5760 vs. 2880?

[greg_lawhon1]

I am ready to move up from my trusty Epson 2200 and was planning to

gain the advantage of larger print sizes this time with the 4800 over

the 2400. I've read that the output of the 4800 is better for some

reasons (better profiles and better calibration at the factory seem

to pop up the most), but the max resolution of the 2400 is listed as

5760x1440 while the 4800 is 2880x1440.

 

Doesn't that make the 2400 at least theoretically capable of better

and more detailed prints? Is it just meaningless in the real world?

[bobmichaels]

I believe it meaningless in the real world. My naked eye can't tell the difference between a print made at 1440 and 2880. I need a very good loupe to see the difference. So I print, for even most critical use, as 1440.

 

FWIW, my naked eye can usually tell the difference between a 6x7 neg or chrome and a 35mm one, even at 8x10 print size. But it's not the resolution, it's the tonal transitions.

[alexdi]

No, detail is not substantially better with the 4800. Subtle changes in sharpening preparation would be far more apparent.

 

The advantage of the 4800 is in ink. Deeper blacks, better gradients, less bronzing, and superior handling of glossy paper.

 

DI