Imagesetter resolution

[Macmann]

I recently sent the exact same test file to our imagesetter at 2000, 2540, and 4000 ppi. In the log file I checked the RIP times and found that the 4000 ppi setting took the longest which I expected, but what surprised me was that the 2540 ppi processed faster than the 2000 ppi. Is it possible that our imagesetter is optimized for 2540 and it just "likes" that resolution better? We are running a mid-nineties vintage Barco MegaSetterPlus. The ability to run sheetfed film 5 feet wide is essential to our operation so we are forced to live with this fossil. I was just trying to determine the sweet spot for speed and quality. Anybody out there remember these behemoths? Gordo?

 

[gordo]

I recently sent the exact same test file to our imagesetter at 2000, 2540, and 4000 ppi. In the log file I checked the RIP times and found that the 4000 ppi setting took the longest which I expected, but what surprised me was that the 2540 ppi processed faster than the 2000 ppi. Is it possible that our imagesetter is optimized for 2540 and it just "likes" that resolution better? We are running a mid-nineties vintage Barco MegaSetterPlus. The ability to run sheetfed film 5 feet wide is essential to our operation so we are forced to live with this fossil. I was just trying to determine the sweet spot for speed and quality. Anybody out there remember these behemoths? Gordo?

Something is not quite right. Have a read here: http://www.bob-weber.com/media/plugins/ticc/document/1b239d-Gigasetter.PDF

 

[Macmann]

Thanks for kicking me back in the water Gordo. I was looking at the log wrong. I like 2540. Relatively quick and good quality without the overkill of the 4000.