Austin wrote:
> I'd suggest more like 100dpi these days. The Mac used
> to "maintain" 72dpi simply by specific monitor/video
> card settings, but I don't know if they still do that today.
I was giving a rule of thumb for the majority of computer users not for
power users like those with film sca
Bill wrote:
> Your scanner software is probably scanning at
> full resolution then downsampling to meet the
> output specs you gave it.
This sort of thing has been stated a number of times recently. I can't
really be sure for any scanner other than mine, but the choice of resolution
*does* mak
Ken wrote:
>Right, but scan at 72 dpi and you get crap.
Not off a print! :)
> One day I'll understand all this. ;-)
It's a matter of getting your head around the resolutions of different devices
and media.
Rob
Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com
Ken wrote:
>Hold on - thanks to you all, maybe I DO understand this. If scanned
>at 72 dpi, even a 4x6 print would need quite a bit of interpolation to
>get it up to a good screen size, ergo crap.Is that correct?
6"x4" at 72dpi gives you 432 x 238 pixels. That's half of an 800x600 pixel
scr
> AFAIK digital cameras produce files which are set to 72 dpi. Can anyone
> who has one check this? I know it's been driving my brother nuts
> when people
> send digicam pics at screen resolutions and expect him to print them in
> a magazine!
My Fuji 4700 has the file set to 300PPI...at 2400 x
Rob Geraghty wrote:
>
> AFAIK digital cameras produce files which are set to 72 dpi. Can anyone
> who has one check this? I know it's been driving my brother nuts when people
> send digicam pics at screen resolutions and expect him to print them in
> a magazine!
Our Sony Digicam gives images a
