jbn@glacier.STANFORD.EDU (John B. Nagle) (10/19/88)
$2000 is not a particularly good price for a laser printer. The going rate for HP LaserJet type machines is around $1700. There are a number of dumb laser printers, with a bus interface to PC-type machines and processing done by the PC cpu, in the same price range. The slight increase in resolution (from 300 to 400 dpi) is not spectacular; there are already 600dpi machines out. Yes, it's cheap for a PostScript printer, but it isn't a PostScript printer, it's a dumb printer with a PostScript emulator in the host. No big deal here. John Nagle
dyer@arktouros.MIT.EDU (Steve Dyer) (10/19/88)
In article <17784@glacier.STANFORD.EDU> jbn@glacier.UUCP (John B. Nagle) writes: >$2000 is not a particularly good price for a laser printer. The slight >increase in resolution (from 300 to 400 dpi) is not spectacular; there are >already 600dpi machines out. Yes, it's cheap for a PostScript printer, but >it isn't a PostScript printer, it's a dumb printer with a PostScript emulator >in the host. No big deal here. I don't understand these sentiments. 400 dpi is 77% greater resolution than 300 dpi; this is slight? If the NeXT printer actually achieves this at its price, it's impressive. The only other machine I know of with this resolution is from Agfa/Compugraphic and it's many times more expensive. The 600dpi machines that I know of are comparable or even more expensive (> $10K). I would think that having a fast Postscript interpreter in the host with a fast pipe to a dumb laser printer is far preferable to a slow Postscript interpreter sitting on the other end of a 9600 baud serial line. I think some people are much too quick to fire arrows into the backs of the NeXT designers. The tradeoffs are, at least, understandable, and I think defensible. --- Steve Dyer dyer@arktouros.MIT.EDU dyer@spdcc.COM aka {harvard,husc6,ima,bbn,m2c,mipseast}!spdcc!dyer
lange@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Trent Lange) (10/19/88)
In article <17784@glacier.STANFORD.EDU> jbn@glacier.UUCP (John B. Nagle) writes: > > $2000 is not a particularly good price for a laser printer. The going >rate for HP LaserJet type machines is around $1700. There are a number of >dumb laser printers, with a bus interface to PC-type machines and processing >done by the PC cpu, in the same price range. The slight increase in >resolution (from 300 to 400 dpi) is not spectacular; there are already 600dpi >machines out. An increase from 300 dpi to 400 dpi is a nearly 80 percent increase in actual resolution, which I call more than slight. There are indeed 600 dpi printers out there, but for nothing even *close* to $2000. >Yes, it's cheap for a PostScript printer, but it isn't a >PostScript printer, it's a dumb printer with a PostScript emulator in the >host. No big deal here. True, but that's why its so cheap, and that's the beauty of it. NeXT already has Display Postscript, so why pay Adobe for an extra license for the printer? Try putting a HP LaserJet on a Mac or something else, and see whether you can get Postscript output. > John Nagle - Trent Lange ************************************************************************ * UCLA: The fifth best country in the Olympics. * ************************************************************************
debra@alice.UUCP (Paul De Bra) (10/20/88)
In article <7542@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> dyer@arktouros.MIT.EDU (Steve Dyer) writes: >In article <17784@glacier.STANFORD.EDU> jbn@glacier.UUCP (John B. Nagle) writes: >>$2000 is not a particularly good price for a laser printer. The slight >>increase in resolution (from 300 to 400 dpi) is not spectacular; ... > >I don't understand these sentiments. 400 dpi is 77% greater resolution than >300 dpi; this is slight?... I fully agree. A have seen results for the same postscript input, printed on the Agfa 400dpi and on an Apple Laserwriter, and the Agfa was A LOT better. 400 dpi is much better than 300dpi. Though I too want to see the NeXT printer first, cause it still uses the Canon engine everyone else only produced 300dpi printer with, doesn't it? Paul. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- |debra@research.att.com | uunet!research!debra | att!grumpy!debra | -------------------------------------------------------------------------
malik@ut-emx.UUCP (Nadeem Malik) (10/21/88)
In article <16961@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> lange@cs.ucla.edu (Trent Lange) writes: > >An increase from 300 dpi to 400 dpi is a nearly 80 percent increase in actual ^^^^ >resolution, which I call more than slight. There are indeed 600 dpi printers Actually it is a 33% increase, but it is still quite significant. Nadeem Malik malik@emx.utexas.edu
dyer@arktouros.MIT.EDU (Steve Dyer) (10/21/88)
In article <7099@ut-emx.UUCP> malik@emx.UUCP (Nadeem Malik) writes: >In article <16961@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> lange@cs.ucla.edu (Trent Lange) writes: >>An increase from 300 dpi to 400 dpi is a nearly 80 percent increase in actual >>resolution, which I call more than slight. There are indeed 600 dpi printers > >Actually it is a 33% increase, but it is still quite significant. If I had a nickel for every comment like this from these "new mathematicians" which I've got in the past few days, I'd have enough to buy my first NeXT machine. Get it folks: (400^2)/(300^2) is roughly 177/100, or a 77% increase. Laser printers operate in two dimensions. --- Steve Dyer dyer@arktouros.MIT.EDU dyer@spdcc.COM aka {harvard,husc6,ima,bbn,m2c,mipseast}!spdcc!dyer
spolsky-joel@CS.YALE.EDU (Joel Spolsky) (10/21/88)
In article <7099@ut-emx.UUCP> malik@emx.UUCP (Nadeem Malik) writes: | In article <16961@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> lange@cs.ucla.edu (Trent Lange) writes: | | | | An increase from 300 dpi to 400 dpi is a nearly 80 percent | | increase in actual resolution, which I call more than slight. | | Actually it is a 33% increase, but it is still quite significant. No, Trent was right. 300 dpi = 90000 dpi^2 400 dpi = 160000 dpi^2 ------ 77.7778% increase +----------------+---------------------------------------------------+ | Joel Spolsky | bitnet: spolsky@yalecs uucp: ...!yale!spolsky | | | arpa: spolsky@yale.edu voicenet: 203-436-1483 | +----------------+---------------------------------------------------+ #include <disclaimer.h>
steve@violet.berkeley.edu (Steve Goldfield) (10/21/88)
In article <7099@ut-emx.UUCP> malik@emx.UUCP (Nadeem Malik) writes: #>In article <16961@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> lange@cs.ucla.edu (Trent Lange) writes: #>>An increase from 300 dpi to 400 dpi is a nearly 80 percent increase in actual #> ^^^^ #>>resolution, which I call more than slight. There are indeed 600 dpi printers #> #>Actually it is a 33% increase, but it is still quite significant. #> #> #>Nadeem Malik #>malik@emx.utexas.edu I'm sure you'll be deluged with the observation that paper is two-dimensional while dots per inch is one-dimensional. So 16/9, or 1.777777..., is the ratio of possible dots which corresponds to what is being called resolution (not precisely the same as the way the term is used in physics perhaps).
debra@alice.UUCP (Paul De Bra) (10/21/88)
In article <7099@ut-emx.UUCP> malik@emx.UUCP (Nadeem Malik) writes: >In article <16961@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> lange@cs.ucla.edu (Trent Lange) writes: >>An increase from 300 dpi to 400 dpi is a nearly 80 percent increase in actual >>resolution, which I call more than slight. There are indeed 600 dpi printers > >Actually it is a 33% increase, but it is still quite significant. > >Nadeem Malik Forgotten that output is 2 dimensional? 400x400 compared to 300x300 is almost a 78% increase in number of dots per square inch. It is really this "square" number that matters. Some people will certainly remember that 200dpi printers produced really awful output, whereas 300dpi looks rather nice, certainly more than a 50% improvement. Paul. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- |debra@research.att.com | uunet!research!debra | att!grumpy!debra | -------------------------------------------------------------------------
swilson%thetone@Sun.COM (Scott Wilson) (10/21/88)
In article <40852@yale-celray.yale.UUCP> spolsky-joel@CS.YALE.EDU (Joel Spolsky) writes: >In article <7099@ut-emx.UUCP> malik@emx.UUCP (Nadeem Malik) writes: >| In article <16961@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> lange@cs.ucla.edu (Trent Lange) writes: >| | >| | An increase from 300 dpi to 400 dpi is a nearly 80 percent >| | increase in actual resolution, which I call more than slight. >| >| Actually it is a 33% increase, but it is still quite significant. > >No, Trent was right. 300 dpi = 90000 dpi^2 > 400 dpi = 160000 dpi^2 > ------ > 77.7778% increase In an attempt to be precise I think it would be more correct to say that 300 dpi to 400 dpi represents a ~77% percent increase in pixel density (i.e., the number of pixels per unit area). Whether or not a percent increase in pixel density is equivalent to the same percent increase in resolution is a matter of definition. If you were, for instance, to define resolution as the thickness of the smallest line that could be represented on the page then 300 dpi to 400 dpi is a 33% increase in resolution. Does anyone know if there are standard definitions of resolution for CS or physics? Maybe we need to call one flavor "linear resolution." -- Scott Wilson arpa: swilson@sun.com Sun Microsystems uucp: ...!sun!swilson Mt. View, CA
leech@tlab1.cs.unc.edu (Jonathan Leech) (10/21/88)
In article <7590@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> dyer@arktouros.MIT.EDU (Steve Dyer) writes: >In article <7099@ut-emx.UUCP> malik@emx.UUCP (Nadeem Malik) writes: >>Actually it is a 33% increase, but it is still quite significant. > >If I had a nickel for every comment like this from these "new mathematicians" >which I've got in the past few days, I'd have enough to buy my first NeXT >machine. > >Get it folks: (400^2)/(300^2) is roughly 177/100, or a 77% increase. >Laser printers operate in two dimensions. Get it yourself first - Mr. Malik is correct, at least in the terminology used in image processing & vision(1), computer graphics(2), and planetary imaging(3). Line pair separation and visual angle subtended by the smallest resolvable feature (not SOLID angle) are the usual measures. Don't get on your high horse so quickly. [1] Levine, Vision in Man and Machine [2] Foley & Van Dam, Fundamentals of Interactive Computer Graphics [3] Private communication, mostly planetary science classes at Caltech. Followups to comp.graphics, please. -- Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu) __@/ ``Are there any more questions, besides the ones from the liberal communists?'' - George Uribe, natl. director of "Students For America"
dorn@fabscal.UUCP (Alan Dorn Hetzel) (10/22/88)
Actually, depending on how you measure it, the resolution of the 400dpi
laser printer is either:
400/300 times greater (33% improved)
Or in terms of pixels per square inch:
160,000/90,000 times greater (about 78% improved)
Dorn
gatech.edu!fabscal!dornrsk@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Rich Kulawiec) (10/22/88)
In article <7099@ut-emx.UUCP> malik@emx.UUCP (Nadeem Malik) writes: >In article <16961@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> lange@cs.ucla.edu (Trent Lange) writes: >>An increase from 300 dpi to 400 dpi is a nearly 80 percent increase in actual >>resolution, which I call more than slight. There are indeed 600 dpi printers > >Actually it is a 33% increase, but it is still quite significant. No, the original author (Trent) was correct; resolution is measured in dots (or pixels) per square area, and thus: old: 300 * 300 = 90000 new: 400 * 400 = 160000 80 % of 90000 is 72000; 90000 + 72000 =~ 160000. Rich
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (10/25/88)
In article <7542@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> dyer@arktouros.MIT.EDU (Steve Dyer) writes: >I don't understand these sentiments. 400 dpi is 77% greater resolution than >300 dpi; this is slight? ... For most people, and for most purposes, 300 dpi is already adequate. It's not at all clear that the jump to 400 will mean a lot to most customers. -- The dream *IS* alive... | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology but not at NASA. |uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (10/26/88)
In article <16961@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> lange@cs.ucla.edu (Trent Lange) writes: >An increase from 300 dpi to 400 dpi is a nearly 80 percent increase in actual >resolution, which I call more than slight... It depends. The real question is not how many more dots there are per inch, or per square inch, but how much better the output looks, other things being equal (which they often are not in comparing different printers). Last I heard, perceived output quality is *not* a linear function of resolution. -- The dream *IS* alive... | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology but not at NASA. |uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
casseres@Apple.COM (David Casseres) (10/26/88)
In article <7590@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> dyer@arktouros.MIT.EDU (Steve Dyer) writes: >Get it folks: (400^2)/(300^2) is roughly 177/100, or a 77% increase. >Laser printers operate in two dimensions. Get it, Steve: "resolution" (really dot density) is a linear measure. It's the number of dots you get along a line of specific length. 400 dpi is a 33% increase over 300 dpi. If you want to talk about the data volume for a given area, that's a 78% increase from 90000 dots/square inch to 160000 dots/square inch. But that is neither resolution nor dot density, now is it? Why hell, if you stacked the printed sheets one inch high and figure each sheet is 1/100th inch thick, you could figure out the cubic data volume... David Casseres
cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (10/27/88)
In article <1988Oct24.225911.21957@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > In article <7542@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> dyer@arktouros.MIT.EDU (Steve Dyer) writes: > >I don't understand these sentiments. 400 dpi is 77% greater resolution than > >300 dpi; this is slight? ... > > For most people, and for most purposes, 300 dpi is already adequate. It's > not at all clear that the jump to 400 will mean a lot to most customers. > -- To the NeXT customer base (educational institutions) the difference between 300 dpi and 400 dpi is the difference between something that is good enough to offset print without embarrassment, and that which is not (at least for small press runs). My publisher is considering going directly to print from 300 dpi masters, and I can honestly say that I wish something a little higher resolution were available without having to go the cost of real typesetting. -- Clayton E. Cramer ..!ames!pyramid!kontron!optilin!cramer
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (10/28/88)
In article <599@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >To the NeXT customer base (educational institutions) the difference >between 300 dpi and 400 dpi is the difference between something that >is good enough to offset print without embarrassment, and that which >is not (at least for small press runs)... Gee, I dunno, we're an educational institution and we print things from 300 dpi masters. Not when we're really concerned about quality, of course, but an awful lot of the printing that goes on is for things where 300 dpi is just fine. (For that matter, once upon a time we did a substantial amount of printing from 200 dpi masters.) And when we do want quality, we're serious about it -- I'm not at all sure that the jump from 300 to 400 would be adequate. (I haven't seen much 400 stuff, so I can't be sure.) I think you greatly underestimate the volume of non-quality-critical printing that is done by educational institutions, and somewhat overestimate the benefits of a modest jump in resolution. -- The dream *IS* alive... | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology but not at NASA. |uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu