ray@othervax.UUCP (Raymond D. Dunn) (12/05/85)
Fantastic! Other than the "BALONEY" comment (and to a certain extent my response to it - sorry), the content to noise/flame level in this discussion is, for USENET, at the perfect level. People are even admitting their vested-interest biases for heaven's sake! Dick Dunn's response in article <280@opus.UUCP> covers virtually all the bases. He said much that I left unsaid or wanted to respond with (I only disagree with some small nuances - you wouldn't be interested. The product development he is associated with sounds *exactly* like the one my group tried to get off the ground between 1979 and 1981 (it was canned, but that's another story - anyone interested in reams of un-used software (:-)). There is one point I feel should be added to the discussion however, in article <903@osu-eddie.UUCP> Clayton M. Elwell says: >In this argument about the suitability of embedded-command vs. WYSIWYG and >laser printer vs. photocomposer, several distinct issues seem to have >become confused. >... >As to output devices, laser printers are very nice toys. They allow >quite reasonable-looking output on a demand basis at a fairly low cost. >If a photocopy is good enough quality.... ..... a laser >printer is usually the right solution. For professional printing, >however, there is no substitute for a photocomposer. The differences between laser printers and photo-typesetters (PTS's), are small, and getting less. In 1980 Mergenthaler Linotype introduced a laser PTS at 720dpi which produced camera ready copy (i.e. positive) and used a xerographic process similar to today's laser printers (but took 6 minutes per page!!). 720dpi (1/100th point resolution) is regarded as being at the bottom of acceptable typesetter resolution. I am not acquainted with the currently available laser typesetter offerings. At Comdex, several suppliers announced the imminent launch of 600dpi printers (getting close!). I personally know of at least one laser printer in final development (to sell into the PTS's market) which produces 120 pages/minute at 600dpi, with a 1200dpi version in early development (calculate the available time for computing each dot!). These use full PTS like digitised fonts, and can generate a wide range of point sizes, "electronic" italic, character rotation etc etc from the basic fonts. Online fonts are only limited by the configuration chosen. Admittedly these are *expen$ive*, as they require very fast parallel-processing bit-sliced architectures. Combine this with the fact that "laser plate makers" have been around for at least 6 years (they produce the litho printing plates for large-run jobs - many newspaper etc systems go straight to plate maker without any photographic process involved). It seems that the two output methods will merge very quickly, except for specialised applications. BTW, someone implied that the graphics arts industry was [paraphrased] "just learning how to deal with computers". This is demonstratably false I believe. PTS's (paper-tape in, wet-process developed "galley" output), and front-end systems to drive them (often off-line), go back to the sixties. What the graphics arts industries *is* learning to deal with, is the fact that computer solutions are removing their customer base, and whereas in the past the computer industry provided them with highly tailored front-end systems to suit their application, they are now often being thrown to the wolves with general purpose machines - there's another interesting subject for discussion. Ray Dunn. ..philabs!micomvax!othervax!ray Disclaimer again: I have no current commercial vested interest in the graphic arts industry, nor does my direct employer, although other divisions of Philips *do* make laser printers, and probably somewhere there is a division which.....
ray@othervax.UUCP (Raymond D. Dunn) (12/07/85)
In article <735@othervax.UUCP> I wrote: >720dpi (1/100th point resolution) .... Typo! - 72 points to the inch, i.e. 1/10th point resolution! Ray Dunn. ..philabs!micomvax!othervax!ray