 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I intend to raytrace a scene for a high-quality A1 poster print... And I
was just wondering, what DPI would be good? Is 300 adequate, or should I
pull out all the stops and do 600? I'm going to have this printed on
good paper (100/120gsm) and laminated, but I'm only gonna have it done
at a reprographic place (rather than a really professional printers).
Any ideas?
Chris Harrison
http://www.ChrisHarrison.co.uk/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chris Harrison wrote:
>
> I intend to raytrace a scene for a high-quality A1 poster print... And I
> was just wondering, what DPI would be good? Is 300 adequate, or should I
> pull out all the stops and do 600? I'm going to have this printed on
> good paper (100/120gsm) and laminated, but I'm only gonna have it done
> at a reprographic place (rather than a really professional printers).
>
> Any ideas?
>
> Chris Harrison
> http://www.ChrisHarrison.co.uk/
I think you will find more than enough information in the printing FAQ -
http://www.myna.com/~gcircle/csbh.html
--
Wishing you Seasons Greetings and A Happy New Millennium !
Ken Tyler - 1300+ Povray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I think you will find more than enough information in the printing FAQ -
> http://www.myna.com/~gcircle/csbh.html
Thanks Very Much :^)
Chris Harrison
http://www.ChrisHarrison.co.uk/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
The answer in that FAQ is "it maybe depends probably."
Ken wrote:
> Chris Harrison wrote:
> >
> > I intend to raytrace a scene for a high-quality A1 poster print... And I
> > was just wondering, what DPI would be good? Is 300 adequate, or should I
> > pull out all the stops and do 600? I'm going to have this printed on
> > good paper (100/120gsm) and laminated, but I'm only gonna have it done
> > at a reprographic place (rather than a really professional printers).
> >
> > Any ideas?
> >
> > Chris Harrison
> > http://www.ChrisHarrison.co.uk/
>
> I think you will find more than enough information in the printing FAQ -
> http://www.myna.com/~gcircle/csbh.html
>
> --
> Wishing you Seasons Greetings and A Happy New Millennium !
> Ken Tyler - 1300+ Povray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
> http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Greg M. Johnson" wrote:
>
> The answer in that FAQ is "it maybe depends probably."
Well I couldn't have said that better myself :)
--
Ken Tyler - 1300+ Povray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hey, you know, this has always bugged me. Print graphics people
talk about DPI as if the inches were a fixed number. It isn't
so it tells you nothing about the resolution of the image.
After it is printed, yes, but not before. Unless the surface
area is defined before hand. 300 DPI might be good if you want
an image one inch square.
I just don't understand the usage of DPI, it depends on your
printer resolution and the size of the print you want to
make, neither of which is defined when you describe a
computer graphics file in terms of DPI. Too many undetermined
parameters.
Now if you say 3000x2000 pixels, then I know what you're
talking about. The physical size of the print will depend on
the printer resolution (DPI). How do you convert a DPI into a
rendering resolution? Do you assume an 8x10 inch print area?
Harold
Greg M. Johnson <gre### [at] my-dejanews com> wrote in message
news:387A2A33.B11330CB@my-dejanews.com...
> The answer in that FAQ is "it maybe depends probably."
>
> Ken wrote:
>
> > Chris Harrison wrote:
> > >
> > > I intend to raytrace a scene for a high-quality A1 poster print... And
I
> > > was just wondering, what DPI would be good? Is 300 adequate, or should
I
> > > pull out all the stops and do 600? I'm going to have this printed on
> > > good paper (100/120gsm) and laminated, but I'm only gonna have it done
> > > at a reprographic place (rather than a really professional printers).
> > >
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Harold Baize wrote:
> Hey, you know, this has always bugged me. Print graphics people
> talk about DPI as if the inches were a fixed number. It isn't
> so it tells you nothing about the resolution of the image.
> After it is printed, yes, but not before. Unless the surface
> area is defined before hand. 300 DPI might be good if you want
> an image one inch square.
>
> I just don't understand the usage of DPI, it depends on your
> printer resolution and the size of the print you want to
> make, neither of which is defined when you describe a
> computer graphics file in terms of DPI. Too many undetermined
> parameters.
Your printer driver is in the way when you specify the size on paper.
On the assumption your printer can do the resolution (read the specs very
carefully with regard to B&W vice color) then, keeping it simple using B&W, if
your printer can do 300 dpi and your image is 300 by 300 B&W you can do a 1"x1"
printed B&W image.
Ever see so many qualifiers with so many still unanswered questions? And I
won't guarantee the correctness of that statement.
Now if you are using an inkjet ...
The smallest dot is the best it can do. For color it takes a 2x2 matrix of
cyan, magenta, yellow and black (CMYK) to make one pixel. BUT unlike your
monitor a bubble is a bubble, full on or full off -- another condition, last I
heard but it may have changed. So clearly even at the best specified resolution
for B&W it is half in vertical in horizontal just because of the 2x2 matrix for
each color. Different shades have to be local groups of 2x2 groups with
different colors off and on to get the desired result.
Another consideration is that at normal viewing distances for normal 20/20
eyesight anything is about good enough for casual viewing. Quality prints at
home should be on transparency film but the backing left on. That is about the
best you are going to get.
300x600 and 600x600 and higher give much higher subjective quality than the
DPI would indicate. I do not know if they can be explained by other than
smoother color transitions and/or more subtle shades. I am open to suggestions
on this one.
And I have only throught through a few of the issues.
The real answer for real printing is a different problem entirely. Anyone
with Photoshop or other high end software if there are any is you produce four
B&W masters for the printer, one for each CMYK, with the registration markers.
And then you trust the human printer instead of your printer driver. But then
for printing remember half-toning is a requirement else most (none of?) presses
don't work.
One of these days I expect to invest in a dye sublimation printer when I
have nothing else to do with $1000 or so as a minimum and a $2 per print. That
(I gather but will not swear to) adds the dyes in one dot rather than a 2x2
matrix so 300 dpi is a real 300 dpi.
But then I guess I have to think about a new and huge monitor as dot pitch
is a group of 3 dots vice a 2x2 ... the complexity continues.
I have not bothered to think about digital cameras yet.
After all that, the only good news is if you are publishing on the web it is
simpler and even for people who can not get the differences in mind they can at
least compare the results on their own computer and choose. Once people are at
least high color, the oldest and most reliable adage is, "trust the browser."
Even if there is only one browser and no competition (take that Justice
Department) web designers from the big companies are going to be beating on the
vendor, even if MS, to make it better.
>Now if you say 3000x2000 pixels, then I know what you're
talking about. The physical size of the print will depend on
the printer resolution (DPI). How do you convert a DPI into a
rendering resolution? Do you assume an 8x10 inch print area?
But hard copy at home is going to remain a bit of black magic. My best
suggestion is to create and image 1.7x (or greater but not an even multiple like
2x) the max dpi of the printer and let the printer driver do the work.
Further advice, run lower printed dpi B&W for testing and plan to get a good
night's sleep rather than a cup of coffee for the final run. The driver should
compete for resources like POV for all the interpolation that will be required.
Exaggerating but ... I have not done color printing since I replaced by
66MHz machine so maybe a walk around the block can replace the night's sleep.
As I remember top quality on transparancy film on a HP 560C for 8x10 (7.5x10.5
really for 1/4" margins another consideration of printable area -- now if you
want to fraime it ... ) was close on to two hours.
Obligatory disclaimer: If you follow any of the above advice, your home will
disappear in a fireball and your first-born will be forfeit, some assembly
required, batteries not included.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Jan 2000 02:38:40 -0500, Matt Giwer wrote:
> Exaggerating but ... I have not done color printing since I replaced by
>66MHz machine so maybe a walk around the block can replace the night's sleep.
>As I remember top quality on transparancy film on a HP 560C for 8x10 (7.5x10.5
>really for 1/4" margins another consideration of printable area -- now if you
>want to fraime it ... ) was close on to two hours.
The HP 560C can't print more than 10" on an 11" page, due to the feed mechanism.
So the best you can do is 8x10, allowing for 1/4" margins on all sides but the
bottom (where you can't get anything better than a 3/4" margin.)
Also, HP makes glossy paper specifically for inkjet printing that is only about
$1 per page if you buy a pack of 50 sheets, so it's competitive with the
"transparency with the backing left on" method and slightly easier to work with
when it comes time to frame it.
--
These are my opinions. I do NOT speak for the POV-Team.
The superpatch: http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/superpatch/
My other stuff: http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/traces.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
