Is this true? I read a post on this newsgroup to the effect that with either Windows Vista or OS-X L

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by Scotius, Jul 11, 2010.

  1. Scotius

    Scotius Guest

    It was claimed that since both use pixel smoothing, any
    picture you're looking at, including in photo editing programs such as
    Photoshop will look far better than it would if you were to print it
    In effect, you are denied the information that it has rough
    edges, for example, because pixel smoothing is automatic with these
    systems, and therefore whatever 2-D graphics pros do to retouch a
    photo won't work properly because they can't see the photo as it is.
    Is this true? If so, what should I know before I get a program
    to edit anything prior to taking it off to a printers'?
    Scotius, Jul 11, 2010
    1. Advertisements

  2. Scotius

    R Davis Guest

    It depends on the application and if it has options to turn that on or off.
    For example, in ACDSee you have the option of selecting the viewer's
    Resampling Algorithm as Bicubic, Bilinear, or Nearest Neighbor. Set it to
    the least invasive one ("nearest neighbor") and you reduce the amount of
    smoothing to where you can see the individual pixels as you zoom in to
    their level. In Opera browser, for another example, in opera:config, under
    Multimedia options, you can turn on or off "Interpolate Images". Turning it
    off allows you to view the individual pixels as you zoom in (not smoothed).

    While some more simplistic applications will not alert you to this nor
    provide an option to set the level of interpolation, most do. The easiest
    way to tell is use your editor or viewer's zoom-in option. Zoom in to a
    view of about 400% to 500% the original size. If you are not easily seeing
    individual pixels as distinct small squares on your monitor, it's most
    likely doing a bicubic (smoothing) interpolation for you without your
    knowledge. Usually a bicubic algorithm because, while one of the sloppiest
    and most detail-softening methods, it's also the fastest and tolerably
    efficient for most people (who don't know better). It's also the main one
    that PhotoSlop editor still use as its only best-option today, by the way.
    There are far better algorithms than that in many editors. Even freeware
    IrfanView has better interpolation algorithms than what exists in

    You have to remember too that a printer and its drivers will also always
    use its own downsampling and upsampling algorithms, as well as dithering
    patterns for their inks. There's no such thing as a true WYSIWYG when it
    comes to monitor views and printouts. One of the nice things about the
    editor that I use, Photoline, is that is also includes quick preview button
    options to show the printer's DPI level of detail and antialiasing on your
    monitor before it is even printed. Handy when checking some details, for
    example the fine-print on some sign in an image, and wanting it to still be
    legible in the printout. This will be a close approximation to the print
    but it still won't duplicate the ink-dot dithering patterns on the final
    R Davis, Jul 11, 2010
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.