Digital BW, The Print

Mike,

I'm really saying more than that.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Michael King" 
<drmrking@...> wrote:
>
> John,
> 
> The current hardware (Epson x800) is already capable of printing a least 10
> bits of gray (1024 levels) with IP (based on my own tests with a spectro).

The point is that you can get those 1024 levels with a 6 bit file.   The issue
arises because people say 6 bits = 64 levels so you couldn't represent the 1024
levels.  This isn't the way it works.   ALL possible measurements that show
1024 levels are averaging over an area with many pixels, so measuring more
than 64 levels is easily done.

It would be great if you could take that exact setup with IP.   Take the file --
I presume it's a 16 bit stepwedge -- do the Photoshop operation I specified
making it only have 64 grays.   I maintain the file with look the same and print
the same and when you measure it you'll still get 1024 levels.

> 
> Correct me if I am misquoting you Roy, but I think the point you are making
> is that human vision probably struggles to perceive any difference in images
> with more than 6 bits once you factor in PS dithering.

Human vision will probably limit how far manufacturers will bother to advance.
But my claim about # of grays is for your high end spectro, too.

> 
> Certainly without the dithering I think I can percieve more than 8 bits
> (around 9 bits) in a step wedge.

I'm not sure what you would have in mind -- dithering is the ONLY way an inkjet 
print works.   There is no other way.  Dithering of the ink drops is needed to
give a lot of grays in the print.  The very slight dithering in PS is so minor 
compared to what happens in the driver/inkdrops/paper that the PS stuff is 
irrelevant.

Roy

> I'll do some more testing with dithered vs non-dithered images to see if
> there are real world situations that the dithering doesn't handle well.
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 19/11/06, john dean <deanwork2003@...> wrote:
> >
> >   Roy,
> >
> > I believe I understand most of what you are describing here. It seems
> > to confirm what you've said all along.
> >
> > I have two quick questions though. First, do you see the potential for
> > sofware rip advances that WILL allow us to gain output advantage in
> > sending bit depth larger than 8 bit to the printer in the near future?
> > And, second, are any of the new large format 12 channel pigment
> > machines that you've investigated addressing anything larger than 8
> > bit capability already?
> >
> > I guess what I am getting at is IF a bit depth beyond 8 bit WAS
> > possible in the near future, would we be seeing this capability coming
> > from new software, new hardware, or a combination of the two designed
> > in conjunction with each other.
> >
> > John
> >
> > 
> >
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>