Talk:LightJet

Hi,

I think this page could be a useful reference but at the moment it reads like an advert. I'm tagging it as such, and I'm tagging it as such. I may try to improve and reference it, but I don't have any printed info to hand and trawling the web found nothing useful. We'll see... Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of the claims in this page is utterly false. The claim relates to the banding and halftoning. Here is the claim: Whereas xerography and inkjet printing employ a halftone process to reproduce digital images on paper, LightJet is a true continuous tone process. Posterization and banding are therefore absent from LightJet prints.

The banding in digital photography is a product of the original file, and has nothing to do with output. A photographic file, a tiff for example, is an 8 or 16 bit image that is ABSOLUTELY UNABLE to produce continuous tone. It is what the "8 bit" part of an image file actually means. The slightest gradient will show banding in the source file, and no amount of processing or printing technology will overcome this inherent limitation of digital photography. A printer that produces images from a digital file cannot make a claim of continuous tone, no matter the technology. I wish that I were wrong about this.

--Tamarindophoto (talk) 17:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Banding has more than one cause. 16-bit data can produce an image in which the banding is not visible to the human eye. Many (possibly most) photographs of the reeal world have no visible banding introduced by reduction to 8-bit data. A halftone process is an ADDITIONAL source of banding that is often much more dramatic. Therefore, this article is correct as a first approximation, even though no digital printing process can be literally immune from banding. Halftone printing adds additional banding to an image, the LightJet does not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephen123 2008 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]