RE: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI

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

> As usual, you've pulled another "Austin".

Art, just because I have pointed out you don't know what you're talking
about quite a few times, and the fact that you are NOT an engineer, but like
to pretend you are, and that I sometimes disagree with your "assessments" of
things, that is no reason to be such a twit.  If you can't partake in a
discussion by using real facts, and presenting lucid points, then please
just sit on your hands and keep quiet.

> I'm going to take this step by step, so that you don't have the wriggle
> room that you usually try to create for yourself.

I don't need any wiggle room.  It's something that only exists in your head,
as will be clearly pointed out below.

> I arrived in this discussion after you stated that in was not possible
> to get acceptable photo results from 100 dpi input,

That is not what I said...  Here is what I said (and I quote):

"There is absolutely no chance that I can get a "quality" image at 100 ppi
from my images, 35mm or 2 1/4."

Note it says "I".

> and I stated that
> the HP Photosmart printer used 100 to 150 dpi input on a 300 dpi output
> system which took advantage of an overprinting method which could supply
> several drops of ink to the same point on the paper.

That's nice, but no one but you were talking about HP printers.  Did you
just conveniently overlook that the discussion was about Epson printers?

> I stated that the Photosmart printer produced a reasonable quality
> result

And that's purely opinion, and I personally doubt that it really is
"reasonable quality" at 100ppi.  That's a matter of opinion and standards.

> because of this feature and that I was familiar with this
> technology because I had discussions with the software engineers who
> wrote the drivers for this printer, and it was explained to me in some
> detail how the HP Photosmart system operated.

OK, so?

> You then went on to discuss Epson printers, which I was not talking
> about,

The discussion was in fact about Epson printers (This was not my statement,
it is the statement I disagreed with...and I quote):

"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.,"

...until YOU mentioned the HP...  In reality the discussion was about 100ppi
giving "quality" output, which, HP or Epson, I still claim gives a degraded
image.

> and you stated the reason the colors were not placed upon each
> other was because the pigmented inks weren't transparent enough.

BZZZT.  That is not what I said.  Once again, you didn't read what was said,
and you made things up that I never said.  I didn't care what the printing
technology or inks, I only mentioned that I BELIEVED Epson printers used
pigment inks.  This is my exact quote:

"My understanding is the inks used in these types of inkjet printers can't
do that [overprint], simply because the (I believe it's because they are
pigmented?) inks don't mix.  I know that is true with the Epson inks.
Perhaps that particular printer used special inks?"

I was NOT questioning that the printer you mentioned did or did not do
overprinting, and it really doesn't matter if it does or doesn't, that's a
tangent to the discussion.  Because I had no experience with the printer you
mentioned, I wanted to know a bit more about it, and you decided to take
this HP tangent...

> So, I
> explained that the HP printers I was discussing used dye inks, (other HP
> consumer printers use dye inks but pigmented black, but their photo type
> printers use(d) only dye inks including the black) which made your point
> moot.

No point was at all made moot by your bringing up the HP printer.  It
appears you weren't following the discussion.  Apparently, you want to make
up what you believe my point was in order to claim it was wrong.  My only
point was 100ppi doesn't give very good image output unless the prints are
very large, or from a very poor negative, I don't care what printer.

The discussion wasn't EVER about overprinting (except that you brought up a
TANGENT of the HP printer, which I was interested in), and I clearly said
that I believed the printer technology wasn't important to this issue.  Just
because YOU believe the HP printer gave, in YOUR OPINION (which doesn't make
it fact) "acceptable prints" that does not moot that they were degraded
images, if they weren't very large or weren't from a very poor negative.
And degraded isn't going to be in my opinion, it's a fact that printing a
240ppi image at 100ppi CAN degrade the output.

> but in
> the usual fashion, which you always deny you do, you selectively quoted
> and misrepresented what I said by both taking my information out of
> context, AND addressing a secondary issue as if it was the point I was
> trying to make.

But, Art, you're accusing me of doing EXACTLY what YOU did!  I made one
simple statement (about the quality of 100ppi output), you're the one who
tangented (brought up the HP printer), and as I pointed out above,
misrepresented what I said.

> Then again, what else is new?

Exactly!  You sit there like a little chicken hawk trying to find something
I say that you can somehow claim is "wrong"...even if you have to make
things up.  It seems to be a pet hobby of yours.  In doing so, you don't pay
attention to what is being said or discussed.

I know I don't appreciate your little crusade here, and I am sure most
others don't either.  Please cut it out.  You certainly have some good
advice, and experience to offer, and I know I and others do appreciate it
(sometimes) but stop trying to make your opinions fact, and stop trying to
make things that aren't wrong, wrong just because you feel this need for
"revenge" from my having taken you to task in the past.

> And since this is no longer relating to scanners, it will probably be my
> last word on this subject.

I doubt you could not "probably" respond to this...