On Wed, 31 Oct 2001 01:06:46 -0600, William Robb wrote: >Then, I set the output >size to 360dpi with an 8x10 print size, which increased the file >size from 18.9 MB to 27.8MB ( I presume this is what bicubic >interpolation is for). A very small amount of unsharp mask, and >I decided to make a print.
Nice you joined the club Bill! One note: You say you set 'size to 360dpi and 8x10 print size' resulting in a larger imagefile and interpolation being used. I found that it is usually better to just set the print size, and leave the print density to whatever it will be to get that size. (in your case probably arround 240 ppi) that way the interpolation step is not needed in your software which helps keeping maximum quality. PS: the term 'dpi' as used here should actually be 'ppi' for pixels per inch, the dots per inch term 'dpi' is used for the printers and a typical printer these days has between 600 and 2400 or even more dots per inch. That way the printer has 5 to 10 dots to make up one pixel in exactly the right color. The printer has to do a lot of calculations anyway to scale from your exact pixels to the tiny dots it uses, no need to interpolate some fake pixels using your PC-software! Of course having more pixels to begin with, is always better, but that requires higher scan resolution. BASE LESSON TO LEARN: try to avoid as much 'interpolation steps' as possible. Regards, JvW --------------------------------------------------------- Jan van Wijk; www.fsys.demon.nl - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
