> Taking David's picture as an example: 2250x1680 at 72 dpi would be 31.25"
> by 23.33" when printed.
Yeowzers!
At that resolution (72 Dots Per Inch) that size pic 31" x 23" would be
illegible. The dots would b so far apart the image would be broken up so
badly to make the image junk. 72 dpi is only good for thumbnail size images.
As for increasing resolution (72 dpi to 200 dpi), you cannot add resolution.
All you really do is take the information already there (the dots) and
divide them by a factor of approximately 3. You still have the same
information, you are just spreading it out more. Example:you have an apple
that is cut into 72 pieces. You want to spread it out more, so you cut it
into 200 pieces. Problem is, you didn't make any more apple. Better yet,
it's like diluting paint. It may go farther, but it doesn't cover as well.
You "dilute" the image when you attempt to "increase" resolution. Each dot
can only contain "x" amount of info. Programs such as Photoshop can only
"interpolate"-that is, guess, what infomation is contained in the "new" dots
you created when you went from 72 dpi to 200. Kind of like when the Klinton
administration wanted to estimate the census. They were only going to count
a percentage of the people, then guess how many were actually there. Like
the census, your picture would be distorted.
The more dots per inch (dpi) you have in the original image, the better
detail it will have, and the bigger you can print it without losing image
quality.
HTH
Jon
STL MO
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 06 2004 - 11:48:13 EST