Brian,
--
Sure, resampling is done during the print process. I'm not privy to the internals of OSX but I9;d figure you
are right that its not up to say Photoshop with special algorithms. But my real point is that none of this
matters. First, because we're talking about resolutions that are too high to be visible. Second, is sort of
philosophical -- we're trying to make analog images from digital data. So the notion of "exactness" is
what we are trying to get away from. I've spent a ton of time trying to hide exactness in the print process.
The "weave" discussions are all about hiding exactness and perfect aligning of dots. The "dither" stuff is
all about making things seem random. So going out of the way to try and make exactness the goal
to me seems just in the wrong direction of what one wants.
Roy
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 3:54 PM, brian_downunda@... [QuadtoneRIP] <QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
As you know, I'm not an OS X user. At one stage I did a lot of reading on other forums on the sampling and resizing issue, and there was enough mention of this by enough people who seemed to know their stuff for me to accept it as fact. Are you disagreeing with the claim of where the resampling is done in OS X, or how good it is (or both)?
---In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, wrote :Thanks for the link to my previous post.But I'm not sure of your statement "My understand of OS X is that the resamplingperformed by the printing pipeline is best avoided." I've never heard of this orseen any evidence of this.