Re: dpi and line screen -- Conventional Wisdom vs Reality
Re: dpi and line screen -- Conventional Wisdom vs Reality
- Subject: Re: dpi and line screen -- Conventional Wisdom vs Reality
- From: Marco Ugolini <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 13:42:58 -0800
In a message dated 12/30/05 10:53 AM, Pablo Roufogalis L. wrote:
> Hello to all.
>
> I guess everyone here has lots of experience with this. In mine, 1.5 is the
> absolute minimum and in many images you can tell the difference between 1.5
> and 2. I once read it is not 1.5 but 1.44 (square root of two) but why bother.
>
> 1.1 is not viable at all for offset printing. Too many images will look
> bad, bad.
In my experience, there is also an additional margin of safety provided by
(a) interpolating within reason and (b) sharpening carefully.
What I mean to say is that, if an image that looks good at 300ppi at size
needs too be enlarged by 110 to 120%, it can be interpolated up (using one
of the bicubic "flavors"), then carefully sharpened, and still look none
visibly worse for the wear to the great majority of people.
Of course, there will always be those who claim to be able to see the
difference, but I am not quite sure that, in most cases, if there is indeed
a visible difference after the task is done carefully, it would be so large
as to warrant rejection of the results.
That is my personal opinion from my years of work in the field.
Happy new year to all.
--------------
Marco Ugolini
Mill Valley, CA
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden