went BEYOND our basic
                          > needs 50 years ago?
                          >
                          > Regards,
                          > Mats Broberg


                          Mats

                          A decade is a period of ten years.

                          Gerald
                        • ANDREAS PRIVE
                          ... http://www.danburkholder.com/Pages/misc_pages/digital_neg_faq.htm#GeneralNeg Questions Andreas Schweizer 8, rue de la Puiserande 1205 Genève- Switzerland
                          Message 12 of 24 , Sep 22, 2002
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Le 12.8.2002 19:15, « Gerald Lange » <bieler@...> a écrit :

                            > Mike
                            >
                            > When you generate the PDF you would need to create a custom PDF style rather
                            > than selecting the "printer style." And choose "document page setup" "instead
                            > of "same as current printer." Though as I recall you can set up a special
                            > Acrobat printer style for such purposes. Been a while since I've had to do
                            > this.
                            >
                            > I normally do not send PDFs to the service bureau. I'd be interested in
                            > hearing of the successes/failures that others have encountered in this regard.
                            >
                            > At the Adobe site there are some documents that describe setting up high
                            > resolution PDFs (for professional applications or something), though you do
                            > have to poke around a bit.
                            >
                            > Gerald
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Here an information about 30¹000 Photoshop limitation
                            >
                            >
                            > What Happened to Icefields Software?
                            >
                            >
                            > Many have written about the disappearance of Isis Corporation and their
                            > wonderful Icefields stochastic screening software. One of Icefields¹
                            > advantages was it¹s ability to bypass Photoshop¹s 30,000 pixel limit (in
                            > either width or height) that can become an issue when converting grayscale
                            > images to bitmaps at 1,200 or more pixels/inch. Isis hopes to rise like the
                            > Phoenix in the future so they don¹t want older versions of their software
                            > distributed for free.
                            >
                            > In the mean time, you might investigate Rastus Software as a stochastic
                            > screening alternative:
                            http://www.danburkholder.com/Pages/misc_pages/digital_neg_faq.htm#GeneralNeg
                            Questions

                            Andreas Schweizer
                            8, rue de la Puiserande
                            1205 Genève- Switzerland
                            T: + 41 22 320 56 28
                            F: + 41 22 320 56 28
                            P: + 41 79 304 14 64
                            URL: http://www.letterpress.ch
                            Work mail: andreas.schweizer@...
                            Private mail: andreasschweizer@...




                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • Gerald Lange
                            ... Andreas Thanks for this. Someone had mentioned Icefields early on and I used it for a just a short while but then I had a horrible system crash and it did
                            Message 13 of 24 , Sep 22, 2002
                            • 0 Attachment
                              > >
                              > > What Happened to Icefields Software?
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > Many have written about the disappearance of Isis Corporation and their
                              > > wonderful Icefields stochastic screening software. One of Icefields1
                              > > advantages was it1s ability to bypass Photoshop1s 30,000 pixel limit (in
                              > > either width or height) that can become an issue when converting grayscale
                              > > images to bitmaps at 1,200 or more pixels/inch. Isis hopes to rise like the
                              > > Phoenix in the future so they don1t want older versions of their software
                              > > distributed for free.
                              > >
                              > > In the mean time, you might investigate Rastus Software as a stochastic
                              > > screening alternative:
                              > http://www.danburkholder.com/Pages/misc_pages/digital_neg_faq.htm#GeneralNeg
                              > Questions
                              >
                              > Andreas Schweizer

                              Andreas

                              Thanks for this. Someone had mentioned Icefields early on and I used
                              it for a just a short while but then I had a horrible system crash
                              and it did not survive. Even when reinstalled. Just sort of sits
                              there upon opening. Some remnant bugger in the the system file gone
                              bad, won't copy over, and I just have't been able to identify it.
                              Have the same problem with Ofoto scanning software. That was great
                              stuff, and I dearly miss it. Another company long gone.

                              I'll check out the Rastus.

                              All best

                              Gerald
                            • The Indian Hill Press
                              I downloaded the Rastus Demo yesterday and gave it a quick try. It s easy to use, but my cursory tests yielded an odd moire-like pattern in the dots, a subtle
                              Message 14 of 24 , Sep 23, 2002
                              • 0 Attachment
                                I downloaded the Rastus Demo yesterday and gave it a quick try.

                                It's easy to use, but my cursory tests yielded an odd moire-like
                                pattern in the dots, a subtle but noticeable succession of
                                checker-like dark and light areas throughout the image, most evident
                                at high resolutions or when viewed from a distance. I'd be curious to
                                know if anyone else has tried this, and what their experience has
                                been.

                                As an alternative, does anyone have a favorite "mezzotint" plug-in
                                for Photoshop?

                                Dan Waters
                                Indian Hill Press

                                > > >
                                > > > What Happened to Icefields Software?
                                > > >
                                > > >
                                > > > Many have written about the disappearance of Isis Corporation and their
                                > > > wonderful Icefields stochastic screening software. One of Icefields1
                                > > > advantages was it1s ability to bypass Photoshop1s 30,000 pixel limit (in
                                > > > either width or height) that can become an issue when
                                >converting grayscale
                                > > > images to bitmaps at 1,200 or more pixels/inch. Isis hopes to
                                >rise like the
                                > > > Phoenix in the future so they don1t want older versions of their software
                                > > > distributed for free.
                                > > >
                                > > > In the mean time, you might investigate Rastus Software as a stochastic
                                > > > screening alternative:
                                > >
                                >http://www.danburkholder.com/Pages/misc_pages/digital_neg_faq.htm#Gene
                                >ralNeg
                                > > Questions
                                > >
                                > > Andreas Schweizer
                                >
                                >Andreas
                                >
                                >Thanks for this. Someone had mentioned Icefields early on and I used
                                >it for a just a short while but then I had a horrible system crash
                                >and it did not survive. Even when reinstalled. Just sort of sits
                                >there upon opening. Some remnant bugger in the the system file gone
                                >bad, won't copy over, and I just have't been able to identify it.
                                >Have the same problem with Ofoto scanning software. That was great
                                >stuff, and I dearly miss it. Another company long gone.
                                >
                                >I'll check out the Rastus.
                                >
                                >All best
                                >
                                >Gerald
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >• To respond to a post or post a message to the membership:
                                >PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com
                                >• Encountering problems? contact:
                                >PPLetterpress-owner@yahoogroups.com
                                >• To unsubscribe:
                                >PPLetterpress-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                >
                                >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.