On Sep 25, 2006, at 07:51 UTC, Andy Dent wrote: > On OS/X they seem to be always reported as 300 dpi but the advice > from Apple has been to ignore this.
That's correct. > The problem comes when you are doing an application which does image > composition and thus scaling your pictures according to the reported > resolution of the printer. I don't understand this part. > So I came up with an idea, after weeks of stewing - what would happen > if I ignored the printer resolution, creating "high resolution" > intermediate pictures, drawing a portion of the picture into each > (effectively scaling up) and then draw those on the printer graphics > port, scaling down as necessary to make them fit. This is to check > out the assumption that a really high resolution image would print > better if little high-res tiles were actually to be passed to the > printer. By my understanding at least, that assumption is false. You can't gain any information by scaling a picture up. The printer is going to take the picture you give it and print it at maximum resolution regardless. So I don't see what you would gain by jumping through such hoops. Best, - Joe -- Joe Strout -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Verified Express, LLC "Making the Internet a Better Place" http://www.verex.com/ _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode: <http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/> Search the archives of this list here: <http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
