Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: L - Type prints  (Read 3024 times)

pflower

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 316
Re: L - Type prints
« Reply #20 on: June 28, 2018, 10:47:52 AM »

Where did you see this offer?  I can't find it on their website.

Thanks



Will read their website again to double check when I have more time but it appears the introductory offer is very tempting :)
4 A3 prints shipped  £12 to UK is extremely good value

Did I read it correctly ! !
Logged

mcbroomf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 676
    • Mike Broomfield
Re: L - Type prints
« Reply #21 on: June 28, 2018, 01:58:54 PM »

Kevin created a link to a "landing page" in the article towards the end.  It's not on their website.

There is no way to create a book at the moment.  I could not find a book link and asked them.  Huw got back to me fairly quickly and said that they don't have an App but are working on one, due in 2-3 months.
Logged

Kevin Raber

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1296
  • Kevin Raber
    • Kevin Raber
Re: L - Type prints
« Reply #22 on: July 02, 2018, 02:53:19 AM »

Just got off a ship after ten days in the high Arctic 82.2 degrees - great trip.  As far as L.Type goes.  I am not paid by any company unless I state so in my article.  I explained my history with this company and how impressed I was with their product.  Why do people presume because I am enthusiastic and like a product that a company is paying us?  Just to make things clear we are loaned gear every now and then to review or look at.  Sometimes we write about it.  Most of the gear written about on this site we purchase.

I am a firm believer in the print and promote printing on this site often.  If you don't make your own prints, then here is a company offering LuLa readers a good offer as well as a great high-quality product.
Logged
Kevin Raber
Publisher - luminous-landscape.com
[email protected]

Jeff

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 73
Re: L - Type prints
« Reply #23 on: July 02, 2018, 03:42:10 AM »

Where did you see this offer?  I can't find it on their website.

Thanks

At the bottom of Kevin's article there is a link to the Luminous Landscape landing page where details can be found in the first paragraph.

The offer is for new customers' first order but there is a discount for subsequent orders using the LL voucher code.
Logged

hrwilliams

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 21
Re: L - Type prints
« Reply #24 on: August 04, 2018, 02:11:45 PM »

Sorry Lars, I have no idea and no ready way of finding out. But if the Lumejet people are reading this thread, perhaps they may have a fix on it and would respond.

Hi - I'm sorry I'm late to this, but I run L-Type (LumeJet), so let me do my best.

My understanding is that the Durst Lambda was originally conceived and built as a 200ppi printer (it's before my time) and, with its 50" width, was really aimed at large prints that would be viewed at a distance. It was then upgraded to give a resampled 400dpi so that it could produce smaller prints that would be viewed in the hand. So my understanding is that 200ppi is the native print resolution and 400ppi is a resampled print resolution. We do not think there was any hardware modification to go from 200ppi to 400ppi (ie no refocussing of the beams to produce a smaller spot size) - it was a question of using the same hardware to print the extra pixels in between the ones that would have been printed at 200ppi. The result of this resampling is that the image is softer (because it every other pixel is effectively a pixel that is created by interpolation from the actual image pixels all around it). By just imaging a higher res (blended) file with the same lower res laser, you get a blurring effect at high contrast edges e.g. text and fine lines, due to the intermediate grey pixels between the black and white edges.

Our printer, by contrast, is designed from the beginning to print with a precisely focussed, sharp-edged pixel at a native 400ppi and each image pixel is, natively, printed 1-for-1 at at that resolution. Of course, if you start with an image that is only set at 200ppi, or try to print an image that is, say, 2000px over 10", then we will resample that up to give 400 print pixels for 200 image pixels.

Put differently, my understanding is that if you wanted to print 2000px on a Lambda, this would naturally cover 10" at 200ppi. If you wanted it to cover 10" at 400 ppi, then you'd resample and create the intervening pixels and then print them all with a 'soft-edged' laser dot that was designed to print at 200ppi, but is now printing on a 400ppi pitch.

If you wanted to print the same 2000px on our printer it would naturally print at 5" wide at 400ppi. If you wanted to print it over 10" then we would also need to resample, but each resultant image pixel would be printed by a very precisely formed hard-edged pixel on the paper, rather than the soft-edged laser dot. So although our image would also be slightly softer due to the resampling, it would be much crisper and sharper than the Lambda version. And, most importantly, out printer images the paper using multi-parallel beams hitting the paper vertically at 400ppi at all points of the print with virtually zero sideways pixel overlap to maintain edge sharpness. Of course if someone sends us a res’d up file we will still have a somewhat softer edge, but imaged with a hard dot – not the other way around as with the Lambda. Also, laser systems use long path lengths (several meters), spinners, mirrors, Ftheta lens (not flat across the whole bed) and 3 beams for RGB – each of which will have some chromatic aberration (different paths for different wavelengths).

I was not involved with the company before late 2015, but I believe that in 2009, Durst held discussions with LumeJet about replacing its print heads with the LumeJet 400ppi print head (as did at least one other major manufacturer). In the end, Durst pulled out of printer manufacture and switched entirely to inkjet, and the other manufacturer went bust. And at that point, development of silver halide printing by anyone other than us pretty much stopped.
Logged

Wayne Fox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4109
    • waynefox.com
Re: L - Type prints
« Reply #25 on: August 08, 2018, 10:00:02 PM »

So my understanding is that 200ppi is the native print resolution and 400ppi is a resampled print resolution. We do not think there was any hardware modification to go from 200ppi to 400ppi (ie no refocussing of the beams to produce a smaller spot size) - it was a question of using the same hardware to print the extra pixels in between the ones that would have been printed at 200ppi.
It would be nice to have some proof of this other than speculation, because a Lambda print at 400dpi was visually obviously superior to one at 200 dpi. I was using other technology at the time (Kodak Pegasus, Durst Theta) but saw many prints made from Lambda’s.  I thought the upgrade required a technician, not just a firmware/software thing. I don’t know what the technician did and what hardware (If any) had to be switched out, but my impression was it was a little more complicated than you imply.

Don’t misunderstand, I’m not disputing your claim to superior technology, but to me that rests with the ability to produce extremely sharp square pixels at resolution. I haven’t tried your service yet, but fully intend to sometime in the next few months.
Logged

Kevin Raber

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1296
  • Kevin Raber
    • Kevin Raber
Re: L - Type prints
« Reply #26 on: August 09, 2018, 07:32:36 AM »

On orders placed just say you are a luminous-landscape subscriber.  That will get you the discount every time.
Logged
Kevin Raber
Publisher - luminous-landscape.com
[email protected]

Stephen Ray

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 139
Re: L - Type prints
« Reply #27 on: August 09, 2018, 12:54:33 PM »

It would be nice to have some proof of this other than speculation,

+1, just sayin'
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14235
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: L - Type prints
« Reply #28 on: August 12, 2018, 12:19:23 PM »

It would be nice to have some proof of this other than speculation, because a Lambda print at 400dpi was visually obviously superior to one at 200 dpi.
+2. IMHO, the article I saw months ago and the claims of some of the technology advantages were rather technically bogus marketing speak from the company. A side by side blind test of similar technology in an updated article would be useful.
Logged
Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers"

Kevin Raber

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1296
  • Kevin Raber
    • Kevin Raber
Re: L - Type prints
« Reply #29 on: August 12, 2018, 12:30:27 PM »

In a few months maybe I will do a side by side and have the same images done at a lab stateside and then L.Type.  Btheefore I was at Phase One I ran one of the largest US color labs and pioneered digital workflow. We had the second Symbolic Light Jet 5000, the very first LED KOday printer and even pioneered CRT printing. Oh, and eventually a Lambda.   I know printing from these devices and what L'.Type is doing is so much better.  Of course, there is a lot of advancements over the years.

The technology for what L.Type is not a concern for me.  The quality of the images I received back was and I am now getting ready to send more work to them. 

Huw will have to have one of his techies get back to us.  I'm sure he will get to it.  The bottom line for me and others who have written to me is that the results were outstanding and no one seems disappointed.

Logged
Kevin Raber
Publisher - luminous-landscape.com
[email protected]

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14235
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: L - Type prints
« Reply #30 on: August 12, 2018, 12:43:05 PM »

In a few months maybe I will do a side by side and have the same images done at a lab stateside and then L.Type.
The quality of the images I received back was and I am now getting ready to send more work to them. 
Without comparing technologies, isn't this a bit like one hand clapping? I'm not suggesting the products provided were not outstanding. I'm asking if the marketing speak I'm hearing has any effect on the output or not compared to the competing and similar technology. Only a side by side blind test will tell us.
Quote
Huw will have to have one of his techies get back to us.  I'm sure he will get to it.
I don't recall that happening last time this conversion took place.
Logged
Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers"
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up