Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-06-2009, 06:30 AM   #16
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Umeň, Sweden
Posts: 755
QuoteOriginally posted by opfor Quote
Excuse me for probably being wrong, but printing at 600 dpi?
What kind of printer do you use?
I was under the impression that 300 was pretty much the limit for most printers.
Most printers can print at 600 dots per inches. This resolution figure pertains to individual ink drops from the print head, that can be either cyan, magenta, yellow or black (sometimes a couple more colours.) The printer needs many of these DOTS to rasterize a full colour PIXEL. No one prints higher than 300 pixels per inch, but they frequently use printers that print at 1200 dots per inch or more to achieve a 300 ppi resolution. Hope this clarifies things.

03-06-2009, 06:42 AM   #17
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Copenhagen
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,845
I have no trouble, if camera makers took a break from MP race, and started having emphasis elsewhere. Better dynamic range, would be one nicety. And if they stay at 14.6 MP, they can increase high Iso performance istead, by each new generation camera. Plus better buffer, and fps.

Another thing is that Olympus will hit the MP wall faster than APS-C systems. High Iso is not good, and they don’t have the fast primes to make up for it.



“Watanabe, though, believes image sensor-based autofocus soon will outperform phase-detect systems. That's important not just for compact cameras, but also for SLRs that today often have an awkward problem with composing a shot using the camera's LCD: when the sensor is in use to run the display, the phase-detect autofocus subsystem can't be used. That means live view on SLRs today is typically a frustratingly slow process.”


Few advanced DSLR shooters use camera LCD for composing an image, in everyday shooting. So this problem belongs more to Olympus, with their small ViewFinders. Therefore it is no surprise that they have gone the furthest regarding Live View

Last edited by Jonson PL; 03-06-2009 at 06:50 AM.
03-06-2009, 06:45 AM   #18
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,255
QuoteOriginally posted by pingflood Quote
Honestly, who the hell prints 600dpi? People keep tossing around numbers like "oh, I can only print so by so size print at 300dpi" but when's the last time you printed a poster sized print at even 300dpi? Go take a look at some actual prints and see how nice they look, then see what resolution went into them -- you might be surprised.
Dye sublimation printers, even the big professional ones, correct me if I'm wrong, tend to be 300 dpi.

QuoteQuote:
I know folks who've spent thousands upgrading and overclocking their PCs to the extreme, and ironically all they do is run various performance tests... not far removed from pixel peeping eh?
Well, they could be spending their money on heroin. So in the end, it's not so bad.
03-06-2009, 06:50 AM   #19
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,255
QuoteOriginally posted by opfor Quote
Excuse me for probably being wrong, but printing at 600 dpi?
What kind of printer do you use?
I was under the impression that 300 was pretty much the limit for most printers.
I was thinking of dye sublimation printers which tend to be, correct me if I'm wrong, 300 dpi/ppi. With dye sublimation printers I don't think you have to worry about the definitional differences between dpi and ppi.

03-06-2009, 07:03 AM   #20
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,434
QuoteOriginally posted by Erik Quote
Most printers can print at 600 dots per inches. This resolution figure pertains to individual ink drops from the print head, that can be either cyan, magenta, yellow or black (sometimes a couple more colours.) The printer needs many of these DOTS to rasterize a full colour PIXEL. No one prints higher than 300 pixels per inch, but they frequently use printers that print at 1200 dots per inch or more to achieve a 300 ppi resolution. Hope this clarifies things.
Err.. not quite:
Canon and HP printers generally have a "native input resolution" of 600 PPI.
Epsons generally have a native input resolution of 720 PPI................................


But at some point, the printer needs to have a starting image from which it will calculate how to spray the ink down. And it's easiest to design the system so that it always starts with an image that's composed of a bitmap with a fixed relationship between its pixels and the printed page. Thus, we have what is known as the printer’s “native input resolution”.


Think about how you'd write such a program.

If you always know that the starting image will be exactly, say, 720 pixels per inch of printed page, then things will be relatively easy. You can set fixed procedures for calculating how to represent that 720 PPI image by spraying dots onto the page at, say, 5760 X 1440 dots per inch. It makes it much easier and faster for the hardware and software to have a known starting resolution.
So that's what they do.

Epson likes 720 PPI as the starting point. Canon and HP seem to like 600 PPI.

That starting bitmap is then fed to the printer, and it knows exactly what to do with it every time.

But of course it'd be a rare case when we had a starting image that would happen to map to exactly the printer's native input resolution at the print size that we want.

So some software must always resample the starting image to the printer's native input resolution before it can be sent to the printer.

This can be done by the printer driver or some outside program. But one way or the other, if the printer is going to print, it MUST have the image sent to it at its native input resolution.

If we do not do the resampling ourselves, then the printer's driver WILL do it. What the printer actually receives MUST be at its native input resolution whether we're aware of it or not.
Re: I doubt that: Canon EOS 50D - 10D Forum: Digital Photography Review


I have little reason to doubt these statements.

More on this topic and good read.
Steve's Digicams - Tech Corner - January 2005\

Personally I always think in 300.. err.. dpi for Canon ect. and 360. Let the printer uprez that one step.
Oddly enough though I found 288 ppi fed to my Canon i960 was subjectively better then sending a 300 ppi image to it... go figure... probably just an illusion since in theory it is a ppi mis-match......
Mike Chaney states 300-500 for dye sub printers...

Last edited by jeffkrol; 03-06-2009 at 07:12 AM.
03-06-2009, 07:36 AM   #21
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,255
QuoteOriginally posted by opfor Quote
Excuse me for probably being wrong, but printing at 600 dpi?
What kind of printer do you use?
I was under the impression that 300 was pretty much the limit for most printers.
After a quick googling, I found a dye sublimation printer that was 600x300 dpi/ppi (I don't have an ink jet, just a monochrome laser and a dye sublimation, so I don't worry about this dpi/ppi malarkey):

SELPHY ES1 Photo Printer (300x600 DPI, Color, PC/Mac) - PC World Pricing
03-06-2009, 07:45 AM   #22
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Umeň, Sweden
Posts: 755
QuoteOriginally posted by jeffkrol Quote
Err.. not quite:
What in the text you pasted contradicts what I was saying?
03-06-2009, 08:04 AM   #23
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Boston, PRofMA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,053
A while back, someone said 6MP was enough for most people, but he megapixel wars continued :-P
I'm happy w/ my 6MP Fuji F30 when I can't haul a DSLR around :-)

03-06-2009, 08:08 AM   #24
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,434
QuoteOriginally posted by Erik Quote
What in the text you pasted contradicts what I was saying?
No one prints higher than 300 pixels per inch



Mike Chaney states 300-500 for dye sub printers...
Canon and HP printers generally have a "native input resolution" of 600 PPI.
Epsons generally have a native input resolution of 720 PPI.

For ZERO interpolation these are the file sizes you need...
Every Canon,Epson, HP prints greater then 300ppi.... with much greater dpi's...

Last edited by jeffkrol; 03-06-2009 at 08:17 AM.
03-06-2009, 08:27 AM   #25
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Umeň, Sweden
Posts: 755
QuoteOriginally posted by jeffkrol Quote
No one prints higher than 300 pixels per inch



Mike Chaney states 300-500 for dye sub printers...
Canon and HP printers generally have a "native input resolution" of 600 PPI.
Epsons generally have a native input resolution of 720 PPI.

For ZERO interpolation these are the file sizes you need...
Every Canon,Epson, HP prints greater then 300ppi.... with much greater dpi's...
Input resolution is irrelevant. Yes, it is true that the printer driver will interpolate anything other than its native input resolution. This does not mean that a 600 ppi input file generates 600 ppi output.
03-06-2009, 09:25 AM   #26
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,434
QuoteOriginally posted by Erik Quote
Input resolution is irrelevant. Yes, it is true that the printer driver will interpolate anything other than its native input resolution. This does not mean that a 600 ppi input file generates 600 ppi output.
OUTPUT:
Resolutions of 2400 x 1200 DPI, 5760 x 1440 DPI, etc. are typical for inkjet printers.

I really think your missing the point.
Only thing (modern home inkjet printers) that uses a 300ppi input and outputs at 300dpi is a dye-sub..
Inkjets dither at over 1200dpi...
I still could be mistaken on this but.......... why would a printer need to uprez if printing only at 300 dpi? The 1200 is also not really translateable to dpi because dot size can vary w/ moden inkjets
http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20080303852

Last edited by jeffkrol; 03-06-2009 at 09:35 AM.
03-06-2009, 09:43 AM   #27
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Umeň, Sweden
Posts: 755
QuoteOriginally posted by jeffkrol Quote
OUTPUT:
Resolutions of 2400 x 1200 DPI, 5760 x 1440 DPI, etc. are typical for inkjet printers.

I really think your missing the point.
Only thing (modern home inkjet printers) that uses a 300ppi input and outputs at 300dpi is a dye-sub..
Inkjets dither at over 1200dpi...
I still could be mistaken on this but.......... why would a printer need to uprez if printing only at 300 dpi? The 1200 is also not really translateable to dpi because dot size can vary w/ moden inkjets
Halftone printing on an inkjet printer - Patent - inkjet printer is used to print on media an amplitude modulated halftoning pattern where dot size is varied to
Again, I think you are missing the point. You are not negating anything I've said.
03-06-2009, 09:48 AM   #28
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,434
QuoteOriginally posted by Erik Quote
Again, I think you are missing the point. You are not negating anything I've said.
Then my mistake...... sorry though it will take me some time to believe that
Display, Printing, DPI and PPI - photo.net
Dots Per Inch

There's another term, dpi, which is associated with printers. DPI stands for "dots per inch" and is a property of a printer and printer driver software, not a digital image. It's a measure of how finely spaced the droplets of ink can be in a print. However the number is a bit misleading since it's not always measured in the way you think it might be! Printer settings of 360dpi, 720dpi, 1440dpi and 2880dpi are often found. However the difference between then is subtle at best. Most people probably couldn't tell the difference and 360dpi usually looks great. Changing DPI does not change the size of the print. ppi controls that. dpi controls print quality (though as I said, over 360dpi you typically don't see much change).

Pixels per Inch

You'll note that the width and height in the document size box have changed along with the number of pixels in the image. This makes sense because the resolution (pixels/inch) has not been changed. "Pixels per inch" and is almost exclusively used for printing, not video display. If you take an image that is 1000 pixels wide and 640 pixels high, and you print it with a ppi setting of 180 pixels per inch, the print will be 5.556 inches wide by 3.556 inches high. If you resample the image down to 500 pixels wide by 320 pixels wide and you keep the ppi setting at 180 ppi, the print (document size) will now be 2.778 inches wide by 1.778 inches high.

You can, of course, change the ppi setting. 180 is probably as low as you want to go for quality images. For the very highest quality you might want to go to 360 ppi as shown below.

Last edited by jeffkrol; 03-06-2009 at 09:55 AM.
03-06-2009, 10:02 AM   #29
m8o
Veteran Member
m8o's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: 40░-55'-44" N / 73░-24'-07" W [on LI]
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,102
QuoteOriginally posted by cateto Quote
Akira Watanabe, head of dSLR development in Olympus, declares in an interview for CNET News that "12 megapixels is enough".
It was about time to hear something like this. I hope the rest of the bunch, and most of all, us consumers, will pay attention and realize that going every season for 5 more megapixels is plain madness. Instead of this crazy computers-like competition, where more is supposed to be always better, we should go back to take pics, forget pixel peeping, and enjoy photography.
My biggest reason for saying the K20D's rez is enough is the size of the RAWs!

As much of a time sink it may be, the manual conversions to JPG using Lightroom is just so far superior to in-camera conversion, I really never use the in-camera produced Jpgs, hardly ever (even tho I keep shooting with RAW+). Never mind the terrible hot pixels I get from my K10D's jpg out if I use a long exposure; Lightroom excises hotspots like a champ and leaves the adjacent pixels alone.

Being a pack rat, I delete no RAWs (none worth keeping in the 1st place; I delete plenty of loser shots). Even tho I have a 2.3T (2.1T?) 5-Disk RAID-6 array (raid-6 not 5, yes, being very cautions), my photo catalog archive is taking up a significant amount of that space. When I move from the K10D to K20D or higher, that will only get worse. I don't think I want more RAW pixels per photo.
03-06-2009, 10:02 AM   #30
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Umeň, Sweden
Posts: 755
QuoteOriginally posted by jeffkrol Quote
Then my mistake...... sorry though it will take me some time to believe that
The thing is that I completely understand all this. There's no confusion on my part, so whatever colourful texts you paste are all wasted.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
megapixels, pentax news, pentax rumors, world
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Latest vs My Activity makes no sense to me foxglove Site Suggestions and Help 0 09-01-2010 07:51 AM
Do RML's posts make sense to you? Ash General Talk 46 11-09-2009 11:22 AM
need a back-up telephoto, common sense or old vivitar s1? tvfd911 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 3 08-13-2009 01:46 PM
Overinflated Sense of Worth k100d Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 11 10-11-2008 10:13 PM
Auto Focus - a bit of common sense garth1948 Pentax DSLR Discussion 2 03-02-2008 06:18 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:22 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top