Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work. - Thomas Edison
Actually, there is a misconception that the DTS produces better screens than film. In general that is not the case. Both ink and wax are printed from far away, compared to the film, and have splatter reduce the quality of the dot. This not to say it's bad, just that imagesetter produces cleaner, more accurate dot Pierre
Professionally, this thread leaves me thoroughly and completely depressed.
the reason being with film you are making a copy of a copy, which anybody that has seen multiplicity will know it's never as sharp as the original
Alan, you guys are still using your registration system? I remember a while back you saying that your printer refuses to use it LOL
I'd argue that wet imagesetter film will be sharper than directly printing to a screen. We use to run one, that thing was sharp.
That's the german (i believe?) one.. I think Volker posted about it... that one uses a DLP light source to do the exposureseems to me it was like 150k or so.