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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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.