Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Michaels"
<bob@b...> wrote:
> 
> Phil: I wasn't trying to establish what the native resolution was,
> only to see if the prints looked any better.

Yes, but my comment was prompted by Tyler's statement to the effect
that a printer native resolution of only 360 ppi would explain your
result.

>I previously thought it
> was 360 until someone came up with some authorative support for 720.

I'd say that info from Epson's own technical bulletin ought to be
about as authoritative about that as we're likely to find. ;-)


> It still appears to be a non issue as the prints look the same if sent
> to the printer around 360 ppi or anything much larger. That was my
> original supposition (i.e. most very high rez scans are >unnecessary).

I expect that you're right. The liklihood of producing a "noticable"
improvement (by printing data input at 720 ppi) would be strongly
dependent on the type of image, and also possibly dependent on whether
or not the alternative was to use some "odd" resolution value that was
a non-factor of 720 (e.g., 275, 318, etc., etc.)  With just wishful
thinking to base it on, I've developed reluctance to use resolutions
that were merely "around 360 ppi" (rather than exactly 360).

Finally (for anyone coming in late to this thread), if anyone
resamples to 720 in Photoshop using the nearest-neighbor interpolation
rather than something like bicubic (or better) then there'd be no
reason at all to expect improvement over letting the driver
interpolate. That, of course, assumes the Epson driver uses nearest
neighbor interpolation, which is a supposition that could use some
"authoritative support". As we know, Mike Chaney (Qimage) is one
source of support for that supposition.

Phil