| ID: | 5643 |
| From: | ka...@aspodata.se |
| Date: | Fri, 13 May 2022 12:52:37 +0200 (CEST) |
| Subject: | printer calibration |
| in-reply-to: | 5641 from rn...@igor2.repo.hu |
| replies: | 5644 from rn...@igor2.repo.hu , 5645 from John Griessen <jo...@cibolo.com> |
Igor2: ... > Conclusions #1: > > 1. when last used lpr > > To my surprise a lot of users do use direct printing. Which means, again > to my surprise, lpr still works. ... Btw, printing pdf's can give you surprises, I have experienced scaling of the output which I found no workaround for, so postscript is the way to go. I use heat tolerant drafting film which doesn't change dimensions. > 2. when last calibrated This thing about calibration was up in this mailing list a year ago, in the thread with subject "feature removal RFC: the pscalib action" > 3. fab @ home Printing on a excellent printer you can do 0.2mm traces without problem. The downside of @home is: . only 1 or 2 layer . too large vias . usually no silk nor solder resist but it is good for proof of concept. ... > Calibration doesn't take a lot of code or complication in the code, so I > will probably keep it as is in pcb-rnd even long term. ... Calibration could just as easily be done in a post *-rnd step (at least for postscript), just make a filter that adds something like /xcal 1.03 def /ycal 1.04 def xcal ycal scale at top in the file. If you need more fancy calibration, you should really get a better printer or send the job to a fab. Regards, /Karl Hammar
Reply subtree:
5643 printer calibration from ka...@aspodata.se
5644 Re: printer calibration (Re: [pcb-rnd] poll RESULT: print dialog from rn...@igor2.repo.hu
5645 Re: printer calibration (Re: [pcb-rnd] poll RESULT: print dialog and from John Griessen <jo...@cibolo.com>