Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Austin 
Franklin" <darkroom@i...> wrote:

> It appears that the limitation is in the driver, and 
> is the 30k divided by the resample resolution, and 
> has not a thing to do with the resolution you send it.

That would certainly be a more sensible and natural way
to do it.   With the amount of compute-ponies available in
the average desktop PC these days, I cannot understand why
they would resort to a simple-minded algorithm rather than one
that took into account the actual input and output resolutions
and tried to optimize for them.   ALWAYS resampling to the 
same fixed size makes about as much sense as doing pixel 
replication instead of some more sophisticated algorithm.

It's especially hard to understand why they would always 
resample to the same fixed size considering that, according
to an earlier post in this thread, they do it across all
printers in their line up to a certain size.  I could see
them using a fixed size for a particular printer where that
size was somehow related to the native hardware printhead
resolution, but different Epson printers have different
resolutions and dot sizes.

On the other hand, no one ever said Epson had a requirement 
to make sense.  This is the same company that released a 
graybalancing program in some markets and not others for
the same printer, and the same company that charges an
extra $200 (for their RIP) just so their printer can 
produce a half-decent black-and-white print.   When it comes
to Epson there's no point in asking "why"?