🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <pmarcos-280992105113@clive.mv.us.adobe.com> pmarcos@adobe.com (Paul Marcos) writes:
>In article <TTN.92Sep27174422@mustarastas.cs.tut.fi>, ttn@cs.tut.fi (Tero
>Nieminen) wrote:
>>> Unfortunately, this seems to put and end to the possibility of having a
>> decently priced PS-film recorder attached to a NeXT. Well, it could be
>> about the same resolution (in dots) as the screen, but if they just let
>> us use the laser printer effective bitmap size.
>> 
>Maybe I didn't make sense.  You could do bitmaps up to 900dpi and send the
>bitmaps down to a film recorder.  That's pretty good resolution if you ask
>me.  I know nothing about PS-film recorders, but if it has a RIP (a
>PostScript interpreter) built into it, then you should be able to send
>PostScript *code* to it and get any resolution that the recorder can
>physically do.  Does that make sense?  So if you've got a PS-film recorder
>with a RIP built into it, then you're stylin', otherwise, you could to up
>to 900 dpi.

Talus had a run in about their Rio film recorder (which is made by
Polaroid).  The film-recorder has a resolution of about 4k, but
Polaroid's legal department insists that most color film has less than
900 grains per inch.  Having used a grain-focuser, I tend to agree
with them.  Adobe is apparently satisfied (or they just don't want to
deal with Polaroid's legal department).

While I'm not a lawyer, I kind of think that the particular portion of
the NeXT licensing agreement in question is not easily enforceable.


andrew
-- 
andrew@cubetech.com     | "We shall not cease from exploration
Andrew Loewenstern      |  And the end of our exploring
Cube Technologies, Inc. |  Will be to arrive where we started
                        |  And know the place for the first time." -T.S. Eliot