> 1) I asked Epson's upper echelon tech people, and they gave me the 240
> dpi number
>From what I can tell, that 240 had more to do with some level of quality
output, as opposed to going less than that, which is universally accepted
as a more or less minimum...
> 2) They stated that the manner in which their printers create the
> "matrix" used in their printing process made this number appropriate,
> and they indicated it had something to do with the 720 dpi true
> resolution of these printers divided by 3 (I assume based upon a three
> color system).
Nope, doesn't work that way. If it was 720DPI, and one believed the
'matrix' was 3x3, that doesn't not equal to 256 halftone levels....so the
numbers don't wash... Even a 6x6 isn't close, if you buy 1440DPI.
> It could simply be a good general number to suggest,
> where the returns are diminishing
Yes, I would buy that to some degree, but it still doesn't distinguish it
from, say 246...
> to the point where the extra time
> involved in spooling or the extra file size doesn't justify the
> minimal increase in resolution of the print.
I don't buy the time issue....since I believe the speed of the printer
heads far outweighs the data transfer time...
> 3) I did empirical tests and found that I got the most consistently
> clean results in the least time using this number. Yes, in some
> cases using a higher res showed a very slight improvement.
Good idea, but did you test, say 256 vs 240, or 270 vs 240?
> 4) It is the correct answer to the question "what is the meaning of
> life, the universe and everything" (Douglas Adams had it wrong)
I like that answer ;-)
> 5) I like the number 240.
I can't argue that one, I do too!
