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

Re: Maximum 30,000 pixels?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 24 , Aug 13, 2002
      --- 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 2 of 24 , Aug 14, 2002
        > 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 3 of 24 , Aug 14, 2002
          > 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 4 of 24 , Aug 14, 2002
            > > 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 5 of 24 , Aug 14, 2002
              --- 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 6 of 24 , Aug 15, 2002
                --- 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 7 of 24 , Aug 15, 2002
                  > 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 8 of 24 , Aug 15, 2002
                    --- 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 9 of 24 , Sep 22, 2002
                      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 10 of 24 , Sep 22, 2002
                        > >
                        > > 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 11 of 24 , Sep 23, 2002
                          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.