On Mon, 2024-03-11 at 09:57 +0800, jeremy ardley wrote: > On 11/3/24 07:34, hw wrote: > > Do you think that thermal transfer printers with 203dpi would be > > better suited to print QR codes than the 300dpi multi-mode printers? > > > > I'm not fond of thermal transfer at all. Usually what is being > > printed that way fades rather quickly over time and is more slightly > > gray rather than black and so thin that it's hard to read even when > > freshly printed. Perhaps better labels are available, but the labels > > must not get too expensive ... > > > Thermal transfer and thermal direct printers have the same resolution. > > Thermal transfer printers are used for archival labels as they fade very > little over time. > > Direct thermal printers are intended for mailing applications where it > doesn't matter if they fade after a few months. > > Given that, I think a lot of commercial shippers use thermal transfer > for mailing labels. Very few shippers use laser printed adhesive address > label, nor non-adhesive in pockets or pouches. > > To print a QR code or other 2D code on any thermal printer, the printer > manufacturer will supply an application that generate the codes and > prints them independently of the host printing system. These codes will > scan perfectly. Even if they did that, it would be totally useless because it won't be able to automatically print labels from databases. > It is possible to use document generation tools like latex and printing > systems like CUPS to print a label, but pixel registration will be poor. Why? The manufacturer provided a CPUS printer driver without which printing wouldn't be possible at all. > The only practical option for this route is to print the code BIG That's what I thought, but then the codes won't fit on the labels. That's why I wonder if there's a better way.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part