Re: Optimal file resolution for Epson printers
Re: Optimal file resolution for Epson printers
- Subject: Re: Optimal file resolution for Epson printers
- From: Ernst Dinkla <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 11:50:03 +0200
By Arthur H. Bleich (8/21/01)
Camera resolution is a huge part of the decision-making process when
you're buying this equipment. Now, prepare to change how you measure
that resolution. Starting next month, the Japan Camera Industry
Association (JCIA) is being a little more honest with what cameras can
do. JCIA members, including most of the leading digital-camera
Just to go off on a tangential topic, I've always thought that the way
camera
makers rate their Bayer array CCD's resolution, borders on the dishonest.
Counting the R, G, B sensors as individual "pixels" is rather like saying
that an inkjet that lays down 7 colored inks at 1440 DPI has a resolution
of "10080 DPI".
Graeme Gill.
Correct, but quoting the number of R sensors only isn't
representing the truth either. The array delivers more
information than that. How that factor can be represented is
harder to define. Sony's CCD with the greens split in two shows
an approach that may end in even more different spectral filters
on the chip and quoting the resolution of one hue only will then
be even less meaningful.
The same applies to your inkjet analogy, it will not be 10080 DPI
but the quality can be better at 1440 dpi with 7 colors. One
shouldn't express it in DPI though. That's the main problem. The
buyers usually don't check beyond the resolution numbers so
printer- scanner- camera- manufacturers shape the specs of their
products to what the customer understands and can brag about.
Mediocre reviews and testing add to that. Nothing new of course,
the CPU industry has to quote frequencies first to get attention.
See AMD's CPU names etc.
I guess it is the fixation of people with high positive numbers,
suggesting quantity, that plays a role here. If quality is
expressed by a negative number, that would decrease with every
step in technology, sales probably would stagger.
The Konica Minolta A2 has - 0.4 better noise if compared to the
A1. Don't think you will get that across. A far better idea would
be to quote dynamic range numbers no longer in log. Lots of zeros
that then can be replaced with Ks. Humans love that.
Fovean started nice with the correct resolution number and the 3x
added. I got the impression that their quotings are inflated as
well now. Sigma uses 10 M x3 in their ads. No good either.
DPreview says that the Fovean sensor delivers about twice the
resolution if compared to the same "quoted" resolution Bayer
sensor. So dividing the quoted numbers by two on the Bayer
sensors could be a better representation for the moment. With
the different arrays Fuji uses, the Sony added hue, the sensor
size differences, it all isn't very meaningful, a good test on
true optical resolution and moire says much more. The German
photo magazines and DPreview are on the right track in my opinion.
Ernst
_______________________________________________
colorsync-users mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/colorsync-users
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.