Help... Process camera vs imagesetter

[Repro_Pro]

I believe you refer to the Agfa Accuset 1000.
In its' day it was a very reliable and could give you all you probably need for the required type of job, but by now it's probably over dated.
Even if it was well cared for and is still in good working order - spare parts and/or technical help may become a real pain when a problem arises.
Careful. Since it's a capstan image-setter and the film is drawn between rubber rollers while it's exposed, these rubber rollers must be in very good condition to be able to deliver!

 

[Danny Whitehead]

Agfa 1000 were made in the early 90's. I did not think being made so early they could do such fine quality as .08pt lines.

Theoretically, a 3200dpi imagesetter can image a horizontal or vertical stroke as fine as 0.023 pt (1 ÷ 3200 x 72). And as I understand Postscript imaging, any element smaller than the device's addressable pixel width will imaged as one pixel (0.023 pt).

I personally can't imagine a situation where introducing an analogue process would increase fidelity, but I might be wrong.

 

[realmstar]

BTW, architects' drawings are usually big, enlarged ones may become too big for a camera.

No ours are smaller ones for advertising. We want them printed up on a ab dick 360 with crestline dampening system. As long at the plate can hold .08pt or .10 pt lines I don't see why an ab dick 360 can't print lines that thin? Unless anyone disagrees? Could it not? The lines will be that thin everywhere on 8x11 sheets.

 

[Repro_Pro]

Technically you can get these fine lines reproduced faithfully and printed on paper, but the result may be disappointing and probably useless.
Graphics and text made up of such thin lines will become too "Light" to be comfortably read.
You may need to increase line thickness regardless of real scale reduction, just to make the art more visible, even at the cost of some details "plugging up".
A test printing on the actual paper stock will be needed to show the limits you should stay within.