Received: by mail.netcom.com (8.6.8.1/Netcom) id HAA15192; Thu, 14 Jul 1994 07:00:44 -0700
Received: from wilgate.wiltel.com by mail.netcom.com (8.6.8.1/Netcom) id HAA15149; Thu, 14 Jul 1994 07:00:33 -0700
Received: from hal01.wiltel.com by wilgate.wiltel.com with SMTP id AA09642 (5.67b/IDA-1.5 for <lightwave-l@netcom.com>); Thu, 14 Jul 1994 09:00:21 -0500
Received: from atg by hal01.wiltel.com (NX5.67d/NX3.0S) id AA26400; Thu, 14 Jul 94 08:58:52 -0500
Received: from wtg7 by atg.wiltel.com (NX5.67d/NX3.0M) id AA10671; Thu, 14 Jul 94 08:58:51 -0500
From: Tony Johnson <tony_johnson@wiltel.com>
Message-Id: <9407141358.AA10671@atg.wiltel.com>
Received: by wtg7 (NX5.67d/NX3.0X) id AA01239; Thu, 14 Jul 94 08:58:51 -0500
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 94 08:58:51 -0500
Received: by NeXT.Mailer (1.100.RR)
Received: by NeXT Mailer (1.100.RR)
To: lightwave-l@netcom.com
Subject: Re: Changing aspect ratio
Sender: owner-lightwave-l@netcom.com
Precedence: list
Reply-To: lightwave-l@netcom.com
> Begin forwarded message:
> videoman@netcom.com says:
> Sounds like you work on a Mac :). I
> have found that while this is the "thinking" 300dpi you need
> a 300x8.5 by 300x11 image, and if you want to go to film you
> need a humm lets see 8.5 x 2400 by 11x2400 bitmap?
>
> However reality does not always work this way,
A pixel is a pixel on a Mac, Amiga or Whatever. Some printers don't
have the resolution to print individual pixels, but NONE will add
resolution to a low-resolution image. NO WAY. Anti-aliasing can be
used to increase apparent resolution, but is very limited.
> Basicly I've found that you can't go by what one person say's