I finally think I understand the 300 dpi mystique. There is an
explanation in "Real World Image Sharpening with Adobe Photoshop CS2" by
Bruce Fraser (recommended by the way)
<http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0321449916/103-3192476-2323027>
Take my description with a grain of salt but it should be reasonably
close. The 300 dpi requirement comes from offset press printing at 150
dpi using a 150 line screen. Offset press uses only 4 color printing in
combination with different dot sizes to produce what we see on paper.
To produce these fat dots on paper they merge 4 input pixels to one
output dot with overlaid colors and sizes. Therefore, for 150 dpi
output they need 300 ppi input.
Therefore, the actual resolution on the paper is only 150 dpi. Although
it needed to be produced with a 300 ppi input file, whether that 300 ppi
file was actually resolving that amount of detail is a separate question.
Chuck Norcutt
Moose wrote:
> AG Schnozz wrote:
>> Brian wrote:
>>
>>> The dahlia photo is amazing (to me) at 12x18.
>>>
>> I don't believe it. We ALL know that you can't make a print beyond
>> 8x10 with anything less than 12MP digital these days. Your concept
>> of amazing must be a whole lot less than the lounge lizards over at
>> Deep Pee Review.
>>
> Loud sound of Raspberry heard at the Mooses' computer.
>
> Of course, he agrees with you, being the one who contends that a good 2
> mp is sufficient for 8x10, but deplores knocks on DPR that aren't
> crystal clear about being only about posters on the forums.
>
> Their reviews aren't perfect, but they are SO far ahead of anything else
> around.....
>
> Moose
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|