Digital BW, The Print

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mark Hahn" <markhahn2000@...>

> I find that I generally need at minimu 220ppi original image data to
> get a good b&w print... with certain images and interpolation and
> processing I can sometimes get away with much less.  300ppi seems
> unquestionably good.  The Epson printer driver then interpolates up
> to 720 so there might be something to sticking to fractions of that
> or interpolating up to 720... but in the casual experiments I've done
> using different interpolation schemes I have't seen any *real*
> improvement which makes it worth the time (do the math... you can end
> up with some huge files)... but others disagree.
>
> mark



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.525 / Virus Database: 322 - Release Date: 10/9/2003

> > up with some huge files)... but others disagree.
> >
> > mark
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.525 / Virus Database: 322 - Release Date: 10/9/2003

> wouldn't that be called "nearest neighbor interpolation" :)
>
> mark
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Colorado Light"
> <coloradolight@w...> wrote:
> > That's not interpolation, it's just that a printer uses more than
> one dpi to
> > make a ppi.  Your print still has just 220 ppi.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Mark Hahn" <markhahn2000@y...>
> >
> > > I find that I generally need at minimu 220ppi original image data
> to
> > > get a good b&w print... with certain images and interpolation and
> > > processing I can sometimes get away with much less.  300ppi seems
> > > unquestionably good.  The Epson printer driver then interpolates
> up
> > > to 720 so there might be something to sticking to fractions of
> that
> > > or interpolating up to 720... but in the casual experiments I've
> done
> > > using different interpolation schemes I have't seen any *real*
> > > improvement which makes it worth the time (do the math... you can
> end
> > > up with some huge files)... but others disagree.
> > >
> > > mark

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "J Michael Sullivan" <michael@...>
>
> All things being equal, epson uses a custom stochastic dithering algorithm
that is
> likely based on "something" in the neighborhood of 360dpi as its base from
which to
> derive the dither. Send any more than that to the printer and the data is
certainly
> DOWNSAMPLED by the printer. The test above more or less proves this. Stick
with
> something in the neighborhood of 360 spi and you can't go wrong.