Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work. - Thomas Edison
If your Rez is at 600-1200, that's all you need when doing manual halftones. Keep in mind tho, that the halftones comiing from Photoshop are not 100% true line screens to what you choose. A 55lpi will not be an exact 55lpi. That function is entirely based on resolution settings. If you choose 55lpi from a 100 rez file, it will be different from a 55lpi using 300 rez.When I say "different" it might have 56-57 lines in it and not really 55.It's true that like SBrem said, images in photoshop (because they are raster) will be less sharp and can have jagged edges. Still, at 600-1200, those little jaggies make do difference (or very very little). It would ahve ot be something pretty low (in resolution) in order for it to be visible or make a difference.
Are you under the impression that somehow there is "non-raster" or "vector" that ends up printed on your film?
Quote from: Dottonedan on October 03, 2014, 03:02:24 PMIf your Rez is at 600-1200, that's all you need when doing manual halftones. Keep in mind tho, that the halftones comiing from Photoshop are not 100% true line screens to what you choose. A 55lpi will not be an exact 55lpi. That function is entirely based on resolution settings. If you choose 55lpi from a 100 rez file, it will be different from a 55lpi using 300 rez.When I say "different" it might have 56-57 lines in it and not really 55.It's true that like SBrem said, images in photoshop (because they are raster) will be less sharp and can have jagged edges. Still, at 600-1200, those little jaggies make do difference (or very very little). It would ahve ot be something pretty low (in resolution) in order for it to be visible or make a difference. Let's clear something up, it seems like things are going into the territory of opinion or misguided understanding. I'm trying to wrap my brain around what the missing piece is... When you say "because they are raster" -- and I think you've said in another post before "clean vector"... Are you under the impression that somehow there is "non-raster" or "vector" that ends up printed on your film?
Quote from: Full-SpectrumSeparator on October 04, 2014, 03:34:12 PM Are you under the impression that somehow there is "non-raster" or "vector" that ends up printed on your film?I wonder if FSS is categorizing most of our output devices as printing with dots, and therefore printing raster, even if the file is vector.
Raster is the term for an image made from dots.. ie photoshop. This will print your images as dots and cause thinks like text to lose their sharp edges.Vector is a mathematical line from point a to b. Ie illustrator. Your images will print with clean lines or edges
Quote from: Full-SpectrumSeparator on October 04, 2014, 03:34:12 PMQuote from: Dottonedan on October 03, 2014, 03:02:24 PMIf your Rez is at 600-1200, that's all you need when doing manual halftones. Keep in mind tho, that the halftones comiing from Photoshop are not 100% true line screens to what you choose. A 55lpi will not be an exact 55lpi. That function is entirely based on resolution settings. If you choose 55lpi from a 100 rez file, it will be different from a 55lpi using 300 rez.When I say "different" it might have 56-57 lines in it and not really 55.It's true that like SBrem said, images in photoshop (because they are raster) will be less sharp and can have jagged edges. Still, at 600-1200, those little jaggies make do difference (or very very little). It would ahve ot be something pretty low (in resolution) in order for it to be visible or make a difference. Let's clear something up, it seems like things are going into the territory of opinion or misguided understanding. I'm trying to wrap my brain around what the missing piece is... When you say "because they are raster" -- and I think you've said in another post before "clean vector"... Are you under the impression that somehow there is "non-raster" or "vector" that ends up printed on your film?I will define/clarify my statements.Files that are created in vector, are of course achieved by being plotted/drawn using math rather than physical pixels and resolution as Jsheridan had indicated.The quality of output (from vector) is based on your quality of the imagining device. A high dpi/resolution printer will produce cleaner images. Cleaner being (edge jaggies) on curved type.The quality of raster can be affected by the resolution of your file at output, no matter the output device.You can have a 3600dpi wet film imagesetter to produce your film...and use a 200dpi halftones in photoshop...and they come out much jaggier via the manual halftones in photoshop (because of the resolution used at your starting point) when creating the manual halftones.There are plenty of imaging devices that convert both vector and any good/high ppi raster file to it's own dpi "raster" quality at output as well.Most any time I refer to vector, I refer to is as "clean" as it does present the best chance of having clean edges at output versus raster images, although, I myself have no issues using photoshop with clean edges even if it does have a tad of the jaggies. That is not to imply that raster is non clean. Here, I am specifically speaking of an isolated topic of edge cleanliness such as on the curve of the letter S.Below, I gave my personal opinion (and past experiences) that are for some opinions, and for me as fact in the topic of using DCS2 files for vector output on type (below). I tho, don't proclaim that anyone should NOT use something they are comfortable with based on my own experiences or even what I believe as facts. The differences are minimal and can be proven, but I do not claim that people should not use what they are familiar with or comfortable with. For me, I find it to be yet another step that I do not need.
Quote from: Frog on October 04, 2014, 04:51:26 PMQuote from: Full-SpectrumSeparator on October 04, 2014, 03:34:12 PM Are you under the impression that somehow there is "non-raster" or "vector" that ends up printed on your film?I wonder if FSS is categorizing most of our output devices as printing with dots, and therefore printing raster, even if the file is vector.Right, exactly. Am I wrong to make this categorization?Can you please show me an example of an output device that prints VECTOR?? Perhaps a vinyl-cutter-plotter... that is the type of device that may use vector instructions sent to the motors and print-head. Just about everything else prints with DOTS. I am raising the question because it seems like somehow you guys think you're outputting VECTOR onto your films?? The printer rasterizes the data whether you sent it raster at the same resolution as the print-engine will do it, or vector, it will turn into the same exact thing on film -- the only difference is if the in-device rasterization has some other factors besides resolution that can be measured and shown as a different/better quality factor in the process. But the conversion of a "vector" to a shape on the film is almost always a Raster Image Process - conversion to Raster, at a specific resolution.