Pano – Down Sampling Needed?

I am creating several panoramic photos, each using a number of separate images. In each of the panos there are enough pixels to print images that are more than 4 feet long and still be over 300 pixels per inch. However, I
must print one copy of each pano that is only 16 inches wide. At this size
(without down sampling) I wind up with images that are 900 ppi or more. Question – is this more pixels per inch than most printers can handle; does
it make any difference? The reason that I ask is because in the past I have
printed some test images with lines spaced one pixel apart. The printers, both a Canon i9900 and an Epson 2200, both were able to clearly resolve the
lines at 300 ppi but not very well at 600 ppi. So, if large ppi files are sent to a printer is it possible to overwhelm the printer driver or does it
not make any difference? Obviously if it is possible to send too much pixel
information it would a good idea to down sample ahead of printing. Anyone with some practical experience in this area?
Chuck

I am creating several panoramic photos, each using a number of separate images. In each of the panos there are enough pixels to print images that are more than 4 feet long and still be over 300 pixels per inch. However, I
must print one copy of each pano that is only 16 inches wide. At this size
(without down sampling) I wind up with images that are 900 ppi or more. Question – is this more pixels per inch than most printers can handle; does
it make any difference?

The reason that I ask is because in the past I have
printed some test images with lines spaced one pixel apart. The printers, both a Canon i9900 and an Epson 2200, both were able to clearly resolve the
lines at 300 ppi but not very well at 600 ppi.

"C Wright" wrote in message

I am creating several panoramic photos, each using a number of separate images. In each of the panos there are enough pixels to print images that are more than 4 feet long and still be over 300 pixels per inch. However, I
must print one copy of each pano that is only 16 inches wide. At this size
(without down sampling) I wind up with images that are 900 ppi or more. Question – is this more pixels per inch than most printers can handle; does
it make any difference? The reason that I ask is because in the past I have
printed some test images with lines spaced one pixel apart. The printers, both a Canon i9900 and an Epson 2200, both were able to clearly resolve the
lines at 300 ppi but not very well at 600 ppi. So, if large ppi files are sent to a printer is it possible to overwhelm the printer driver or does it
not make any difference? Obviously if it is possible to send too much pixel
information it would a good idea to down sample ahead of printing. Anyone with some practical experience in this area?
Chuck

I do not wish to be unhelpful, but would it not be quicker to just try printing at the 900Dpi, and take a note of how long it takes. Then make a 300Dpi copy and try printing that, and check if that prints any quicker.
At the worst you would waste 1 sheet of paper and some ink.
Go on Live Dangerously for once.

Roy G

I’ve seen the advertised ‘resolution’ specs for the 2200 and I just plain don’t believe them. Chances are your printer is maxed out to 360ppi and downsampling the image, making a mess of it.

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 18:22:37 -0500, "J.Scheimpflug" wrote:

I’ve seen the advertised ‘resolution’ specs for the 2200 and I just plain don’t believe them. Chances are your printer is maxed out to 360ppi and downsampling the image, making a mess of it.

The native resolution for the printer is 720 dpi and it *does make a difference* whether you print at 360, 720, or 1440 dpi. The image is best rendered at 360 ppi.

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 18:22:37 -0500, "J.Scheimpflug" wrote:

I’ve seen the advertised ‘resolution’ specs for the 2200 and I just plain don’t believe them. Chances are your printer is maxed out to 360ppi and downsampling the image, making a mess of it.

The native resolution for the printer is 720 dpi and it *does make a difference* whether you print at 360, 720, or 1440 dpi. The image is best rendered at 360 ppi.

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

On 4/16/05 6:25 PM, in article ,
"Hecate" wrote:

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 18:22:37 -0500, "J.Scheimpflug" wrote:

I’ve seen the advertised ‘resolution’ specs for the 2200 and I just plain don’t believe them. Chances are your printer is maxed out to 360ppi and downsampling the image, making a mess of it.

The native resolution for the printer is 720 dpi and it *does make a difference* whether you print at 360, 720, or 1440 dpi. The image is best rendered at 360 ppi.

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Thanks for the clear and straight forward answer! It then would appear to be a good idea to down sample an extremely high ppi image prior to printing. I realize that having too many pixels is very much the exception rather than the rule but a large pano is one of those cases where it could happen. Chuck

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 18:22:37 -0500, "J.Scheimpflug" wrote:

I’ve seen the advertised ‘resolution’ specs for the 2200 and I just plain don’t believe them. Chances are your printer is maxed out to 360ppi and downsampling the image, making a mess of it.

The native resolution for the printer is 720 dpi and it *does make a difference* whether you print at 360, 720, or 1440 dpi. The image is best rendered at 360 ppi.

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 00:25:09 +0100, Hecate wrote:

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 18:22:37 -0500, "J.Scheimpflug" wrote:

I’ve seen the advertised ‘resolution’ specs for the 2200 and I just plain don’t believe them. Chances are your printer is maxed out to 360ppi and downsampling the image, making a mess of it.

The native resolution for the printer is 720 dpi and it *does make a difference* whether you print at 360, 720, or 1440 dpi. The image is best rendered at 360 ppi.

Why?

best rendered at 360 ppi.

Why?

Because, as also answered somewhere else in this thread, many people confuse DOTS per inch of the printer with PIXELS per inch of the image. They are not the same. The printer needs several dots to build a pixel, so the pixel per inch (ppi) value of the image should always be a lot lower than the dots per inch (dpi) value of the printer. I would even say that 360 ppi for the image is still overkill. You will probably not see a difference if you use 240 ppi. On my Stylus Pro 7600 I even use only 180 ppi for large prints, but of course the viewing distance of such prints is larger.

The image is

best rendered at 360 ppi.

Why?

Because, as also answered somewhere else in this thread, many people confuse DOTS per inch of the printer with PIXELS per inch of the image. They are not the same. The printer needs several dots to build a pixel, so the pixel per inch (ppi) value of the image should always be a lot lower than the dots per inch (dpi) value of the printer. I would even say that 360 ppi for the image is still overkill. You will probably not see a difference if you use 240 ppi. On my Stylus Pro 7600 I even use only 180 ppi for large prints, but of course the viewing distance of such prints is larger.

That does not answer the question. "Best rendered" Why? Should that have been "fastest rendered" or "best quality rendered" or what?

Because, as also answered somewhere else in this thread, many people confuse DOTS per inch of the printer with PIXELS per inch of the image. They are not the same. The printer needs several dots to build a pixel, so the pixel per inch (ppi) value of the image should always be a lot lower than the dots per inch (dpi) value of the printer. I would even say that 360 ppi for the image is still overkill. You will probably not see a difference if you use 240 ppi. On my Stylus Pro 7600 I even use only 180 ppi for large prints, but of course the viewing distance of such prints is larger.

That does not answer the question. "Best rendered" Why? Should that have been "fastest rendered" or "best quality rendered" or what?

Best quality rendered.

I still do not understand why 360 is better than the "native" resolution of 720?

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 18:54:59 +0200, (Johan W.
Elzenga) wrote:

Because, as also answered somewhere else in this thread, many people confuse DOTS per inch of the printer with PIXELS per inch of the image. They are not the same. The printer needs several dots to build a pixel, so the pixel per inch (ppi) value of the image should always be a lot lower than the dots per inch (dpi) value of the printer. I would even say that 360 ppi for the image is still overkill. You will probably not see a difference if you use 240 ppi. On my Stylus Pro 7600 I even use only 180 ppi for large prints, but of course the viewing distance of such prints is larger.

That does not answer the question. "Best rendered" Why? Should that have been "fastest rendered" or "best quality rendered" or what?

Best quality rendered.

I still do not understand why 360 is better than the "native" resolution of 720?

"Hecate" wrote in message

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 18:22:37 -0500, "J.Scheimpflug" wrote:

I’ve seen the advertised ‘resolution’ specs for the 2200 and I just plain don’t believe them. Chances are your printer is maxed out to 360ppi and downsampling the image, making a mess of it.

The native resolution for the printer is 720 dpi and it *does make a difference* whether you print at 360, 720, or 1440 dpi. The image is best rendered at 360 ppi.

I’m so confused. Is it true that regardless of the manufacturer’s allegations that I’m still correct?

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 00:25:09 +0100, Hecate wrote:

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 18:22:37 -0500, "J.Scheimpflug" wrote:

I’ve seen the advertised ‘resolution’ specs for the 2200 and I just plain don’t believe them. Chances are your printer is maxed out to 360ppi and downsampling the image, making a mess of it.

The native resolution for the printer is 720 dpi and it *does make a difference* whether you print at 360, 720, or 1440 dpi. The image is best rendered at 360 ppi.

Why?

That does not answer the question. "Best rendered" Why? Should that have been "fastest rendered" or "best quality rendered" or what?

Best quality rendered.

I still do not understand why 360 is better than the "native" resolution of 720?

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 19:31:40 +0200, Owen Ransen
wrote:

That does not answer the question. "Best rendered" Why? Should that have been "fastest rendered" or "best quality rendered" or what?

Best quality rendered.

I still do not understand why 360 is better than the "native" resolution of 720?

Because 720 yields no perceptible increase in quality. It’s the law of diminishing returns.

Best quality rendered.

I still do not understand why 360 is better than the "native" resolution of 720?

That means you did NOT read my above message. It’s better because the printer needs several dots for one pixel. If your image is at 720 ppi, the printer would not have enough dots per pixel to print smooth color gradations, so it would either print less colors (i.e. lower quality) or the driver will resample to a lower resolution anyway (also with the possibility of lower quality than Photoshop can).

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 08:36:12 +0200, Owen Ransen
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 00:25:09 +0100, Hecate wrote:

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 18:22:37 -0500, "J.Scheimpflug" wrote:

I’ve seen the advertised ‘resolution’ specs for the 2200 and I just plain don’t believe them. Chances are your printer is maxed out to 360ppi and downsampling the image, making a mess of it.

The native resolution for the printer is 720 dpi and it *does make a difference* whether you print at 360, 720, or 1440 dpi. The image is best rendered at 360 ppi.

Why?

Because it’s divisor of the native resolution. Lots of tests have shown that using that ppi results in better quality images., as does 240 ppi and 180ppi and so forth.. I’m not an expert, but Kennedy McEwen is, and you’ll find him on comp.periphs.printers if you want a more technical answer.

Why?

Because it’s divisor of the native resolution. Lots of tests have shown that using that ppi results in better quality images., as does 240 ppi and 180ppi and so forth.. I’m not an expert, but Kennedy McEwen is, and you’ll find him on comp.periphs.printers if you want a more technical answer.

Aha! finally something like a reason for the blanket statement.