Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/07/23
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Frank Filippone writes: > OK.. it invents DOTS of ink.. so what is the > difference other than a technical definition.. The difference is huge. Machine dots are spots of ink. Pixels are picture elements. A pixel consists typically of many machine dots; for example, if you want 256 gray levels in an image, you need 256 machine dots per pixel, which corresponds to a square roughly 8x8 machine dots in size for each pixel. If your printer can resolve a maximum of 1440 machine dots per inch, then, the maximum number of pixels per inch that it can print (with 256 gray levels, in monochrome) is 180. This is for printers using opaque dots, which includes ink-jet printers and offset printing with fixed or stochastic screens. For transparent dots of dye, such as those used in dye-sublimation printers and chemical printing processes, machine dots and pixels usually correspond on roughly a one-to-one basis. > The multitude need to understand clearly that > a true 1:1 correlation of captured pixels to > printed pixels does not happen in a digital > enlargement.. This is incorrect. The correlation is usually 1:1, in fact, unless the image is interpolated or downsampled. > It does so happen in wet prints. Chemical prints generally do not use dots or pixels at all (except for systems like the Fuji Frontier). > Where do the extra digital pixels come from? > A math algorithim. For interpolation, yes. What is your point, exactly?