Preston,
You do raise some interesting questions.
I have no doubt that Bob and others have read these claims as to the
operative native printer resolutions for inkjets in official Epson
literature and that they are not just numbers grabbed out of the air. I also
have no problem with anyone asking for documentation or evidence or taking
the position that you have - e.g., I just put more credence in theories
and facts than in opinions and uncontrolled observations. I would just
caution that facts are defined and determined by one's (a) theoretical
conceptualizations, (b) methods of observation, perception and deduction,
and (c) perspective or point of view; and these in turn are informed by
one's intent and purposes at hand. Thus, in many cases, facts are really
nothing more than informed opinions and controlled observations often biased
by the values, interests, and spin of the one making the claims. Given
this, a key problem with the information and data that passes as theory and
fact put out by the experts of official sources is that they rarely specify
explicitly in any clear detail the standards that they are using in deriving
these theories and facts, exactly what their precise referents for their
terms and specifications are, or what biases or spin have entered into their
interpretation of their observations and facts when they articulate them in
their statements. Thus, we have technical documents that will refer to
ppi and dpi and spi all in the same statement sometimes
interchangeably and other times as distinctive notions; we have references
to resampling, resizing, and interpolation as distinct types of operations
and as the same type of operation. I am sure that you can think of a host
of other examples where precision and explicitness of the criteria and
referents of terms and specifications are vague, ambiguous, and/or
non-existent, which make them as useful as the uncontrolled observations and
opinons that you wish to give less credence to.
But once again, I do think you have raised some good questions that have
rarely been raised before.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Preston Earle
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 2:47 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [filmscanners] Ink-jet Print File Resolution; was: Pixels and
Prints
Bob Frost (I believe it was) advocated sending 360ppi or 720ppi files to
a 720dpi desktop inkjet printer. It certainly makes intuitive sense that
on a 720dpi printer, a 720ppi file would work best. I haven't read
anything from other sources (that I consider reliable wink, wink)
advocating such high resolution for ink-jet printers. Are there some
other sources (besides Members Magic Eyes) that cite this?
I know in commercial printing circles where the highest quality work is
being done and where stochastic screening with 2540spi and higher
devices is used, there isn't a call for more than 300ppi or so of
original file resolution. These devices DO use very sophisticated
methods to determine spot frequency and placement, so maybe the
less-sophisticated ink-jet driver benefits from more resolution.
Bob, are you thinking that because bicubic (or whatever) resampling is
better than nearest-neighbor resampling that the print driver uses, that
it is better to control uppixeling BEFORE the file gets to the print
driver? I'm thinking (unsupported by much except navel-gazing) that the
print driver has so much to do with the file in converting RGB to CMYK
(or CcMmYKk or whatever) and determining where and what size to spurt
each drop of ink, that whether it gets one pixel per dot or four pixels
per dot won't make any visible difference in printing a photographic
image.
This leaves out the consideration of other issues related to image
quality, particularly Unsharp Masking. I'm wondering whether appropriate
USM isn't so much important than additional resolution that discussing
one without the other is meaningless.
I don't mean this to sound argumentative. I really DON'T know whether
the higher res files print better or not, but I AM interesting in
learning. I just put more credence in theories and facts than in
opinions and uncontrolled observations.
Preston Earle
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
or body
---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.525 / Virus Database: 322 - Release Date: 10/9/2003
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.528 / Virus Database: 324 - Release Date: 10/16/2003
Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe
