Tony Vigil wrote in message <354AD5A1.4F0BBE00@gte.net>...
>Actually, all who replied had the entire thing all wrong.  Sorry - but
true!

I always like these "You are all wrong!" replies :-)

>I say this from more than 10 years of experience with computer programs

What, only 10 years? You surely did start late, did you? (Help, don't flame
me, that was supposed to be a joke!)

Actually, everything you write in your mail after that is possibly very
correct and I am not going to dispute it, but:
Nothing what you write proves anything of my stuff wrong, so I don't
understand your first line "everything is wrong".

What you say is essentially, that you don't need to use the full DPI the
printer is capable of, to still get the fullest quality. Nothing against
that, it might be true. But the theory is still: If you want to print with X
DPI and your image is to be Y inces in size, then you need to create a
source-image with X*Y pixels. And it was that "theory" that I explained in
my post, because of the very common misconception about images "having" a
DPI value.

And to this you added the valuable advice that, while theory says you need
X*Y pixels, in real life (X*Y)/2 are still enough to get full quality.
Very well, only please don't say anything like "all who replied had the
entire thing all wrong" without backing that up - and you definitely didn't!

Johannes.

Post a reply to this message