Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

   


   


   















      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI



Chapter 14 of Professional Photoshop - "Resolving the Resolution Issue":

printed dots per inch consist of grids of spots per dot - of differing 
picoliter sizes depending on the printer.

Apples and oranges?

Maris


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rob Geraghty" <harper@wordweb.com>
To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 8:17 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI


| "SKID Photography" <skid@bway.net> wrote:
| > Are you saying that because inkjet printers employ a schoastic dithering
| pattern to represent pixels that film
| > grain and scan pixels (samples, whatever) are equivalent in regards to the
| amount of information they impart
| > to an inkjet printer?
| 
| I think Art was saying that the relationship between pixels in the file and
| dots on the page isn't clear cut because the dither pattern used by the
| printer driver is random and therefore undoes some of the regularity of the
| pixels.  The print ends up looking smoother than say a monitor image because
| the printer shadings aren't constructed as rectilinear sharp edged objects
| but random spots of colour.
| 
| Rob
| 
| 
| 




 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.