Search the CONFOCAL archive at
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal

In the education business, we say "we have met the enemy and he is us."  For every editor out there who is asking us to break the laws of physics, there is a teacher somewhere along the line who failed to teach him/her those laws.
Carol Heckman

Center for Microscopy & Microanalysis
Bowling Green State University
________________________________________
From: Confocal Microscopy List [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Simon Walker [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 11:49 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Resolution vs pixelation whinge

Search the CONFOCAL archive at
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal

[whinge] Is it just me, or does anyone else get annoyed when a journal
requests higher resolution images for publication?  Typical requests are "FigX is
not at the required 300 dpi.  We require a higher resolution version of this
figure" or "Your cover submission is not at the required resolution, you must
supply a higher resolution version?".
Well no, I can't.  I've acquired the image with an optimal pixel size to satisfy
Nyquist-Shannon theorem.  Just because you want to print the image at a
size where it might look pixelated does not allow me to break the laws of
physics.  The result is invariably resubmission of a Photoshop upsampled
version of the image, which yes looks less pixelated, but no, is not at a higher
resolution. Presumably the publishers are just as capable of doing this as I
am.  [/whinge]