Lightjet 200 dpi vs. 300 dpi

[martin_patek_strutsky]

By learning more about digital printing I just realized that so far

my lightjet prints have been made with a resolution of 200 dpi.

 

The prints look great but still I wonder what I would gain by

switching to a lab that offers 300 dpi. The numbers imply that the

resolution would be 50% better. Does this transfer into a

significantly better print?

 

 

(P.S. I shoot with LF, MF and Canon 20D if that makes any difference)

[daniel_staver1]

The best thing you can do is to test it yourself. Everybody will have some opinion about this, but you may not agree.

 

I made some prints at different resolutions on my 2100 printer and noticed that I could see visible improvement in microfine details between 240 and 360ppi at half an arms lengths viewing distance from the print. The difference was not great though. At longer viewing distances 240 would have been just fine.

[scott_eaton]

I wasn't aware there was a 200 dpi LightJet.

 

I'm guessin the lab simply doesn't upscale files to 300dpi and instead relies on the LightJet to do it.

 

The older Durst Lambda's were 200 dpi, and they are visibly softer than the 300dpi LightJet.

[dean_erger]

Martin, I had a similar question some time ago. I never got a complete answer, and I received some conflicting advice. I was advised that the dpi results from an inkjet printer, however, are not relevant with respect to Lightjet prints. The printing processes are totally different. So, I think it is best to ignore any comparison to inkjet printers.

[qtluong]

While the native resolution of the LJ 5000 is 305 dpi, I have not found noticeable differences between 200dpi and 300dpi prints on the lightjet,

as initially suggested to me by Bill Nordstrom of Laser Light Photographics and Printmaking. The lightjet has interpolation algorithms

that are extremely good and can accept files within a range of dpi. From what I have seen printed using my own files,

a 200dpi print on the lightjet is sharper than a Durst Lambda print. <a href = "http://www.terragalleria.com/fine-art-prints.html">Terra Galleria Fine Art Prints</a>.

[roger krueger]

It also depends on what your subject is. If you've got a large group of people (and thus

tiny facial details) or a product shot with type on the labels, you'll definitely see the

difference. On a headshot you probably won't.

[david_senesac]

It is easy to test by making some test images in Photoshop. The 304.8ppi native Lightjet pixel pitch is a conversion of (120cm/ 25.4cm/inch). First go into go into Edit...Preferences...Guides & Grids. Set grid to 4 pixels with subdivisions ever 4 pixels. Turn on grids View,,,Show...Grids. Open a small new empty image with a black background, image size set for 304.8ppi. Zoom out to maximum 1600x to see individual pixels. Using the marquee tool select one a length of one pixel wide line. Fill it with white. Copy the line and a like one pixel wideblack space beside it. Then duplicate the pattern side by side to create anone pixel wide alternating rectangle of some size.

 

Repeat the above but rotate the resulting rectangle 90 degrees since a printer is likely to give different resolution results at different orientations. Also instead of using just black and white, duplicate the resulting squares, select the lines using the wand with continuous off, and then fill with different primary color combinations.

 

Next do the above but use two pixel wide lines which would be half of 304.8. Next time you send in an image to be printed at 304.8ppi , add a copy of the pixel squares outside the edge where you likely just have white space.

 

Now repeat the above creating a new image but set the image size for 200ppi. Next time you send in an image to be printed at 200ppi , add a copy of the pixel squares per above.

 

I've notice prints from different labs come out differently with the one pixel wide squares often blurring in one orientation off to one side of the lines. Thus machine alignments are apparently critical.

[martin_patek_strutsky]

Thanks a lot for your help. Doublechecked again with my local lab. As some of you assumed they use an older Durst lambda printer allowing only 200dpi.

[3d-aeropanoramic project]

there is an alternative called chromira from http://www.zbe.com

they have 76 and 126 cm-machines. and 425 dpi

the day will come when i will have 76x300cm-comparison panorama-posters made with all three printers. lightjet has a size limitation of around 300cm. a real limitation when printing panoramas. 126x500cm and longer are possible with the chromiras and lamdas. durst is releasing new theta 76(universal printer-110 000 euro "only")

i have seen real impressive razorsharp chromira and lambda-posters already years back. always keep in mind. you will only see significant differences with different dpis if the original is of topquality.