[MFD] Question on Resolution Versus Qaulity

[MFD] Question on Resolution Versus Qaulity

[MFD] Question on Resolution Versus Qaulity

Petrie, Glen glen.petrie at eitc.epson.com
Wed Feb 1 23:02:32 UTC 2012


Mike, Pete, (All)

 

So, should the PJT not specify both but rather specify one or the other?
I know that for the PJT, that "quality" is required while "resolution"
is optional.   So if "quality" is required and always wins; what is the
value or need for "resolution"?   The spec's do not have a value of
"unknown" or "other" for "quality"; so, the Print Service will not ever
use the "resolution" information and, in fact, the "resolution" data
simply adds confusion.   

 

However, if "quality" and "resolution" were made either-or-but-not-both,
then a client could specify either without a "winner".   The other
option is add the values "unknown" or "other" to "quality" which directs
the Print Service to use "resolution".

 

Glen

 

 

________________________________

From: Michael Sweet [mailto:msweet at apple.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 12:52 PM
To: Petrie, Glen
Cc: mfd at pwg.org
Subject: Re: [MFD] Question on Resolution Versus Qaulity

 

Glen,

 

This is covered in IPP/2.0; basically if there is a conflict between
resolution and quality, quality wins.

 

As far as PWG Raster goes, that is a separate capability
(PwgRasterDocumentResolutionSupported) that expresses the capabilities
of the input side of the printer's imaging engine, while Resolution
expresses the capabilities of the output side of the printer's imaging
engine.

 

(i.e. a printer might only accept 360dpi raster data but print it at
2880dpi...)

 

 

On Feb 1, 2012, at 8:52 AM, Petrie, Glen wrote:





Pete (All),

 

I remember a discussion about resolution versus quality (I think the PWG
raster discussions).   I thought that is quality and resolution did not
agree (as interpreted by the print service capability/definition) then
quality was to be used.   In the PJT should resolution and quality be
denoted as either but not both?  Or at least should a note be added?

 

Glen

 


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and 
dangerous content by MailScanner <http://www.mailscanner.info/> , and is

believed to be clean. _______________________________________________
mfd mailing list
mfd at pwg.org
https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/mfd

 

_________________________________________________________
Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair

 


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/mfd/attachments/20120201/3f058198/attachment-0002.html>


More information about the mfd mailing list