-
1. Re: OT: Resolution for Large Format Layout
rob day May 8, 2013 7:06 AM (in response to phyllisj9)Resolution can be image dependent—fine hair needs more resolution than a foggy landscape. Maybe run a resolution test from the printer using part of the image at the final scale?
-
2. Re: OT: Resolution for Large Format Layout
P Spier May 8, 2013 7:41 AM (in response to phyllisj9)20 sounds better. Eugene has a formula at http://forums.adobe.com/message/2042202#2042202 What can you get from your images for effective ppi at print size?
-
3. Re: OT: Resolution for Large Format Layout
phyllisj9 May 8, 2013 8:27 AM (in response to P Spier)Thanks!
I've got a lot of images to work with. Looks like I can get at least 20 ppi on all of them -- some as high as 65 ppi at size. Some of the 20 ppi images are really good images for our audience though so I'm hoping to use those. I'll see if I can find out more information about the company printing them -- this is a weird job that was dumped on me where someone else is handling the actual printing and just asking me for the files (but of course I'm trying to get them usable files).
Thanks, Phyllis
-
4. Re: OT: Resolution for Large Format Layout
bpylant May 8, 2013 12:25 PM (in response to P Spier)Cool, hadn't seen that formula before. What's the theory behind it (for example, where does the 0.000291 come from)?
-
5. Re: OT: Resolution for Large Format Layout
P Spier May 8, 2013 12:49 PM (in response to bpylant)I'm not certain, but I think it may be the diameter of the "circle of confusion," the size at which your eye can't tell the difference between a circle and a dot.
-
6. Re: OT: Resolution for Large Format Layout
bpylant May 8, 2013 12:57 PM (in response to P Spier)Interesting... hadn't heard of that, either, but makes sense if that's what it is!
-
7. Re: OT: Resolution for Large Format Layout
P Spier May 8, 2013 1:03 PM (in response to bpylant)Circle of confusion is what makes depth of field happen in photography.
-
8. Re: OT: Resolution for Large Format Layout
bpylant May 8, 2013 1:07 PM (in response to P Spier)And I'm sure the source of the formula is buried somewhere in there... [eyes glaze over]...




