Re: [Gimp-print-devel] Print plugin 3.0.6 bug report

[Stefan K. B. <sf...@co...>]

Robert L Krawitz wrote:
> 
>    Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 10:00:11 +0100
>    From: "Stefan K. Berg" <sf...@co...>
>    CC: gim...@li...
> 
>    Robert L Krawitz wrote:
> 
>    > Really.  That's very interesting.  Remind me again what you have --
>    > it's an 800, right?  In a way, this is good news; the only issue is
>    > whether some printers need the 5 and some need the 40.
> 
>    Yes, an 800.
> 
> Are you still having trouble printing in microweave?

I just did a test with my previously black test picture, and the answer is no!
It looks fine.

>    > None of those are correct.  Could you also try 64/4, 32/4, and 64/16?
>    > And if none of those look correct, 32/16 (although that strikes me as
>    > unlikely)?
> 
>    The alternatives 64/16 and 32/16 gave me a floating point exception
>    just after selecting the printer type and pressing OK. Stack dump
>    at the end of this message.
> 
> It turns out that the weave code can handle this, but there's other
> code that stores the separation as a 4-bit field.  No matter.
> 
>    None of the 64/4 or 32/4 looked good, but I've put them up at
> 
>    http://home.swipnet.se/consultron/scan3.jpg (56 kB) if they might give you
>    some information.
> 
> Could you also try 24,4, 24,6, 24,8, and 24,12, please?  And compare them (if
> possible) to microweave (720 or 360) for correct sizing?

I did, but found 24/1 to be the best looking so far (very small horizontal
stripes) and it looks just right in size compared to the output in microweave
720. All the other variations has been too large vertically. Talking strictly
proportionally, it would seem that 24/0 would be a great setting...

Pictures as always on http://home.swipnet.se/consultron/test4.jpg (87 kB). The
microweave version is the one at the bottom to the right.

I will use a better (non-indexed) test picture from now.