RE: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI

["Austin Franklin" <darkroom@ix.netcom.com>]

> > Austin wrote:
> >> Why would you want to output at a fixed 300 PPI?
> >
> > Because that's the requirement of the offset printer which many
> of my recent
> > photos are going to.  Aside from that, 300 dpi is as a general
> rule of thumb
> > the "best" resolution *most* printers (pc and otherwise) work
> with.  Some
>
> [snip]
>
> After working with 4-color Epsons for a few years, I've found that the
> resolution demands of photographs can be quite low, where as few
> as 100 ppi
> as a lower limit can produce nice results.

You must be talking about very small images, from a very poor negative.
There is absolutely no chance that I can get a "quality" image at 100 ppi
from my images, 35mm or 2 1/4.  I really can't imagine every seeing a 100ppi
output that was "nice"...  Even 180 is too low, except for the largest of
images I print.  240 is about the minimum acceptable resolution I can send
to the printer, or image quality degrades quite noticeably.  We obviously
have different standards is all I can guess.

> There's a book called "Real World Scanning & Halftones," which explains
> print dots (spots) in depth.

Got it, it's a reasonably good book.