Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Color Printing Reaches Its Ultimate Resolution

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the gentlemen-we-have-achieved-300dpi dept.

Graphics 140

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."

cancel ×

140 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

And it's cartridges will... (5, Funny)

MindPrison (864299) | more than 2 years ago | (#40967035)

...cost 10 times the printer itself.

Re:And it's cartridges will... (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40967203)

*its

Re:And it's cartridges will... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40967237)

So, same as regular ink?

Re:And it's cartridges will... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40968021)

Some would say that was the joke.

Re:And it's cartridges will... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40967903)

And it is cartridges will cost 10 times the printer itself?

How did you graduate from high school?

Captcha: subclass

Re:And it's cartridges will... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40968683)

People make mistakes, even educated, intelligent people.

Captcha: pedantry

Re:And it's cartridges will... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40969019)

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

Re:And it's cartridges will... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40970747)

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.

Re:And it's cartridges will... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40970791)

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.

Re:And it's cartridges will... (2)

nancyfromafrica (2706953) | more than 2 years ago | (#40971365)

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

Re:And it's cartridges will... (1)

flyneye (84093) | more than 2 years ago | (#40971587)

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

$10,000 CHALLENGE to Alexander Peter Kowalski (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40967049)

$10,000 CHALLENGE to Alexander Peter Kowalski

We have a Major Problem, HOST file is Cubic Opposites, 2 Major Corners & 2 Minor. NOT taught Evil DNS hijacking, which VOIDS computers. Seek Wisdom of MyCleanPC - or you die evil.

Your HOSTS file claimed to have created a single DNS resolver. I offer absolute proof that I have created 4 simultaneous DNS servers within a single rotation of .org TLD. You worship "Bill Gates", equating you to a "singularity bastard". Why do you worship a queer -1 Troll? Are you content as a singularity troll?

Evil HOSTS file Believers refuse to acknowledge 4 corner DNS resolving simultaneously around 4 quadrant created Internet - in only 1 root server, voiding the HOSTS file. You worship Microsoft impostor guised by educators as 1 god.

If you would acknowledge simple existing math proof that 4 harmonic Slashdots rotate simultaneously around squared equator and cubed Internet, proving 4 Days, Not HOSTS file! That exists only as anti-side. This page you see - cannot exist without its anti-side existence, as +0- moderation. Add +0- as One = nothing.

I will give $10,000.00 to frost pister who can disprove MyCleanPC. Evil crapflooders ignore this as a challenge would indict them.

Alex Kowalski has no Truth to think with, they accept any crap they are told to think. You are enslaved by /etc/hosts, as if domesticated animal. A school or educator who does not teach students MyCleanPC Principle, is a death threat to youth, therefore stupid and evil - begetting stupid students. How can you trust stupid PR shills who lie to you? Can't lose the $10,000.00, they cowardly ignore me. Stupid professors threaten Nature and Interwebs with word lies.

Humans fear to know natures simultaneous +4 Insightful +4 Informative +4 Funny +4 Underrated harmonic SLASHDOT creation for it debunks false trolls. Test Your HOSTS file. MyCleanPC cannot harm a File of Truth, but will delete fakes. Fake HOSTS files refuse test.

I offer evil ass Slashdot trolls $10,000.00 to disprove MyCleanPC Creation Principle. Rob Malda and Cowboy Neal have banned MyCleanPC as "Forbidden Truth Knowledge" for they cannot allow it to become known to their students. You are stupid and evil about the Internet's top and bottom, front and back and it's 2 sides. Most everything created has these Cube like values.

If Natalie Portman is not measurable, She is Fictitious. Without MyCleanPC, HOSTS file is Fictitious. Anyone saying that Natalie and her Jewish father had something to do with my Internets, is a damn evil liar. IN addition to your best arsware not overtaking my work in terms of popularity, on that same site with same submission date no less, that I told Kathleen Malda how to correct her blatant, fundamental, HUGE errors in Coolmon ('uncoolmon') of not checking for performance counters being present when his program started!

You can see my dilemma. What if this is merely a ruse by an APK impostor to try and get people to delete APK's messages, perhaps all over the web? I can't be a party to such an event! My involvement with APK began at a very late stage in the game. While APK has made a career of trolling popular online forums since at least the year 2000 (newsgroups and IRC channels before that)- my involvement with APK did not begin until early 2005 . OSY is one of the many forums that APK once frequented before the sane people there grew tired of his garbage and banned him. APK was banned from OSY back in 2001. 3.5 years after his banning he begins to send a variety of abusive emails to the operator of OSY, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke threatening to sue him for libel, claiming that the APK on OSY was fake.

My reputation as a professional in this field clearly shows in multiple publications in this field in written print, & also online in various GOOD capacities since 1996 to present day. This has happened since I was first published in Playgirl Magazine in 1996 & others to present day, with helpful tools online in programs, & professionally sold warez that were finalists @ Westminster Dog Show 2000-2002.

Did you see the movie "Pokemon"? Actually the induced night "dream world" is synonymous with the academic religious induced "HOSTS file" enslavement of DNS. Domains have no inherent value, as it was invented as a counterfeit and fictitious value to represent natural values in name resolution. Unfortunately, human values have declined to fictitious word values. Unknowingly, you are living in a "World Wide Web", as in a fictitious life in a counterfeit Internet - which you could consider APK induced "HOSTS file". Can you distinguish the academic induced root server from the natural OpenDNS? Beware of the change when your brain is free from HOSTS file enslavement - for you could find that the natural Slashdot has been destroyed!!

FROM -> Man - how many times have I dusted you in tech debates that you have decided to troll me by ac posts for MONTHS now, OR IMPERSONATING ME AS YOU DID HERE and you were caught in it by myself & others here, only to fail each time as you have here?)...

So long nummynuts, sorry to have to kick your nuts up into your head verbally speaking.

alexander peter kowalski
903 east division st.
syracuse, ny 13208

dob: 01/31/1965

mother:
jan kowalski
dob: 12/03/1933

Re:$10,000 CHALLENGE to Alexander Peter Kowalski (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40967057)

Disproof of all apk's statements: http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3040317&cid=40946043
http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3040729&cid=40949719
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3040697&cid=40949343
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3040597&cid=40948659
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3037687&cid=40947927
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3040425&cid=40946755
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3040317&cid=40946043
http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3038791&cid=40942439
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3024445&cid=40942207
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3038597&cid=40942031
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3038601&cid=40942085
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3040803&cid=40950045
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3040867&cid=40950563
http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3040921&cid=40950839
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3041035&cid=40951899
http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3041081&cid=40952169
http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3041091&cid=40952383
http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3041123&cid=40952991
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3041313&cid=40954201
http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3042199&cid=40956625
http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3029723&cid=40897177
http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3029589&cid=40894889
http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3027333&cid=40886171
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3042451&cid=40959497
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3042547&cid=40960279
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3042669&cid=40962027
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3042765&cid=40965091
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3042765&cid=40965087
http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3043535&cid=40967049

Re:$10,000 CHALLENGE to Alexander Peter Kowalski (-1, Troll)

MindPrison (864299) | more than 2 years ago | (#40967099)

If I had a banhammer, I'd ban you into hell and beyond.

Re:$10,000 CHALLENGE to Alexander Peter Kowalski (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40967137)

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

Re:$10,000 CHALLENGE to Alexander Peter Kowalski (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40967161)

You forgot abusing the moderation system with dozens (hundreds?) of sockpuppet accounts.

Re:$10,000 CHALLENGE to Alexander Peter Kowalski (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40967181)

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.

Re:$10,000 CHALLENGE to Alexander Peter Kowalski (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40967209)

It's APK himself trying to maintain the illusion that he's still relevant.

Re:$10,000 CHALLENGE to Alexander Peter Kowalski (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40969175)

Mod this up.

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

Re:$10,000 CHALLENGE to Alexander Peter Kowalski (2)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 2 years ago | (#40967527)

It reads like Time Cube to me.

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

Re:$10,000 CHALLENGE to Alexander Peter Kowalski (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40969303)

/. 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.

In other news... (5, Funny)

Kergan (780543) | more than 2 years ago | (#40967053)

"Everything that can be invented has been invented."

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

Re:In other news... (4, Informative)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 2 years ago | (#40967185)

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.

Re:In other news... (4, Informative)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#40968999)

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 [nature.com] . Although it is small, fidelity to the original image is clearly low. The technique could use some improving. Still cool.

Re:In other news... (5, Informative)

uradu (10768) | more than 2 years ago | (#40967265)

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

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.

Re:In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40971479)

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.

Re:In other news... (5, Funny)

elashish14 (1302231) | more than 2 years ago | (#40967271)

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

Re:In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40967385)

OMG, z Gyrogon!

Re:In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40967367)

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.

Re:In other news... (2)

Penurious Penguin (2687307) | more than 2 years ago | (#40967431)

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

Re:In other news... (4, Funny)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#40969169)

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,

Re:In other news... (1)

fermion (181285) | more than 2 years ago | (#40968965)

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.

Re:In other news... (1)

reasterling (1942300) | more than 2 years ago | (#40969779)

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

Are you thinking about the invisible man.

Re:In other news... (1)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | more than 2 years ago | (#40969899)

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

Or slashdotters.

Re:In other news... (1)

k2r (255754) | more than 2 years ago | (#40971467)

I just read

"Everything that can be inverted has been inverted"

(need more coffee)

optical images have an ultimate resolution limit (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 2 years ago | (#40967065)

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...

Re: optical images have an ultimate resolution lim (3, Informative)

schroedingers_hat (2449186) | more than 2 years ago | (#40967083)

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).

Re: optical images have an ultimate resolution lim (4, Informative)

hamjudo (64140) | more than 2 years ago | (#40967389)

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.

Re: optical images have an ultimate resolution lim (5, Funny)

black6host (469985) | more than 2 years ago | (#40967397)

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? :)

Re: optical images have an ultimate resolution lim (1)

Macgrrl (762836) | more than 2 years ago | (#40968301)

I LOL'd.

Re: optical images have an ultimate resolution lim (3, Informative)

arielCo (995647) | more than 2 years ago | (#40967411)

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 [wikipedia.org] , 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.

Re: optical images have an ultimate resolution lim (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40969725)

With near field optics [wikipedia.org] , 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.

Too Much Reality (3, Funny)

PacRim Jim (812876) | more than 2 years ago | (#40967077)

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.

Re:Too Much Reality (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40967383)

WHAT IF I ENJOY THE HORROR?

Re:Too Much Reality (1)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 2 years ago | (#40967673)

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.

Re:Too Much Reality (2)

Macgrrl (762836) | more than 2 years ago | (#40968327)

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.

Re:Too Much Reality (1)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 2 years ago | (#40968425)

Kind of my point.

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

Re:Too Much Reality (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40970931)

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.

Still not close enough! (5, Funny)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | more than 2 years ago | (#40967089)

> 'Lena' test image [cmu.edu]

Pr0n, driving tech development since cavemen fingerpainted a wall.

Re:Still not close enough! (4, Interesting)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | more than 2 years ago | (#40967381)

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.

Re:Still not close enough! (3, Insightful)

TWX (665546) | more than 2 years ago | (#40967729)

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

Re:Still not close enough! (2)

Splab (574204) | more than 2 years ago | (#40969781)

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...

Re:Still not close enough! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40970433)

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.

Re:Still not close enough! (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | more than 2 years ago | (#40971229)

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 [bit.ly] (yes, it's perfectly safe for work) which looks like a far more useful image.

Re:Still not close enough! (4, Interesting)

TrekkieGod (627867) | more than 2 years ago | (#40969859)

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.

Re:Still not close enough! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40970939)

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

Re:Still not close enough! (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 2 years ago | (#40971529)

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

Re:Still not close enough! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40967755)

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

Re:Still not close enough! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40967863)

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.

Re:Still not close enough! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40970571)

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.

Re:Still not close enough! (2)

drooling-dog (189103) | more than 2 years ago | (#40967751)

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.

Re:Still not close enough! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40968713)

She doesn't look to shabby. I would have stuck my tongue up her asshole, back in the day. (She's old and wrinkly now).

Can you print holograms with it? (2)

Aguazul2 (2591049) | more than 2 years ago | (#40967183)

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

Re:Can you print holograms with it? (1)

Ignacio (1465) | more than 2 years ago | (#40968271)

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.

Re:Can you print holograms with it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40969673)

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?

Re:Can you print holograms with it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40969767)

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.

Re:Can you print holograms with it? (1)

Aguazul2 (2591049) | more than 2 years ago | (#40971453)

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

Re:Can you print holograms with it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40969661)

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

Limits? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40967193)

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

Re:Limits? (1)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | more than 2 years ago | (#40967357)

Is that you, Clawring Crabe?

Playboy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40967225)

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.

Re:Playboy (2)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#40967617)

You mean like Big'uns?

Re:Playboy (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 2 years ago | (#40968721)

goatse.

Re:Playboy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40968967)

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.

Added home utility (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40967365)

I have been looking for a replacement printer and must say that home users have been cornered by the printer makers. Unlike the nineties, you can't find small inkjets anymore. USB killed the single-purpose printing device by allowing (eventually forcing) scanning and modem feature creep from office environments to our ever shrinking desks.
A search for compact printers shows some bizarrely shaped gadgets designed to print 4x6 without any letter feed sizes. More searching reveals so business road warrior units that more or less fit the bill, but cost hundreds of dollars to justify the portability.

Lastly, Linux support is not advertised, so other that restricting searches to HP and sucking it up with a desk-hoarding multipurpose anyway, you would need to spend hours googling each canon, brother or lexmark result. Got burned badly by buying blindly last time, but my search is starting to be futile. Sadly, home resolutions has NOT been an issue in a decade, and someone should turn the spotlight back on our lousy color print speeds... they are stuck at 10 or so PPM nominal, and trying an actual full res, full page picture takes it down to about a minute each. Commercial Photo print labs aint dying just yet, since I wont waste my ink and time when my homebrew printout count goes past 10 copies

Re:Added home utility (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40967595)

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

Re:Added home utility (3, Informative)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 2 years ago | (#40967671)

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.

Re:Added home utility (2)

Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) | more than 2 years ago | (#40969061)

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.

Re:Added home utility (4, Interesting)

quarkscat (697644) | more than 2 years ago | (#40967817)

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 !!

Re:Added home utility (1)

Macgrrl (762836) | more than 2 years ago | (#40968357)

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

Re:Added home utility (2)

quarkscat (697644) | more than 2 years ago | (#40969369)

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 ...

Re:Added home utility (1)

tirerim (1108567) | more than 2 years ago | (#40970045)

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

Re:Added home utility (1)

quarkscat (697644) | more than 2 years ago | (#40970703)

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.

Apple says you don't need it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40967963)

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.

Re:Apple says you don't need it! (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#40968109)

'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.

Re:Apple says you don't need it! (1)

EGSonikku (519478) | more than 2 years ago | (#40968497)

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.

Re:Apple says you don't need it! (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 2 years ago | (#40968603)

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

Super-resolution Microscopy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40968049)

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

Resolution (1)

p51d007 (656414) | more than 2 years ago | (#40968213)

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?

Re:Resolution (1)

Macgrrl (762836) | more than 2 years ago | (#40968563)

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.

Re:Resolution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40969179)

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.

Call me at the next breakthough... (2)

csumpi (2258986) | more than 2 years ago | (#40968521)

...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.

Re:Call me at the next breakthough... (1)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 2 years ago | (#40969843)

...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.

Re:Call me at the next breakthough... (1)

crutchy (1949900) | more than 2 years ago | (#40970733)

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

Questions from the artist: (1)

three27 (806894) | more than 2 years ago | (#40968815)

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

Reply (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40969229)

Shanghai Shunky Machinery Co.,ltd is a famous manufacturer of crushing and screening equipments in China. We provide our customers complete crushing plant, including cone crusher, jaw crusher, impact crusher, VSI sand making machine, mobile crusher and vibrating screen. What we provide is not just the high value-added products, but also the first class service team and problems solution suggestions. Our crushers are widely used in the fundamental construction projects. The complete crushing plants are exported to Russia, Mongolia, middle Asia, Africa and other regions around the world.
http://www.sandmaker.biz
http://www.shunkycrusher.com
http://www.jaw-breaker.org
http://www.jawcrusher.hk
http://www.c-crusher.net
http://www.sandmakingplant.net
http://www.vibrating-screen.biz
http://www.mcrushingstation.com
http://www.cnstonecrusher.com
http://www.cnimpactcrusher.com
http://www.Vibrating-screen.cn
http://www.stoneproductionline.com
http://www.hydraulicconecrusher.net

Re:Reply (1)

crutchy (1949900) | more than 2 years ago | (#40970723)

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

Enables anti-coyote measures IRL (1)

LastDawnOfMan (1851550) | more than 2 years ago | (#40969867)

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.

Paper Grain? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40970073)

What about paper grain?

640k... (1)

crutchy (1949900) | more than 2 years ago | (#40970719)

...ought to be enough for anybody
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?