Then I UP and DOWN-sampled that 300 ppi chunk to 360 (+40 usm) and to 213 ppi (+ 40 usm),Īgain, to my eye, at normal print viewing distance there was no visual difference either +40 usm, 360ppi + 40 usm, or 213ppi + 40 usm. I repeated the process exactly as I had with the print, cut out a chunk at native 300 ppi and printed it both untouched and with +40 usm (to eliminate that +40 usm as being the reason behind any change.and realizing that with black and white.the usm change to the image was not the same, exactly, as with a multi-colored image). The colors were all shaded and useless from a resolution point of view. The really fine lines for resolution measuring were vertical, horizontal, and 45 degree angled.and black and white. Thinking I might be missing something, because of the irregularities of the real picture with what were, from a micro point of view, a lot of irregular lines and shading, I went online and got a printer resolution test print, which was about 8 x 11 at 300 ppi. No visual difference.for that picture anyway. I also took a severe crop.giving me 113 ppi and printed it at THAT resolution, then UP-sampled it to 360 ppi (+ 40 usm) and printed it. To my 67 year old eyes, with progressive bifocals, viewed at a much closer distance than I would ever look at the 16 x 24” print.I could see no difference in the irregular rock shapes in the picture.for sure.except MAYBE. So, I cut out a chunk of the native 300 ppi image and printed it, UP-sampled that chunk to 360 ppi (+40 Unsharp Mask (usm)) and printed, and DOWN-sampled to 213 ppi (+40 usm) and printed. Using a good D800 image (tiff) that seemed to print (at 16 x 24 at best 3880 settings) to enviable resolution at 300 ppi, I asked two questions: 1) was there an advantage to UP-sampling to 360 ppi, and alternately, since that file is 206MB!!!, would anything be lost DOWN-sampling to something less (big) and would a really odd number make a difference.? Did it really make an appreciable difference? And, to my eyes and print sizes, printing between 200 and 300 ppi never seemed to make an appreciable difference.īut that number, 360 ppi kept popping up. I understand the general concept of digital information being handled in quantum blocks, that Epson uses 720 ppi as their native printing density, and the general idea that keeping things “even”-ended to those size blocks could have advantages.īut, to my general way of thinking, 360 would be fine, more or less, if I was down-sampling a large, say D800 image, but it never made sense to me to UP-sample from, say 200-300 ppi if that is what I had naturally for my desired print size and needlessly introduce the potential for further sampling “alteration”. I have recently read repeated recommendations of using a print resolution of 360 PPI. After 15 years of digital printing through 4 generations of Epson printers I have developed a general sense of “what works for me”.
0 kommentar(er)
