Re:List of Printers Which Do or Do Not Display Tracking Dots
by amelius on Wednesday June 07, 2017 @04:06AM
(#14504471)
Shouldn't we be able to control a printer on the pixel (dither) level in the first place?
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:List of Printers Which Do or Do Not Display Tracking Dots
by leni536 on Wednesday June 07, 2017 @04:32AM
(#14504580)
This would be nice for other reasons too. There can be better halftoning algorithms to the typical pattern based halftoning of laser printers. It's hard to calibrate though, printers don't print "pixels". They print dots that typically overlap a lot, DPI for printers is the resolution for positioning the dots, not the size of the dots.
Re:List of Printers Which Do or Do Not Display Tracking Dots
by kpil on Wednesday June 07, 2017 @01:37PM
(#14508284)
I think that ALL algorithms are better than the default halftone algorithms.
I think it's possible to send saturated pixels using PCL, and tell the printer to disable half-toning. It requires that a full page fits in memory, which isn't much (512MB) but typically more than the default.
For some reasons all printers use really vintage memory, so 512MB extra memory is crazy-expensive.
Re:List of Printers Which Do or Do Not Display Tracking Dots
by verytrivial on Wednesday June 07, 2017 @04:37AM
(#14504600)
Even if we are able to, if the default is to divulge the printer ID via a dithering pattern either at the driver or machine level when given a blob of image data, I think this problem becomes similar to "Can't we all just encrypt our email?" i.e. largely academic.
Re:List of Printers Which Do or Do Not Display Tracking Dots
by lucideer on Wednesday June 07, 2017 @06:15AM
(#14504979)
We're currently in a situation where we don't even really fully know which are doing it or exactly how, so it would be many giant leaps in the right direction at least.
It would likely make identifying tracking marks and algorithms a lot easier.