Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!rutgers!labrea!decwrl!sun!plaid!chuq
From: chuq%plaid@Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach)
Newsgroups: comp.text.desktop
Subject: Re: dumb vs. smart laser printers
Message-ID: <27886@sun.uucp>
Date: Mon, 14-Sep-87 13:20:32 EDT
Article-I.D.: sun.27886
Posted: Mon Sep 14 13:20:32 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 15-Sep-87 07:11:14 EDT
Sender: news@sun.uucp
Distribution: comp
Organization: Looking Glass Software Ltd. Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 58
Approved: desktop-request%plaid@sun.com

In article <27692@sun.uucp> Chuq writes:
ME>> most people don't need the capabilities of a 2megabyte, Postscript
ME>> driven laser printer.  It's slower and costs a lot more.
>I'll disagree with this rather strongly. One very important thing that dumb
>laser printers don't supply is the ability to move to a typesetter when you
>want to. Even excluding high resolution graphics, there are a LOT of graphic
>items that are used in a good design (dingbats, bars, boxes, grey backing
>plates, etc...). If you create them as bitmaps for a laserprinter, when you
>try to send that to a typesetter (assuming you can find one that supports
>the rest of the data) you still have low resolution bitmaps -- that look
>very out of place. 
>
	Moving to a typesetter is a useful ability, but a large
	propoprortion of desktop publishers are using their laser printers
	for the final output.

	Even then, most DTP software drives both the HP style printer and
	the PostScript printer.  TeX, TROFF, Ventura etc. all do this.
	That means you do your previewing on a cheaper, faster printer without
	Postscript, and then use the Postscript or Interpress output to
	drive the typesetter.

>On the other hand, if you put those graphic items together using Postscript
>and run them on a laserwriter, when you move the output to a Postscript
>typesetter, the resolution of those items increases to the natural
>resolution of the typesetter, making them look much cleaner and like they
>belong there.
	If you use a scanner, this doesn't help you.  If your clip-art
	is bitmapped, then the cheap printers are just as capable of
	printing it at 300 dpi as the expensive ones.  They only
	fail if you want a whole page of 300dpi graphics, and you
	usually don't

	I use my DTP system for manuals, and there the graphics are
	usually things like screen snapshots.  Postscript wouldn't help
	me here.
>The alternative for a dumb laser printer is to use it only for the text and
>paste in all of the graphic items by hand -- which removes most of the
>advantages of going to DTP technology in the first place.

	Dumb laser printers are fully capable of printing included
	graphics in 300dpi bitmaps.  If you aren't going to a typesetter
	later, this is all Postscript does, too.  The suggestion that
	most DTP is just previewing for real typesetting bothers me.
	I think it's not used that way by most people.

	If you *are* going to a real typesetter, then you usually don't
	want your graphics formed from digitized images anyway.  For
	the final master, you want to paste them in.  People who demand
	real typesetting of their text usually want original quality
	for their artwork.  It's only people who will accept 300dpi
	text that will usually accept digitized artwork.

Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
----------------------------------------
Submissions to:   desktop%plaid@sun.com -OR- sun!plaid!desktop
Administrivia to: desktop-request%plaid@sun.com -OR- sun!plaid!desktop-request
Paths:  {ihnp4,decwrl,hplabs,seismo,ucbvax}!sun