Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!nstn.ns.ca!news.cs.indiana.edu!samsung!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!mcsun!ukc!stl!dww
From: dww@stl.stc.co.uk (David Wright)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.fax
Subject: Re: Fine mode in Group III faxes
Keywords: fax, resolutions
Message-ID: <4202@stl.stc.co.uk>
Date: 10 Apr 91 08:19:20 GMT
References: <10335@pitt.UUCP> <1281@gammafax.gammalink.com>
Sender: news@stl.stc.co.uk
Organization: STC Technology Limited, London Road, Harlow, Essex, UK
Lines: 50
X-FAX: +44 279 432734

In the referenced article mikes@gammafax.UUCP (mike spann) writes:
#In article <10335@pitt.UUCP> jonathan@cs.pitt.edu (Jonathan Eunice) writes:
#>I read in the May, 1991 MacUser that Group 3 faxes have a Standard
#>resolution of 203x98 dpi, and a Fine resolution of 203x196 dpi.  The
#>sample shown (p. 107) makes Fine look *much better* than Standard.  Do
#>most standalone fax machines support the Fine resolution?  
#
#Sending a fax from a fax machine in fine resolution 'usually' requires the
#user to press a button on the fax machine before sending each fax. 
#... Most have standard resolution as the default, requiring the
#sender of the fax to want to spend twice as much to send the fax with higher
#resolution.

I don't think any of the people who use the FAX machine in our office use
any of the options, including 'fine'.   It's generally assumed that the
machine is automatic and that if your document needs to be sent in 'fine'
mode the machine will automatically decide that. I don't think it ever has :-)

Remember that most people don't want to know about anything more complicated
than ON/OFF and maybe dialling a telephone number - that's why FAX has taken
off in such a big way, whereas electronic mail and other more IT-intensive
communications systems have grown more slowly, outside of the technical
community at least.   This is very frustrating to those of us in the IT
industry who know how much 'better' such methods are - but in fact it's our
fault for failing to produce systems which are genuinely user friendly.

I cite as an example trying to persuade a non-profitmaking organisation I am
involved with to communicate with its area contacts by email (or at least
computer-based FAX) instead of FAX, so that press releases and artwork
examples can be edited and re-used rather than having to be re-typed/
redesigned locally.    The answer I got was "Of course that would be better
if we could do it, but most of the help we have in the office is from
volunteers who come in on a very ad-hoc basis and there's no way we can
provide such people with computer training - they can mostly use a FAX
machine though".

#Finally, CBF (Computer Based Fax) will look significantly better than any
#fax machine generated fax.

True.  Especially at 'fine' resolution.   Though personally I'm currently
using 'normal' again as the result is perfectly readable and the call time
(and thus cost) is less.    Which is why even those who know what the 'fine'
button actually does do not usually use it.    Roll on FAX on ISDN (one
day!) where the 64K data rate should make 'fine' cost only pennies more even
on long distance calls.

Regards,          "None shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity"
        David Wright             STL, London Road, Harlow, Essex  CM17 9NA, UK
dww@stl.stc.co.uk  <or> ...uunet!mcsun!ukc!stl!dww  <or>   FAX: +44 279 432734
<or> /g=David/s=Wright/org=STC Technology Ltd/prmd=STC plc/admd=Gold 400/co=GB