This content has been marked as final.
Show 24 replies
-
1. Re: Resolution rendered by printer
ArrrBee Feb 21, 2008 4:11 PM (in response to George Austin)Well one way to find out would be to print an image at 6x6-inches at 72dpi
and print one at 6x6-inches at 360 dpi and see how they look. I would be
very surprised if any printer driver takes a 72dpi image and ups it to 360,
they would be having major complaints about poor image quality.
Robert -
2. Re: Resolution rendered by printer
George Austin Feb 21, 2008 4:57 PM (in response to George Austin)Robert,
Followed your suggestion. The printed images were indistinguishable. Not sure what that proves. Did the printer render both at the same (360ppi) resolution or was the interpolation ineffective?
Aside: I'm sure you agree, it's ppi not dpi.
George -
3. Re: Resolution rendered by printer
Rob Keijzer Feb 22, 2008 5:08 AM (in response to George Austin)Isn't it so that a printer *has* to interpolate because otherwise gaps would appear between pixels as they are printed wider apart?
Or are the individual pixels simply printed larger in that case?
Rob -
4. Re: Resolution rendered by printer
D. McCahill Feb 22, 2008 10:22 AM (in response to George Austin)> Aside: I'm sure you agree, it's ppi not dpi.
Actually, on a printer it can be dpi. On a monitor it is always ppi. -
5. Re: Resolution rendered by printer
George Austin Feb 22, 2008 7:35 PM (in response to George Austin)Rob: Pixel size is NOT constant, image-to-image. And by varying the number of printer dots within the array of printer dots comprising a pixel, "bit depth" or "tone" is achieved.
Don: But it is IMAGE resolution (ppi) we are concerned with here. -
6. Re: Resolution rendered by printer
Hudechrome-sd9sPI Feb 23, 2008 6:53 AM (in response to George Austin)Printers produce dots, not pixels. -
7. Re: Resolution rendered by printer
dave milbut Feb 23, 2008 9:31 AM (in response to George Austin)> Printers produce dots, not pixels.
not mine. dye subs are continuous tone. -
8. Re: Resolution rendered by printer
Bart Cross Feb 23, 2008 9:55 AM (in response to George Austin)stochastic FM anyone. -
9. Re: Resolution rendered by printer
George Austin Feb 23, 2008 10:32 AM (in response to George Austin)"...Printers produce dots, not pixels..."
And the matrices of dots formed by printers produce pixels.
I'll buy "stochastic FM" -
10. Re: Resolution rendered by printer
George Austin Feb 25, 2008 10:12 AM (in response to George Austin)Weird. This thread is NOT picked up via search. I've NEVER encountered that before. Any ideas why? -
11. Re: Resolution rendered by printer
Hudechrome-sd9sPI Feb 25, 2008 11:38 AM (in response to George Austin)From Wikipedia:
"The measures dots per inch (dpi) and pixels per inch (ppi) are sometimes used interchangeably, but have distinct meanings especially in the printer field, where dpi is a measure of the printer's resolution of dot printing (e.g. ink droplet density). For example, a high-quality inkjet image may be printed with 200 ppi on a 720 dpi printer."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel -
12. Re: Resolution rendered by printer
John Joslin Feb 25, 2008 12:03 PM (in response to George Austin)George
In my experience only "Search all forums" works. -
13. Re: Resolution rendered by printer
George Austin Feb 25, 2008 2:33 PM (in response to George Austin)John,
"...In my experience only "Search all forums" works..."
Exactly my experience as well. But in this case even the all forums search doesn't work. Is anyone else able to bring up this thread using an all forums search?
George -
14. Re: Resolution rendered by printer
George Austin Feb 25, 2008 2:57 PM (in response to George Austin)Larry,
"...The measures dots per inch (dpi) and pixels per inch (ppi) are sometimes used interchangeably, but have distinct meanings ..."
Since they have distinct (different) meanings, they should NOT be used interchangeably. Wikipedia is noting that, unfortunately, they SOMETIMES are. That it is erroneous to do so, while not explicitly stated, is nevertheless obviously implied. I say "obviously" because it is otherwise contradictory to cite their difference while asserting they are interchageable. Please, Larry, join the veterans who decry this misuse of terms.
George -
15. Re: Resolution rendered by printer
Hudechrome-sd9sPI Feb 25, 2008 4:29 PM (in response to George Austin)Been there since I first learned the difference, George. As an engineer, I hate overlapping terms. They frequently lead to overlapping or mostly multiple standards for the same object.
Bad news.
Light is one example, although the proponents are careful to specify alternate ways of measurement.
We have Candles, Candles/ft^2 Foot Candles, Candalas, even Candles in the Wind!
Ooops! That's a song! Sorry! :D -
16. Re: Resolution rendered by printer
Bill_Janes Feb 26, 2008 4:24 AM (in response to George Austin)>stochastic FM anyone.
Exactly! Unlike a contone printer which prints discrete pixels, an inkjet printer prints a cloud of ink droplets. The resolution of the printer is determined by the spacing of the ink nozzles perpendicular to the lateral direction of travel of the print head and by the stepper mechanism in the other direction. This addressability determines the placement of the individual dots.
The relationship of a pixel in the file to the position of the ink drops on the paper is fairly indirect. The "native resolution" of Epson printers is often said to be 360 ppi. One can determine the actual resolution by printing an image with regularly repeating line patterns and studying the resulting interference patterns. Interference will be at a minimum when they match. Rags Gardner did this for an Epson 2200 and determined that the native resolution is 288 ppi. The site does not have a direct link to the article. Go to TECHNOLOGY, INKJET RESOLUTION
http://www.rags-int-inc.com/
In his investigations with some printers, Rags found that the native resolution of the hardware and software are not always in synch. -
17. Re: Resolution rendered by printer
Bart Cross Feb 26, 2008 4:37 AM (in response to George Austin)Stochastic FM is why I do not way into the inkjet queries on output resolution. Normal rules do not apply. -
18. Re: Resolution rendered by printer
Hudechrome-sd9sPI Feb 26, 2008 8:16 AM (in response to George Austin)Rules apply. How you apply them is the quest.
If rules did not apply, then science would be impossible.
Sometimes, different rules apply to a broad study when the dimensions change as in quantum vs classical physics. Reconciling the differences can be enormously difficult. But the rules are there until they get replaced by irrefutable evidence to the contrary.
And that does happen, occasionally!
Yes, I know you said "normal" in this context, but I view the use of normal as a modifier as saying "I really don't understand" which is ok. I am constantly amazed at what I know I don't know! Especially where I think I really know!:-( -
19. Re: Resolution rendered by printer
Bart Cross Feb 27, 2008 11:34 AM (in response to George Austin)Well 'normal' being constant, 'FM' not being constant.
Explain chaos theory to me again. :P -
20. Re: Resolution rendered by printer
dave milbut Feb 27, 2008 11:35 AM (in response to George Austin)>Explain chaos theory to me again.
a butterfly flaps its wings in china and we have rain in pennsylvania. -
21. Re: Resolution rendered by printer
George Austin Feb 27, 2008 1:17 PM (in response to George Austin)Chaos: A simple specific question fissions into hundreds of fragments, releasing enormous energy while obliterating itself. -
22. Re: Resolution rendered by printer
Hudechrome-sd9sPI Feb 27, 2008 1:30 PM (in response to George Austin)Chaos:
Stochastic behavior in a deterministic system.
Translation: Lawless behavior in a system governed entirely by laws. -
23. Re: Resolution rendered by printer
Bart Cross Feb 27, 2008 1:35 PM (in response to George Austin)Larry: You hummin' my tune now? -
24. Re: Resolution rendered by printer
Hudechrome-sd9sPI Feb 27, 2008 1:47 PM (in response to George Austin)Been there. Done that in the 90's. :-)
In fact, I developed a "stochastic" way to photograph. I did a workshop on it at Esalen, in Big Sur, a number of years ago.



