Does printing in higher resolutions takes more ink? AND is the Lexmark X85 any good?

Can someone tell me if printing in higher resolutions takes more ink?
Thanks.

AND I'd like to know if the Lexmark X85 is any good?
I can get it a very good price... (£70).
Is it any good?
I've read mixed reviews so far.

Thanks.

OM

Nope less.


On Sun, 6 Jul 2003 01:13:53 +0100, "OM" wrote:

Can someone tell me if printing in higher resolutions takes more ink?
Thanks.

AND I'd like to know if the Lexmark X85 is any good?
I can get it a very good price... (£70).
Is it any good?
I've read mixed reviews so far.

Thanks.

OM

Nope less.

Could you please explain this - my feeble brain says the opposite!

Eric

"Paul P Mathews" wrote in message
...
Nope less.


On Sun, 6 Jul 2003 01:13:53 +0100, "OM" wrote:

Can someone tell me if printing in higher resolutions takes more ink?
Thanks.

AND I'd like to know if the Lexmark X85 is any good?
I can get it a very good price... (£70).
Is it any good?
I've read mixed reviews so far.

Thanks.

OM

wrote:
Nope less.

Could you please explain this - my feeble brain says the opposite!

Eric

I almost have no brain, but i think it's opposite, too, so i would also like
an explanation of Paul's statement!

I don't think you can really tell, nor do I think it would matter much.
Think of it this way: you have the same area to cover with ink, regardless
of how the ink gets there. Printing at a higher resolution doesn't cover the
paper more thoroughly, nor does printing at a lower resolution leave big
gaps between the colored areas.

--

Jerry Schwartz
FidoNet 1:142/928
http://www.writebynight.com

"OM" wrote in message
...
Can someone tell me if printing in higher resolutions takes more ink?
Thanks.

AND I'd like to know if the Lexmark X85 is any good?
I can get it a very good price... (£70).
Is it any good?
I've read mixed reviews so far.

Thanks.

OM

wrote:
I don't think you can really tell, nor do I think it would matter
much. Think of it this way: you have the same area to cover with ink,
regardless of how the ink gets there. Printing at a higher resolution
doesn't cover the paper more thoroughly, nor does printing at a lower
resolution leave big gaps between the colored areas.


You're wrong here. Printing at lower res - i.e. 600 dpi means 600 spots per
inch, while printing at 1200 dpi means 1200 spots per inch, which means 100%
more spots per inch, which means 100% more ink taken.
You don't see gaps, but they ARE there. Look under big lense or microscope.
Why do you think specs say you can print like 400 sheets of plain paper at
standard resolution and 70-90 pages of highest resolution on high gloss
paper? I bet it's not just for fun.

But easiest way (although costly) is to try: take 100 sheets of gloss or
photo paper, make 100 full sized photos at max resolution, check out
remaining ink, then take 100 plain sheets and make 100 full sized photos at
normal resolution. You'll be surprised ( and without ink, too :-))) not
mentioning empty pocekt from wasted photo paper bought.

wrote:
"SleeperMan" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Nope less.

Could you please explain this - my feeble brain says the opposite!

Eric

I almost have no brain, but i think it's opposite, too, so i would
also like an explanation of Paul's statement!

It certainly uses more ink because the printhead must eject more drops
on paper (that's why text printed in draft looks rather grey not solid
black)

Wayne

My opinion exactly. But Jerry on the other hand doesn't think so...

"SleeperMan" wrote in message
...
You're wrong here. Printing at lower res - i.e. 600 dpi means 600
spots per
inch, while printing at 1200 dpi means 1200 spots per inch, which
means 100%
more spots per inch, which means 100% more ink taken.

That assumes that one "spot" of ink is always the same amount of
ink. I could imagine that is not the case, but I certainly don't
know for sure.
Oliver

On Sun, 6 Jul 2003 23:30:34 +0100, "Oliver Walter"
c.ku wrote:

That assumes that one "spot" of ink is always the same amount of
ink. I could imagine that is not the case, but I certainly don't
know for sure.
Oliver

Howdy,

I don't know about the ink usage, but at 1200 dpi, the "dots" are
smaller than at 600 dpi. That's the whole idea of "finer" resolution.

All the best,

--
Kenneth

If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."

Thanks for all the replies.
I'm still confused though!
I can understand why both explanations might be true.

I'm going to email HP and Lexmark to see what they say.
I'll send another posting if I get a reply.


"Kenneth" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 6 Jul 2003 23:30:34 +0100, "Oliver Walter"
c.ku wrote:

That assumes that one "spot" of ink is always the same amount of
ink. I could imagine that is not the case, but I certainly don't
know for sure.
Oliver

Howdy,

I don't know about the ink usage, but at 1200 dpi, the "dots" are
smaller than at 600 dpi. That's the whole idea of "finer" resolution.

All the best,

--
Kenneth

If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."