D810 versus D750 and is 36MP too much...My Results

[dwswager]

Right. It produces slightly more than two pixel widths per halftone dot for a 133 line screen. It's sort of a Nyquist thing.

As Erik pointed out, it's also the native resolution of Canon printers.
Jim

I was going to say it was a line screening thing.  And, in early days, continuous tone printers like dye sublimation, were all designed around that existing 300dpi requirement.

I don't know about the newer, higher resolution, Epson printers, but they always recommended 240ppi in the source as a high quality minimum.  Apparently, their dithering algorithms were designed for that or it just worked out that way.  Hence, you wanted to send 180ppi, 240ppi or 360ppi to Epson printers.

[Jim Kasson]

I don't know about the newer, higher resolution, Epson printers, but they always recommended 240ppi in the source as a high quality minimum.  Apparently, their dithering algorithms were designed for that or it just worked out that way.  Hence, you wanted to send 180ppi, 240ppi or 360ppi to Epson printers.

I've tested the 4900, 9800, 3800, and 3880. They all use nearest-neighbor for in-driver scaling. That's just about the worst algorithm. So I recommend scaling to 360 ppi with "Finest Detail" unchecked in your favorite image editor, and 720 ppi with it checked. Lr will do this automagically, and Lr's scaling algorithms have improved, and they're not bad at all now. If you want max flexibility, try QImage, or, if you're hardcore, ImageMagick.

Jim

[chez]

I am also amused by people like you who really should learn to read before they attempt to write.

I apologise if English is not your first language but, if that is the case, you really should master the nuances of our language before you resort to the type of gross insult you seem to like throwing around. This forum tends to be a civilised place where folk can express personal opinions without being insulted by ignorant individuals like you.

I believe I read and understood your post. You said plain and simple that you are amused that people justify a higher mpix camera because they print large photos, and then you went on to say you don't print large photos. I just pointed out that some people, me included, do print large photos and I justify a higher mpix camera for the extra pixels that allows me to print larger photos. I find nothing at all amusing with this concept. You found it amusing because you don't print large photos and cannot see the need for these extra pixels for people that do print large photos.

Maybe, can you elaborate on what you find amusing with needing more pixels to print large photos.