I just realized you said "at any size". There's no such thing if you're scanning an image. 300 dpi will get you a good quality print only if the print is no bigger than the original.

The only way to make an image size independant is if it's a vector-based illustration.

Ah-

This is what happened:

Boss scanned a book.

Boss made 20 x 30 poster for book signing.

Book image is pixellated.

Boss is not happy.

So there is nothing to be done to get a better quality image of a book cover which can be printed LARGER than the book itself.

So there is nothing to be done to get a better quality image of a book cover which can be printed LARGER than the book itself.

Not by scanning, no. I mean, there are cleanup functions, but 20x30 is a LOT of cleaning. In scenarios like that, I always worked with the image the book cover was printed from, rather than a scan of the book cover.

Thanks guys--

Personally I would have called the publisher (except for the fact that we are doing a booksigning on Friday and them on Saturday at the same event, with the same book!).

My boss probably got the idea and made the poster at midnight on a Saturday or something.

And I assumed (you know where that leads you) that he a graphic which would work before I sent it to the printer.

So there is nothing to be done to get a better quality image of a book cover which can be printed LARGER than the book itself.

Excellent quality? No. Better quality? Certainly.

For example, if his original scan was done at 150dpi, and you rescan at 1200dpi, the poster will definitely look better, but it will still be pixelated and fuzzy.

Go Steve Jobs! Power to the People!

September 20,2005 | PARIS -- Apple Computer Inc. CEO Steve Jobs vowed Tuesday to resist music companies' "greedy" demands for price increases on the iTunes music download site and warned that such a move would encourage piracy.

Jobs, speaking to reporters before the opening of the Apple Expo in Paris, acknowledged that some record companies were pushing him to raise the price of each song download, currently 99 cents on the U.S. iTunes site.

Record companies already make more profit by selling a song through iTunes than on a CD, with all the associated manufacturing and marketing costs, Jobs said.

"So if they want to raise the prices it just means they're getting a little greedy," he said.

The Apple co-founder and CEO indicated he plans to stand firm. "We're trying to compete with piracy, we're trying to pull people away from piracy and say, `You can buy these songs legally for a fair price,'" he said. "But if the price goes up a lot, they'll go back to piracy. Then everybody loses."

Apple has sold about 22 million of its iPod digital music players and more than 500 million songs through the iTunes Music Store. The service accounts for 82 percent of all legally downloaded music in the United States.

How stupid can record company execs be? Overpricing legitimate downloadable music will not help their problems with piracy....

The music insdustry is actively working on trying to get the marketplace to a model where the consumer is charged each time they listen to a song. They are on crack, and live in fantasyland.

Charging more for popular songs and albums is not an unreasonable position, especially if it's accompanied by a cut in price of less popular tracks. It's how CDs in stores are priced.

[link]

An opposing view to Tom's link: [link]

Yeah, my expereince is that new and popular albums are discounted, and you pay through the nose for back catalogue stuff.