From: Robert L K. <rl...@al...> - 2000-02-22 12:17:14
|
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 20:47:49 +0100 From: "Stefan K. Berg" <sf...@co...> CC: gim...@li... 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. OK, so I think I have that one nailed too. Other people had problems with indexed images, too. It wasn't entirely a problem with indexed images; it was a combination of a bug with indexed images (ignoring the density setting) and the dither routine (in very dark regions it was unstable). 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... Wow. What happens in high and highest quality mode, and with 1440? Is it much faster than microweave? How is the quality? It might be that the 800 can actually do microweave well. 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. -- Robert Krawitz <rl...@al...> http://www.tiac.net/users/rlk/ Tall Clubs International -- http://www.tall.org/ or 1-888-IM-TALL-2 Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- mail lp...@uu... Project lead for The Gimp Print -- http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net "Linux doesn't dictate how I work, I dictate how Linux works." --Eric Crampton |