Re: Printer resolution (was: Re: posted *istD Samples)

2003-11-03 Thread John Francis
> > John, > > Have you ever used a recent HP at its highest mode? I've got > a 5500, but have not performed the test. Sharper 4x6, maybe? No. I print 8x10s (or larger, now) - I suspect I've got a pack of 6x4 paper somewhere, but I haven't used it in years. It's hard enough to come up with ev

Re: Printer resolution (was: Re: posted *istD Samples)

2003-11-02 Thread John Francis
> > the HP documentation says the hardware is adressable to 1200x1200 but you > lose PhotoREt. you have to send no higher than 600dpi if you want the > hardware to do it. any higher and you have to do it yourself. unless you > write your own PCL3+ printer driver, you can't. That matches my interp

Re: Printer resolution (was: Re: posted *istD Samples)

2003-11-02 Thread George Sinos
Several people have commented on determining the appropriate image resolution to send to the printer. The Nov/Dec issue of Digital Photo Pro magazine has an interesting article, "MisInformation, Setting Printer DPI." Treading lightly, to avoid violating copyrig

Re: Printer resolution (was: Re: posted *istD Samples)

2003-11-01 Thread Doug Franklin
On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 00:13:42 -0500 (EST), John Francis wrote: > Ah, but the HP PhotoPrinters also have multiple levels of intensity; > they can deposit different amounts of ink at each possible position. > The original PhotoSmart printer was a true 300 ppi printer, without > having to dither. The

Re: Printer resolution (was: Re: posted *istD Samples)

2003-11-01 Thread John Francis
> > as i noted in my previous message, the printer driver works at a given > maximum resolution that is not the dpi resolution of the printer but a > submultiple. in the case of the Epson printer drivers, it is fixed at 360 > dpi. anymore more is wasted. the Canon and HP ones probably are 300 dpi,

Re: Printer resolution (was: Re: posted *istD Samples)

2003-11-01 Thread John Francis
> > On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 22:38:34 -0500 (EST), John Francis wrote: > > > My current HP is 600 dpi in normal mode, 1200 dpi in best quality. > > A printer dot (in dpi) is not equal to an image pixel (in ppi). A > printer dithers a pixel across many dots to get a good approximation of > the color o

Re: Printer resolution (was: Re: posted *istD Samples)

2003-11-01 Thread Doug Franklin
On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 22:38:34 -0500 (EST), John Francis wrote: > My current HP is 600 dpi in normal mode, 1200 dpi in best quality. A printer dot (in dpi) is not equal to an image pixel (in ppi). A printer dithers a pixel across many dots to get a good approximation of the color of a pixel. The H

Re: Printer resolution (was: Re: posted *istD Samples)

2003-11-01 Thread Herb Chong
Re: Printer resolution (was: Re: posted *istD Samples) > With the current generation of printers, it's getting pretty hard > to have an image that's higher-resolution than the printer! > > My current HP is 600 dpi in normal mode, 1200 dpi in best quality. > Even on 8.5x11 pa

Re: Printer resolution (was: Re: posted *istD Samples)

2003-11-01 Thread John Francis
> > if you are above then it just wastes processing. With the current generation of printers, it's getting pretty hard to have an image that's higher-resolution than the printer! My current HP is 600 dpi in normal mode, 1200 dpi in best quality. Even on 8.5x11 paper at 600 dpi that's 30+ megapix

Re: Printer resolution (was: Re: posted *istD Samples)

2003-11-01 Thread Herb Chong
ect: Re: Printer resolution (was: Re: posted *istD Samples) > "'the optimum pixel resolution [of the printed image] should ideally be > the printer dpi divisible by a whole number. The following pixel > resolutions should be used [for a 1440/2880 printer] : 144, 160, 180, >

Re: Printer resolution (was: Re: posted *istD Samples)

2003-11-01 Thread Joseph Tainter
"'the optimum pixel resolution [of the printed image] should ideally be the printer dpi divisible by a whole number. The following pixel resolutions should be used [for a 1440/2880 printer] : 144, 160, 180, 240, 288, 320, 360.'" So what are the consequences of simply ignoring this? I have never ap

Re: Printer resolution (was: Re: posted *istD Samples)

2003-10-31 Thread John Francis
> > In it, the author says that > > 'the optimum pixel resolution [of the printed image] should ideally be > the printer dpi divisible by a whole number. The following pixel > resolutions should be used [for a 1440/2880 printer] : 144, 160, 180, > 240, 288, 320, 360. The reason for this is fairl

Re: Printer resolution (was: Re: posted *istD Samples)

2003-10-31 Thread Herb Chong
- From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "pentax list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 4:33 AM Subject: Printer resolution (was: Re: posted *istD Samples) > Off the starting blocks I have always been printing at 300 dpi and always > been

RE: Printer resolution (was: Re: posted *istD Samples)

2003-10-31 Thread Rob Brigham
t would be interested to hear other opinions/experiences - especially if someone wanted to do a proper test on a modern printer... Rob > -Original Message- > From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 31 October 2003 09:33 > To: pentax list > Subject: Printer resolution (was:

Printer resolution (was: Re: posted *istD Samples)

2003-10-31 Thread Cotty
On 31/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: >> > The 11" print was then compared to a 11" print I made from >> > scanned 4"X5" ektachrome 100. The ist image has remarkable lack >> > of grain/noise and looks virtually as good as the 4x5 print >> > in that respect. The resolution however is clearly