Digital BW, The Print

Using the Qimage test image (see link earlier in thread) I confirmed that
on my 4800 with IP prints at 360 not 720 and no 720 option as far as I can
tell, so I suspect it does the same on 2400. Note the reason I think that
720 is not default on the bigger printers is as Sarah said, hard to get the
resolution for a big print, so you want to avoid 720 by default as the
driver will use a huge amount memory and processing time prepping an image
for 720dpi printing with no visual gain.

However IP does use support 16bit images (so my spectro tells me, though I
can't actually see a 1/65536 difference).
I can visually see 1/1024 (10) bits in the most sensitive part (to my eye)
of the tonal range, but I've yet to see it make a difference in a real
image.

Mike


On 17/07/07, Carl Schofield <list@...> wrote:
>
>   Is this hardware/firmware controlled or is it done by the Epson
> driver software? Do 3rd party drivers (RIPs) such as Imageprint,
> ColorBurst, QTR, etc. also re-sample to 720ppi in small format
> printers and 360ppi in large format?
>
> Carl
>
> On Jul 17, 2007, at 9:52 AM, Sarah Thompson wrote:
>
> > Bob Frost wrote:
> >> Sarah,
> >>
> >>
> >>> I think there must be a slight difference between the 2400 and
> >>> the 4800
> >>> drivers
> >>>
> >>
> >> According to Epson, all their desktop printers (including R2400)
> >> resample
> >> images to 720ppi in the driver. Large format printers (3000 upwards)
> >> resample to 360ppi normally, but recent models apparently have the
> >> option of
> >> resampling to 720ppi, which is what the Fine Detail checkbox gives
> >> you. So
> >> it's not needed on the R2400.
> >>
> >> Bob Frost.
> >>
> > Aha, mystery solved. It makes a lot of sense actually, since not many
> > source images have anything like that resolution when scaled to the
> > sizes normally printed on the larger printers.
> >
> > Thanks for that,
> > Sarah
>
>  
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]