|
|
Posted by harold on 12/06/05 04:16
In article <q989p1p918d440rovu0kfbvbbo9dd2es3l@4ax.com>, Onideus Mad
Hatter <usenet@backwater-productions.net> wrote:
>
> >> What's 100 dpi converted to ppi?
>
> >Somewhere in the range of *negative*10,000 ppi - in other word, it
> >can't be done Dipshit.
>
> It can't be done, huh dipshit? So let's say you have an image that
> was originally printed at 100 dpi and you want to scan it...what DPI
> are you gonna scan it at, Stupid? Now after you scan it, Stupid,
> assuming you did it correctly, how many pixel per inch is it gonna be?
>
> >> Oh yeah, ONE HUNDRED! You fuckwitted MORON!
>
> >Um, again, the answer is: *You're WRONG!*
>
> Throwing a tantrum and screaming that over and over again isn't going
> to magically make it come true.
>
> >> The number is ALWAYS THE SAME, if you have something that's 100 ppi it
> >> is GOING TO PRINT at 100 dpi
>
> >Um, once again, survey says . . . NOPE!
>
> Wouldn't it be neat if you could just SAY THAT and it would magically
> come true?
Actually, Chum, she's right. DPI and PPI aren't the same and are not
"interchangeable." "DPI" is a convention of the home and business
printing industry, not the commerical (where it all started). Actually,
the correct term for scanned resolution is SPI, or to those who aren't
dinosaurs like me, "spots per inch." SPI and PPI are more alike than
DPI and PPI. Scanners for use in Service Bureuas (and many printing
companies) use SPI or PPI.
DPI is, in fact, a printing term and not a "digital" term. Miss Max was
correct in that, altho obviously quick-tempered about it. And rude. But
DPI is a term for the "dots-per-inch" in a line screen (the appropriate
term in my trade). She was also correct in the conversion of line
screen, or LPI, to DPI, altho off by a thousand and change or so.
But no, Chum, the belief that you can use DPI and PPI interchangeably,
as terms or as standards, technically is a fallacy. However, over the
years, it has become the "lingo" so to speak with DTPers and novice
designers alike. I can easily tell the DTPer from the seasoned designer
by their choice of words - DPI or line screen. If they use DPI, more
than likely they are novice designers, DTPers, or trying to conform and
use the current buzzwords. Those that come in requesting a specific
line screen for their project are the ones that we assume are
professionals or avid enthusiasts. Or at the very least, those who are
willing to learn the art of graphic design.
But to respond to your statement that that is a way of "converting" PPI
to DPI, no, you are wrong. You are still not converting anything . . .
DPI is strictly, at least in accuracy, a printing term. *Too, you
cannot "convert" a printed item to a digital one. You can however,
*reproduce* it using a scanning device. However, obviously, as the
printed item (or photograph) stays intact and is not, in itself
changed, you have not "converted" it. If a man and a woman have a
child, they have not "converted" into that child, they have
"reproduced" - created a reasonable facsimile. I think that your
confusion is of the two words themselves, and therein lies your
mistake.
As to your response to my last post (wondering about your background),
I (and I think many other will share this position) do not "share" my
work here at the NGs for many reasons:
For one, I am not here to "network": as much as I am here to relax and
socialize. My son introduced me to the NGs a week or so ago and I've
found it quite interesting, so here I am.
Secondly, I am not interested in sharing - I like the anonymity and I
do not feel the need to "prove" myself to you or anyone else here. My
days of being a "young buck" and desperately trying to prove myself and
validate my existance are long ago.
Thirdly, my "product" is of the printed form. I do not have a website
(except for basic informational purposes) showcasing my talents. I have
never needed one (altho my son, who I suspect will take over the
business in a few years, will more than likely commission one. LOL. He
can't wait to "bring us to the web") - our clients come by word of
mouth and by their notice of press releases. We are an institution of
sorts, on the East Coast and as such, we enjoy the perks. ',)
Lastly, I am, to be quite blunt, an old man. And as such, I am
uncomfortable with the thought of being visited in person. As the
delightful Miss Elizabeth said, I am not about to give out information
that could lead to my door.
FWIW, I have probably given enough insight to who I am to the seasoned
among you - at the least those who might perchance reside and do
business on the East Coast. For those of you, I would welcome a
friendly visit. ',)
And to your statement that business printing is every bit as good as
commerical, I must tell you that you have either not seen a decently
printed piece in a long time, or you must do very, very short,
uncomplicated runs. Or possibly you are rich?? When factoring in the
costs of on-demand printing per piece and those of commerically printed
pieces per unit, the savings are obvious. When you can print a sheet at
$.15 a page/unit, why pay $1?? And of course, on long runs, or even
mildly short, DIY trimming and folding is ridiculous, no matter how
"crafty" you are. And when it comes to quality, even with the newest
and most expensive of business printers, the difference in quality is
obvious. The "dots" (or DPI for our young novice)produced by printer's
using stochastic printing (i.e., business printers) are much, much
larger than those of a press' nonconcentric impressions. As well: you
cannot have varnishes on a desktop printer. Varnishes are often
necessary to protect the printed piece. Also, desktop ink is not
waterproof (many have come along way, but are still not up to the task
as well as a press' inks), nor is it reliably UV resistant. Am I to
assume that you do not design pieces with those needs? Do you limit
your design to web or DTP projects?
* Whereas your struggle to preserve the English language is laudable,
Miss Max, here, too, is correct in her use of the word "Too." As per
most dictionaries, online and otherwise, the definition of "too" is
also "in addition; also" When I use the word "too" in this context, I
am using it as "Also, you cannot "convert" . . . I belive that was her
intention as well.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|