On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 02:21:26PM +0100, norman wrote:
> > Are you testing us here?
> > 
> > You have given the dots per inch, dpi, resolution of the scanner and
> > were just told that dots/pixels per inch measurements were the same.
> > What is it that you want to know?
> There is no question of testing. As dpi = pixels per inch then I can see
> resolution is 4800 ppi by 9600 ppi. Firstly, why the two numbers, I
> would have thought resolution needed only one number and secondly, if
> this sort of resolution is readily available why does the author of the
> book take pains to imply that 600 ppi is something important?

Two numbers are because the resolution is higher in one direction than
the other.  4800 ppi used to be marketing speak for a lower ppi with
some math tricks to make it look higher (like scan the image multiple times
at a low dpi and create a higher resolution surface).  I don't know if
they still pull that kind of thing.

I have no idea what the author wants to imply, but few printers are
capable of outputting more than 600ppi, and you are dropping below
human visibility there.

As for your original question.
if you have 4800x9600 ppi, and you scan an inch square of material,
you will end up with 4800x9600 pixels.  Thus the question if you are
having a laugh, as your question seemed trivial.


"The man who does not read good books has no advantage over 
 the man who cannot read them."
 -- Mark Twain

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Gimp-user mailing list

Reply via email to