Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/05/23
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I've missed the beginning of this thread, and I'll likely miss the remainder, but just because a printer can print at, say, 720 dpi doesn't mean you should send your scanned images to the printer at that resolution. The printer requires many actual printing dots to reproduce one pixel from the originating image. So it is a waste to send a 720 dpi image to a 720 dpi printer. For Epson printers using standard Epson drivers, the usual rule of thumb is that the resolution of the image being printer need not be more than 1/3 the maximum printer resolution. Thus you will often hear people quote 240 dpi as the maximum needed for image densities for the older 720 dpi Epson photo printers. dan c. At 09:13 PM 22-05-01 -0700, Mike Quinn wrote: >Your numbers don't make sense to me. Don't you enlarge your scan to make >prints? > >If I scan a negative at 600 dpi, I have to enlarge it by a factor of 8 to >fill the 8x10" print. That works out to 600/8 or 75 dpi on the print. It's >not hard to tell the difference between a 75 dpi print and one at 600 dpi. > >At 2700 dpi (the max for my scanner) I get 2700/8 = 334 dpi on my 8x10. >That's still less than half of what the printer can produce. Bring on the >4000 dpi scanners. I can use them tomorrow! > >Mike Quinn > > > mdelman wrote: > >> Unless you are printing commercially, you are scanning at resolutions that >> are not likely to result in improvement in print output on a standard inkjet >> or digital minilab system. It's not that there's anything particularly >> wrong with a high resolution scan.... it's just it takes up so much space on >> your hard drive. Try printing out at various resolutions. I suspect that >> you can't see much difference above 300 or 600 dpi. > >