You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Here are three labels. The first one is a sample pattern with height 512 on 12mm tape. The pattern is truncated at row 64, so I conclude that the print head is 64 pixels high.
I measure the sample pattern to be about 8¾mm high.
The next two show the 64 pixel sample pattern on 12mm and 9mm tapes.
12mm
Top margin 1½mm
Bottom margin 1½mm
9mm
Top margin: 64th row is partially visible at the tape's edge
Bottom margin: 1st row is partially visible at the tape's edge
Yes, this is all the information we could possibly ask for. Looks way better than the original one. :)
h=512 obviously doesn't fit on the print, I wonder if there is anything we could do to preserve this information regardless of the tape size. How about repeating "h=xxx" across the full height of the print?
I could do that, but we're only going to do this a dozen or so times, and I don't want to go through the effort to recreate the photos yet again unless there's a really good reason. I'd say that simply not having h=xyz on the pattern is enough evidence that the pattern height is sufficiently large, especially since we don't actually care what h is.
Here are three labels. The first one is a sample pattern with height 512 on 12mm tape. The pattern is truncated at row 64, so I conclude that the print head is 64 pixels high.
I measure the sample pattern to be about 8¾mm high.
The next two show the 64 pixel sample pattern on 12mm and 9mm tapes.
12mm
9mm
Is this all the info we need? @FaBjE, @tomek-szczesny, @tomers?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: