Digital BW, The Print

After all this hype about IP5 5.0 (a.k.a Spectrum Pro 5.0) I decided 
to check out the software for myself and compare the results from 
both engines (drivers).

I prepared couple crops-scans with comparisons of both printouts 
using Epson driver and IP5. See the following link: 
http://www.pbase.com/bartek/gallery/imageprint_50

Here is what I did:

I used the well known PDI-Target.jpg image.
I used PS7 with Epson supplied custom printer profile and in the 
driver I used NCC (No Color Correction) and PGPP (Premium Glossy 
Photo Paper), 2880 dpi, and hi-speed – off. 
I used the same picture with IP5, utilizing their custom printer 
profile, the same paper, and 2880 dpi. (Hi-speed – off)

Results:

Color - printout with IP5 has much more accurate colors, shadow 
detail is superb.
Their color profiles are very accurate, way better then Epson's.
I am not sure about the gamma – the difference to Epson is huge, 
Epson prints are way darker in comparison.
Is it possible that Epson is that much off? 

Sharpness – to a naked eye both images look the same, however
under 
magnifying glass (and in the shown scans) Epson printout is sharper.

Grain and visible dots – again, to a naked eye both images look
the 
same, nevertheless under magnifying glass (and in the shown scans) 
Epson print is butter smooth with almost zero grain. I can not say 
that about IP5, as you can see yourself the grain is clearly visible 
and the dithering is worst than Epson's.

B&W – IP5 is using custom gray profiles for B&W prints.
When you print with IP5 you have to specify what ink set you want to 
use, in case of B&W I had to specify "Gray Pigment".
The IP5 approach to B&W is very clever; they decided not to use all 
7 inks for B&W thus allowing them to achieve very neutral results by 
utilizing mainly Black and Light Black inks for B&W.
Indeed the B&W prints are 100% neutral – as Andrew Rodney called
it –
 `dead nuts neutral'.

The software itself is not very user friendly, interface looks more 
like an unfinished product - rough and cryptic. I am myself a 
programmer, so to me it looks like all my programs when they are in 
the Alpha stage of development.

I am now debating if this software is worth $500 basically just for 
B&W, well maybe for the excellent profiles as well.

So where is the butter smooth, superior to Epson dithering IP5 is 
advertising?
Andrew (Rodney) – was this not your comment at one point?

I would like to be wrong – I had high hopes for this software, I
was 
anticipating software which would give me an excuse to spend $500, 
where the output will be truly superior.
Please prove me wrong, show me what I am doing something wrong. 
Did I get a wrong version?
Did anybody see better output from IP5 than that?

I am not saying that IP5 is bad, it is not. The output it produces 
is comparable to Epson driver, but definitely not better. 
It has better shadow (because of lower gamma?), better color 
(because of better printer profiles?) and unquestionably better B&W.

BTW – there was some discussion about custom profiles from
ColorByte 
and that the company would supply them for free on request for 
registered users; does anybody know if this is true?

PS. 
- The white lines you see in my scans of IP5 are watermarks the IP5 
demo version applies.
- Also, I have more scans if anybody needs more proof.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "bart7172001" <bc@b...> 
wrote:
> So where is the butter smooth, superior to Epson 
> dithering IP5 is advertising?
> Andrew (Rodney) – was this not your comment at one point?

Very interesting results, Bartek.  Thanks very much for posting them.

I'm wondering if the difference in your findings vs. Andrew's might 
be attributable to differences between the 2200 and 7600 (I believe 
Andrew's IP5 samples were produced by the latter)?  Although I once 
presumed these machines were using identical print heads, that turns 
out not to be the case, and it could be (though I hate to contemplate 
this, being a 2200 owner myself) that the smaller printer can't 
compete with the larger's potential when using this RIP.

Dan

A similar issue came up on Photo-I board a while back.  Vincent had 
been supplied with a sample print from the 7600 that looked franky 
horrible under a loup.  This was from the Epson driver,  of course.

I posted a sample from ImagePrint from the 7600, using the same 
image, and also at 2880, that looks just as good, if not better, than 
the 2100 output.

It is possible that ImagePrint is the best choice with the 7/9600, 
and the Epson driver is the best choice with the the 2100, if dot 
size is al that concerns you.

Quentin

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Dan Honemann" 
<dan_honemann@y...> wrote:
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "bart7172001" <bc@b...> 
> wrote:
> > So where is the butter smooth, superior to Epson 
> > dithering IP5 is advertising?
> > Andrew (Rodney) – was this not your comment at one point?
> 
> Very interesting results, Bartek.  Thanks very much for posting 
them.
> 
> I'm wondering if the difference in your findings vs. Andrew's might 
> be attributable to differences between the 2200 and 7600 (I believe 
> Andrew's IP5 samples were produced by the latter)?  Although I once 
> presumed these machines were using identical print heads, that 
turns 
> out not to be the case, and it could be (though I hate to 
contemplate 

> this, being a 2200 owner myself) that the smaller printer can't 
> compete with the larger's potential when using this RIP.
> 
> Dan

Sorry, forgot to answer this point.  Yes, Colorbyte will supply 
profiles for other papers on request to registered users.  

Incidentally, I agree about the kludgy interface.  Also, with so many 
profiles included with the package, it is a bit of a pain switching 
from one to another.  There is no way to save a number of sets of 
user preferences.  You have to remeber what the profile is called, 
not always easy.  I believe this will be addressed in due course.

Quentin  

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "bart7172001" <bc@b...> 

> BTW – there was some discussion about custom profiles from
> ColorByte 
> and that the company would supply them for free on request for 
> registered users; does anybody know if this is true?

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Dan Honemann" <
dan_honemann@y...> wrote:
> I'm wondering if the difference in your findings vs. Andrew's might 
> be attributable to differences between the 2200 and 7600

All my tests so far have been on the 9600 but I should have the 2200 up and 
running any hour now so I'll compare using the 2200 driver. 

As for "Judge for yourself" while I think this was some very good and accurate 
feedback and information, the best way to judge is to get a demo and actually 
make some prints. There is something to be said for scanning a print and 
popping it up on the web. But it's a start.

There is no way to save a number of sets of 
> user preferences.  You have to remeber what the profile is called, 
> not always easy.

Quentin,

I find that if you deinstall the profiles you aren't using, it helps with the clutter. 
They are in the Color folder within the IP5 folder. 

Nothing you can do about those not-always-helpful names though...


Antonis

Anonis,

I tried that when I first installed ImagePrint, and although its 
better, there are still quite a lot useful profiles.  In a sense, it 
is churlish to moan about it.  Someone has done a lot of work 
building all those profiles.  Another problem is you cannot expand 
the profile picker box.  I have a couple of profiles with long 
names.  I cannot read to the end of the name.

John tells me there are plans to add saved settings to the program.  
That would be a real help.

Quentin

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Antonis Ricos" 
<antonisphoto@y...> wrote:
> There is no way to save a number of sets of 
> > user preferences.  You have to remeber what the profile is 
called, 
> > not always easy.
> 
> Quentin,
> 
> I find that if you deinstall the profiles you aren't using, it 
helps with the clutter. 

> They are in the Color folder within the IP5 folder. 
> 
> Nothing you can do about those not-always-helpful names though...
> 
> 
> Antonis