Laser vs inkjet when for greyscale`

[J. Clarke]

DPI makes a difference. Few decent priced laser printers have a high
dpi. The higher the dpi of the printer, the greater the number of dots
in each pseudo-pixel, and hence the higher the grey scale it can use.

Both laser printers and inkjets use the same sort of diffusion dither to
create 'mock' halftone cells. The more dots in each cell (a cell is the
same as a pixel) the more grey tones available. Thus high dpi inkjets
will have more tones than most lasers.

Double-shoot a dot with an inkjet and you have a darker dot, do it with a
laser and you just have a bigger bump on the paper. There are no lasers of
which I am aware that have three different shades of gray toner, but there
are inkjets so designed.

Even some of the dye subs dither. While many dye subs can alter the
amount of ink per dot,

Dye sublimation printers do not use ink, they use dye transferred as vapor,
and the whole _point_ of dye sublimition is that the quantity of dye
transfered is controllable. This does not vary the _size_, it varies the
_intensity_.

 

[Bill K]

Hello John,
I enjoy this newsgroup and certainly want to follow the standards. I
am new to newsgroup, however. What are "top" and "bottom" posting?

From this thread I understand it's preferable to "bottom post."

Bill in Lake Charles

 

[John McWilliams]

Hello John,
I enjoy this newsgroup and certainly want to follow the standards. I
am new to newsgroup, however. What are "top" and "bottom" posting?
From this thread I understand it's preferable to "bottom post."

Well, that's almost asking for strong opposing opinions, but yes, it's
traditional in many NG's. Trimming out extraneous material is also very
helpful, but of course, there's an opposing opinion on everything.

Even the sig line, which assists in replying by the fact that many news
readers honor it (by dropping everything below the two dashes, space and
return). Thunderbird greys out everything below it, a feature that's
o.k. but not to everyone's taste.

--
John McWilliams

I know that you believe you understood what you think I said, but I'm
not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant. [not 'you'
of course, those other guys.....]

 

[Edwin Pawlowski]

Hello John,
I enjoy this newsgroup and certainly want to follow the standards. I
am new to newsgroup, however. What are "top" and "bottom" posting?
Bill in Lake Charles

You just top posted.
Bottom posting follows the normal conversation. We read from top to bottom
so if everyone follows, you can follow a thread much easier. Just as
important is to delete most of the previous post. Just leave a couple of
sentences so everyone know who you are replying to and about what.

 

[J. Clarke]

But, there is also the matter of bit depth, if you buy a new half decent
laser it will be able to vary the intensity of each dot, usually either
a 4 bit depth or 8 bit.

Been that way for years. It still results in crappy halftoning.

As far as I can tell on non-production machines
this is done by varying the dot size.

It's done by varying the intensity of the beam. In some machines the timing
can be adjusted a little bit to position the dots horizontally as well.

I _believe_ but haven't been able
to confirm it, that production machines vary the intensity by some
method involving the amount of developing that takes place as they tend
to be two stage prints using developer and toner.

Nope. They are still "single stage", the difference is that the developer
(which doesn't do anything chemically, it's just part of the transfer
process) comes in a separate cartridge--since in principle it doesn't get
used up that can in principle lower operating costs.

For instance my new machine here a Minolta Bizhub says 256 shades per
pixel and 600 dpi - consequently it prints a very nice monochrome (and a
very nice colour). But the old machine a Canon CLC also said 256 shades
per pixel and only 400 dpi and it did produce a nicer copy - which it
should do as its equivalent model today is about 4 times the price of
the bizhub.

Compare it to a photo quality inkjet and you'll see that it's not "very
nice", it may be "OK" from a distance but it's sure as Hell not adequate
for viewing x-rays.

If you get a decent resolution an old black laser can produce a good
copy. I remember printing some pictures on an HP IIIP, the dot pattern
was noticeable if I tried to enlarge during printing, but as long as I
printed at the printer's 300dpi resolution it was fine, - so an
1800x1200 picture would get printed 6" x 4"

That's got nothing to do with the printer. Print an 1800x1200 image at 8x10
and you've got 150 dots per inch in the image--to print it that size and
have it look at all smooth you need to resample. But if you think that's
any kind of decent image you haven't actually seen the output of a photo
quality inkjet.

 

[Arthur Entlich]

The *only* newsgroup or list which I regularly post on that has ever
elicited any complaints about my top posting is this one, interestingly
enough. I tend to chalk it up to a few somewhat stuck in the mud
members, rather than my being "set in my ways".

I have made a conscious decision to top post because it make complete
sense to me in my methods of reading posts, which is reading current
information at the top, since, at least with my email client, the top of
the message shows up first, and I don't need to read the complete
history of the post, since I read them almost daily.

Back in the good old paper days, people wrote letters and never quoted
the previous correspondence, and we did just fine without it. In a
public forum, I can see the point of some quoting, so those who have not
been keeping track of the thread can delve into the history, but it is a
complete and utter waste of time and mousing around to have to scroll
down to the bottom of each message to read the currently added
information. One adapts to the medium, and in this medium where
messages literally become old and obsolete within hours or days,
currency is more important than continuity, so it takes precedence by
being on top.

In cases of complex threads where many issue are being addresses, I
sometimes intersperse comments to maintain relevance, but many postings
just involve one main topic or question. Many of the lists I am on have
majority top posters, and as I stated before, only forum where I get
complaints is here.

Art

 

[me]

I have made a conscious decision to top post because it make complete
sense to me in my methods of reading posts, which is reading current
information at the top, since, at least with my email client, the top
of the message shows up first, and I don't need to read the complete
history of the post, since I read them almost daily.

Back in the good old paper days, people wrote letters and never quoted
the previous correspondence, and we did just fine without it.

<Snip>

Another problem with top posting is that people will add there bit at
the top without interspersed comments like this one, and then quote the
entire previous message below, so it is then necessary to chug to the
bottom to check if there is anything else, therefore judicious cutting
is advantageous, not only for each of use, but also to reduce bandwidth
requirements as the duplicated massage gets broadcast globally.

In cases of complex threads where many issue are being addresses, I
sometimes intersperse comments to maintain relevance, but many postings
just involve one main topic or question.

<Snip>
Because that sometimes is done it is necessary to chug down to the
bottom each time in case one misses some elegant bon mot!

 

[Lou]

The *only* newsgroup or list which I regularly post on that has ever
elicited any complaints about my top posting is this one, interestingly
enough. I tend to chalk it up to a few somewhat stuck in the mud
members, rather than my being "set in my ways".

I have made a conscious decision to top post because it make complete
sense to me in my methods of reading posts, which is reading current
information at the top, since, at least with my email client, the top of
the message shows up first, and I don't need to read the complete
history of the post, since I read them almost daily.

Back in the good old paper days, people wrote letters and never quoted
the previous correspondence, and we did just fine without it. In a
public forum, I can see the point of some quoting, so those who have not
been keeping track of the thread can delve into the history, but it is a
complete and utter waste of time and mousing around to have to scroll
down to the bottom of each message to read the currently added
information. One adapts to the medium, and in this medium where
messages literally become old and obsolete within hours or days,
currency is more important than continuity, so it takes precedence by
being on top.

In cases of complex threads where many issue are being addresses, I
sometimes intersperse comments to maintain relevance, but many postings
just involve one main topic or question. Many of the lists I am on have
majority top posters, and as I stated before, only forum where I get
complaints is here.

Art

Uh While I have great respect for your knowledge of printer related things your
comments above on top posting are _opinions_ and are, in fact not supported by
the real world. Just because you like doing it your way does not make the
_large_ number of folks who prefer bottom posting wrong.

See http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html for more

Lou

 

[John McWilliams]

Uh While I have great respect for your knowledge of printer related things your
comments above on top posting are _opinions_ and are, in fact not supported by
the real world. Just because you like doing it your way does not make the
_large_ number of folks who prefer bottom posting wrong.

See http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html for more

I didn't mention you by name, Arthur, and I know you will not change.

In the past you have eloquently stated your reasons which you repeat
here, but they are a bit righteous and self serving. Posting habits
might be formed that consider the *readers* rather than the poster.

Besides, trimming is more important than either top or bottom posting.

 

[M Berger]

The way it is, for many years, is that you do what you want.
There are no rules. It's Usenet.

Personally, I think people that "bottom post" just make it
harder on everyone else and don't care if anybody reads their
post.

 

[M Berger]

It's only preferable if you are really stupid and forget
what you've just read seconds ago, and if you like to move
your hands between mouse and keyboard a lot so you can
scroll down and see if the responder actually wrote anything
new (frequently one line after citing three pages of previously
repeated text). If you actually want people to read your
posts, post the new material at the top and leave the stuff
at the bottom for context for people with alzheimer's.

 

[M Berger]

So when you read a novel, and stop for a while -- do you go
back and read it from the beginning again each time you pick
it up?

If it's not natural to read a book that way why do you think
it makes any sense to read on-line posts that way? Personally,
I remember what I've read previously and pick it up from where
I left off.

 

[M Berger]

It also doesn't mean that what you have to say is
meaningless but odds are good that I won't read it.

I think we all understand that it's possible to read
bottom-posted messages with extra effort. I just
question why anybody here thinks that what they have
to say is so important that it's worth the extra time
and effort?

Imagine holding a conversation where one of the
participants insists on repeating everything said
up to that point before he adds something new. That's
what bottom-posting is.

 

[measekite]

The way it is, for many years, is that you do what you want.
There are no rules. It's Usenet.

Personally, I think people that "bottom post" just make it
harder on everyone else and don't care if anybody reads their
post.

oh year i agree

 

[J. Clarke]

It's only preferable if you are really stupid and forget
what you've just read seconds ago, and if you like to move
your hands between mouse and keyboard a lot so you can
scroll down and see if the responder actually wrote anything
new (frequently one line after citing three pages of previously
repeated text). If you actually want people to read your
posts, post the new material at the top and leave the stuff
at the bottom for context for people with alzheimer's.

Screw it, I'm hereby killfiling all posts that contain the phrase "top post"
and "bottom post" and suggesting that the lot of you pool your resources
and time-share a life.

 

[Edwin Pawlowski]

If it's not natural to read a book that way why do you think
it makes any sense to read on-line posts that way? Personally,
I remember what I've read previously and pick it up from where
I left off.

I'm impressed by your memory. Some of us are active on a few groups and
read many postings in a day. We may respond to quite a few also.

Some threads last for weeks, or may re-surface after a week or three. While
you can instantly recall everything you've ever read, some of us like to see
a sentence or two about the subject to jog our memory.

 

[John McWilliams]

It also doesn't mean that what you have to say is
meaningless but odds are good that I won't read it.

I bet you've worked your way into a lot of killfiles.

Are you here for photog, printing, or whingeing??

 

[Neil Ellwood]

So when you read a novel, and stop for a while -- do you go
back and read it from the beginning again each time you pick
it up?

If it's not natural to read a book that way why do you think
it makes any sense to read on-line posts that way? Personally,
I remember what I've read previously and pick it up from where
I left off.

You also do not start a book in the middle, read to the end and start
again at the beginning.

 

[ASAAR]

It's only preferable if you are really stupid and forget
what you've just read seconds ago, and if you like to move
your hands between mouse and keyboard a lot so you can
scroll down and see if the responder actually wrote anything
new (frequently one line after citing three pages of previously
repeated text).

Some might think that it's *you* that's really stupid, since
you've made several poor assumptions. I don't know anyone that
spends all of their waking hours constantly checking for new
newsgroup messages. If they don't do that, you are bound to read
many replies that were posted hours or days prior. Somebody that
reads my reply a week from now may want to reply to it, further
weakening the memory link for others that would then need the
context that you think not very necessary.

The "three pages of previously repeated text" is nothing but a
"straw man" argument, since that is poor practice no matter what
kind of quoting is used.

If you actually want people to read your
posts, post the new material at the top and leave the stuff
at the bottom for context for people with alzheimer's.

Whether top or bottom posting is used, it's far more important to
*trim* the quotes of non relevant matter and to put replies near the
quoted context rather than to blather about whether top or bottom
posting is preferable. If you want people to actually *read* your
posts, it would be useful to try to avoid making arrogant, poorly
thought out suggestions and generally acting as a troll.

 

[AZ Nomad]

The way it is, for many years, is that you do what you want.
There are no rules. It's Usenet.

Personally, I think people that "bottom post" just make it
harder on everyone else and don't care if anybody reads their
post.

That's exactly wrong. Usenet has *always* been top to bottom.

Top posting only came about when outlook express started being used
and people like you were too damn lazy to move the cursor to the
bottom.