Image Quality
IMAGE QUALITY
Copy Halftones
Min. Gradation*
Black
Cyan
Magenta
Yellow
*Minimum gradation is on a scale of 10 – 100 percent in 10 percent
increments. The best possible minimum gradation is 10 percent.
**Maximum gradation is on a scale of 10 – 100 percent in 10 percent
increments. The best possible maximum gradation is 100 percent.
Negative/Positive Lines*
Line Width
Negative
(points)
Vertical
√
1
√
2
√
3
√
4
√
5
√
6
√
A "
" mark indicates the device was able to print the line width correctly.
*Chart cells containing an "x" indicate that the printer was not able to print
the line width correctly. Overall, the fewer "x's," the better the image
quality. If no cells are marked with an "x," then the device was able to
print all line widths correctly.
Negative/Positive Dots*
Line Width (points)
1 pixel Black
1 pixel Black Neg
1 pixel Cyan
1 pixel Magenta
1 pixel Yellow
2x2 pixel Black
2x2 pixel Black Neg
Checkerboard apparent?
*On a scale of 0 – 100%. The higher the percentage, the better.
Copyright © 2009 BERTL Inc.
All Rights Reserved. The license under which this document is made available and applicable law prohibit any reproduction or further transmission of any portion of this document. This
document may only be viewed electronically through the www.BERTL.com Web site and may not be stored in electronic or hard copy format. Any reproduction of trademarks is strictly
prohibited. BERTL accepts no responsibility for any inaccuracies or omissions contained in this document.
Max. Gradation**
10
90
10
90
10
80
10
90
Positive
Horizontal
Vertical
Horizontal
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
% of Dots Printed
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
No
Fleshtones
Banding
Low Contrast
Saturation
Caste
Fine Detail
*Based on a scale of 1 – 5, with 5 being the best.
√
√
√
√
√
√
Above and below: Xerox solid ink technology utilizes four
A3-page-wide printheads to achieve fast print speeds and
ensure that the entire page is imaged at a constant rate
displaying vibrant color quality.
September 2009
Xerox ColorQube 9203
www.BERTL.com
Photo Quality
Ranking (1-5)*
4.5
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
September 2009
Page 15
Seite drucken