Just out of curiosity. What kind of printer and process is this they are using?

[JRSmit]

I'm not sure where this "6100 apparent" resolution comes from in terms of how they are calculating it in marketing speak, but it's not specific to Duggal.  It's a Polilettronica printer-- they've been claiming for a while that they can do "610dpi optical" which is much more reasonable.  I've seen this side-by-side with the 300dpi prints off the machine, and it has made only an infinitesimal difference.  Also, almost never does one encounter a file of this resolution for printing bigger than, say, 11"x14", and then you're pretty much at the mercy of the fineness of the paper you're using.  MAYBE on fujiflex or something you could see the difference.  That said, the old LVT film recorders (used for transferring from digital to film negatives) can actually be loaded with positive film media (like fujiflex) and actually print to an optical resolution of 1524dpi (or maybe 2032?  Can't remember offhand).  I would love to see a print made on one, just for s***s and giggles...

here's some more info on Duggal's Poli:  https://pdnpulse.pdnonline.com/2015/08/digital-c-prints.html

Interesting, as the manufacturier states input ppi of 254ppi.
What i was told is that a silver halide crystal has multiple color-couplers, seems  that this “multplier” is used to suggest a high dpi.

[Stephen Ray]

I'm not sure where this "6100 apparent" resolution comes from in terms of how they are calculating it in marketing speak, but it's not specific to Duggal.  It's a Polilettronica printer-- they've been claiming for a while that they can do "610dpi optical" which is much more reasonable.  I've seen this side-by-side with the 300dpi prints off the machine, and it has made only an infinitesimal difference.  Also, almost never does one encounter a file of this resolution for printing bigger than, say, 11"x14", and then you're pretty much at the mercy of the fineness of the paper you're using.  MAYBE on fujiflex or something you could see the difference.  That said, the old LVT film recorders (used for transferring from digital to film negatives) can actually be loaded with positive film media (like fujiflex) and actually print to an optical resolution of 1524dpi (or maybe 2032?  Can't remember offhand).  I would love to see a print made on one, just for s***s and giggles...

here's some more info on Duggal's Poli:  https://pdnpulse.pdnonline.com/2015/08/digital-c-prints.html

I've noticed the same published info and I wouldn't be surprised to learn of typos, misinterpretations, simple mistakes, or promotional hype as the reason for unusual numbers.

BTW, the Kodak LVT max rez is 2032ppi to image 8x10s. I don't remember if the 16x20 LVT model can actually image @ Res 80 that large, so it may be 16x20 @ Rez 40 which is 1016ppi.

Also in my earlier post, I mentioned 72 inch Endura is the only available material for a LightJet 500XL but there are more choices of less wide materials which the machine may image.

[Binartem]

I have no experience with these.  They probably look great but some of the marketing on that page needs some explanation.  The two near the top that say "Our displays up close" and "Typical fine art prints up close" for example.  There is no amount of magnification that can cause that level of blurring in the "typical fine art print" without also producing dot patterns at the same time.  The one on the right looks like someone took the original and applied an 8 pixel radius gaussian blur!

[glyph]

IMO, they loose credibility by using totally bogus "other guys" reference images, including the ridiculous blurred image mentioned previously, as well as the screen pattern enlargement that alleges to be a fine art print, but looks like an enlargement from offset printing, not a fine art print. If you can't win an argument on merits alone, fake it!