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 asking for documentation or evidence or taking the position that you have - e.g., " I just put more credence in theories and facts than in opinions and uncontrolled observations." I would just caution that facts are defined and determined by one's (a) theoretical conceptualizations, (b) methods of observation, perception and deduction, and (c) perspective or point of view; and these in turn are informed by one's intent and purposes at hand. Thus, in many cases, facts are really nothing more than informed opinions and controlled observations often biased by the values, interests, and spin of the one making the claims. Given this, a key problem with the information and data that passes as theory and fact put out by the experts of official sources is that they rarely specify explicitly in any clear detail the standards that they are using in deriving these theories and facts, exactly what their precise referents for their terms and specifications are, or what biases or spin have entered into their interpretation of their observations and facts when they articulate them in their statements. Thus, we have technical documents that will refer to "ppi" and "dpi" and "spi" all in the same statement sometimes interchangeably and other times as distinctive notions; we have references to resampling, resizing, and interpolation as distinct types of operations and as the same type of operation. I am sure that you can think of a host of other examples where precision and explicitness of the criteria and referents of terms and specifications are vague, ambiguous, and/or non-existent, which make them as useful as the uncontrolled observations and opinons that you wish to give less credence to. But once again, I do think you have raised some good questions that have rarely been raised before. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Preston Earle Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 2:47 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Ink-jet Print File Resolution; was: Pixels and Prints Bob Frost (I believe it was) advocated sending 360ppi or 720ppi files to a 720dpi desktop inkjet printer. It certainly makes intuitive sense that on a 720dpi printer, a 720ppi file would work best. I haven't read anything from other sources (that I consider reliable <wink, wink>) advocating such high resolution for ink-jet printers. Are there some other sources (besides Members Magic Eyes) that cite this? I know in commercial printing circles where the highest quality work is being done and where stochastic screening with 2540spi and higher devices is used, there isn't a call for more than 300ppi or so of original file resolution. These devices DO use very sophisticated methods to determine spot frequency and placement, so maybe the less-sophisticated ink-jet driver benefits from more resolution. Bob, are you thinking that because bicubic (or whatever) resampling is better than nearest-neighbor resampling that the print driver uses, that it is better to control uppixeling BEFORE the file gets to the print driver? I'm thinking (unsupported by much except navel-gazing) that the print driver has so much to do with the file in converting RGB to CMYK (or CcMmYKk or whatever) and determining where and what size to spurt each drop of ink, that whether it gets one pixel per dot or four pixels per dot won't make any visible difference in printing a photographic image. This leaves out the consideration of other issues related to image quality, particularly Unsharp Masking. I'm wondering whether appropriate USM isn't so much important than additional resolution that discussing one without the other is meaningless. I don't mean this to sound argumentative. I really DON'T know whether the higher res files print better or not, but I AM interesting in learning. I just put more credence in theories and facts than in opinions and uncontrolled observations. Preston Earle [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------ Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.525 / Virus Database: 322 - Release Date: 10/9/2003 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.528 / Virus Database: 324 - Release Date: 10/16/2003 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
