72 dpi to 300 dpi - can it be done?

cosworth wrote in post #3476212
Resolution and DPI are NOT the same thing.

The unit of measure for Resolution is DPI or dots/cm, etc. I think that you have confused this with image size in pixels.

Given the pixel size of an image, for example 3888 X 2592. If we know the resolution of a printed image, for example 72 DPI, then we can get the image size by dividing size by resolution:

3888 pixels / 72 DPI = 54 inches and
2592 pixels / 72 DPI = 36 inches

A more likely scenario for a printed image would be 300 DPI for a printed image which would give the following image size:

3888 pixels / 300 DPI = 12.96 inches and
2592 pixels / 300 DPI = 8.64 inches

BTW, I know that you already know how to do the math, but this is mainly for the benefit of the newbies who run into this confusing issue.

wsmith wrote in post #3477511
For better ressampling use Lanczos, better than bicubic. My opinion.

Well, it depends on what you want. On images where lines and edges are important, the Lancsos algorithm produces resampling results that look somewhat like a probability distribution function, in other words, fuzzy edges but with abrupt boundaries. While the Lanczos algorithm should perform well theoretically, visually the various bicubic sampling algorithms produce more pleasing results on most images where sharpness without jaggies is desirable.

Radtech1 wrote in post #3476364
???

The OP didn't need the science lesson. Sometimes the simpler answer gets your point across better.

That delicate balance is lost on many here and I'm guilty of it every day myself. Sometimes less is more.

Yeah, I like a 'do this and this is the result' kinda response personally.