🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov12.050629.26616@news.media.mit.edu> wave@waits.media.mit.edu  
(Michael B. Johnson) writes:
> Here's where you could change the resolution of your image from, say, 256x128  
> to whatever you'd like (2048x2048?).  

Yeah, like most people have a use for a square print.  I'd
try something like 2048 x 1536 or 4K x 3K.

But from reading his posting, I was wondering whether
this works.  I haven't tried to prman anything bigger than
the NeXT screen.  Does it crap out at high resolutions? 
qrman sure crashes a lot. 

> Also realize that PhotoCD is takes an analog image (film) and puts it in a  
> digital form (5 varying resolution images on a CD-ROM).  This is the opposite  
> of what you're talking about doing, which is taking digital imagery and  
putting  
> it to an analog form.  Kodak has yet to address this with PhotoCD (other than  
> to say you could go to a photofinishing store and specify your reprints  
there).

The highest Photo-CD res I've heard is 4K x 3K.  If you could
write your image digitally to a Photo-CD, that'd be quite
convenient.  You'd then be able to do whatever Kodak comes
up with with your image.  

> Charlie - supress the urge to do things at 400dpi, unless you are doing  
things  
> that are only an inch or two wide.  For rendering, think in pixels, not dpi.   

I disagree.  You should take the requirements of your
print into account.  I think Photo-CD aims way too low for
big things like magazine covers- and certainly for
posters.

On the other hand. I think people often overestimate the
resolution they need.  I've seen things produced for NTSC
used in print and as slides and they looked great.  It
depends a lot on sampling and viewing conditions.

Your best bet, of course, is to experiment.  Anybody who
prints things will tell you there's nothing like seeing
it in print to tell you what it'll look like in print.  Same
goes for film, video, whatever.  If you can do a test print
(once you find a service), you'll learn more from that
than speculating.

ab