From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.comp.tex.context/15839 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Mats Broberg" Newsgroups: gmane.comp.tex.context Subject: RE: ConTeXt output & commercial printing houses: Thanks! Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 17:51:49 +0200 Organization: The Ars Imprimis Press Sender: ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl Message-ID: <001201c473f1$a10d4310$fcb359d5@DJCPX90J> References: <20040727061509.GB17632@swordfish> Reply-To: mats.broberg@arsimprimispress.com, mailing list for ConTeXt users NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1090943520 7332 80.91.224.253 (27 Jul 2004 15:52:00 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 15:52:00 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl Tue Jul 27 17:51:52 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from ronja.vet.uu.nl ([131.211.172.88] helo=ronja.ntg.nl) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1BpUF6-0006HQ-00 for ; Tue, 27 Jul 2004 17:51:52 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12F1312783; Tue, 27 Jul 2004 17:51:52 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from ronja.ntg.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ronja.vet.uu.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 12174-01; Tue, 27 Jul 2004 17:51:50 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from ronja.vet.uu.nl (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 395D21276D; Tue, 27 Jul 2004 17:51:50 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3D2F1276D for ; Tue, 27 Jul 2004 17:51:48 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from ronja.ntg.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ronja.vet.uu.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 12023-05 for ; Tue, 27 Jul 2004 17:51:48 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from amsfep17-int.chello.nl (unknown [213.46.243.15]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 361701276B for ; Tue, 27 Jul 2004 17:51:48 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from DJCPX90J ([213.89.179.252]) by amsfep17-int.chello.nl (InterMail vM.6.00.05.02 201-2115-109-103-20031105) with ESMTP id <20040727155148.RWQG24185.amsfep17-int.chello.nl@DJCPX90J> for ; Tue, 27 Jul 2004 17:51:48 +0200 Original-To: "'mailing list for ConTeXt users'" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 In-Reply-To: <20040727061509.GB17632@swordfish> Importance: Normal X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at ntg.nl X-BeenThere: ntg-context@ntg.nl X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: mailing list for ConTeXt users List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at ntg.nl Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.comp.tex.context:15839 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.comp.tex.context:15839 > From: ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl > [mailto:ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl] On Behalf Of Matt Gushee > Well, yes. Many printers here do prefer PDF. However, there's > a small problem in some cases--I know this is true for > Kinko's, and was wondering if it's true for regular printers, > too: they think that PDF means "Adobe PDF"--i.e. they believe > that Adobe software is *the* way to produce PDF, and are > mostly unaware that there is such a thing as a PDF standard. > Now, I don't fully understand the issue, but apparently Adobe > software doesn't entirely follow the published specs, whereas > TeX does. And some processing software seems to be designed > specifically to work with the quirks of Acrobat output, and > sometimes has trouble with PDFTeX output. At one of the company I work for, we generate thousands of press-ready PDF manuals (250+ pp each) every year that are generated from XML source using XEP from RenderX - with no problems at all. So I don't think it is a requirement for printers that the PDF files are generated using Adobe tools. > Now that's interesting. I imagined you would get the best > results with images that were designed exactly at the printer > resolution. True, for line art - but the "exactness" is unimportant. A common imagesetter resolution is 2540 lpi, so you may want to create your line art in that resolution. However, most printers prefer 1200 dpi (but not less) for line art, since images with a higher resolution become so large (memory-wise). Regarding halftones (color or grayscale), the commercial printing community rule-of-thumb is a resolution about 2 times the screen count. If your image is 10 cm wide on the scanner and you want it to be 10 cm wide on the paper, and you want the printer use a screen of 150 lpi, scan it at an optical resolution of 300 dpi. However, as I mentioned before, this holds true only if the physical image size and the final image size are the same. If the image is 5 cm wide on the scanner and you want it to be 10 cms wide on the paper, you need to scan it with a resolution of 600 dpi. Never increase the resolution of an already scanned image using software interpolation. Regarding using a higher resolution than 2-2.5 times the screen count, try to avoid it, since the photomechanical laws of process engraving doesn't give you a better final image anyway. However, pls note that I am talking about conventional lito offset here, and that I am talking about a conventional screen technology (amplitude-modulated screening). If you are using waterless lito offset, the screen count is usually quite a bit higher (300-500 lpi are not uncommon), which requires higher resolutions. Also, if you are using a different screening technology - e.g. frequency-modulated screening, or a hybride screening - your images may need to be of a higher resolution too. Talk to your printer. Best regards, Mats Broberg