Bob Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
240 dpi is not all that is needed, because the Epson
driver upsamples that (or any other dpi you send it)
to 720 dpi (desktop printers), using Nearest Neighbour
type upsampling. So 720 dpi is what is needed by the
driver.
Hi Bob,
I was on the Epson list for
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I was on the Epson list for a long time and this is the first time I've
heard someone make this statement about the internal behaviour of
the Epson
driver. Can I ask where this knowledge comes from? In the past I found
a formula written by Epson themselves which
I'm guessing here, based upon what seems logical to me. I'm sure Austin
knows a lot more about this stuff than I.
Here's my best guess: I assume the sensor element responds as a unique
unit, at the moment it gathers the light information, so I also assume
it responds in some manner by generating
Yes, you are correct.
Art
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This didn't start out as a film vs digital comparison but a scanned film
vs digital one.
So both images have hard pixels.
Unsubscribe by mail to
One question...
If one sends the printer a 720 dpi file, does it not alter the file to
create the dithering patterns, etc? In other words, does providing a
720 dpi file prevent up and down sampling and the damage the printer
driver/spooler might cause to the image file?
Art
Austin Franklin
At the risk of redundancy (I posted this in the Pixels and Prints thread),
I've posted this here just in case you are not following Pixels and Prints:
Hi all
I vaguely recalled seeing this explained, so it didn't take long to find
this link
http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage/quality/
The Lanczos
It is funny that you should mention the 240 figure; I also remember a long
sdiscussion ont he old Leben Epson Inkjet printer list in which it was
finally concluded that the 240 ppi/dpi number was the optimum resolution to
send to the printer and any files greater than that were a waste of
Thanks Darrell!
The link does offer some good information on the subject and does help
answer some of the questions - even the recent one involving the 240ppi vrs
720 ppi numbers. According to the information on the document, all incoming
resolutions except the printers native resolution are
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
I also suspect that the printer driver will always touch the binary data
flow. It would have to for control of how and where the inks are laid down.
There is also the issue of color gamut, though you do have some degree of
control if you are using some color management solution that includes ICC
At 10:33 AM -0500 10/24/03, LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:
It is funny that you should mention the 240 figure; I also remember a long
sdiscussion ont he old Leben Epson Inkjet printer list in which it was
finally concluded that the 240 ppi/dpi number was the optimum resolution to
send to the printer and
Good, I am glad you not only confirmed my recollection but elucidated on
it since I have reached an age where my memory chips may be beginning to
fade. :-)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 10:33 AM -0500 10/24/03, LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:
It is funny that you should mention the 240 figure; I also
From: Arthur Entlich
If one sends the printer a 720 dpi file, does it not alter the file to
create the dithering patterns, etc? In other words, does providing a
720 dpi file prevent up and down sampling and the damage the printer
driver/spooler might cause to the image file?
Well, of
Here's an idea. I think all of us could agree to one thing, and that is:
what finally matters is how good the print looks. (Okay, some folks only
care about web published images, so you guys can get lost--no offense.)
There needs to be an art show where what we are judging is the actual
prints.
Ditto. I printed two sharp 8X10 images of a scanned flower image, one with
no discernible parallel vertical lines. I printed one at 300 and one at 360
dpi on an Epson 2200. They were indistinguishable with a loupe.
I would agree that it seems like the data are processed during the print
process,
Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Because that's a different question. Someone argued that scanners produce
better quality pixels because they measure all RGB, and I'm pointing out
that this is wrong because scanned pixels are, in fact, worse than digital
camera pixels.
It's not
I also suspect that the printer driver will always touch the binary data
flow.
I am not sure that is in question. What may be in question is if the
resampling of the incoming file to the native resolution is in effect that
same sort of thing as the post interpetation processing of the data by
I just re-read what I wrote and see that it needs to be corrected to make it
clearer and easier to read and understand.
What may be in question is if the
resampling of the incoming file to the native resolution is in effect that
same sort of thing as the post interpetation processing of the data
Hi David,
Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Because that's a different question. Someone argued that
scanners produce
better quality pixels because they measure all RGB, and I'm
pointing out
that this is wrong because scanned pixels are, in fact, worse
than digital
camera
19 matches
Mail list logo
