[1856] in Enterprise Print Delivery Team
Re: Filesizes for rip options
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David F Lambert)
Tue Oct 30 15:17:33 2001
Message-Id: <200110302017.PAA20896@fort-point-station.mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 01 15:17:09 EST
From: David F Lambert <LAMBERT@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
To: "Lynne E. Durland" <durland@MIT.EDU>,
Enterprise Printing Delivery Project Team <printdel@MIT.EDU>
In-Reply-To: Message of Tue, 30 Oct 2001 14:59:38 -0500 from <durland@MIT.EDU>
Thanks, Lynne. I think I even understand it this time too! :) -Dave
On Tue, 30 Oct 2001 14:59:38 -0500 you said:
>Dave,
>
>I did run the test today, and the file would not take off until I reset the
>job to run at 300 instead of 240.
>The actual destination was set to 300 and 600 for the W91 printer and 240
>and 600 on the E19 printer. I have reset both printers to accept 240, 300
>and 600. I set the logical destination glmp to 300 resolution.
>
>We should now be ready to for the SAP run coming up in 10 days or so.
>
>Lynne
>
>At 05:38 PM 10/29/2001, David F Lambert wrote:
>>Howdy,
>>
>>Looking back at the recent disk sizing work, we said one GL statement
>>file (Postscript) was ~33MB and the ripped file was ~.5GB. So, the
>>13.2 looks about right given rounding (and I remember rounding up to
>>the ~.5GB number).
>>
>>I'm concerned about decreasing the resolution from 300dpi to 240dpi since
>>the client has been testing and reviewing the quality of output. Of course,
>>they've been looking at 300dpi (default) quality.
>>
>>Given the client testing already performed @ 300dpi, and the disk
>>sizing effort which was based unknowingly on a 300dpi assumption,
>>I'd vote for keeping the monthly GL at 300dpi but changing all other
>>queues to 600dpi.
>>
>>For SAP & other users who move from 600dpi local printers, there should
>>be no resolution loss. For recipients of the monthly GL statements,
>>they should see a slight improvement over the forced 240dpi provided
>>via the mainframe path.
>>
>>Could you live with this proposal, Lynne?
>>
>>-Dave
>>
>>On Mon, 29 Oct 2001 13:43:24 -0500 Lynne said:
>> >Greetings,
>> >
>> >I have now had a chance to run some rips on the file Mark Prudden submitted
>> >this morning.
>> >
>> >The results were about what was expected.
>> >
>> >The 240 dpi file was about 8 times larger than the original PS file.
>> >The 300 dpi file was about 13.2 time larger than the original PS file.
>> >The 600 dpi file filled the disk space where I was writing the test files
>> >and so I have no data. (the 300 dpi file took up ~37% of the space)
>> >
>> >In poking in the manuals I think I have figured out that if the resolution
>> >is set to default for the logical destination/default document, then this
>> >will pass the information to the transform to rip the file at 240 dpi. The
>> >default behavior for the transform as currently configured is 300 dpi.
>> >
>> >The printer is currently set to 240/600 dpi setting.
>> >
>> >So I believe that the best course of action is for the production GL queue
>> >be set to default, which is 240 dpi.
>> >
>> >This will make our space calculations true and workable. Running at 600
>> >would not leave us room for growth and could potentially fill the space we
>> >have requested.
>> >
>> >I will set the option in the logical destination tomorrow, that will give
>> >y'all a chance to let me know if my thinking is bent or on the mark.
>> >
>> >Lynne
>> >Lynne E. Durland
>> >Information Systems
>> >Database Services
>> >W91-109
>> >O: 617-258-5857
>> >C: 617-293-8091
>> >H: KB1FEM
>> >
>> >"When one door of happiness closes, another opens; but often we look so
>> >long at the closed door that we do not see the one which has been opened
>> >for us."
>> >
>> > --Helen Keller
>> >
>
>Lynne E. Durland
>Information Systems
>Database Services
>W91-109
>O: 617-258-5857
>C: 617-293-8091
>H: KB1FEM
>
>"When one door of happiness closes, another opens; but often we look so
>long at the closed door that we do not see the one which has been opened
>for us."
>
> --Helen Keller
>
