> Just to prevent reinventing the wheel, is this based upon personal > experience? My assumption would be different (since Photoshop does a > wonderful resampling job, and many printer spoolers do not I've tried printing same image at 240,300,360 and 720dpi. I reckoned 300 looked slightly better than 240, using an Epson 1200. I couldn't see any change with the higher figures. I resample to 300dpi now in PS, and that's also convenient because it has become the de facto standard for repro. At least that is what I am invariably asked for, even though it is more than necessary. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons
- RE: filmscanners: Re: monitors Frank Paris
- filmscanners: Horizontal&Diagonal dot pitch Berry Ives
- RE: filmscanners: Horizontal&Diagonal dot pit... Frank Paris
- Re: filmscanners: Re: monitors Chris McBrien
- RE: Re[2]: filmscanners: Re: monitors Austin Franklin
- Re[4]: filmscanners: Re: monitors Guy Prince
- Re: Re[2]: filmscanners: Re: monitors Bill Ross
- Re: filmscanners: Re: monitors Arthur Entlich
- RE: Re[7]: filmscanners: Re: monitors Austin Franklin
- Re: filmscanners: Re: monitors Arthur Entlich
- Re: filmscanners: Re: monitors Tony Sleep
- Re: filmscanners: Re: monitors Arthur Entlich
- RE: Re[7]: filmscanners: Re: monitors Austin Franklin
- RE: Re[7]: filmscanners: Re: monitors Laurie Solomon
- RE: Re[7]: filmscanners: Re: monitors Austin Franklin
- Re: Re[7]: filmscanners: Re: monitors Dana Trout
- filmscanners: decimation Frank Paris
- RE: filmscanners: Re: monitors Austin Franklin
- Re: filmscanners: Re: monitors Arthur Entlich
- RE: Re[7]: filmscanners: Re: monitors Austin Franklin
- filmscanners: Language (was Monitors) Bob Armstrong