wouldn't have a clue.
the idea is the dots are so small to the nakkid eye you can't tell - they are granular, random. much like inkjet prints (this is where this FM stochastic dot idea comes from)
The basic theory here that makes this superior to halftones for screenprinters is the dots remain the same size - and so you as a printer want to find the smallest dot you can print on your film, expose on your screen, and hold during your run.
Contrast this with halftones, where highlight dots get smaller and smaller, giving you drop out in the lightest tones and a more compressed tonal range. If this dropout is random and used in process colour work, you can get some blotchy off colour results. IN the dark areas, there is more tendency to blurr together, and in the midtones you get banding when the dot turns into a hole.
there would be more stochastic printing and output available if the concept had caught on with offset printers, and the print industry got into it. Unfortunately, offset like their halftones - they have a comfort level, and most output/testing/proofing equipment is calibrated for halftones. Offset dictates prepress in the graphics trades. Screenprinting for the most part follows.
National Geographic magazine, which has a rep for the best colour printing around, switched to stochastic in the 1990s when they saw the difference. Most others didn't. So here we are.
Like I said before, it is not the end-all be-all. Just another technique.
|