> I examined the 3 prints using a high-quality 4x loupe. There
> was a slight but visible improvement in quality from 240 to 360,
> which didn't surprise me too much. What did surprise me was that
> there was about the same degree of improvement from the 360 to the
> non-resampled 367.9 print. It therefore appears, at least in this
> case, that it is indeed better to retain the whole file size of the
> scan. If you want to make a smaller print, just resize (without
> resampling) to whatever print size you want, letting the file
> resolution fall where it may.
> There is no question the differences were slight, and would
> probably be invisible at normal viewing distance (and might not even
> be reproduced by a lesser printer), but it is interesting to know
> that they are there.
Thanks for the report, Roger! The interesting issue is, how did these
other people conclude they found their 'magic' ppi? I love it when
practical application proves science to be correct ;-)
