in: bishop22; bishop22 > 2008-04-27;
| # Posted 2008-04-28 08:01:08 | |
| RLShadow: | Did the printing quality seem a bit marginal? (and worse than typical?)
I was having a lot of trouble reading the map but blamed it on my aging eyesight, but when I got home and looked at it closely, it seems like many of the lines were more jagged than they normally are (contour lines, the vertical green lines representing undergrowth, and of course, the stone walls). |
| # Posted 2008-04-28 19:26:19 | |
| bishop22: | Yes, I thought it was my eyes, too. But Zach also had trouble reading some of the features. Jim thinks it is settings on the map, rather than the printing, that caused the problems. |
| # Posted 2008-04-29 00:20:28 | |
| RLShadow: | Hmmm ... interesting. I don't have the exact same file that must have been used for yesterday's meet, but I pulled out the most recent Oatka file that I have on my computer, and printed it (on my el cheapo inkjet printer), and the quality was MUCH better than that of the maps we used yesterday.
Then I obtained the OCAD file from the ROC web site, and printed that, and it was also much better than the maps we used yesterday. So at one point in time, the Oatka OCAD file gave good print quality, at least when printed on my home inkjet printer. I'm not sure what could have happened to the settings on the map that would now cause it to give such poor print quality, but we should definitely investigate this so we can avoid it happening again. |
| # Posted 2008-04-30 21:44:09 | |
| gas_turbine: | There may have been some on-site photocopying going on. I overheard some discussion, but wasn't really paying attention at the time.... |
| # Posted 2008-05-01 09:17:45 | |
| bishop22: | No photocopying. We now have the capability to print extra maps on the fly at the meets. It's the same printer that was used to print the initial set of maps. |
You must be logged in to add a message