opinions on dpi over 600?

hello,

some people say that printing above 600dpi is a waste of time. But I
have to think that 1200dpi is better than 600dpi.

does anybody have any technical knowledge or observations on this?

In theory, more dots allow for more numbers of colors, better gradients
and more accuracy of dot locations.

Art

genericaudioperson wrote:

> hello,
>
> some people say that printing above 600dpi is a waste of time. But I
> have to think that 1200dpi is better than 600dpi.
>
> does anybody have any technical knowledge or observations on this?
>

Arthur Entlich wrote:
> In theory, more dots allow for more numbers of colors, better gradients
> and more accuracy of dot locations.
>
> Art
>
> genericaudioperson wrote:
>
>> hello,
>>
>> some people say that printing above 600dpi is a waste of time. But I
>> have to think that 1200dpi is better than 600dpi.
>>
>> does anybody have any technical knowledge or observations on this?
>>

In practice, few can see any difference over 600 dpi, unless the image
is printed quite large.

Do a few tests yourself.

--
john mcwilliams

genericaudioperson wrote:
> hello,
>
> some people say that printing above 600dpi is a waste of time. But I
> have to think that 1200dpi is better than 600dpi.
>
> does anybody have any technical knowledge or observations on this?
>

It also occurred to me that you may mean ppi, which is the "resolution"
of the file of the image being printed vs. the number of dots of ink a
printer lays down.

Printing an image from a file that's over 360 *ppi* is a waste in many
folks' opinions.

--
john mcwilliams

genericaudioperson wrote:

> hello,
>
> some people say that printing above 600dpi is a waste of time. But I
> have to think that 1200dpi is better than 600dpi.
>
> does anybody have any technical knowledge or observations on this?
>
Hmm,
Text or graphics?

genericaudioperson wrote:
> hello,
>
> some people say that printing above 600dpi is a waste of time. But I
> have to think that 1200dpi is better than 600dpi.
>
> does anybody have any technical knowledge or observations on this?
>

Yeah.
1200 is better. But there's hardly any time when I need it. In my work
(plain paper, mostly text, some B/W and color photos, no highest-quality
photo printing), 600 is excellent -- really good enough. 1200 imposes a
heavy penalty on my own system in terms of memory, processing time drag,
etc. 300 just zips along nicely, very OK for text work -- but 600's
better for even that.

Richard

It depends upon the technology and type of dot placement used.

With black and white printing using laser technology, I can definitely
see the differences between a 600 dpi and a 1200 dpi print. The gray
levels and gradients are cleaner and more refined, and edges are crisper
with the higher dpi.

It is less obvious with color laser, especially since human eyes are not
nearly as sensitive to color levels and definition, as they are in black
and white.

Art

John McWilliams wrote:

> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
>> In theory, more dots allow for more numbers of colors, better
>> gradients and more accuracy of dot locations.
>>
>> Art
>>
>> genericaudioperson wrote:
>>
>>> hello,
>>>
>>> some people say that printing above 600dpi is a waste of time. But I
>>> have to think that 1200dpi is better than 600dpi.
>>>
>>> does anybody have any technical knowledge or observations on this?
>>>
>
> In practice, few can see any difference over 600 dpi, unless the image
> is printed quite large.
>
> Do a few tests yourself.
>

It is not clear if he is speaking of the source file resolution (PPI,
pixels per inch) or the printer output (or dots per inch) as both are
possible. Many printers, especially laser, offer 600 or 1200 dpi or 600
x 1200 dpi. In this case, 1200 dpi will provide a better image, and
often it will be obvious to the observer, and moreso with black and
white output.

I agree that the source file usually doesn't benefit much from over
about 300 ppi.

Art



John McWilliams wrote:

> genericaudioperson wrote:
>
>> hello,
>>
>> some people say that printing above 600dpi is a waste of time. But I
>> have to think that 1200dpi is better than 600dpi.
>>
>> does anybody have any technical knowledge or observations on this?
>>
>
> It also occurred to me that you may mean ppi, which is the "resolution"
> of the file of the image being printed vs. the number of dots of ink a
> printer lays down.
>
> Printing an image from a file that's over 360 *ppi* is a waste in many
> folks' opinions.
>