AG Schnozz wrote:
[snip]
> I hate to say this, but he's full of it. This print pixel-peeping
> garbage is nonesense. I would challenge anybody and everybody on
> this list to truely test the resolution of your printer and viewing.
> Those who think we can identify 1/300" details are dillusional. It
> ain't gonna happen.
[snip]
> An image can be enlarged to the point where the resolution dropoff is
> disturbing to the viewer. Period. This is TOTALLY subject dependant.
Well, not totally -- it also depends on the quality of the RIP (Raster
Image Processor) feeding the printer's output stream.
As an example, I owned an Atari ST-based piece of desktop publishing
software back in the early 90s called "Calamus" (which is still being
made for Windows and Mac today!), and it included with it a licensed
copy of the StarFM frequency-modulated RIP to drive various laser
printers at (a now-paltry) 300 dpi. StarFM could make a silk purse out
of almost any sow's ear you threw at it; I was regularly making 8x10s on
my laser printer that most people couldn't distinguish between "laser"
and "black and white print," and this from a source image less than 500
KByte. The same image run through Microsoft Word's built-in renderer
looked like garbage boiled in swill when printed.
A good RIP can do wonders, particularly when called upon to do heavy
interpolation. SoftRIPs are sold by a number of third-party vendors.
Most print shops of any calibre use such software to enhance their
printers' output quality. The firmware/hardware RIP in the printer is
either bypassed or used for adjunct processing only.
Garth
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|