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]

[filmscanners] RE: Pixels and Prints



> From: LAURIE SOLOMON
>
> We may be miscommunicating.  The native optical resolution of my Umax
> PowerLook III is 1200 ppi and for my film scanner around 2780 ppi for 35mm
> and 1100 for  120 films.  If, for the sake of the argument, I
> want the size
> of the image to be 1:1 at those resolutions, I would be sending
> the printer
> a file whose resolution is more than the printer's native
> resolution, which
> means that the printer would be downsampling the file without any extra
> effort at altering the resolution on my part. Thus my question is it
> preferable to send the printer images whose unaltered native
> resolutions are
> higher than the printer's native resolution of 720/360 ppi or to send the
> printer images whose unaltered native resolutions are lower than the
> printer's native resolution of 720/360 ppi.

In practice, I think it's a tangled mass of relatively unimportant
trade-offs, with no clear answer. Scanning at high resolution reduces the
danger of aliasing in the scanner, but increases the danger of aliasing in
the printer. The best would be to scan at the highest resolution, and then
use software with a good resampling algorithm to resample to the optimum
resolution of the printer, or some integer submultiple.

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@ix.netcom.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body



 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.