Austin writes ...
> > There is a big difference between halftoning
> > and dithering. Most of the printers we use,
> > inkjet, home laser printers, etc, use dithering.
> >
> > ...
>
> Not necessarily. You are describing an implementation,
> not a process. I still contend, and what sources
> I have checked, concur that the process is
> called halftoning, and that dithering is a technique
> that can be used in AN implementation of halftoning.
>
> > No inkjet printer can produce true
> > halftone, yet.
>
> ...
>
> I'd like to see references that support you, if you have any. Adobe
> supports my contention in their technical guide on halftoning:
>
>
ning/psscanning02.html
Adobe refers to this process as "halftoning" only with a qualifier in
front ... "digital". You are correct in say "dithering" is used to
impliment halftoning with an inkjet (or laser) printer. I simply used
the term "imitate" or "simulate", rather than "impliment".
It is a symantical argument for sure. I only believe you need be a
bit careful talking about "digital halftoning" if your readers have a
traditional definition of halftoning in mind.
... and I would still argue that stoichastic or random dithering is
NOT an implimentation of halftoning ... that is, this implimentation
of dithering does not vary the dot size, rather the number and
placement of dots.
shAf :o)
