Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: filmscanners: Re: File sizes, file formats, etc. for printing 8.5 x 11and 13 x 17...
>From my experience I find the prints are far superior than what PS produces.
You have full color management (ICC) support. The algorithms used in QP are
better than the resampling in PS. In PS or PSP you have to manually resample
prior to printing. In QP when setup the don't have to resample , if required
it is done by QP. You have a choice of 7 different types of interpolation to
choose from. The default is Lanczos, and if you take the time to try the
program you will find it to be better than the algorithm used in PS. For
$30.00 you might say it can't be much of a program at that price, it is well
worth much more. Many Pro Photographers who used PS for printing now use QP.
There are close to 900 people on the e-list and many are Pro Photographers.
Since getting QP I very seldom use PS and never use it for printing.
Dale
> What, exactly, do you mean by "The print results are far superior"? What
is
> the workflow you are claiming this is true for?
>
> If you are claiming this is true when your resultant resolution falls
below,
> say, 240...and you need to resample I could believe it is better than the
PS
> resampling algorithms...but I'm not quite clear what claim you are making
> here...
|
