Sandy,
Whose testes was Gregory referring to? heheheeh (see below)
I remember in doing research for my book, I figured that if the desktop
printers could truly double their resolution and print at an actual 720 pixels per
inch, that would just about nail it and be perfect for human vision. I
don't know if their is much incentive for them to do that.
I know, I know, even Epson has a place on their website that says that the
current desktop machines like 720 ppi files, but I have seen no evidence of that
yet
Best Wishes,
Mark Nelson
Precision Digital Negatives--The Book
PDNPrint Forum at Yahoo Groups
www.MarkINelsonPhoto.com
In a message dated 4/22/06 11:34:09 AM, sanking@clemson.edu writes:
> So regardless of what Ctein may say I
> personally do not believe that resolution greater than 20-25 lppm can
> be the cause of the greater sharpness apparently observed in the
> testes to which Gregory refers.
>
> Regardless, all of this is totally irrelevant to the the original
> question, which was about making digital negatives with desktop
> scanners and inkjet printers. In any imaging system the maximum
> information that can be obtained is determined by the weakest link in
> the chain, and in this case it is either the printer or the paper
> (assuming alternative printing on art and drawing papers), since both
> limit resolution to 10 lppm or less. And you can get 10 lppm or more
> from some inexpensive flatbed scanners (Epson 4870, 4990 etc.),
> assuming you don't plan to enlarge the file more than about 2.5X.
>
Received on Sat Apr 22 14:33:03 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 05/01/06-11:10:26 AM Z CST