• Open Menu Close Menu
  • Apple
  • Shopping Bag
  • Apple
  • Mac
  • iPad
  • iPhone
  • Watch
  • TV
  • Music
  • Support
  • Search apple.com
  • Shopping Bag

Lists

Open Menu Close Menu
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Lists hosted on this site
  • Email the Postmaster
  • Tips for posting to public mailing lists
Re: Dpi and line screen
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Dpi and line screen


  • Subject: Re: Dpi and line screen
  • From: Ernst Dinkla <email@hidden>
  • Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2006 15:42:57 +0100

jc castronovo wrote:

----- Original Message ----- From: "Ernst Dinkla

The usual ratios mentioned for acceptable work fall between 1.40 and 2 x. I have always assumed that the lowest acceptable quality was at the root value 1.41...x, in conventional screening corresponding with the 45 degree angle of one of the screens the digital image at 0/90 degree has to be converted to (the other angles but the 0 degrees need a similar factor). The 2x being the maximum needed in view of Nyquist. With stochastic screening etc and better upsampling + print sharpening possible on digital images these days the lowest ratio may have dropped to 1:1 for the digital images to start from. Most of time this ratio number isn't an issue at all with today's quality of digital images and cheap memory. Is the extra time and space needed for 2x a real problem ?


It's not the time or cost, but sometimes it just isn't available from the source image. What is the wisdom of scaling up a low resolution image only to scale it back down again?

john


Let's say the upsampling routines in digital image editors are much better than the down sampling you get with screening at a too low image resolution. Seems reasonable to me but I can't build on much experience.

For example I wonder what actually happens with an image that is turned 45 degrees in Photoshop. There's degradation every time you do that but some smart algorithms could reduce that effect. If the image is virtually upsampled with a 1.41... or 2 x factor, turned and brought back to the original resolution there should be less loss.
Bicubic upsampling, anti-aliasing at the downsampling. If screening algorithms have similar approaches it would be different. But you can't use the same tricks on bitmaps that are allowed on the original image. Much depends on the stage where the actual screening starts and what is done after that. The screens have to represent the original image but they also need to suit the printing process. I don't know what compromises have to be made. Must be complicated.



-- Ernst Dinkla


www.pigment-print.com ( unvollendet ) _______________________________________________ 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
References: 
 >RE: Dpi and line screen (From: "Gordon Pritchard" <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Dpi and line screen (From: Ernst Dinkla <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Dpi and line screen (From: "jc castronovo" <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: Re: Ink jet ink primer
  • Next by Date: Re: Dpi and line screen
  • Previous by thread: Re: Dpi and line screen
  • Next by thread: Re: Dpi and line screen
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread