Owen Rees <orees@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 23:45:44 +0000, The Good Doctor
><docnews2011@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
><mhbap3tfmgkqoc18eqg535bg9cej62qhj2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>:
>
>>Nonsense. 100% is putting solid ink of each colour on the paper, so
>>it is far too high. 5% is very low, the truth lies in between, but it
>>will certainly be closer to 5% than 100%.
>
>The problem here is the meaninglessness of the "5%" figure. 5% of what?
>
>Epson do publish ISO 24711 page yield figures for some of their
>printers, but I have not found such figures for the R2400.
>
>HP publish page yield figures both for the ISO 24711 test set and for
>photos of quoted sizes. In the absence of information to the contrary, I
>would expect the ISO-test:photo ink consumption ratio to be similar for
>other brands of printer on the basis that the most significant factor
>will be the area printed.
>
>HP's figures work out at a factor of over 10 difference in number of
>pages between full A4 page photos and the ISO test pages (which are
>intended to be like typical text+graphics business do***ents as far as I
>can see).
>
>Since the original question was about an A3 capable printer and this is
>a photo group I am making a wild guess that the nubmer required is for
>printing A3 size photos and my first approximation would be to find the
>ISO 24711 number and divide by 20 based on the double area and ISO:photo
>ratio.
The above posting appears designed to inform us how clever the poster
is, but tells us absolutely nothing about the issue being discussed.
|
