Scanning question (Is destruction of old tech docs a moral crime?)
couryhouse at aol.com
Sun Jul 21 17:39:48 CDT 2019
not concerned about scanning
just how the output looked for setting type... the variable sized dots were a real winner. AND A GREAT SELLER!
In a message dated 7/21/2019 3:34:43 PM US Mountain Standard Time, cctalk at classiccmp.org writes:
Yes, and although it rarely happens, and is just shrugged off as
"something didn't go right with that scan", ARTIFACTS can sometimes occur.
Oversimplifying a bit, . . .
consider the output of a Laserjet "MINUS" or a Laserjet-Plus (CX engine)
as being a grid of squares with a circular dot inscribed in them, with
open areas in the corners of each square.
A LaserJet II (SX engine) is a grid of squares with a dot whose boundary
circumscribes the square (and the dots OVERLAP!)
Thus, the "newer" model could produce a very solid black, but the earlier
one could not give a solid black.
If scanning the earlier output at 300DPI, it is POSSIBLE to get the
alignment JUST WRONG enough to line up with those gaps in the corners
of the squares! VERY RARE, and another scan, with the original moved a
thousandth of an inch comes out just fine.
I have worked PLENTY with documentation printed on dot matrix printers.
And ~30 years ago, some would attempt to do "DeskTop Pulishing" using a 7
pin dot matrix printer!
It's normally OK for text, which has a fair amount of implicit
context. A bit less so with proper names, where spelling is not
previously known. And when it's hard to tell the difference between a '3'
and an '8', you have a problem.
I'm often grateful to find ANY documentaaion, even if it is barely
But, it is a JOY to get high quality scans, or to work from original
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
On Sun, 21 Jul 2019, ED SHARPE via cctalk wrote:
> although at 300dpi on HP laser-jet 3 there were variable sizes dots giving better curve fit.
> a great selling feature!
> Made me $$ (grin)!
> In a message dated 7/21/2019 12:13:14 PM US Mountain Standard Time, cctalk at classiccmp.org writes:
> It's like the difference between laser printing and real typesetting.
> 'course many people can't see the difference.
> Below 2400dpi, the characters in the text are not as smooth
More information about the cctech