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



I already pointed out that I was talking about A3+ pictures, so the size
is in inches.

I also didn't use any pre-print rescaling as I still believe the printer
driver has the best information available to interpolate with knowledge of
where it is going to dither.

Also you haven't specified what kind of subject you're talking about and
TBF neither did I.

I'm not even going to claim that my standards of acceptability match
yours, this is so subjective.

But I know what I saw and it completely changed my view of how the
accepted minima can be regarded.

And to suggest that all I'd end up with is a cartoon is absurd.

In article <NABBLIJOIFAICKBIEPJJOEELIIAB.austin@darkroom.com>,
austin@darkroom.com (Austin Franklin) wrote:

>
> I just have to weigh in on this.  Even the current crop of 6M+ megapixel
> cameras barely produce acceptable 13 x 19 prints from unrezzed data.
> So a
> 1.68M pixel camera for a 13 x 19 image is not pushing the envelope, it's
> simply not believable.  There simply is not enough data there, by a
> factor
> of about 4 to produce an acceptable 13 x 19 print.  That is, if we're
> talking inches.  If you mean some other unit of measure, that's a
> different
> story.
>
> A 1.68 M pixel camera will have a file that is ~ 1.6k x 1k.  And, 1.6k
> over
> 19 inches is only 84 PPI to the printer, and that will give you very
> pixelated printouts.
>
> Now, if you rez up the images to get more PPI to the printer, you can
> eliminate the pixelated look...but the fidelity of the image data is
> questionable.  You can't create detail where detail didn't exist in the
> original file in the first place.  Though the image may be "sharp", and
> may
> look "good" standing alone, so does a comic strip...
>
> It all depends on what you are looking for.  If you want a detailed
> large
> image, a 1.68M pixel image simply will not do.  If you want simply a
> graphical representation of the major outlines of the image, it will do.
>
> Regards,
>
> Austin

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.