Digital BW, The Print

Austin,

Found one ref -

>I'm beginning to understand what goes on now. BUT, if the printer driver is
>going to resample to 720 ppi (desktop printers) and PS does a better job of
>resampling (as you say below), then why don't you recommend that we all
>resample our images in PS to 720 ppi before sending them to the printer?

"Several reasons, some of which are just as relevant as always, but
others become less relevant as the technology moves on.  In that latter
category are definitely issues about file size and processing speed.  A
couple of years ago with less than 100MB being a lot of memory and
processor speeds of the time, resampling to 720ppi would have been an
unnecessary burden - if at all practical for many systems to cope with.
With todays speeds and memory allocations, that is not as much of an
issue, but a lot of machines will still struggle.

In the former category are consequences of the stochastic dither
algorithm used by Epson, which can produce unwanted fine detail
enhancement if sent data at full resolution.  This can often result in
unexpected granularity in the image which is similar but not the same as
grain aliasing.  Another aspect is the printer settings itself which may
result in a slight scaling if set incorrectly, resulting in very large
alias patterns which are well within visible resolution limits with
720ppi source material.  Although I didn't cover these in the previous
response, they are things I have raised in previous discussions on this
topic."

From a post by Kennedy McEwan on Epsonx&x

----- Original Message -----
From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...>
> Bob,
>
> If this is for the ones that use 720 internally, why would you not
upsample
> to 720, instead of losing detail by downsampling to 360?