Slashdot Mirror


Color Printing Reaches Its Ultimate Resolution

ananyo writes "The highest possible resolution images — about 100,000 dots per inch — have been achieved, and in full-colour, with a printing method that uses tiny pillars a few tens of nanometres tall. The method could be used to print tiny watermarks or secret messages for security purposes, and to make high-density data-storage discs. Each pixel in these ultra-resolution images is made up of four nanoscale posts capped with silver and gold nanodisks. By varying the diameters of the structures (which are tens of nanometres) and the spaces between them, it's possible to control what colour of light they reflect. As a proof of principle, researchers printed a 50×50-micrometre version of the 'Lena' test image, a richly coloured portrait of a woman that is commonly used as a printing standard (abstract). Even under the best microscope, optical images have an ultimate resolution limit, and this method hits it."

140 comments

  1. And it's cartridges will... by MindPrison · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...cost 10 times the printer itself.

    --
    What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
    1. Re:And it's cartridges will... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      *its

    2. Re:And it's cartridges will... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So, same as regular ink?

    3. Re:And it's cartridges will... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People make mistakes, even educated, intelligent people.

      Captcha: pedantry

    4. Re:And it's cartridges will... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Intelligent people make mistakes, not complete and utter grammatical failures.

    5. Re:And it's cartridges will... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well, as a Mensa member for whom English is a fifth language, I'd like to chime in with...

      Oh yes we do. Just as often as you mere mortals.

    6. Re:And it's cartridges will... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Intelligent people make mistakes, not complete and utter grammatical failures.

      You are making assumptions that aren't necessarily true. A random letter in a word could be the result of a stray cat or possibly a typo. Depending on what keyboard/keymap was used it might also have been the result of a stuck key.

    7. Re:And it's cartridges will... by nancyfromafrica · · Score: 2

      it will come down with time, new technology is always expensive

    8. Re:And it's cartridges will... by flyneye · · Score: 1

      And the jets will be irretrievably plugged 3 uses into ownership.
      Thank God Murphy wasn't really a Legislator.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
  2. In other news... by Kergan · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Everything that can be invented has been invented."

    Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. patent office, 1899.

    1. Re:In other news... by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 4, Informative

      I can think of one way their claim can be entirely true, and not just another shortsighted statement like Duell's:
      If they make it any smaller, they won't be dealing with visible light anymore.

    2. Re:In other news... by uradu · · Score: 5, Informative

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Holland_Duell

      Famous statement attributed in various forms to various people throughout history. Duell's actual statement (provided that was attributed correctly) was the exact opposite of this.

    3. Re:In other news... by elashish14 · · Score: 5, Funny

      What a simpleton! He was clearly proven wrong when we invented the Rectangle with Rounded Corners.

      --
      I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
    4. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In this case you're off base. The wavelengths to which the human eye is sensitive impose an actual limit on the resolution of an image. You can't reflect a wave if you're smaller than the wavelength.

    5. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OMG, z Gyrogon!

    6. Re:In other news... by Penurious+Penguin · · Score: 2

      They should put that fellow's face on the thousand-dollar bill when U.S. currency finally collapses.

      --
      Forward! -- Emperor Norton, 2012
    7. Re:In other news... by fermion · · Score: 1
      There is a limit of who we can see with visible light, that is light that our eyes will respond to as color. Basically once you get below the oder of the wavelength, one cannot discern the details. For visibile light this limit is on the order of a micrometer. Therefore in theory we might be able to see something less than a micrometer, but there are other issues involved. The cited figure is order of magnitude less.

      We see this in the length of antennas. To receive a signal, the antenna has to be at least a quarter wavelength. If you look at old cars that are made to receive conventional AM signals, they are longer. If you look at newer cars that simply receive XM signals, these are very short. That is because are measured in meters, while satellite radio is measure in centimeters. The wavelength we need to resolve is shorter, so the antenna is shorter.

      For black and white images, the rule is going to be different. Our eyes are not going to resolve the image. The image can use particles of smaller wavelength, such as electrons, and shown in false color or black and white.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    8. Re:In other news... by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Informative

      And you are correct. If they printed it any smaller, the colors would start blurring together because of the wavelength.

      Here's a picture if you want to see it. Although it is small, fidelity to the original image is clearly low. The technique could use some improving. Still cool.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    9. Re:In other news... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Funny

      They should put that fellow's face on the thousand-dollar bill when U.S. currency finally collapses.

      And those thousand dollar bills can be printed on recycled Euros,

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    10. Re:In other news... by reasterling · · Score: 1

      There is a limit of who we can see with visible light

      Are you thinking about the invisible man.

      --
      "For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice" -- God
    11. Re:In other news... by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 1

      Basically once you get below the oder of the wavelength, one cannot discern the details

      Or slashdotters.

    12. Re:In other news... by k2r · · Score: 1

      I just read

      "Everything that can be inverted has been inverted"

      (need more coffee)

    13. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Duell's actual statement (provided that was attributed correctly) was the exact opposite of this.

      "Nothing that can be invented has been invented"?

      That's a pretty stupid thing to say. Just as stupid as "Everything...", if you ask me.

    14. Re:In other news... by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      When we reach physical limits, we can say this is the best we are going to make it. But it isn't saying we cant find a cheaper, faster, lighter, smaller, more efficient invention. We just can't do better, but we can match it.

      Also a lot of inventions have reached good enough and don't need major fixes.

      Lets take leather. It is still a popular product.
      It is very tough, it is flexible, it is light, and durable, insulates heat well. We had leather for thousands of years, we have improved on the process of making it, but still it is leather that people thousands of years ago will still recognize it.

      We have made materials that can replace leather in some areas, but leather is still an important product.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    15. Re:In other news... by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      We see this in the length of antennas. To receive a signal, the antenna has to be at least a quarter wavelength. If you look at old cars that are made to receive conventional AM signals, they are longer.

      Untrue. "conventional AM signals", at least in the US, are from 540kHz to 1610kHz. Wavelengths corresponding to those frequencies are 555.5m to 186m, respectively. Taking the shorter of the two, a quarter wavelength of 186m is 46.5m. I've never seen an antenna on a car that's 10x the length of the car! Any antenna, regardless of its length, can receive and frequency, it's just very inefficient to have antennas much, much shorter than the wavelength.

      I think what you might mean is that for a monopole antenna to be resonant at a particular frequency, it must be an odd multiple of a quarter wavelength. Similarly, each of a dipoles's two arms must be an odd multiple of a quarter wavelength. You can add loading coils to physically-short antennas to make them resonant.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    16. Re:In other news... by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Considering that this whole photo is printed at a size of about a 1/4 of the size of a printed period at 12 pt, we could probably forgive that. It's probably an artifact of magnification - and that this is so close to the limit that the colors start to blur together because it's too close to the size of the wavelength of the colors that are printed.

    17. Re:In other news... by omnichad · · Score: 1

      That being said, the image might be no better than 50x50 pixels, even if there's many times more coated posts in the image than this. Might explain why it's so blurry.

    18. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Naw, we just need to evolve a better (maybe bigger) brain... but eyes may not be the ultimately hardware when it comes to seeing, if you know what I mean.

  3. optical images have an ultimate resolution limit by Threni · · Score: 1

    You can read higher resolutions with atomic scopes etc, and you can create images other than with lenses, so I don't think we've hit the limit yet, unless there's something in TFA about sticking dots on quarks or something...

  4. Too Much Reality by PacRim+Jim · · Score: 3, Funny

    Feminine beauty is not well served by zoomable acres of gaping pores. Therein lies horror, and quite possibly a counter-Darwinian response insalubrious to human survival.

    1. Re:Too Much Reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WHAT IF I ENJOY THE HORROR?

    2. Re:Too Much Reality by EdIII · · Score: 1

      I would agree with you if it were not for the apparent popularity of Japanese Tentacle Porn and a sundry list of Goatse available on the Internet.

      We all joke about a wading through a throng of midgets with thousand island dressing, but perhaps there is more truth to that than we would like to admit.

    3. Re:Too Much Reality by Macgrrl · · Score: 2

      I first parsed this as wading through a thong of midgets with thousand island dressing and wondered WTF. Then I re-read it and still went WTF.

      --
      Sara
      Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
    4. Re:Too Much Reality by EdIII · · Score: 1

      Kind of my point.

      For everybody saying, "WTF", there is somebody else saying, "Ohhhh Myyyy".

    5. Re:Too Much Reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speak for yourself, I love high-res porn. The higher-res the better. I want to see microscopic mites feasting on dead skin cells on a nipple.

    6. Re:Too Much Reality by DocSavage64109 · · Score: 1

      At least it wasn't ranch dressing...

    7. Re:Too Much Reality by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      I lost conciousness

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    8. Re:Too Much Reality by EdIII · · Score: 1

      Lol. But you got better right?

  5. Re: optical images have an ultimate resolution lim by schroedingers_hat · · Score: 3, Informative

    Those things would not be Color printing. In fact, you could view this process as monochrome too, except when the comparitively long wavelength visible light hits it, it acts in a similar way to a pigmint (well, diffraction isn't exactly the same, but similar enough).

  6. Still not close enough! by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 5, Funny

    > 'Lena' test image

    Pr0n, driving tech development since cavemen fingerpainted a wall.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    1. Re:Still not close enough! by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I've never understood the use of Lena as a test image. It doesn't look very "richly coloured" (as per the summary) to me.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    2. Re:Still not close enough! by TWX · · Score: 3, Insightful

      See the discussion on whether or not sexual harassment is ingrained in hacker culture...

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    3. Re:Still not close enough! by drooling-dog · · Score: 2

      I've been seeing this image in image processing texts for decades, and never had a clue where it came from. I am not disappointed.

    4. Re:Still not close enough! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IIRC its chosen because it contains a whole bunch of sections of very different kinds of textures

    5. Re:Still not close enough! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The engineers tore away the top third of the centerfold so they could wrap it around the drum of their Muirhead wirephoto scanner, which they had outfitted with analog-to-digital converters (one each for the red, green, and blue channels) and a Hewlett Packard 2100 minicomputer. The Muirhead had a fixed resolution of 100 lines per inch and the engineers wanted a 512 x 512 image, so they limited the scan to the top 5.12 inches of the picture, effectively cropping it at the subject's shoulders.

      They weren't even interested in the "nasty" bits themselves. Its just a standard image everyone uses. Its like loral ipsum as it is easier to compare the important things when everything else is standard.

    6. Re:Still not close enough! by Splab · · Score: 2

      No...

      They use it because it has many edges, colors and textures, which makes it interesting from a pure CS point of view - that's also why they only use the face...

    7. Re:Still not close enough! by TrekkieGod · · Score: 4, Interesting

      See the discussion on whether or not sexual harassment is ingrained in hacker culture...

      Really? How is this indicative of sexual harassment? "Ohmygod! It's part of a picture taken from Playboy!" Never mind that the test image is just a picture of her face. Or the fact that women who pose for playboy and similar magazines do so by choice and get paid to do so.

      Comments like yours are why so many people immediately backlash whenever sexual harassment is discussed. The article you are referring to talks about women being groped at the crotch in the middle of a conference. That's a legitimate concern. It's freaking assault. However, when I see the words "sexual harassment", I do have to go and read the details before I can determine whether it's something legitimate or someone who decided that, for example, using Lenna as a test picture is indicative of a sexism problem in hacker culture. I bet lots of the comments in the discussion you are referring to are from people who didn't read the article, and assume it's really about the bullshit type of sexual harassment.

      --

      Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.

    8. Re:Still not close enough! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh really?

      The engineers tore away the top third of the centerfold so they could wrap it around the drum of their Muirhead wirephoto scanner, which they had outfitted with analog-to-digital converters (one each for the red, green, and blue channels) and a Hewlett Packard 2100 minicomputer. The Muirhead had a fixed resolution of 100 lines per inch and the engineers wanted a 512 x 512 image, so they limited the scan to the top 5.12 inches of the picture, effectively cropping it at the subject's shoulders.

    9. Re:Still not close enough! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It also ensures that image compression methods are optimized for the kind of images that make up the majority of image data on the internet.

    10. Re:Still not close enough! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Lena herself actually enjoyed this use of her image for print testing. Doesn't sexual harassment require a victim?

    11. Re:Still not close enough! by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      They use it because it has many... colors

      Err, yeah, except for the one that the human eye is most sensitive to, green. The image has a reddish tint like a faded magazine print (unsurprisingly) so that single shade of blue is also very muted. I can't say I see a lot of texture, either. Five seconds of Googling turns up http://bit.ly/Pd75s1 (yes, it's perfectly safe for work) which looks like a far more useful image.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    12. Re:Still not close enough! by khallow · · Score: 1

      Yes. The narrative gets a bit strained when the victim is willing and eager, but one wisely ignores that sort of thing.

    13. Re:Still not close enough! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. The narrative gets a bit strained when the victim is willing and eager, but one wisely ignores that sort of thing.

      Huh? That is not logical. I think the Lena picture is way to innocent to be discussed at all in context of the serious examples of sexual harrassment crossing over into criminal assault that the other article raises. But your statement is completely misunderstanding who is the victim of harassment in this example. Many female porn-models are willingly letting people take and distribute pictures and videos of them being subjected to abuse, verbally, sexually, violence. This doesn't mean that it is not sexual harrasment for me to start our company meetings with them.

    14. Re:Still not close enough! by khallow · · Score: 1

      But your statement is completely misunderstanding who is the victim of harassment in this example.

      No, it wasn't. Read the thread.

      We were talking about the sexual harassment inherent in a Playboy picture. We weren't talking about coworkers putting naughty pictures up at the company meeting.

    15. Re:Still not close enough! by dasunt · · Score: 1

      See the discussion on whether or not sexual harassment is ingrained in hacker culture...

      Well, heteronormativity seems to be. ;)

      (No, I don't know the gender orientation or preferences of the individuals who selected this image. I'm just pointing out the assumption being made.)

    16. Re:Still not close enough! by TWX · · Score: 1

      Are you sure of that? Because that's basically what I meant...

      Having naked pictures in most places of work becomes sexual harassment if women who work there are exposed to them and don't want to be. The only exceptions that I can think of are actually magazines and other intentional publishers of such content, and medical offices, and the latter only if properly in context.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    17. Re:Still not close enough! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's wrong with naked pictures? I mean, as long as they are not pictures of naked people, of course.

    18. Re:Still not close enough! by khallow · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you should have said what you meant then. I'll just note that the Lena image probably wouldn't have attained its present popularity, if more of her had remained attached in the original scan.

    19. Re:Still not close enough! by Splab · · Score: 1

      Erm... What?

      CS as in computer science, last I checked the computers ability to process information was not depending on the operators ability to see color.

    20. Re:Still not close enough! by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

      last I checked the computers ability to process information was not depending on the operators ability to see color.

      There's an entire class of shades missing from the image (no "greens" in the sense that no pixels have their maximum value in the green channel), and another (blue) is a single almost-grey shade. That makes it, to me, a poor general-case test image. It might be fine if you're writing facial recognition software, but it would be next to useless if you were trying to implement a clone of Photoshop's selective colour filter.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    21. Re:Still not close enough! by TWX · · Score: 1

      I have no doubt that it wouldn't have been as popular had it not been co-opted that day.

      At that time in magazine advertising there were thousands of brightly-colored photos of women's faces and interesting backgrounds that could have been used, and they could have even *gasp* bought a photo from a local photography studio... Any of these could have been just as popular, without the legally-questionable sourcing.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    22. Re:Still not close enough! by khallow · · Score: 1

      What would be the point? They got a photo that worked and the legally questionable aspect turned out to not be legally questionable.

  7. Re:$10,000 CHALLENGE to Alexander Peter Kowalski by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    APK himself would be at the top of a sensible person's ban list. He's been spamming and trolling Slashdot for years.

  8. Re:$10,000 CHALLENGE to Alexander Peter Kowalski by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I don't get it anyway. Is that some spam that is trying to sell anything?
    Even if I were interested, I wouldn't know what or how to buy. It reads like Time Cube to me.

  9. Can you print holograms with it? by Aguazul2 · · Score: 2

    It should be possible to print colour holograms if they get the resolution high enough.

    1. Re:Can you print holograms with it? by Ignacio · · Score: 1

      They would also need to make a layer of it thick enough to do so. Holograms work because they're in a 3D medium (even though only paper-thin), whereas this method is strictly 2D at this point.

    2. Re:Can you print holograms with it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's basically what they are doing. The colors are generated as diffraction patterns rather than with pigments.

    3. Re:Can you print holograms with it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Posts like yours are why I am not spending much time on /. anymore. Maybe learn a subject before you comment and embarras yourself by posting complete bullshit?

    4. Re:Can you print holograms with it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe there are some kinds of printed 3d graphics require depth, but in principle holograms do not. They work by having structures on the order of wavelength of light so that light coming through will diffract and interfere with itself. The resulting effect is angle dependent, allowing for it to look different depending on what angle you look at it. It is the same idea as something like a double slit or diffraction grating, just much more complicated pattern and result. Another interesting, similar effect is a zonal plate, which just by using a two dimensional pattern you can create a focusing lens. These all work with two dimensional patterns as long as the pattern can absorb and transmit light at different places.

    5. Re:Can you print holograms with it? by Aguazul2 · · Score: 1

      Wow, it says something about slashdot physics knowledge that you get a score 2 and I only get a score 1.

    6. Re:Can you print holograms with it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His 2 is his starting score, due to the karma bonus. No-one has up-modded him.

    7. Re:Can you print holograms with it? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      That's not how holograms work. Holograms are made with ordinary photographic film just like you used to use in an ordinary camera. What makes holograms work is that a diffraction pattern is stored on the film rather than the image itself; to look at a hologram without a laser is to look at squiggles.

      To make a hologram, you put the subject in a dark room, take a laser and split its beam, with the film between the beams and the subject. After you develop the film, shine a lensed laser at it and the true 3D image appears.

      You could make a holographic TV set, but holograms, even with most film, are very grainy. Notice that holograms you see at places like Disney are large and you don't see them close up. To make a holographic TV you would need a crazy high resolution monitor and the pixels would have to be laser diodes, or backlit with a laser. This ultri-high resolution medium would indeed work as a hologram, all you would need would be lasers to shine at it.

  10. Limits? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Reality? In my Slashdot? But but but technology and private space elevators! NO LIMITS!

    1. Re:Limits? by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

      Is that you, Clawring Crabe?

  11. Playboy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder if 100 years from now we'll still be using an image from playboy as a test image, or if they will have found something better by then.

    1. Re:Playboy by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 2

      You mean like Big'uns?

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    2. Re:Playboy by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      goatse.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    3. Re:Playboy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The idea then would be if you can see the cell transformations in the colon suggesting the beginning of the process leading to the colon cancer.

  12. Re: optical images have an ultimate resolution lim by hamjudo · · Score: 4, Informative

    This just hits the resolution limit for color printing that includes red. It is possible to make color images with just greens, blues and violets at a higher resolution, it just wouldn't count as full color. Researchers could go to even higher resolutions, if they just use blues and violets, but they wouldn't be able to render a very convincing human flesh tone. Competition will start shortly, for the smallest smurf vision display.

  13. Re: optical images have an ultimate resolution lim by black6host · · Score: 5, Funny

    Those things would not be Color printing. In fact, you could view this process as monochrome too, except when the comparitively long wavelength visible light hits it, it acts in a similar way to a pigmint (well, diffraction isn't exactly the same, but similar enough).

    Pigmint, huh. Isn't that the pork rind they leave on your pillow at night at a Motel 6 in the south? :)

  14. Re: optical images have an ultimate resolution lim by arielCo · · Score: 3, Informative
    You can't see much smaller than the wavelength used, and they're talking about visible light. It's in TFS:

    Even under the best microscope, optical images have an ultimate resolution limit, and this method hits it.

    And the linked Wikipedia article quoth:

    With green light around 500nm the Abbe limit is 250nm.

    That's a bit more than 100,000 dpi. Visible light goes down to 380 nm (~133,000 dpi), so you'll never see anything smaller by optical means.

    --
    This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
  15. Re:$10,000 CHALLENGE to Alexander Peter Kowalski by EdIII · · Score: 2

    It reads like Time Cube to me.

    Yes, but it is missing that all important ingredient.. the background wallpaper that makes your brain hurt.

  16. Re:Added home utility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Buy it used? I just got one of the old compact laser printers for 10 bucks off craigslist.

  17. Re:Added home utility by dgatwood · · Score: 3, Informative

    If you don't care about size, I recommend networked color laser printers. No more clogged printheads, no more quirky drivers that break every other release (they speak PostScript), usually at least 5 PPM in color even for the small ones, and the bigger ones will do as much as 25 PPM in full color. Of course, they don't cost $50, but you also don't pay $50 in ink every time you need to refill the thing. (Okay, so you pay a couple hundred bucks in toner, but for home use, you refill the thing every five years instead of every month or two, so it works out to being a lot cheaper.) And instead of replacing the whole thing every couple of years when the print head finally gives up the ghost, you'll still be using the same color laser printer in a couple of decades.

    --

    Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  18. Re:Added home utility by quarkscat · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I worked for years in the DTP and pre-press market back in the 1980's and 1990's. The best hardcopy printers (not pre-press) that we had available at the time were Tektronix dye-sublimation and Firey 2000 inkjet printers. Mere 300 LPI flatbed scanners with a gamma of 4.0 were supplanted by 400 LPI analog drum scanners with a gamma of 4.8+. Color matching became critical to the conversion from RGB to CMYK for pre-press. Quality printing began with 600 LPI 4 color mask process and advanced from there in LPI and color layers. Special monitors and calibration equipment were used to age-adjust old-fashioned phosphor monitors. Reliance upon SGI computers and then Apple computers spelled the death-knell for special purpose graphics systems such as Genigraphics, and then eventually with SGI. And PostScript, WTF is that?

    Today, even pre-press is a dying industry, along with most print magazines. The only segment of the industry that appears to still be thriving is the soft porn men's magazines, from which the OP's test image originated. But I can assure the /. readers that a photo from a magazine is hardly an adequate test source for scanned images let alone high resolution print, since the image has already been massaged through the RGB > CMYK process and then the screening process (color separated dots, not pixels). OTOH, original analog photographs taken under controlled studio conditions, then printed in a computer-controlled darkroom is/was the standard. This printer may, or may not, be as good as advertised but the testing paradigm is highly dubious. Swapping analog film lens flare for digital moire patterns is not, IMHO, an advancement in print technology. And Kodak, WTF is that? No wonder that quality print industry has departed the USA, now done in Germany and to a lesser degree Japan.

    Kids these days just don't know diddley squat ... now, get the heck off my lawn !!

  19. Apple says you don't need it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After all, the so-called retina display is at the limits of what the eye can see.

    Which is complete bullshit. Apple's so-called retina display is around 300 dpi.

    Waaaay back in the early 1980s when HP came out with the world's first laser printer, everyone was blown away by printing at 300 dpi.

    It didn't take long for laser printers to progress further, to 600 dpi and then 1200 dpi, because 300 dpi ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH. Printing at 300 dpi is still jagged.

    And professionally printed magazines (such as Newsweek) are printed at close to 2400 dpi.

    Don't get me wrong, Apple's displays are nice to look at (aside from the glossy thing), but Apple has a long way to go if they want to make an actual retina display.

    1. Re:Apple says you don't need it! by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      'Retina' resolution depends on 1) device size and 2) typical viewing distance.

      For a 3.5 inch or so screen viewed at arm's length and for average human eyes, it's pretty much is as close together as one can discriminate.

      YMMV.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Apple says you don't need it! by EGSonikku · · Score: 1

      Unless you're holding your iPad at about 3" from your eye, Apple's definition is accurate and much better than anyone else's displays.

      --
      - "Scientia non habet inimicum nisp ignorantem"
    3. Re:Apple says you don't need it! by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      Okay, now I'm not buying a New iPad - I'm holding out for the 100,000 dpi version.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    4. Re:Apple says you don't need it! by omnichad · · Score: 1

      For printing, divide by four. When they say 300 dpi, I'm pretty sure that's 300 dots of cyan, magenta, yellow, and black combined (or an effective 75dpi of complete pixels). 200+dpi on Apple's retina screen doesn't count subpixels.

    5. Re:Apple says you don't need it! by mark-t · · Score: 1
      No... Apple's definition is not accurate. And neither is yours (with respect to the three inches away comment).

      Apple's "Retina" display might be better than anyone else's displays at the moment, but healthy human eyes have a angular resolution of roughly 0.5 arc minutes. At 12 inches away, which is not an unreasonable reading distance, this is a spacing of roughly 44 microns.

      Taking the nyquist limit into consideration, that means that when viewed from 12 inches away, it is still possible to distinguish optical differences whenever they are any larger than about 22 microns (although admittedly individual features of that size pixels will not be directly seen, they will still have an effect on what your eyes perceive). To be truly "Retina" worthy, therefore... at least at a distance of 12", the pixels must be no larger than about 22 microns or so.

      Apple's display, however, is roughly 300 dpi, which means each pixel is actually 84 microns in diameter, and which means that so-called "Retina" displays still need to improve by about a factor of 4 so that what you are seeing will not ever be impacted by the physical resolution of the device.

      An iPhone is even worse, since the smaller display leaves less screen real-estate to show information, so things must be shown in a smaller point size to convey as much data without panning, requiring the screen to be held closer to the eyes than an iPad to clearly make out as just as much content, and the individual pixels are that much easier to distinguish as a result.

  20. Super-resolution Microscopy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Color printing reaches the diffraction limit- not the ultimate resolution. People have been pushing the bar with respect to what can be detected with light microscopy, and in fact it is possible to use various new techniques to break the diffraction limit.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_resolution_microscopy

    -AW

  21. Resolution by p51d007 · · Score: 0

    I always get into discussions with my customers (30+ year photocopier/printer/computer tech) about their machines, and printing resolution. 99% of the time, I tell them just to print word docs in draft mode, and save the toner for something else, and print in a lower resolution. Most of the time the stuff they print ends up in the shredder in the first place. For some odd reason, they think they need to print 600x600 in photo quality all the time. Yeah, good for my business since they use more toner, but kind of stupid and wasteful. With the crap paper most people try to shove through a modern copier these days, they are lucky it prints in the first place. Why someone wants to run the cheapest paper, then ends up throwing enough of it away in paper jams, to justify running the better paper is another one that makes you scratch your head. Paper got "cheap" in the mid 80's and hasn't been the same since. They run dual purpose paper, that is meant to run in ink jets & photocopiers, then leave the stuff sitting in a non climate controlled area (warehouse) and complain when it comes out curled because it has sucked up enough moisture to fill a cup of water. End users....well, if it wasn't for them I guess I wouldn't have anything to do, but come on people, use a LITTLE common sense will ya?

    1. Re:Resolution by Macgrrl · · Score: 1

      That doesn't even take into account the amount of damage the dust from cheap paper does to the insides of quality print hardware. Ranging from clogging up optical sensors through to scratching drums with really crap paper.

      --
      Sara
      Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
    2. Re:Resolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes! Hurray for draft mode. I started abusing it with my dot matrix printer to shave a few seconds off per page and continued on with inkjets. I share the printer with non-tech people, so normal is still the default.

      My dying 5 year old inkjet sports "up to 4800x1200 dpi, 24ppm Black/18ppm color" that I honestly can't believe after taking a quick google. I got in the bad habit of printing 2-perpage w/ borders for nine-point thru twelve point fonts to save paper and print notes quickly. Fast, but disappointingly grainy and unevenly spaced. I guess the "photo modes" are prohibitively slow.

      Your note on paper quality is well taken, given home some paper reams tend to ALWAYS jam until you reduce roller friction by slowing down the printing through purposely abusing increased resolutions. But even geek buyers rarely factor in media requirements for run of the mill photo printing. Sad, really, having all this technology that costs top dollar in subscriptions (ink), and being able to change and/or know so little about it. Makes me think of walled gardens now.

  22. Re: optical images have an ultimate resolution lim by Macgrrl · · Score: 1

    I LOL'd.

    --
    Sara
    Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
  23. Re:Added home utility by Macgrrl · · Score: 1

    Personally I liked the 3M Rainbow DyeSub printers, they used the same colour encoding as their Matchpoint chem proofing systems.

    --
    Sara
    Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
  24. Call me at the next breakthough... by csumpi · · Score: 2

    ...as in an inkjet printer that doesn't clog up from dried up ink, so it it has a lifetime of over a year.

    Until then, I'll stick with lasers. Even if it's just b/w.

    1. Re:Call me at the next breakthough... by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      ...as in an inkjet printer that doesn't clog up from dried up ink, so it it has a lifetime of over a year.

      Sadly, there's no financial reason to offer such a printer.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    2. Re:Call me at the next breakthough... by crutchy · · Score: 1

      they should make an awesome 10,000 dpi 128 bit color laser printer that prints 1000 pages per minute.... that sounds like a dot matrix!!!
      now that would be a breakthrough

    3. Re:Call me at the next breakthough... by mikechant · · Score: 1

      HP880c - bought in 1999, was left in its box with partially used cartridges in place for 18 months at one point; often unused for weeks or months; always works fine when needed. Using cheap non-HP cartridges as well (GBP2 for black cartridge). Print quality still very good.

    4. Re:Call me at the next breakthough... by Amouth · · Score: 1

      Get out of the consumer market, when you get to large format commercial printers, they have their own head cleaning/ink cycling routine, and you can have them be completely autonomous about it.

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    5. Re:Call me at the next breakthough... by omnichad · · Score: 1

      That was before the nozzles shrunk again. Newer printers have smaller nozzles than ever. Every printer is a "photo" printer.

  25. Questions from the artist: by three27 · · Score: 1

    How is the archival quality? Does it break down? Will this someday replace the Giclée print as the method for find art printing?

  26. Re:Added home utility by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 2

    Don't give away those secrets. About a year and ha half a go I finally convinced my wife that we didn't need an inkjet printer as all the photo printing we did was done at Target, or at her father's house for really large stuff (he has one of the pro level ink jets for the art he does) so why not get a color laser for the few things in color we needed to print in color and all the black and white stuff. Her jaw dropped at the initial price (about 4x the cost of a good inkjet), but then we are still on the starter toner cartridges that don't dry out. Early next year we will break even.

    --
    Time to offend someone
  27. Re:$10,000 CHALLENGE to Alexander Peter Kowalski by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mod this up.

    The back and forth multi posting between APK and this "anti-APK" certainly does look like APK talking to himself.

  28. Re:$10,000 CHALLENGE to Alexander Peter Kowalski by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    /. mod system is flawed, obviously. Humar is not allowed. Illogical. Illogical. Does not compute. I have da assburgers syndrome. I am a robot. I wish I were trolling mars wit my bot opportunity.

  29. Re:Added home utility by quarkscat · · Score: 2

    The DTP / pre-press shop I worked in also sold the equipment we used. I remember seeing the 3M DyeSub printers at trade shows but never had any hands-on experience with them. IIRC, they were an option on some of the Genigraphics systems. The specs were quite good as I recall, and looked a bit like the Kodak DyeSub printer.

    We also used Matrix Digital Film Recorders (8K 8x10 back) and Linotronic Typesetting Printers, did video out to VTRs and CDROM, graphics design, web page development, plus had our own professional photo lab. I was production assistant and hands-on technical support on all the equipment, plus the IT guy handling our administrative & production Novell file servers and rolled out our dial-in Linux FTP server. Never a dull moment, for 10 to 12 hours per day. My favorite computers were SGI Indigo2 and ChallengeXL machines used for video animation, just for the sublime user interface and rock solid stability.

    Damn, I must be getting old ...

  30. Re: optical images have an ultimate resolution lim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    With near field optics, you could see things much smaller than the wavelength. Even with practical limitations, current technology can sometimes see with resolution and order of magnitude or two below the wavelength. The only catch is it requires optical elements or structure to be placed at distances on the order of a wavelength or less from what is being observed. So it is limited to some very specific uses.

  31. Enables anti-coyote measures IRL by LastDawnOfMan · · Score: 1

    With that resolution it would be so realistic that my enemy, the Coyote, will think the picture of a train tunnel I print with it is real and smash into it at full speed.

  32. Re:Added home utility by tirerim · · Score: 1

    Just to nitpick, lens flare has nothing to do with film vs. digital sensors: it's entirely due to the optics.

  33. Paper Grain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What about paper grain?

  34. Re:Added home utility by quarkscat · · Score: 1

    Just to nitpick, lens flare has nothing to do with film vs. digital sensors: it's entirely due to the optics.

    If you re-read my post, I never conflated a direct equivalence between analog film lens flare and digital moire patterns except that both are problematic to decent image quality. I also discussed the issue of using a picture from a print magazine, already converted from RGB > CMYK and screened for 4 or 6 color press, as a suitable image scanned in to test a high resolution printer. Did you really miss that bit?

    However, analog film cameras have no provision for overcoming lens aberrations short of spending top dollar on top quality lenses. Modern digit cameras store information about compatible same-brand lens to make digital corrections to lens aberrations while processing the image to memory. I have never seen what could be characterized as moire patterns when converting from analog film to analog prints in a traditional darkroom, but even with top quality name brand digital cameras the included DSP(s) never can completely eliminate the possibility of moire patterns found in digital images.

    You need to pick your nits a bit more carefully, lest you be mistaken for something a bit more anally retentive than nits.

  35. 640k... by crutchy · · Score: 1

    ...ought to be enough for anybody

    1. Re:640k... by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

      Exactly what I was going to post. "Color printing reaches the highest resolution yet" would have been better.

  36. Re:Reply by crutchy · · Score: 1

    hahaha.... jaw crusher... that's funny :)

  37. Re:fidelity to the original image is clearly low by DocSavage64109 · · Score: 1

    Even though there is a picture that shows low fidelity, we don't really know if the image was scanned poorly, saved poorly, converted by a reporter poorly, or converted yet again for upload to the web server poorly. I'm willing to give the system the benefit of a doubt, though it's also possible that they haven't come up with enough patterns of gold and silver posts to smoothly represent millions of colors.

  38. +1 Informative by DocSavage64109 · · Score: 1

    Thank you, AC, for the well written explanation of how holograms work. I've never quite understood until now!

  39. Re:fidelity to the original image is clearly low by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    To be honest, the main reason I said that, was because I wanted to see if I could post a link to the original article and still be modded up. Apparently you can.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  40. Re: optical images have an ultimate resolution lim by omnichad · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty sure this is already small enough to make an HDTV at a similar body-to-screen-size ratio for ants.

  41. Re: optical images have an ultimate resolution lim by omnichad · · Score: 1

    Yes, smaller details resolved - not color. That would still not break the barrier on the smallest color printing possible.

  42. Re: optical images have an ultimate resolution lim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are incorrect. 100,000 dpi is approximately 4000 dots per millimeter. Divide 1mm by 4000 and you get exactly 250nm. Oh yeah, they also do mention this number in the article which you should read - it's more informative than the summary and the following ignorant comments by people who also haven't read it.

  43. Re:Added home utility by dgatwood · · Score: 1

    I do my really large stuff on a color laser, too, but then again, I spent two grand on the printer specifically so that I could print draft copies of dust covers for hardcover books. I even do photo printing on my color laser. It claims 9600x600 DPI, which in practice means that as long as you aren't looking at it from such a steep angle that you can see the texture and semigloss reflection of the toner, it produces jaw-droppingly good photographic prints.

    --

    Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  44. Re: optical images have an ultimate resolution lim by Phasma+Felis · · Score: 1

    Optical images. Scanning electron microscopes (what I assume you meant by "atomic scopes") are not optical.

  45. Re:Added home utility by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

    That puts it out of my price range I spent about $400 on my printer, but then you went and jumped up to a more pro level printer like my father in law did. Does your color laser do roll feed as that was the main benefit of my father-in-law's printer when he got it 7 years ago?

    --
    Time to offend someone
  46. Re:$10,000 CHALLENGE to Alexander Peter Kowalski by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

    I would have thought banning him based on content/style of post would be an easy task

    --
    The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
  47. Re:fidelity to the original image is clearly low by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

    The reason you got modded up was you used the word 'wavelength' and lots of new slashdotters got erections

    --
    The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
  48. Are 2D limimts the same as 3D limits? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does this mean that ultimately there is going to be a resolution on 3D printers in the future also?

  49. Re: optical images have an ultimate resolution lim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Near field techniques are used for spectroscopy too. So color information still can be detected from objects much smaller than a wavelength in specialized setups.

  50. Re:Added home utility by dgatwood · · Score: 1

    No, no roll feed—I'm not aware of any laser printers that take roll paper, unless perhaps it's those industrial-grade monsters that fill half a room and cost as much as my printer plus another zero or two—but it will do up to 12.25" x 47.24" banner sheets. When I print dust covers, I cut the banner paper down to half length with a paper cutter (somewhere in the neighborhood of 9.25" x 22" post-trim size, IIRC). I also frequently print sheet music folios on 11" x 17" paper with it.

    I should clarify: it's a two grand printer, not counting the duplexer unit or the 500-sheet second paper tray. I added the duplexer because I use this thing to print draft copies of my novels for editing purposes (a few hundred pages at a time, in color to make it easier to identify things like blockquotes, in-doc comments to myself, etc.) and because it makes music printing easier.

    I added the 500 sheet (ream-sized) tray initially because I like to just shove in a whole ream at the same time instead of having to split it in half, but man, I'm glad I have it now. It makes life so much easier for music printing because I don't have to change out the paper when I do folio printing of music with a half-sized center sheet. I just let it send the 11" x 17" pages to the built-in drawer and the standard-sized pages to the full-ream add-on drawer. Because it can print one and then the other in alternation, there's no need for manually matching up the pieces at the end and accidentally giving half of the clarinets a copy with the middle two pages missing. (Sorry, guys.) So much simpler.

    So yeah, with all of my unusual needs, a suitable printer costs a fortune. On the plus side, I expect to pass this thing on to my grandkids someday. Oh, and I think it is without a doubt the one piece of expensive hardware that I will never have to worry about anyone stealing. One of my coworkers helped my set it up. It took both of us to lift the thing, and that was without the additional paper tray and duplexer. In total, with the extra tray and duplexer, it weighs in at a whopping 190 pounds, give or take—19 pounds less if you remove the toner, waste toner tank, and print drums—about 15 pounds more if you fill it with 750 sheets of 11" x 17" paper....

    --

    Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.