On Sun, Jun 26, 2005 at 08:13:13PM -0400, Richard Nagle wrote:
> hmm,.
> that interesting, trying printing that out on a C86... yikes.
>
> Well, was wondering if there was a chart out there,
> for print resolution sizes.
>
it is simple mathematics ....
> >On Sunday 26 June 2005 23.52, Richard Nagle wrote:
> >> well, it would appear to me the more import ## is resolution,
> >> i.e. a image at 1600 x 1200 @ 144 dpi ( 8 x 10 ) approx
> >> would be a bad print, however scaling up to a 3200 x 2400 resolution image,
> >> would produce a nice 300 dpi print.
> >>
> >> So, a chart, of resolution sizes, would be nice,
> >> for printing out photo?s ..ie. 8x10 11x14 16x20...etc
> >>
your example is an example of the mathematics, for example.
(dots = pixels)
1600 pixels
----------- = 11.11 inch
144 pixels
-----
inch
3200 pixels
---------- = 10.67 inch
300 pixels
-----
inch
my physics teachers insisted that you always use the units and when you
perform the mathematical operations on the values that you also do the
mathematical operations on the units as well. it is really handy for
checking your work (especially with more complicated mathematical
evaluations).
the problem with making a table with this information is that the
different printing devices work differently and need different
resolutions. the last time i was at a print shop, black and white
printing only demanded 150 pixels/inch while the color printing needed
300 pixels/inch.
another thing i noticed, making photo prints, 200 pixels/inch made
perfectly fine color prints.
carol
_______________________________________________
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
