Xref: utzoo comp.fonts:2432 comp.periphs.printers:1140 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!pacbell.com!tandem!zorch!xanthian From: xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) Newsgroups: comp.fonts,comp.periphs.printers Subject: Re: Resolution enhancement technologies Message-ID: <1991May2.211014.5870@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> Date: 2 May 91 21:10:14 GMT References: <91120.110204U12570@uicvm.uic.edu> Organization: SF-Bay Public-Access Unix Lines: 25 I'd just like to add to Ed's excellent coverage that I interviewed (unsuccessfully) with a (to remain nameless) company that had an active project for a 1200dpi laser printer for office use. It's eighteen months later, and no announcement yet, so the problems of toner quality, memory chip quantity/prices/speeds, data transmission bottlenecks, onboard CPU processing speed, and market demand or lack thereof are presumably not yet all solved. From my own experience doing 800 dpi large format (E size) laser onto film, 1200 dpi seems a bit of overkill; existing printing inks in 1978 tended to blur all detail below about 600dpi in any case, so that whether your pixels were round or square, no stairstep remained along diagonal lines; wet inks wicked together to smooth the edges mechanically. I'd hazard a guess that even dry toner would do a similar jaggie removal wicking when it was heated to bond to the paper, in which case 1200 dpi of detail would not carry into the final document. In particular, a half-tone screen probably wouldn't behave as expected. Still, I'm willing to be surprised. For whatever extra value the above information might add to the discussion. Kent, the man from xanth.