At 12:22 AM -0800 12/29/01, Scott Gomez wrote:
What it does have is higher dpi capability than equivalent Epsons.
2400x1200, some 35-odd percent more than the Epson.
There is no direct correlation between dpi and picture quality. If
so, the HPs, several of which also can print at 2400x1200, would win
photo-printing honors in reviews I've seen. In fact, the Epson
12xx/8xx that so many of us like doesn't have a dpi rating any higher
than 1440 and it still does a marvelous job. Not arguing the quality
of the Canon (I evaluated it based on positive reviews, but didn't
like the availability of non-Windows drivers and [third-party]
archival inks); just contesting that dpi is _that_ important in being
able to print photorealistically.
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|