Hi Sokwon,

I second your comment on inkjet or laser printed transparency mask. I had
tried to do that before to make some "quick-and-dirty" master masks for
photoreduction image on slave emulsion mask. The results were very bad,
mainly due to the lack of opaqueness of the printed masks. Inkjet patterns
are actually interlaced with "black-and-white" lines easily visible by
naked eye. Laser patterns are darker but still not dark enough.
Maximizing the darkness of the print setting may help. And how about
print the pattern on paper first, then do a darkest photocopy on
transparency? I think resolution is of secondary concern unless you are
looking at getting 10's of microns patterns.

Regards,
Isaac Chan, Ph.D.


On Tue, 25 Apr 2006, sokwon Paik wrote:

> Rupesh,
>
>   Ink for inkjet printer is not opaque enough to use as a mask. If you print
any pattern with inkjet printer and then see it with microscope, you will find
the patterns of greyish. Even though available highest resolution inkjet printer
have the problem what I mentioned above.
>   Also inkjet printer transparency have many intrinsic dots. So they make
whitish pattern which is need to be black.
>
>   Actually laser printer also not perfect and actual resolution is about the
half of the resolution (e.g 1200dpi printer can make about 50um pattern).
>
>   So, print your pattern to inkjet transparency and see it with microscope.
That will clear your question.
>
>   Sokwon
>
> Rupesh Sawant  wrote:
>   Can i print my mask design on a transparency using Inkjet printer. I
> have gone through many literature about making of transparency mask,
> but all of them mention the use of Laser printer. These literatures
> do not tell the correct reason for not using Inkjet printer having the
> same resolution as the laser printer.