Digital BW, The Print

A friend attended an Epson printing seminar over the weekend. One
piece of most interesting information that he brought back is that
there Is an optimal recommended printing setting : 360 DPI - a
submultiple of 720/1440/2880. I always expected that but never ran any
tests to confirm it. 

Best,
Alex
Orlando Fla

> A friend attended an Epson printing seminar over the weekend. One
> piece of most interesting information that he brought back is that
> there Is an optimal recommended printing setting : 360 DPI - a
> submultiple of 720/1440/2880. I always expected that but never ran any
> tests to confirm it.

Yeah, but it's not true, and has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to
be not true many many times.

Who gave the seminar?  Could you find out?  I'd like to discuss this with
them ;-)

Austin

If you have the 2200 Grey Balancer and have a look at the included 
test files that print beautifully, you will see that their 
resolution is 240dpi. That is what I tend to use now, if it's good 
enough for Epson then it's good enough for me!

Barry

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Austin 
Franklin" <darkroom@i...> wrote:
> > A friend attended an Epson printing seminar over the weekend. One
> > piece of most interesting information that he brought back is 
that
> > there Is an optimal recommended printing setting : 360 DPI - a
> > submultiple of 720/1440/2880. I always expected that but never 
ran any
> > tests to confirm it.
> 
> Yeah, but it's not true, and has been proven beyond a shadow of a 
doubt to
> be not true many many times.
> 
> Who gave the seminar?  Could you find out?  I'd like to discuss 
this with

> them ;-)
> 
> Austin

What happens when you resample the image to accommodate some mythical PPI to
the printer is you degrade the image.  The printer dithering algorithm is
going to already resample the image simply to convert it to printer dots,
that's what dithering algorithms do.  Resampling the image yet another time,
as I said, degrades it.

The best you can hope to print is to scan your film at the optical
resolution of the scanner, resize it WITHOUT resampling, and let the PPI to
the printer fall where it may, and simply send it to the printer driver...

Hundreds, if not thousands of prints, by many many different people, over
many years, have shown this to be true.

Austin

>
> If you have the 2200 Grey Balancer and have a look at the included
> test files that print beautifully, you will see that their
> resolution is 240dpi. That is what I tend to use now, if it's good
> enough for Epson then it's good enough for me!
>
> Barry
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Austin
> Franklin" <darkroom@i...> wrote:
> > > A friend attended an Epson printing seminar over the weekend. One
> > > piece of most interesting information that he brought back is
> that
> > > there Is an optimal recommended printing setting : 360 DPI - a
> > > submultiple of 720/1440/2880. I always expected that but never
> ran any
> > > tests to confirm it.
> >
> > Yeah, but it's not true, and has been proven beyond a shadow of a
> doubt to
> > be not true many many times.
> >
> > Who gave the seminar?  Could you find out?  I'd like to discuss
> this with
> > them ;-)
> >
> > Austin
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks,
> Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you
> wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by
> visiting this same page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier
> messages to keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
> &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the
> various resources on the homepage.
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 07:37:50PM -0500, Austin Franklin wrote:
> What happens when you resample the image to accommodate some mythical PPI to
> the printer is you degrade the image.  The printer dithering algorithm is
> going to already resample the image simply to convert it to printer dots,
> that's what dithering algorithms do.  Resampling the image yet another time,
> as I said, degrades it.
> 

I know little about these things but is it not possible that the printer
driver resamples an image to a specific resolution before performing its own
conversion to CMYK (or whatever inks it is using)? In such an instance is it
not also possible that if one presents an image to the printer driver
already at that dpi then that resampling does not have to be done?

Given the choice of supplying my own resampled image to the printer driver
and knowing the driver will not resample further or given the choice of
supplying the image to the printer driver at an arbitrary dpi and having
the driver resample using an unknown algorithm I would certainly opt for the
former.

Tony

> 
> >
> > If you have the 2200 Grey Balancer and have a look at the included
> > test files that print beautifully, you will see that their
> > resolution is 240dpi. That is what I tend to use now, if it's good
> > enough for Epson then it's good enough for me!
> >
> > Barry
> >
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Austin
> > Franklin" <darkroom@i...> wrote:
> > > > A friend attended an Epson printing seminar over the weekend. One
> > > > piece of most interesting information that he brought back is
> > that
> > > > there Is an optimal recommended printing setting : 360 DPI - a
> > > > submultiple of 720/1440/2880. I always expected that but never
> > ran any
> > > > tests to confirm it.
> > >
> > > Yeah, but it's not true, and has been proven beyond a shadow of a
> > doubt to
> > > be not true many many times.
> > >
> > > Who gave the seminar?  Could you find out?  I'd like to discuss
> > this with
> > > them ;-)
> > >
> > > Austin
> >
> >

-- 
Tony Terlecki
ajt@...
Running Debian/GNU 3.0 Linux

Hi Tony,

> On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 07:37:50PM -0500, Austin Franklin wrote:
> > What happens when you resample the image to accommodate some
> mythical PPI to
> > the printer is you degrade the image.  The printer dithering
> algorithm is
> > going to already resample the image simply to convert it to
> printer dots,
> > that's what dithering algorithms do.  Resampling the image yet
> another time,
> > as I said, degrades it.
> >
>
> I know little about these things but is it not possible that the printer
> driver resamples an image to a specific resolution before
> performing its own
> conversion to CMYK (or whatever inks it is using)?

I don't know what you are saying/asking.  It's a fact, the print driver HAS
TO resample the image to convert from pixels to dots, that's what a print
driver specifically does, in our case.

> In such an
> instance is it
> not also possible that if one presents an image to the printer driver
> already at that dpi then that resampling does not have to be done?

You are NOT presenting an image in DPI (Dots Per Inch) to the print driver.
You are presenting it in PPI (Pixels Per Inch).  Printers print in dots,
images are in pixels.  There is a conversion that has to happen to get from
pixels to dots.

By your comment I can conclude you don't understand how the pixel to dot
conversion is done (or that it even needs to be done!), and what dithering
is?  You might want to read up on it, and there are some very excellent
resources on the web that could explain it.  Adobe actually has a good
write-up on this, and if I can find it, I'll pass the URL along.  If you
would like me to explain somewhat I can, and possibly someone else can give
you some explanation as well.

> Given the choice of supplying my own resampled image to the printer driver
> and knowing the driver will not resample further

It doesn't work that way.  As I said above, you are sending PIXELS to the
printer driver, and it is converting to DOTS by the driver, then these dots
are sent to the printer.

Regards,

Austin

I did run tests. Up to 480 DPI you can see differences. The higher the
DPI (FILE size) the smoother and sharper the prints look.  Sometimes I
have 1200 DPI files, for large prints.  When I make a very small print,
I just leave it set at 1200 DPI. The prints are sharper than if you
resample to 360 DPI.  I made comparison prints from about 100 DPI to 720
DPI (FILE size) once. The bigger the file size, the sharper the print.
After 480 DPI though, it takes a loupe to see any difference at the
higher resolutions. There is a VERY noticeable difference between 240
and 480 though.

Jerry

If you don't believe it,  try it yourself. Include in your print 5 point
text and a single pixel diagonal line.







"B. Alex Pettit Jr. " wrote:

> 
> A friend attended an Epson printing seminar over the weekend. One
> piece of most interesting information that he brought back is that
> there Is an optimal recommended printing setting : 360 DPI - a
> submultiple of 720/1440/2880. I always expected that but never ran any
> tests to confirm it.
> 
> Best,
> Alex
> Orlando Fla
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

But is "Good enough" good enough for you? if you have tiny text or
diagonal lines, you are definitely losing quality at this setting. Just
try it yourself and see. Print a test print with 5 point text, and with
a single pixel diagonal line. 
You will see the difference between 240 and 720 dpi quite clearly. even
480 will be a lot better. If you are printing a photograph only, 240 is
"good enough" for most people, I agree.


Jerry



"flyfishingusa2002 " wrote:

> 
> If you have the 2200 Grey Balancer and have a look at the included
> test files that print beautifully, you will see that their
> resolution is 240dpi. That is what I tend to use now, if it's good
> enough for Epson then it's good enough for me!
> 
> Barry
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Austin
> Franklin" <darkroom@i...> wrote:
> > > A friend attended an Epson printing seminar over the weekend. One
> > > piece of most interesting information that he brought back is
> that
> > > there Is an optimal recommended printing setting : 360 DPI - a
> > > submultiple of 720/1440/2880. I always expected that but never
> ran any
> > > tests to confirm it.
> >
> > Yeah, but it's not true, and has been proven beyond a shadow of a
> doubt to
> > be not true many many times.
> >
> > Who gave the seminar?  Could you find out?  I'd like to discuss
> this with
> > them ;-)
> >
> > Austin
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 09:09:39PM -0500, Austin Franklin wrote:
> Hi Tony,
> 
> > On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 07:37:50PM -0500, Austin Franklin wrote:
> > > What happens when you resample the image to accommodate some
> > mythical PPI to
> > > the printer is you degrade the image.  The printer dithering
> > algorithm is
> > > going to already resample the image simply to convert it to
> > printer dots,
> > > that's what dithering algorithms do.  Resampling the image yet
> > another time,
> > > as I said, degrades it.
> > >
> >
> > I know little about these things but is it not possible that the printer
> > driver resamples an image to a specific resolution before
> > performing its own
> > conversion to CMYK (or whatever inks it is using)?
> 
> I don't know what you are saying/asking.  It's a fact, the print driver HAS
> TO resample the image to convert from pixels to dots, that's what a print
> driver specifically does, in our case.
> 

I know that. I think, as usual, I am not making myself clear. Let my try
again. What I am saying is that prior to the driver doing its own
conversion from pixels to dots it may first do its own conversion to
resample the image to a fixed pixel resolution. 

Let's say the code routine in the driver which perfroms the pixels->dots
conversion has been written so that it can only accept an input resolution
of 360ppi. There will be a routine in the driver which would then first 
check to see whether the image resolution passed to it by the imaging
application/print spooler is at the correct resolution to be passed to the
pixels->dots function, and if not, it will do this resampling. Note there
are two separate things happening here in the print driver:

1. Resampling to a fixed PPI.
2. Conversion from PPI to whatever dpi/dither algorithm is used by the
printer and generation of the printer commands for the actual print.

It is this first step which I am contending could be sidestepped simply by
sending the correct PPI image to the printer.

> > In such an
> > instance is it
> > not also possible that if one presents an image to the printer driver
> > already at that dpi then that resampling does not have to be done?
> 
> You are NOT presenting an image in DPI (Dots Per Inch) to the print driver.
> You are presenting it in PPI (Pixels Per Inch).  Printers print in dots,
> images are in pixels.  There is a conversion that has to happen to get from
> pixels to dots.
> 

Yep I know. Apologies if my terminology was loose. See above.


> By your comment I can conclude you don't understand how the pixel to dot
> conversion is done (or that it even needs to be done!), and what dithering
> is?  You might want to read up on it, and there are some very excellent
> resources on the web that could explain it.  Adobe actually has a good
> write-up on this, and if I can find it, I'll pass the URL along.  If you
> would like me to explain somewhat I can, and possibly someone else can give
> you some explanation as well.
> 

I do understand pixel to dot conversion and dithering to a certain extent.
Of course if you do have any detailed URLs I'd be happy to earn more.

My question really was "where does the PPI resampling of an image happen, if
indeed it happens at all"? I'm not talking about the conversion of the pixel
data into the cmyk dots that go down as a dither pattern, just the pixel
resampling of the image. I am, above all asking whether it is an atomic
transformation which happens at exactly the same time that the pixel-dot 
conversion is done, whether is it a step which occurs before the pixel to
dot transformation although still within the driver, or whether there is
actually no resampling of the image data by the print driver prior to the
conversion to actual printer dots.

> > Given the choice of supplying my own resampled image to the printer driver
> > and knowing the driver will not resample further
> 
> It doesn't work that way.  As I said above, you are sending PIXELS to the
> printer driver, and it is converting to DOTS by the driver, then these dots
> are sent to the printer.
> 

Again Austin, please see my comments above and please let me know what, if
any of it, is correct. 

Tony

Hi Jerry,

> I did run tests. Up to 480 DPI you can see differences. The higher the
> DPI (FILE size) the smoother and sharper the prints look.  Sometimes I
> have 1200 DPI files, for large prints.  When I make a very small print,
> I just leave it set at 1200 DPI. The prints are sharper than if you
> resample to 360 DPI.  I made comparison prints from about 100 DPI to 720
> DPI (FILE size) once. The bigger the file size, the sharper the print.
> After 480 DPI though, it takes a loupe to see any difference at the
> higher resolutions. There is a VERY noticeable difference between 240
> and 480 though.

Don't you mean PPI instead of DPI in this reply?  Other than that, my
experience agree with yours ;-)

Regards,

Austin

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Tony 
Terlecki <ajt@m...> wrote:

> 
> I know that. I think, as usual, I am not making myself clear. Let 
my try
> again. What I am saying is that prior to the driver doing its own
> conversion from pixels to dots it may first do its own conversion 
to
> resample the image to a fixed pixel resolution. 
> 
> Let's say the code routine in the driver which perfroms the 
pixels->dots
> conversion has been written so that it can only accept an input 
resolution
> of 360ppi. There will be a routine in the driver which would then 
first 
> check to see whether the image resolution passed to it by the 
imaging
> application/print spooler is at the correct resolution to be 
passed to the
> pixels->dots function, and if not, it will do this resampling. Note 
there
> are two separate things happening here in the print driver:
> 
> 1. Resampling to a fixed PPI.
> 2. Conversion from PPI to whatever dpi/dither algorithm is 
used by the
> printer and generation of the printer commands for the actual 
print.
> 
> It is this first step which I am contending could be sidestepped 
simply by
> sending the correct PPI image to the printer.

Tony,

You are correct here at least for some drivers.  In the print
facility for OS X, Linux, and other Unix systems the file
is resampled in PIXELS to the resolution that you pick for
DOTSpi.  I.e. the first step in getting a 1440x720 DPI print
is to get a 1440x720 PPI raster that is then processed into
ink dots.

I've read documents from Epson (but I'm not sure where)
that as least implied that the desktop drivers typically 
resample to 720 PPI before dithering.

Now whether or not to resample a 537.2ppi image to 720ppi
in Photoshop rather than the driver is may be theoretically
beneficial but pragmatically unlikely to make any difference on 
the print.  But I certainly wouldn't resample down to 360ppi,
hence I pretty much agree with the idea of not resampling
any extra.

Roy

> 
> My question really was "where does the PPI resampling of an 
image happen, if
> indeed it happens at all"? I'm not talking about the conversion 
of the pixel
> data into the cmyk dots that go down as a dither pattern, just 
the pixel
> resampling of the image. I am, above all asking whether it is 
an atomic
> transformation which happens at exactly the same time that 
the pixel-dot 
> conversion is done, whether is it a step which occurs before 
the pixel to
> dot transformation although still within the driver, or whether 
there is
> actually no resampling of the image data by the print driver 
prior to the
> conversion to actual printer dots.
> 
...
> 
> Tony

Hi Roy,

> In the print
> facility for OS X, Linux, and other Unix systems the file
> is resampled in PIXELS to the resolution that you pick for
> DOTSpi.  I.e. the first step in getting a 1440x720 DPI print
> is to get a 1440x720 PPI raster that is then processed into
> ink dots.

Do you have any references that elaborate on this?

> I've read documents from Epson (but I'm not sure where)
> that as least implied that the desktop drivers typically
> resample to 720 PPI before dithering.

I have not heard that...of course, any more info you have on this, I'd
certainly like to see.

Regards,

Austin

Hi Tony,

> What I am saying is that prior to the driver doing its own
> conversion from pixels to dots it may first do its own conversion to
> resample the image to a fixed pixel resolution.

It COULD work that way...but there is no reason it has to.

> Let's say the code routine in the driver which perfroms the pixels->dots
> conversion has been written so that it can only accept an input resolution
> of 360ppi. There will be a routine in the driver which would then first
> check to see whether the image resolution passed to it by the imaging
> application/print spooler is at the correct resolution to be passed to the
> pixels->dots function, and if not, it will do this resampling.

Understood, but again, that's an assumption that it works that way.

> Note there
> are two separate things happening here in the print driver:

In this hypothetical print driver, yes.

> 1. Resampling to a fixed PPI.
> 2. Conversion from PPI to whatever dpi/dither algorithm is used by the
> printer and generation of the printer commands for the actual print.
>
> It is this first step which I am contending could be sidestepped simply by
> sending the correct PPI image to the printer.

Yes.

> I do understand pixel to dot conversion and dithering to a certain extent.

I now get that impression.

> Of course if you do have any detailed URLs I'd be happy to earn more.

Check the Adobe web site, under PhotoShop.  They have a very good halftoning
tutorial.

> My question really was "where does the PPI resampling of an image
> happen, if
> indeed it happens at all"? I'm not talking about the conversion
> of the pixel
> data into the cmyk dots that go down as a dither pattern, just the pixel
> resampling of the image.

But dither algorithms don't have to do pixel resampling at all.  They can
just convert from what ever pixels/inch you send to dots.  You are assuming
a particular implementation.  Also, not all printers that print B&W use CMYK
dots, some use a single ink.

> I am, above all asking whether it is an atomic
> transformation which happens at exactly the same time that the pixel-dot
> conversion is done, whether is it a step which occurs before the pixel to
> dot transformation although still within the driver, or whether there is
> actually no resampling of the image data by the print driver prior to the
> conversion to actual printer dots.

That solely depends on what algorithm was implemented in the driver, there
are no hard fast requirements for any of this.  There are dozens of
different dithering techniques.

> please let me know what, if
> any of it, is correct.

I understand what you are getting at, and again, it could be implemented as
you suggest, but how it actually "works" we may never know, the printer
drivers are typically black boxes.  The only one we have any substantial
information on is the Piezo driver, which does not do as you suggest,
according to Jon Cone, and I'd have to agree.

I've implemented dither algorithms, and I've never resampled as you suggest.
My initial impression would be that it would give inferior results, since
there is yet a second resampling that has to take place when converting
pixels to dots...so why not do it only once, and minimize degradation.  Some
printers have not only multiple inks, and multiple resolutions, and multiple
dot sizes.  I'm hard pressed to believe that simply resampling up to where
pixels/inch = dots/inch is optimal for all printers.  It may be OK for
printers with fixed dot sizes, and/or single inks...

As I always say, simply try it out and see if you believe the results are
any "better".  I know that with the Piezo driver, I have tried fixed
multiples vs most any weird resolution you can imagine, like 531.2, and I
simply find the more resolution I send the driver, the better the image gets
printed.  And, like Jerry as said, it is visually notable up to 460 or so,
and beyond that, it's notable with a loupe up to 720, and anything beyond
that isn't noticeable.

Regards,

Austin

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Austin 
Franklin" <darkroom@i...> wrote:
> Hi Roy,
> 
> > In the print
> > facility for OS X, Linux, and other Unix systems the file
> > is resampled in PIXELS to the resolution that you pick for
> > DOTSpi.  I.e. the first step in getting a 1440x720 DPI print
> > is to get a 1440x720 PPI raster that is then processed into
> > ink dots.
> 
> Do you have any references that elaborate on this?

www.cups.orgs has lots of documentation.  see the
programmers manual for "cups raster data" and
cups raster header.

I just spent the last couple of weeks looking at these
raster files and writing code to process them for quadtones.
Yes, they are huge: 8x10 x 1440x720 x 3 (for RGB) is
about 250MB.  Fortunately, they are processed on the
fly so the total size is never there.

gimp-print is one of systems that read these raster files
and print to hundreds of printers.   See documentation at:
gimp-print.sourceforge.net  --  this has dithering info as
well.

Roy

> 
> > I've read documents from Epson (but I'm not sure where)
> > that as least implied that the desktop drivers typically
> > resample to 720 PPI before dithering.
> 
> I have not heard that...of course, any more info you have on 
this, I'd
> certainly like to see.

I t  must have been referenced on one of these groups,
but unfortunately I can't find it.

> 
> Regards,
> 
> Austin

Hi Austin,

Don't shoot the messenger - I just thought I was providing some useful
information.

As I now, it seems scale my prints to 333.33 'DPI', I think I will
try a
few 12x16 at 360. It may relieve the Epson software of a bit of
approximation error.

My current souce of photo input is a digicam. To whatever I scale
(resize) that 'pixel' set for a given image print size is my effective
'printed elements per inch' ( if not actually DPI ) into the Epson
printer driver.

Just passing on some info,
Alex P


>
> Yeah, but it's not true, and has been proven beyond a shadow of a
doubt to
> be not true many many times.
>
> Who gave the seminar? Could you find out? I'd like to discuss this
with

> them ;-)
>
> Austin

Hi Alex,

> Don't shoot the messenger - I just thought I was providing some useful
> information.

No shots fired...though this myth keeps popping up it's head up every now
and then...

> As I now, it seems scale my prints to 333.33 'DPI', I think I will
> try a
> few 12x16 at 360. It may relieve the Epson software of a bit of
> approximation error.

Testing this (or anything in question) out for your self is the best source
of information you can hope to get!

Regards,

Austin

Hi Roy,

> > Do you have any references that elaborate on this?
>
> www.cups.orgs has lots of documentation.  see the
> programmers manual for "cups raster data" and
> cups raster header.
>
> I just spent the last couple of weeks looking at these
> raster files and writing code to process them for quadtones.
> Yes, they are huge: 8x10 x 1440x720 x 3 (for RGB) is
> about 250MB.  Fortunately, they are processed on the
> fly so the total size is never there.
>
> gimp-print is one of systems that read these raster files
> and print to hundreds of printers.   See documentation at:
> gimp-print.sourceforge.net  --  this has dithering info as
> well.

Thanks for the info!  I'd like to see more about why they do it that way.
How have you found the dither, with respect to quality...compared to the
Epson?  Is this for single ink printers only, BTW?

Regards,

Austin

Austin,

Since the large Epsons use 360 ppi internally, why shouldn't one say that
sending 360 ppi is 'optimal'? It avoids the driver doing any upsampling of
the image.

With the small Epsons, 720 ppi is used internally, so, although sending
images in 720 ppi should be best (?), sending them in 360 ppi is 'optimal'
in the sense that it produces sensibly-sized files and simply requires each
pixel to be duplicated in the driver upsampling to 720 ppi. Sending them in
most other ppi will be 'sub-optimal' in the sense that some pixels will be
duplicated and some won't in the driver upsampling.

You may say that we won't be able to see the difference, but that is a
different matter. Some may, and some may not. It might matter for some types
of image and not for others.

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message -----

From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...>


> > A friend attended an Epson printing seminar over the weekend. One
> > piece of most interesting information that he brought back is that
> > there Is an optimal recommended printing setting : 360 DPI - a
> > submultiple of 720/1440/2880. I always expected that but never ran any
> > tests to confirm it.
>
> Yeah, but it's not true, and has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to
> be not true many many times.
>
> Who gave the seminar?  Could you find out?  I'd like to discuss this with
> them ;-)

Austin,

QImage begs to differ! That program upsamples from whatever you have to 720
ppi (for small Epsons) in one go using Lanczos (so it doesn't have to be
resampled again in the driver), and they claim it is an improvement. I
haven't tried it yet. Has any one else and found it to be true?

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...>


> What happens when you resample the image to accommodate some mythical PPI
to
> the printer is you degrade the image.  The printer dithering algorithm is
> going to already resample the image simply to convert it to printer dots,
> that's what dithering algorithms do.  Resampling the image yet another
time,
> as I said, degrades it.
>
> The best you can hope to print is to scan your film at the optical
> resolution of the scanner, resize it WITHOUT resampling, and let the PPI
to
> the printer fall where it may, and simply send it to the printer driver...

Austin,

Doesn't the fact that Epson state that their drivers work internally at 360
ppi for large-format and 720 ppi for desktop, suggest that this IS the way
that the Epson drivers work?

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...>


> Hi Tony,
>
> > What I am saying is that prior to the driver doing its own
> > conversion from pixels to dots it may first do its own conversion to
> > resample the image to a fixed pixel resolution.
>
> It COULD work that way...but there is no reason it has to.
>
> > Let's say the code routine in the driver which perfroms the pixels->dots
> > conversion has been written so that it can only accept an input
resolution
> > of 360ppi. There will be a routine in the driver which would then first
> > check to see whether the image resolution passed to it by the imaging
> > application/print spooler is at the correct resolution to be passed to
the

> > pixels->dots function, and if not, it will do this resampling.
>
> Understood, but again, that's an assumption that it works that way.
>
> > Note there
> > are two separate things happening here in the print driver:
>
> In this hypothetical print driver, yes.

Austin,

Here is a reply from Kennedy McEwan on the x7x list on the same subject. He
seems to believe (has proved?) that the Epson driver upsamples to 720 or 360
ppi depending on the model.


"Well, if you look through the archives of this list you should find a
posting made over a year ago by either Royce or Chris Bair which
referenced a test pattern which clearly demonstrated the limitations of
the Epson driver's resampling algorithm when printing at other than the
optimum resolutions.  First resamplng to 360ppi (for large format
printers) or 720ppi (for desktops) using bicubic interpolation certainly
made a very visible improvement on that image.

In addition, one of the first prints I ever made on my Epson was a
synthesised resolution test pattern and this certainly produced very
visible artefacts due to the Epson resampling - in fact, that is how it
was possible to determine what fundamental resolution of the Epson
driver was.  A 1440ppi line resolution test image can quite literally
change from black to white simply by moving the lines one pixel left or
right, whilst sub-optimal resolution tests close to 720ppi produce broad
aliasing bands - all of which would be significantly reduced if not
eliminated by the use of adequate quality resampling methods.

So there are certainly cases where the difference between leaving it to
the printer and using a higher quality resampling algorithm do make a
very visible difference to the output but, as I mentioned in another
thread, this is usually only true of synthetic images, for reasons
already explained in that posting.

I also prefer to let the printer sort it out, although within slightly
different bounds, when using real images from cameras or scanners, but
always resample digital art to 720ppi with bicubic interpolation or
resize the entire artwork to yield a suitable resolution.

Also, if you check the "DCC" or "Digital Camera Correction" box on the
driver you will find that the driver produces much less "stair stepping"
on low resolution images.  With that mode, it uses bilinear resampling
rather than nearest neighbour to get up to the fundamental resolution of
the printer."


----- Original Message -----
From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...>
>
> It COULD work that way...but there is no reason it has to.
>
> > Let's say the code routine in the driver which perfroms the pixels->dots
> > conversion has been written so that it can only accept an input
resolution
> > of 360ppi. There will be a routine in the driver which would then first
> > check to see whether the image resolution passed to it by the imaging
> > application/print spooler is at the correct resolution to be passed to
the

> > pixels->dots function, and if not, it will do this resampling.
>
> Understood, but again, that's an assumption that it works that way.
>
> > Note there
> > are two separate things happening here in the print driver:
>
> In this hypothetical print driver, yes.

Yes, PPI

Jerry




Austin Franklin wrote:

> 
> Hi Jerry,
> 
> > I did run tests. Up to 480 DPI you can see differences. The higher the
> > DPI (FILE size) the smoother and sharper the prints look.  Sometimes I
> > have 1200 DPI files, for large prints.  When I make a very small print,
> > I just leave it set at 1200 DPI. The prints are sharper than if you
> > resample to 360 DPI.  I made comparison prints from about 100 DPI to 720
> > DPI (FILE size) once. The bigger the file size, the sharper the print.
> > After 480 DPI though, it takes a loupe to see any difference at the
> > higher resolutions. There is a VERY noticeable difference between 240
> > and 480 though.
> 
> Don't you mean PPI instead of DPI in this reply?  Other than that, my
> experience agree with yours ;-)
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Austin
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Hi Bob,

> Here is a reply from Kennedy McEwan on the x7x list on the same
> subject. He
> seems to believe (has proved?) that the Epson driver upsamples to
> 720 or 360
> ppi depending on the model.
>
>
> "Well, if you look through the archives of this list you should find a
> posting made over a year ago by either Royce or Chris Bair which
> referenced a test pattern which clearly demonstrated the limitations of
> the Epson driver's resampling algorithm when printing at other than the
> optimum resolutions.

I remember someone posting something of the such, but the test patterns I
saw didn't prove the claim (if that is the same thing they are talking
about).  They were NOT grayscale images, they were in fact simply lines,
black lines.

Also, the conclusions drawn, let's say, did show "something" at 720/360, it
could simply be that the driver only uses data up to that point, not
necessarily that it resamples.

I'm not convinced one way or the other for the Epson driver.  Also, whether
the driver resamples or not really has nothing to do with sending PPI to the
printer based on some magic number.  That was the initial question, and the
resampling was subsequent to that.  I still contend that there is no magic
number for sending to the Epson driver, at least the one for the 3000,
though I will agree that you MAY be able to send it a "native" upsampled
image, meaning matching the resample PPI, and it MAY give you "different"
results than letting the printer driver do the upsampling...now whether
those results are better or not, I really don't know, and certainly some
experimentation would be interesting...except for me, I use the Piezo driver
for my B&W, and for that, I don't believe it would help.

Thanks for posting that info, and I'll read it over and get in touch with
Kennedy and pose some questions to him about it.

Regards,

Austin

> Austin,
>
> Doesn't the fact that Epson state that their drivers work
> internally at 360
> ppi for large-format and 720 ppi for desktop, suggest that this IS the way
> that the Epson drivers work?
>
> Bob Frost.

Hi Bob,

Possibly, and possibly not.  That could merely be an upper limit to data
that it uses.  I know the Piezo driver stops at 720, so if you send it data
beyond that, it simply doesn't take advantage of it.  That doesn't mean it
resamples and then dithers, it could just be inherent in the dither
algorithm.

Regards,

Austin

Bob,

> Since the large Epsons use 360 ppi internally

What is a "large Epson", and what do you mean "internally"?  That would be a
property of the driver, not the printer.  And, at least for me, 360 would be
horrible!

> why shouldn't one say that
> sending 360 ppi is 'optimal'?

If it was perfect data, perhaps...but now you're in a "contest" with who
does better upsampling.  One thing that is, if the driver does upsample, it
has a particular algorithm that would take into consideration minimizing
artifacts with it's dithering algorithm...perhaps.

> It avoids the driver doing any upsampling of
> the image.

Only testing could decide which method is better.

> Sending them in
> most other ppi will be 'sub-optimal' in the sense that some pixels will be
> duplicated and some won't in the driver upsampling.

Only bad interpolation duplicated pixels...  I'd be hard pressed to believe
any of the interpolation methods used in the printer drivers or PS do any
pixel duplication.

> You may say that we won't be able to see the difference, but that is a
> different matter. Some may, and some may not. It might matter for
> some types
> of image and not for others.

Agreed,

Austin

Austin wrote:

>> Hi Jerry,
>>
>> I did run tests. Up to 480 DPI you can see differences. The higher the
>> DPI (FILE size) the smoother and sharper the prints look.  Sometimes I
>> have 1200 DPI files, for large prints.  When I make a very small print,
>> I just leave it set at 1200 DPI. The prints are sharper than if you
>> resample to 360 DPI.  I made comparison prints from about 100 DPI to 720
>> DPI (FILE size) once. The bigger the file size, the sharper the print.
>> After 480 DPI though, it takes a loupe to see any difference at the
>> higher resolutions. There is a VERY noticeable difference between 240
>> and 480 though.

> Don't you mean PPI instead of DPI in this reply?  Other than that, my
> experience agree with yours ;-)

Austin and Jerry,

Isn't this improvement that we see at higher resolutions printer dependent?
I haven't done the comparisons between the two, but I suspect my 3000 with
it's larger dots behaves differently than my 1280 with the smaller,
variable-size dots when doing these kinds of tests at the same print
resolution setting. (Assuming the use of the Epson drivers, of course.) Am I
not correct?

Isn't it also true that the older printers were more likely to require file
resolutions at submultiples of the printer's native resolution than is true
of the newer printers? I seem to recall discussions about this on the Leben
list, where the newer printers (beginning with the 1270/1280?) were said to
be far less picky about the resolution of the files being sent for printing.

Tom Keesling
Intelligent Design, Inc.

> I know that with the Piezo driver, I have tried fixed
> multiples vs most any weird resolution you can imagine, like 531.2,
and I
> simply find the more resolution I send the driver, the better the
image gets
> printed.  And, like Jerry as said, it is visually notable up to 460
or so,
> and beyond that, it's notable with a loupe up to 720, and anything
beyond
> that isn't noticeable.

So, it sounds like you send the full-rez image to the printer 
regardless of what size you're printing at; but how do you deal with
sharpening ?   That really needs to be dependent on print-size, as I
understand it.  So do you adjust the radius of the USM depending
upon the resolution (pixels per inch) ?

John

Hi John,

> > I know that with the Piezo driver, I have tried fixed
> > multiples vs most any weird resolution you can imagine, like 531.2,
> and I
> > simply find the more resolution I send the driver, the better the
> image gets
> > printed.  And, like Jerry as said, it is visually notable up to 460
> or so,
> > and beyond that, it's notable with a loupe up to 720, and anything
> beyond
> > that isn't noticeable.
>
> So, it sounds like you send the full-rez image to the printer
> regardless of what size you're printing at

You are ABSOLUTELY correct.

> but how do you deal with
> sharpening ?

That has been a bone of contention for some as to how I do my workflow.  I
do NOT sharpen.  The scanner I use, Leafscan 45, does not require sharpening
at all.  As a note, no one (gallery owners, collectors, professionals) have
ever said a thing about my images might be better with some sharpening or
said a thing about sharpening.  In fact, they can't believe the detail I get
in my images.  It is in fact better than my chemical darkroom prints.

> That really needs to be dependent on print-size, as I
> understand it.  So do you adjust the radius of the USM depending
> upon the resolution (pixels per inch) ?

I just don't sharpen ;-)

Regards,

Austin

> > but how do you deal with
> > sharpening ?
>
> That has been a bone of contention for some as to how I do my workflow.  I
> do NOT sharpen.  The scanner I use, Leafscan 45, does not require
> sharpening
> at all.

Let me elaborate on that.  The Leafscan 45 (and the 35) scan B&W as
grayscale.  Every other scanner scans B&W as RGB.  There are issues with
scanning in RGB with a CCD scanner, in that the channels all have different
levels of sharpness.  The red being the fuzziest, blue next and green least.
It's not just as simple as saying use the green channel, because you can
lose tonal information that way.  Most scanners have a canned mix of how
much from each channel they use to "make" grayscale.  Some people keep their
B&W scans in RGB and do the mix in PhotoShop, and as a note, PS has a canned
mix as well for it's convert to grayscale command.

Anyway, I believe it is because my scanner scans grayscale using a single
channel with a neutral density filter that I don't have to sharpen.

Regards,

Austin

> gimp-print is one of systems that read these raster files
> and print to hundreds of printers.   See documentation at:
> gimp-print.sourceforge.net  --  this has dithering info as
> well.

Could you tell us a little more about this gimp-print ?

It looks like it only works under Unix, or under Mac OSX (which
of course IS UNIX).  Is there no version for Mac OS9 ?  I'm running
all my stuff under OS9 now, so it'd be kinda awkward to have to go
to OSX to run the gimp.

Thanks, John

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, 
"johngeyles <jge@c...>" <jge@c...> wrote:
> 
> > gimp-print is one of systems that read these raster files
> > and print to hundreds of printers.   See documentation at:
> > gimp-print.sourceforge.net  --  this has dithering info as
> > well.
> 
> Could you tell us a little more about this gimp-print ?
> 
> It looks like it only works under Unix, or under Mac OSX (which
> of course IS UNIX).  Is there no version for Mac OS9 ?  I'm 
running
> all my stuff under OS9 now, so it'd be kinda awkward to have to 
go
> to OSX to run the gimp.
> 
> Thanks, John

Hi John,

That's correct.  Gimp-print together with Cups is a Unix  only
option.  That means Mac OS X, Linux, and any other unix you
port it to.  Probably the biggest hassle in upgrading from
OS9 to OSX has been lack of drivers for old obsolete printers.
So gimp-print has done a wonderful job in filling this niche
-- especially for all of us B&W printers who seek out the older
printers instead of the lastest and greatest.  

Anyway, upgrading from OS9 to OSX is not trivial but Apple
is definitely going that way.  Just to get gimp-print is probably
not worth it.

I've been working on some quadtone printing capabilities
using cups and gimp-print that allow a simple grayscale
workflow similar to Piezography but without plugins.  It
just uses the ordinary print facility so its usable from any
program that can print.  It is also customizable for just
about any quadtone inkset.

I posted about this earlier, but here's my download:
http://harrington.com/QuadGimp.tar.gz

Obviously you can't use it unless you move to OSX but at
least you can read the description.

Roy

Alex-

Was the an Epson-staffed seminar??  Best I've seen from them is 240-300.

Seems a lot depends on the printer you're talking about also.  And, if there
is a RIP in the mix, it's another factor.

Seth

=-----Original Message-----
=From: B. Alex Pettit Jr. <a_pettit_jr@...> 
=[mailto:a_pettit_jr@...] 
=Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 7:05 PM
=To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
=Subject: [Digital BW] Optimal DPI
=
=
=A friend attended an Epson printing seminar over the weekend. 
=One piece of most interesting information that he brought back 
=is that there Is an optimal recommended printing setting : 360 
=DPI - a submultiple of 720/1440/2880. I always expected that 
=but never ran any tests to confirm it. 
=
=Best,
=Alex
=Orlando Fla
=
=
=Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, 
=Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The 
=page is at:
=
=http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
=
=If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or 
=you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership 
=preferences by visiting this same page.
=
=Please follow these basic guidelines:
=- Include your full name with your message.
=- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
=- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier 
=messages to keep them short.
=- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the 
=subject header.
=- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks 
=or &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
=- Complete your Yahoo profile.
=- Before posting a question, search the message archives and 
=the various resources on the homepage. 
=
=
= 
=
=Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
=http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
=
=
=

Hi Seth, 

I did not attend, but here is the link
http://www.epsonprintacademy.com/schedule.shtml

Best,
Alex

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Seth Rossman"
<seth@m...> wrote:
> Alex-
> 
> Was the an Epson-staffed seminar??  Best I've seen from them is 240-300.
> 
> Seems a lot depends on the printer you're talking about also.  And,
if there

> is a RIP in the mix, it's another factor.
> 
> Seth
>

> That's correct.  Gimp-print together with Cups is a Unix  only
> option.  That means Mac OS X, Linux, and any other unix you
> port it to.  Probably the biggest hassle in upgrading from
> OS9 to OSX has been lack of drivers for old obsolete printers.

I got my G4 during the period when Apple was shipping with both
OS9 an OSX, so ugrading is not the issue.  It's just that I have 
everything else running under OS9 now, so switching into OSX mode
just to print would be a pain.  

Is it worth doing this, or moving my working environment to OSX
(I wonder how much more slowly Photoshop 6 runs under "Classic"
mode than under OS9 ?) to get gimp-print ?  How close is it to
being the magic bullet for reliable consistent B&W printing ?

John

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, 
"johngeyles <jge@c...>" <jge@c...> wrote:
> 
> > That's correct.  Gimp-print together with Cups is a Unix  only
> > option.  That means Mac OS X, Linux, and any other unix you
> > port it to.  Probably the biggest hassle in upgrading from
> > OS9 to OSX has been lack of drivers for old obsolete printers.
> 
> I got my G4 during the period when Apple was shipping with 
both
> OS9 an OSX, so ugrading is not the issue.  It's just that I have 
> everything else running under OS9 now, so switching into OSX 
mode
> just to print would be a pain.  
> 
> Is it worth doing this, or moving my working environment to 
OSX
> (I wonder how much more slowly Photoshop 6 runs under 
"Classic"
> mode than under OS9 ?) to get gimp-print ?  How close is it to
> being the magic bullet for reliable consistent B&W printing ?
> 
> John

I'm a little confused on what you are looking for.   It seems
to me that every B&W workflow works just fine in OS9.  All
the printer drivers are available, all the RGB workflows for
MIS inks work.  So is there some reason that you don't
already have "reliable consistent B&W printing" ?

Moving to OSX to print doesn't make a lot of sense since you
should have everything now. 

Roy

Roy,

Thanks for asking.

> I'm a little confused on what you are looking for.   It seems
> to me that every B&W workflow works just fine in OS9.  All
> the printer drivers are available, all the RGB workflows for
> MIS inks work.  So is there some reason that you don't
> already have "reliable consistent B&W printing" ?

Maybe I forgot to mention I've got an Epson 2200.
My options are to check "Black" in the print driver, which uses
only the "primary" black cartidge (not the "light black") and gives
a fairly grainy look, or to use "Color" which gives metamerism
(my prints look ok under incandescent, but blue in daytime).

Unless I'm seriously mistaken, MIS has no inksets available for the
2200 as yet, although it's rumored this may soon change.

> Moving to OSX to print doesn't make a lot of sense since you
> should have everything now. 

The hope is that a software "magic bullet" might give me accepatble
prints with the 2200 and its stock UltraChrome inks.  Looks like
ImagePrint 5 might be such a bullet, but it costs as much as a
new printer.    A recent poster here suggested gimp-print, which
only runs under Unix (of which OSX is a form).

Thanks, John

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, 
"johngeyles <jge@c...>" <jge@c...> wrote:
> Roy,
> 
> Thanks for asking.
> 
> > I'm a little confused on what you are looking for.   It seems
> > to me that every B&W workflow works just fine in OS9.  All
> > the printer drivers are available, all the RGB workflows for
> > MIS inks work.  So is there some reason that you don't
> > already have "reliable consistent B&W printing" ?
> 
> Maybe I forgot to mention I've got an Epson 2200.
> My options are to check "Black" in the print driver, which uses
> only the "primary" black cartidge (not the "light black") and gives
> a fairly grainy look, or to use "Color" which gives metamerism
> (my prints look ok under incandescent, but blue in daytime).
> 
> Unless I'm seriously mistaken, MIS has no inksets available 
for the
> 2200 as yet, although it's rumored this may soon change.
> 
> > Moving to OSX to print doesn't make a lot of sense since you
> > should have everything now. 
> 
> The hope is that a software "magic bullet" might give me 
accepatble
> prints with the 2200 and its stock UltraChrome inks.  Looks 
like
> ImagePrint 5 might be such a bullet, but it costs as much as a
> new printer.    A recent poster here suggested gimp-print, 
which
> only runs under Unix (of which OSX is a form).
> 
> Thanks, John

Ah, I understand now.  I think the newest solution with a
possible "magic bullet" is Epson's latest RIP for the 2200.
Someone recently mentioned ordering that, hopefully they
can give a report.  

Roy

Austin,

Finally got round to querying you on this! Surely Nearest Neighbour
interpolation just duplicates pixels (or should I say quadruplicates?). And,
according to Kennedy McEwan, the Epson driver interpolates up or down to 720
ppi for desktop Epsons (360 ppi for large Epsons) by nearest neighbour
interpolation. Which is why QImage claims to produce better prints by
interpolating up to 720 ppi at print time using Lanczos interpolation, thus
avoiding the nearest neighbour interpolation in the Epson driver.

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...>
>
> Only bad interpolation duplicated pixels...  I'd be hard pressed to
believe
> any of the interpolation methods used in the printer drivers or PS do any
> pixel duplication.

Actually, Bob, Qimage claims to be even better.  Now they use a "vector"
interpolation, allegedly better than Lanczos!!

Seth

=interpolation. Which is why QImage claims to produce better 
=prints by interpolating up to 720 ppi at print time using 
=Lanczos interpolation, thus avoiding the nearest neighbour 
=interpolation in the Epson driver.
=

Hi Bob,

> Surely Nearest Neighbour
> interpolation just duplicates pixels (or should I say
> quadruplicates?).

Nearest neighbor takes the nearest neighbors, adds them up, then divides by
the number, and basically gives an average.  It certainly isn't an optimal
interpolation algorithm, and in fact, is the most basic interpolation
algorithm I can think of.

> Which is why QImage claims to produce better prints by
> interpolating up to 720 ppi at print time using Lanczos
> interpolation, thus
> avoiding the nearest neighbour interpolation in the Epson driver.

Run some images and let me know if you see a difference.

I'd use that by doing as I've suggested, let the PPI fall where it may, not
letting PS interpolate, then sending it to what ever your favorite
interpolating program is.

Now, realize that is only for the Epson driver, which quite a few people
don't use when printing B&W.  The Cone driver is entirely different.
Whether the Cone driver would benefit at all from this, I doubt.

I'm still not quite convinced of this claim, as it seems entirely
unnecessary...when using random/stochastic dither algorithms, like the Epson
supposedly does.  These dither algorithms don't use fixed cell size, so I'm
not clear of what the benefit of resizing the image is.

Regards,

Austin

Has anyone tried either of these?  If so, speak up!

BTW, do you have the URLs for these two programs (or is as simple as the
name)?

Thanks,

Austin

> Actually, Bob, Qimage claims to be even better.  Now they use a "vector"
> interpolation, allegedly better than Lanczos!!
>
> Seth
>
> =interpolation. Which is why QImage claims to produce better
> =prints by interpolating up to 720 ppi at print time using
> =Lanczos interpolation, thus avoiding the nearest neighbour
> =interpolation in the Epson driver.

Austin,

QImage is at www.ddisoftware.com/qimage/

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message ----- 

From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...>

> 
> Has anyone tried either of these?  If so, speak up!
> 
> BTW, do you have the URLs for these two programs (or is as simple as the
> name)?

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Austin 
Franklin" <darkroom@i...> wrote:

> I'm still not quite convinced of this claim, as it
> seems entirely unnecessary...when using random/stochastic
> dither algorithms, like the Epson supposedly does.
> These dither algorithms don't use fixed cell size, so
> I'm not clear of what the benefit of resizing the image is.

Random/stochastic algorithms certainly CAN use a fixed
cell size!   

Let's take an ULTRA-simplistic case of black-only printing where
some primitive printer's resolution is the same as the image
resolution, i.e., a hypothetical printer with 300x300 DPI 
resolution printing a 1" grayscale patch of 300x300 pixels.
And let's say the driver uses a fixed cell size and a stochastic
algorithm. Say the image uses 8-bit grayscale.   For each pixel
the driver will generate a random number in the range of 0-255 
and compare it to the pixel being printed.   If it's greater 
than the pixel value it deposits a drop.   As you can see, when
the pixel has a low value there is a statistically greater 
chance of a drop beng generated so it's darker where the pixels 
have low values.     

If the printer's resolution is higher, let's say, 600x600 DPI,
then it will print the same image-pixel 4 times, but because
each time it's being compared to a different random number,
it may or may not print a dot - the probability of printing
a dot depends on the value of the pixel.   That's why it's
called stochastic.

So the problem with a fixed cell size is not that you can't
use it with a stochastic algorithm; the big problem with a fixed 
cell size is that you don't get enough levels, even with a
high resolution printer.  Again, using black-only and a 300
PPI image, and let's assume we have designed our test image
so no two adjacent pixels are identical:

Suppose the printer is the Epson 2200, which has a maximum
resolution of 1440 x 2880 DPI.  One image pixel at 300x300
PPI has the area of 1/90000th of a square inch.   In a 
90000th of an inch the 2200 can place approximately 46 
dots at maximum resolution.    That's nowhere NEAR the 256
possible values that the incoming pixel could have, nor is
it near the 100 or so levels the human eye needs to see a
smooth tonal range without banding.

This dilemma clearly illustrates why dithering algorithms
are ALWAYS tradeoffs between spatial and value resolution.
The only way to extend the value range in this example is
to increase the cell size, but when you do that you overlap
the value of multiple pixels in the original image, so you
lose the ability to distinguish two adjacent pixels in the
original that we so carefully designed to be distinct.

In this thread people talk about "The Epson Driver" but my
guess, as a former inkjet driver writer, is that different
Epsons have different drivers, or at least different 
algorithms in different situations.   The tests I've run
on black-only printing on the 2200 show that source 
resolution holds up pretty well but the images are contrasty,
which suggests to me that they are using something close to
a fixed cell size and trading away tonal range to keep 
spatial resolution.   However, the cell size may have nothing
to do with incoming image resolution - the driver probably
RESAMPLES the incoming image.   If this is the case there
may be, if not an "optimal" resolution, then at least a 
maximum one.

And while we're on the subject - DPI refers to the printer
output - printers make dots.  If you're talking about the
resolution of the image it's more correct and less confusing
to refer to PPI.

BTW, the test on this lecture is worth 30% of your grade.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Nelson 
<peter@s...>" <peter@s...> wrote:

> In this thread people talk about "The Epson Driver" but my
> guess, as a former inkjet driver writer, is that different
> Epsons have different drivers, or at least different 
> algorithms in different situations.   The tests I've run
> on black-only printing on the 2200 show that source 
> resolution holds up pretty well but the images are contrasty,
> which suggests to me that they are using something close to
> a fixed cell size and trading away tonal range to keep 
> spatial resolution.   However, the cell size may have nothing
> to do with incoming image resolution - the driver probably
> RESAMPLES the incoming image.   If this is the case there
> may be, if not an "optimal" resolution, then at least a 
> maximum one.

On my website I have hi-res scans of a series of tests 
I ran on my Epson 870 showing that it could reliably 
distingush lines 1 original-image-pixel apart at 300 
PPI, and even 600 PPI in some cases.   This suggests to
me that they are NOT interpolating between original 
image pixels when dithering.  They may be upsampling 
to something higher, and THEN interpolating between the
resampled pixels.  I hope to run such tests on the 2200
soon.

One interesting test would be to have two image pixels
next to each other with complementary colors, so that 
if it resamples first, using an interpolative algorithm
it will be forced to generate a new pixel of a different
color that would show up on the print that way.

Hi Peter,

> I hope to run such tests on the 2200
> soon.

I'd prefer you to do so on the 3000 ;-)

> One interesting test would be to have two image pixels
> next to each other with complementary colors, so that
> if it resamples first, using an interpolative algorithm
> it will be forced to generate a new pixel of a different
> color that would show up on the print that way.

Hum.  That would not show up "nearest neighbor", as it generates no new
data, as in no different color.  Though I agree with you that nearest
neighbor, technically, isn't interpolation, and your reason why...it is
still "commonly" (what ever that means in our field) referred to as
interpolation.

Regards,

Austin

Peter,

Epson state (Epson Product Support Bulletin PSB.2002.09.004) that "All Epson
large format printers use 360 dpi as the input resolution (this is the
resolution data us rasterized at), therefore when printing from Photoshop,
the maximum page length you will be able to output ot any Epson large format
printer using the standard print driver would be 83.3 inches
(30,000pixels/360 dpi). As for the Epson desktop products, they rasterize
data at 720 dpi, therefore the maximum page length obtainable with the
standard driver would be 41.67 inches (30,000/720)." They previously stated
that PS has a maximum limit of 30,000 pixels.

Doesn't this mean that the Epson drivers DO resample images to either 360 or
720?

Bob Frost.


----- Original Message -----

From: <peter@...>

> However, the cell size may have nothing
> to do with incoming image resolution - the driver probably
> RESAMPLES the incoming image.   If this is the case there
> may be, if not an "optimal" resolution, then at least a
> maximum one.

> I hope to run such tests on the 2200 soon.

Thanks for the very informative posts.  I look forward to reading the 
results of your tests with the 2200.

Mike Chaney, author of Qimage and Profile Prism, writes the following 
in a thread on this subject in dpreview:

>>>
I've proven this time and time again, and am happy to do it here one 
more time just to take some weight out of the myth that inkjet 
printers can't "realize" anything above 240 PPI. A typical example is 
at the URL below. The image on the left was the original resampled to 
360 PPI and sent to an Epson 2200. The one on the right was the same 
original resampled to 720 PPI and sent to the same printer with all 
other settings identical. The prints were scanned at 1600 PPI to 
reveal the fine detail. Yes, you do have to look closely at the 
prints to see the difference with the unaided eye, buy you can 
definitely see it. Now tell me that there's no benefit to resampling 
anything higher than 200/240 PPI!

http://www.ddisoftware.com/testpics/360v720.jpg 
<<<

Source:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003&message=4375134


And Chris Bair, of inkjetart.com, conducted similar tests on the 7600 
here:

http://www.inkjetart.com/tips/ppi/index.html

... where he remarks: 

"The question comes up every so often: "what ppi should I have on my 
source files?" We were printing some sample prints on our 7600 to 
send out to people and noticed that the text on the sheets had 
strange jaggies, plus the photos had nearest neighbor resizing 
artifacts on the print, but looked perfect on-screen. We finally 
realized our input resolution (300 ppi) was causing the problem. I 
created two PDF files to test which is the best resolution, you can 
find them Here and Here. You can also get the TIFF Files I used to 
make the PDF files Here and Here. [See above link.] Inside you'll 
find different resolution patches designed to test to see what 
resolution the printer is truly looking for."

"You'll notice that some resolutions have major resizing artifacts 
when printed (all look nasty in Acrobat reader), while others get it 
dead on. We found that 360ppi was perfect for our printer (and likely 
the rest of Epson's printers), 480 had significant artifacts (some 
people claim that 480 is the optium resolution for desktop printers) 
and 180 was also fine."

Dan

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Frost" 
<bobfrost@b...> wrote:

> Doesn't this mean that the Epson drivers DO resample
> images to either 360 or 720?

It certainly sounds like it from that technical bulletin.
I wonder what they mean by large format?  Are 2200's and
1280's considered desktop or large format?

Assuming they do resample, the next question is what is
their resampling algorithm?   Image resampling is one of
the things I'm responsible for in my current job so it's
a topic of some interest to me to see how consumer products
do it (the company I work for makes high-end medical/scientific
imaging gear).   Obviously I can't reveal anything proprietary
but I can tell you this much - we sure don't do it with 
pixel replication!

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <peter@s...>
> 
> > However, the cell size may have nothing
> > to do with incoming image resolution - the driver probably
> > RESAMPLES the incoming image.   If this is the case there
> > may be, if not an "optimal" resolution, then at least a
> > maximum one.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Dan Honemann 
<dan_honemann@y...>" <dan_honemann@y...> wrote:
> > I hope to run such tests on the 2200 soon.
> 
> Thanks for the very informative posts.  I look forward
> to reading the results of your tests with the 2200.
> 
> Mike Chaney, author of Qimage and Profile Prism, writes the 
following 
> in a thread on this subject in dpreview:
> 
> >> I've proven this time and time again, and am happy to
> >> do it here one more time just to take some weight 
> >> out of the myth that inkjet 
> >> printers can't "realize" anything above 240 PPI.


Just to add my earlier studies to the "weight".  Here are
tests I did on the HP970CSE and the Epson 870, also showing 
that those printers can resolve image data higher than 240 DPI.

http://studio-nelson.com/prntscan/prnres0.htm

> > >> I've proven this time and time again, and am happy to
> > >> do it here one more time just to take some weight
> > >> out of the myth that inkjet
> > >> printers can't "realize" anything above 240 PPI.
>
>
> Just to add my earlier studies to the "weight".  Here are
> tests I did on the HP970CSE and the Epson 870, also showing
> that those printers can resolve image data higher than 240 DPI.
>
> http://studio-nelson.com/prntscan/prnres0.htm

Hi Peter,

The PRINTERS can "realize" image data up to their printing resolution.  It's
the DRIVER that is the limiting factor here.  Case in point, the Piezo
driver can utilize data up to 720PPI, with a point of diminishing return
about 480.

Regards,

Austin

> It certainly sounds like it from that technical bulletin.
> I wonder what they mean by large format?

Easy to tell.  If it resamples to 720, your maximum print length is ~44",
and if it resamples to 360, max print length is ~88".

> Are 2200's and
> 1280's considered desktop or large format?

I would assume desktop.  Even the 3000 is desktop, as it has a max length of
44".

> Assuming they do resample, the next question is what is
> their resampling algorithm?

Someone said it was "nearest neighbor".

Austin

Peter,

The desktop Epsons are up to and including the 2200/2100 models, and the
large format Epsons are the 3000 and upwards that Epson also refer to as
their Professional Graphic line.

According to Kennedy McEwan on the Epsonx&x list:

"Also, if you check the "DCC" or "Digital Camera Correction" box on the
driver you will find that the driver produces much less "stair stepping"
on low resolution images.  With that mode, it uses bilinear resampling
rather than nearest neighbour to get up to the fundamental resolution of
the printer."

Bob Frost.


----- Original Message -----

From: <peter@...>
> > Doesn't this mean that the Epson drivers DO resample
> > images to either 360 or 720?
>
> It certainly sounds like it from that technical bulletin.
> I wonder what they mean by large format?  Are 2200's and
> 1280's considered desktop or large format?
>
> Assuming they do resample, the next question is what is
> their resampling algorithm?   Image resampling is one of
> the things I'm responsible for in my current job so it's
> a topic of some interest to me to see how consumer products
> do it (the company I work for makes high-end medical/scientific
> imaging gear).   Obviously I can't reveal anything proprietary
> but I can tell you this much - we sure don't do it with
> pixel replication!

Bob,

> The desktop Epsons are up to and including the 2200/2100 models, and the
> large format Epsons are the 3000 and upwards that Epson also refer to as
> their Professional Graphic line.

According to what was posted, if the printer has a max of ~44", it is not
considered a "large format", at least as far as the purported resampling
resolution is concerned.  We know that the 3000 has a max length of
~44"...therefore, falls into the 720 category, and the "large format" would
be 360.

> According to Kennedy McEwan on the Epsonx&x list:
>
> "Also, if you check the "DCC" or "Digital Camera Correction" box on the
> driver you will find that the driver produces much less "stair stepping"
> on low resolution images.  With that mode, it uses bilinear resampling
> rather than nearest neighbour to get up to the fundamental resolution of
> the printer."

That's interesting, but it appears that it really only does anything useful
with low resolution images, what ever that means...  Thanks for that bit of
info, it's something that might be useful to try when using the Epson driver
to see if there is anything noticeably different in the prints.

Regards,

Austin

> Epson state (Epson Product Support Bulletin PSB.2002.09.004) that
> "All Epson
> large format printers use 360 dpi as the input resolution (this is the
> resolution data us rasterized at), therefore when printing from Photoshop,
> the maximum page length you will be able to output ot any Epson
> large format
> printer using the standard print driver would be 83.3 inches
> (30,000pixels/360 dpi). As for the Epson desktop products, they rasterize
> data at 720 dpi, therefore the maximum page length obtainable with the
> standard driver would be 41.67 inches (30,000/720)." They
> previously stated
> that PS has a maximum limit of 30,000 pixels.
>
> Doesn't this mean that the Epson drivers DO resample images to
> either 360 or
> 720?
>
> Bob Frost.

Bob,

Let me ask you a question about this.  It appears that, according to this,
this limit is a PS limit, not an Epson driver limit.  That's odd
though...because no matter how many PPI I send to the Epson driver (or Piezo
driver), it won't print more than 44"...but that wouldn't make it a PS
limitation, but a driver limitation.

It appears that the limitation is in the driver, and is the 30k divided by
the resample
resolution, and has not a thing to do with the resolution you send it.
What's your take on this?  If they just matched the PS limit that makes no
sense to me.

Austin

Austin,

Not quite so easy I'm afraid, according to Epson. It is dependant not only
on the driver, but also on the OS and the software program you are printing
from. For example, Epson state the OS limit for the 3000 is 44", the
Photoshop limit is 41", the Adobe Illustrator limit is 227", The
QuarkExpress limit is 48", and the Coreldraw limit is 1800"!!

However, having read the Epson blurb again, I'm not sure where the boundary
is. The 7000 and up are certainly large-format, but whether the 3000, 5000,
and 5500 are 'desktop' or not isn't absolutely clear to me. But the test is
simply whether the page limit size in PS is 41" or 82".

My 1290 certainly has a limit of 41.666 inches. If you set the ppi to 720 in
Image Size and try and enter a height of 100 inches, it puts up an error
message and defaults to 41.666.

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...>


>
> Easy to tell.  If it resamples to 720, your maximum print length is ~44",
> and if it resamples to 360, max print length is ~88".
>
> > Are 2200's and
> > 1280's considered desktop or large format?
>
> I would assume desktop.  Even the 3000 is desktop, as it has a max length
of
> 44".

Bob and Austin,
So far all I read is pure theory and second guessing. Has anyone 
actually tried to make a high res. file with say, Photoshop and 
print at differing output resolutions to see at what point there is 
no visible diffence? Much in the manner of a lens testing chart.
If it has already been done maybe someone could publish a URL.
I personally am only interested in the finished print and not the 
theory. 
If you can come up with a suitable target I would like to get hold 
of a copy.

Barry

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Frost" 
<bobfrost@b...> wrote:
> Austin,
> 
> Not quite so easy I'm afraid, according to Epson. It is dependant 
not only
> on the driver, but also on the OS and the software program you are 
printing
> from. For example, Epson state the OS limit for the 3000 is 44", 
the
> Photoshop limit is 41", the Adobe Illustrator limit is 227", The
> QuarkExpress limit is 48", and the Coreldraw limit is 1800"!!
> 
> However, having read the Epson blurb again, I'm not sure where the 
boundary
> is. The 7000 and up are certainly large-format, but whether the 
3000, 5000,
> and 5500 are 'desktop' or not isn't absolutely clear to me. But 
the test is
> simply whether the page limit size in PS is 41" or 82".
> 
> My 1290 certainly has a limit of 41.666 inches. If you set the ppi 
to 720 in
> Image Size and try and enter a height of 100 inches, it puts up an 
error
> message and defaults to 41.666.
> 
> Bob Frost.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@i...>
> 
> 
> >
> > Easy to tell.  If it resamples to 720, your maximum print length 
is ~44",
> > and if it resamples to 360, max print length is ~88".
> >
> > > Are 2200's and
> > > 1280's considered desktop or large format?
> >
> > I would assume desktop.  Even the 3000 is desktop, as it has a 
max length
> of
> > 44".

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Austin 
Franklin" <darkroom@i...> wrote:

> It appears that the limitation is in the driver, and 
> is the 30k divided by the resample resolution, and 
> has not a thing to do with the resolution you send it.

That would certainly be a more sensible and natural way
to do it.   With the amount of compute-ponies available in
the average desktop PC these days, I cannot understand why
they would resort to a simple-minded algorithm rather than one
that took into account the actual input and output resolutions
and tried to optimize for them.   ALWAYS resampling to the 
same fixed size makes about as much sense as doing pixel 
replication instead of some more sophisticated algorithm.

It's especially hard to understand why they would always 
resample to the same fixed size considering that, according
to an earlier post in this thread, they do it across all
printers in their line up to a certain size.  I could see
them using a fixed size for a particular printer where that
size was somehow related to the native hardware printhead
resolution, but different Epson printers have different
resolutions and dot sizes.

On the other hand, no one ever said Epson had a requirement 
to make sense.  This is the same company that released a 
graybalancing program in some markets and not others for
the same printer, and the same company that charges an
extra $200 (for their RIP) just so their printer can 
produce a half-decent black-and-white print.   When it comes
to Epson there's no point in asking "why"?

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "flyfishingusa2002 <tflyfish@c...>" <tflyfish@c...> wrote:
> Bob and Austin,
> So far all I read is pure theory and second guessing. Has anyone 
> actually tried to make a high res. file with say, Photoshop and 
> print at differing output resolutions to see at what point there is 
> no visible diffence? Much in the manner of a lens testing chart.
> If it has already been done maybe someone could publish a URL.
> I personally am only interested in the finished print and not the 
> theory. 
> If you can come up with a suitable target I would like to get hold 
> of a copy.
> 
> Barry
> 

Barry and others,

Someone created a pdf file that has a bunch of test patterns at
different resolutions.  These take a little figuring out but if
you read the messages and download the files and print them, 
I think the output is interesting. There's not much doubt that
there's various crude resamplings done.

It's in another group, see:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Epson2000P/message/5310

The pdf file is called VariableGridB.pdf and it's in the Files section.
The patterns look really weird on a screen because of all the
resampling for screen display.  But magnifying the pdf file to 
800% or so makes it possible to see what the pattern really is.

Roy

Hi Barry,

> Bob and Austin,
> So far all I read is pure theory and second guessing. Has anyone
> actually tried to make a high res. file with say, Photoshop and
> print at differing output resolutions to see at what point there is
> no visible diffence?

Yes.  I have done that extensively with the Piezo driver, but not with the
Epson driver, as it doesn't matter to me.  I believe I stated my results
were up to 480 is quite visible, and between 480 and 720 shows marginal
improvement, and above 720 there is none.

> Much in the manner of a lens testing chart.

Lense test charts don't necessarily show you anything except what will
happen if you print lense test charts.  They have no grayscale data in them,
typically.  I use actual images.

> If you can come up with a suitable target I would like to get hold
> of a copy.

The only suitable target to see what works best for you, in my opinion, is
one of your own images.

Regards,

Austin

"just so their printer can produce a half-decent black-and-white" -- 

That statement is off-base. The whole point of the Epson RIP is to 
allow graphic designers (not photographers) to print brochure proofs 
and things like this onto their Epson to show their clients how the 
finished piece might look after the layout goes to press. In order to 
satisfy this requirement, the RIP needs to accept PostScript code 
from programs like QuarkXPress and PageMaker (page layout programs), 
while also feeding color schemes to the printer which will convince 
the 2200 to mimic the color produced on a four-color offset press. 
You are not even supposed to use the RIP from Photoshop (says so in 
the documentation), although this rule has been shown to be 
breakable. If the RIP produces better b&w (and I think it does, using 
the right workflow), it's probably a side effect of mimicking a four-
color press. It is not something that Epson designed for us b&w 
photographers -- please don't confuse it for that, because it offends 
those of us who worked at Quark, Inc., as a technical writer for 
years and years writing about RIPs and such!

Steve Gray


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Nelson 
<peter@s...>" <peter@s...> wrote:

> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Austin 
> Franklin" <darkroom@i...> wrote:
> 
> This is the same company that released a 
> graybalancing program in some markets and not others for
> the same printer, and the same company that charges an
> extra $200 (for their RIP) just so their printer can 
> produce a half-decent black-and-white print.

Hi Peter,

> > It appears that the limitation is in the driver, and
> > is the 30k divided by the resample resolution, and
> > has not a thing to do with the resolution you send it.
>
> That would certainly be a more sensible and natural way
> to do it.   With the amount of compute-ponies available in
> the average desktop PC these days, I cannot understand why
> they would resort to a simple-minded algorithm rather than one
> that took into account the actual input and output resolutions
> and tried to optimize for them.   ALWAYS resampling to the
> same fixed size makes about as much sense as doing pixel
> replication instead of some more sophisticated algorithm.

Sigh.  Having designed a few halftone system, and the associated algorithms
(and hardware), I am actually miffed that a company with the resources and
technology one would think Epson has would do such as is claimed.  In my
book, there is no need (nor is it desirable) to resample to a "fixed"
resolution.  I'm on the fence about whether nearest neighbor is good or bad,
as I seen reasons why it may in fact be good...given what they do.  But,
none the less, I certainly would have done things differently, which is
apparently what the Piezo driver does, and does quite well in my opinion.

And...I'm glad you also understand this.

Regards,

Austin

On Friday, February 28, 2003, at 04:07  PM, Peter Nelson wrote:
> and the same company that charges an
> extra $200 (for their RIP) just so their printer can
> produce a half-decent black-and-white print.

yup, that's why they market and sell a RIP alright.

Carolyn

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "maracaholics 
<maracaholics@y...>" <maracaholics@y...> wrote:
> 
> "just so their printer can produce a half-decent black-and-white" --
 
> 
> That statement is off-base. The whole point of the Epson RIP is to 
> allow graphic designers (not photographers) to print brochure proofs
 
. . . etc.

No $#!+, Sherlock!  That is exactly my point!!
Which was that Epson is a strange and eccentric company
and the example I was using was that they apparently know
perfectly well how to make the Epson 2200 make decent
metamerism-free black and white prints, but instead of 
shipping that capability with the printer they bury it
in a totally irelevant and disconnected product, which
as you correctly point out, is not even designed for 
the purpose!

Suppose you bought a pickup truck for your ranch in Texas,
where it gets hot.  And suppose you wanted factory air,
but the manufacturer said that the only way to get A/C 
with this truck was to buy the special boat-towing 
package that includes a special boat-mount, heavy-duty 
winch, reinforced suspension and intercooler.  Wouldn't
that seem weird?   You're absolutely right that the
ability to print in black and white has NOTHING to do 
with why anyone would normally buy a RIP.   So how
come Epson didn't built the ability into their regular
driver?

Flyfish,

My Personal observation.  You can see a difference up to 480 DPI. 
Anything less than that isn't as detailed and
sharp as it is at 480 DPI. This especially true with very tiny text. 
We're REALLY picking nits here, the
difference between 300 and 480 is VERY small, but is noticeable.

Jerry

Austin,

Not quite so easy I'm afraid, according to Epson. It is dependant not only
on the driver, but also on the OS and the software program you are printing
from. For example, Epson state the OS limit for the 3000 is 44", the
Photoshop limit is 41", the Adobe Illustrator limit is 227", The
QuarkExpress limit is 48", and the Coreldraw limit is 1800"!!

However, having read the Epson blurb again, I'm not sure where the boundary
is. The 7000 and up are certainly large-format, but whether the 3000, 5000,
and 5500 are 'desktop' or not isn't absolutely clear to me. But the test is
simply whether the page limit size in PS is 41" or 82".

My 1290 certainly has a limit of 41.666 inches. If you set the ppi to 720 in
Image Size and try and enter a height of 100 inches, it puts up an error
message and defaults to 41.666.

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...>


>
> Easy to tell.  If it resamples to 720, your maximum print length is ~44",
> and if it resamples to 360, max print length is ~88".
>
> > Are 2200's and
> > 1280's considered desktop or large format?
>
> I would assume desktop.  Even the 3000 is desktop, as it has a max length
of
> 44".

Sorry Barry but I thought I was explaining the FACTS according to Epson as
to how their printers work. The only question that was not clear from Epsons
published info was whether the 3000, 5000, and 5500 are classified as
'desktop' or 'large-format', with the corresponding page limits and driver
internal ppi.

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message -----

From: <tflyfish@...>


> Bob and Austin,
> So far all I read is pure theory and second guessing. Has anyone
> actually tried to make a high res. file with say, Photoshop and
> print at differing output resolutions to see at what point there is
> no visible diffence? Much in the manner of a lens testing chart.
> If it has already been done maybe someone could publish a URL.
> I personally am only interested in the finished print and not the
> theory.
> If you can come up with a suitable target I would like to get hold
> of a copy.

Peter,

Surely the answer is simply that the vast majority of people who print with
Epson printers do not print in B&W and do not want to. B&W printing is a
specialised market.

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message -----
From: <peter@...>

  You're absolutely right that the

> ability to print in black and white has NOTHING to do
> with why anyone would normally buy a RIP.   So how
> come Epson didn't built the ability into their regular
> driver?

Hi Bob,

> However, having read the Epson blurb again, I'm not sure where 
> the boundary
> is. The 7000 and up are certainly large-format, but whether the 
> 3000, 5000,
> and 5500 are 'desktop' or not isn't absolutely clear to me. But 
> the test is
> simply whether the page limit size in PS is 41" or 82".

I believe that is what I said?
 
> My 1290 certainly has a limit of 41.666 inches. If you set the 
> ppi to 720 in
> Image Size and try and enter a height of 100 inches, it puts up an error
> message and defaults to 41.666.

What about if you set the PPI to 100 and try 100"?

Regards,

Austin

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Frost" 
<bobfrost@b...> wrote:
> Peter,
> 
> Surely the answer is simply that the vast majority of people who 
print with
> Epson printers do not print in B&W and do not want to. B&W printing 
is a
> specialised market.

If it were that specialized why did Epson bother to include
a black and whiter sample with the printer?  Why do they
advertise the printer's black and white printing ability 
in their sales and marketing literature?   Why do they have
a special Grayscale program and test reference?

The point is that if they are going to do it all, and they
know HOW to do it right, why not just do it right?   Their driver
has a black only, and a color setting.   They could have had
a "black and white" setting that uses the same algorithm that 
their RIP uses.    And don't forget, Epson released a special driver
last year for the 2000 that attempts to correct for metamerism.

Or they could sell a special "black and white" printing option
if they wanted to milk it for money.   But it's bizarre to 
only have that feature in a RIP since a RIP, as was pointed out,
is a very specialized piece of software few people need.

I am not sure what you are fussing about, aren't the 2200 series 
supposed to print great B&W just with the regular driver? I think epson 
assumes that that is fine for the majority of users (considering it is 
so much better than what was available as a stock solution before).

-mh

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Nelson <
peter@s...>" <peter@s...> wrote:

> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Frost" 
> <bobfrost@b...> wrote:
> > Peter,
> > 
> > Surely the answer is simply that the vast majority of people who 
> print with
> > Epson printers do not print in B&W and do not want to. B&W printing 
> is a
> > specialised market.
> 
> If it were that specialized why did Epson bother to include
> a black and whiter sample with the printer?  Why do they
> advertise the printer's black and white printing ability 
> in their sales and marketing literature?   Why do they have
> a special Grayscale program and test reference?
> 
> The point is that if they are going to do it all, and they
> know HOW to do it right, why not just do it right?   Their driver
> has a black only, and a color setting.   They could have had
> a "black and white" setting that uses the same algorithm that 
> their RIP uses.    And don't forget, Epson released a special driver
> last year for the 2000 that attempts to correct for metamerism.
> 
> Or they could sell a special "black and white" printing option
> if they wanted to milk it for money.   But it's bizarre to 
> only have that feature in a RIP since a RIP, as was pointed out,
> is a very specialized piece of software few people need.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "mh <mh@t...>" 
<mh@t...> wrote:
> I am not sure what you are fussing about, aren't
> the 2200 series supposed to print great B&W just with
> the regular driver? 

"Supposed to" according to whom?

Out-of-the-box black and white with the 2200 is terrible.
Even the sample black and white print Epson supplies with
the printer to show off their Enhanced Matte paper goes
from pink under fluorescent light to green under daylight
because the metamerism is so bad!

Where have you been the last few months on this group 
when we were all discussing using the IP RIP or the 
PowerRip or the Epson RIP, with the 2200, or printing with
the 2200 in Black-Only mode, or speculating about septone
inksets for the 2200 that might be announced at PMA, etc?

> I think epson assumes that that is fine for the majority
> of users (considering it is so much better than what 
> was available as a stock solution before).

That doesn't make sense.  If Epson decided that the 
majority of users don't use or need black and white
printing then why did they bother promoting it as
capable of black and white printing, shipping it with 
a gray balancer, including a test chart for the latter,
plus boxing it with sample black and white output?

On the other hand, since they apparently thought, based
on the above that there WAS some segment of the user
base who would use it for black and white, AND since
they obviously know how to make it print decently in 
black and white (because they added that capability
to their RIP) then why not give the printer that 
ability in the stock version?

If we agree that the market segment who want black and
white printing is small to begin with, then isn't the
segment that's satisfied with BAD black and white 
printing **REALLY** small?

IMHO the 2200 is a very nice printer. Better than my (lately lamented)
1270.
That said, the grayscale images with the Epson driver show metamerism
(not nearly as bad as previous printers, but still there.) For this
reason I bought IP5. The IP5 grayscale prints are excellent. Minimal
metamerism (and you have to get into some fluorescent situations to see
it.) Daylight, tungsten and D50 tubes look excellent.
I agree that if Epson knows how to produce a "neutral" print, they
should have included this capability with the printer. Is this yet
another graybalancer issue? 

-----Original Message-----
From: mh <mh@...> [mailto:mh@...] 
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2003 10:09 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Optimal DPI

I am not sure what you are fussing about, aren't the 2200 series 
supposed to print great B&W just with the regular driver? I think epson 
assumes that that is fine for the majority of users (considering it is 
so much better than what was available as a stock solution before).

-mh

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Nelson <
peter@s...>" <peter@s...> wrote:
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Frost" 
> <bobfrost@b...> wrote:
> > Peter,
> > 
> > Surely the answer is simply that the vast majority of people who 
> print with
> > Epson printers do not print in B&W and do not want to. B&W printing 
> is a
> > specialised market.
> 
> If it were that specialized why did Epson bother to include
> a black and whiter sample with the printer?  Why do they
> advertise the printer's black and white printing ability 
> in their sales and marketing literature?   Why do they have
> a special Grayscale program and test reference?
> 
> The point is that if they are going to do it all, and they
> know HOW to do it right, why not just do it right?   Their driver
> has a black only, and a color setting.   They could have had
> a "black and white" setting that uses the same algorithm that 
> their RIP uses.    And don't forget, Epson released a special driver
> last year for the 2000 that attempts to correct for metamerism.
> 
> Or they could sell a special "black and white" printing option
> if they wanted to milk it for money.   But it's bizarre to 
> only have that feature in a RIP since a RIP, as was pointed out,
> is a very specialized piece of software few people need.



Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this
same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- Include your full name with your message.
- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to
keep them short.
- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject
header.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
&amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
- Complete your Yahoo profile.
- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage. 


 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Austin,

> > But the test is
> > simply whether the page limit size in PS is 41" or 82".

> I believe that is what I said?

I think you said 44", which is the OS print limit, not the PS print limit.
Not much difference in actual size, but it is a different limiting factor,
it seems.

> > My 1290 certainly has a limit of 41.666 inches. If you set the
> > ppi to 720 in
> > Image Size and try and enter a height of 100 inches, it puts up an error
> > message and defaults to 41.666.
>
> What about if you set the PPI to 100 and try 100"?

OK, you can set the image size to be 100" long at 100ppi, but when you go to
print from PS, the last but one print dialog limits the height of the image
to 41.667" because it 'knows' that it will be upsampled to 720 ppi, so only
part of the image would be printed, and the 'size exceeds printable area'
dialog popped up when I went on.

No way round it in PS, since image size in PS is limited to 30 000 pixels in
one dimension, so if you enter image size as 400" at 100ppi (40 000 pixels)
an error box pops up saying the upper limit is 300".

Bob Frost.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...>

Hi Bob,

> I think you said 44", which is the OS print limit, not the PS print limit.
> Not much difference in actual size, but it is a different limiting factor,
> it seems.

I know about the PS 30,000 pixel limit (which I find really silly), but I'm
unaware of what any other limits may be.  I know when using Cone Piezo, I am
limited to 44" on my 3000, and that is using PS...

> > What about if you set the PPI to 100 and try 100"?
>
> OK, you can set the image size to be 100" long at 100ppi, but
> when you go to
> print from PS, the last but one print dialog limits the height of
> the image
> to 41.667" because it 'knows' that it will be upsampled to 720
> ppi,

What is the "it" that knows?  Shouldn't be PS, but the printer driver,
right?

> so only
> part of the image would be printed, and the 'size exceeds printable area'
> dialog popped up when I went on.

Been there, done that.

> No way round it in PS, since image size in PS is limited to 30
> 000 pixels in
> one dimension, so if you enter image size as 400" at 100ppi (40
> 000 pixels)
> an error box pops up saying the upper limit is 300".

OK.  So, let's see what the limits are.  PS is 30,000 pixels, which has
nothing to do with the printer driver or anything else.  The Epson printer
driver has a limit, which you say is 41.667"???  Where does that limit come
from?  If you use a different application, is that limit different?

Now onto the OS limit...apparently there is some limit, since the Cone
driver can't go above 44"...but Cone blamed that on Epson, and the physical
hardware...so I don't believe that is an OS limit, but an Epson
hardware/command set limit...which is probably why the driver has a limit.

If I remember right, that 44" limit of the hardware is based on an internal
counter in the hardware.  This should be easy to figure out why.  The
printer steps a 1/360 of an inch, so 44 * 360 = 15840...which looks to me
like they are limited by some internal counter to 14 bits, though the paper
size command does show 16 bits can be used, but that is printer independent,
and possibly the 3000 has a firmware max of 14 bits in and of it self.

I'll bet if we check the Epson command set, it'll say that somewhere.  I did
find in the 4ch_98b command set document, that the 3000 has a maximum
printable height of 15,599 dots, assuming 1/360" dot size (p. 21).  So, it
sounds to me like this is not an OS limit, but a printer hardware limit.

Regards,

Austin

Although I haven't tried printing, IP5 didn't complain when I set a
paper length > 44". If this is true, wouldn't this eliminate the OS as
the limiting factor?
Stan

-----Original Message-----
From: Austin Franklin [mailto:darkroom@...] 
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 12:25 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Optimal DPI

Hi Bob,

> I think you said 44", which is the OS print limit, not the PS print
limit.
> Not much difference in actual size, but it is a different limiting
factor,
> it seems.

I know about the PS 30,000 pixel limit (which I find really silly), but
I'm
unaware of what any other limits may be.  I know when using Cone Piezo,
I am
limited to 44" on my 3000, and that is using PS...

> > What about if you set the PPI to 100 and try 100"?
>
> OK, you can set the image size to be 100" long at 100ppi, but
> when you go to
> print from PS, the last but one print dialog limits the height of
> the image
> to 41.667" because it 'knows' that it will be upsampled to 720
> ppi,

What is the "it" that knows?  Shouldn't be PS, but the printer driver,
right?

> so only
> part of the image would be printed, and the 'size exceeds printable
area'
> dialog popped up when I went on.

Been there, done that.

> No way round it in PS, since image size in PS is limited to 30
> 000 pixels in
> one dimension, so if you enter image size as 400" at 100ppi (40
> 000 pixels)
> an error box pops up saying the upper limit is 300".

OK.  So, let's see what the limits are.  PS is 30,000 pixels, which has
nothing to do with the printer driver or anything else.  The Epson
printer
driver has a limit, which you say is 41.667"???  Where does that limit
come
from?  If you use a different application, is that limit different?

Now onto the OS limit...apparently there is some limit, since the Cone
driver can't go above 44"...but Cone blamed that on Epson, and the
physical
hardware...so I don't believe that is an OS limit, but an Epson
hardware/command set limit...which is probably why the driver has a
limit.

If I remember right, that 44" limit of the hardware is based on an
internal
counter in the hardware.  This should be easy to figure out why.  The
printer steps a 1/360 of an inch, so 44 * 360 = 15840...which looks to
me
like they are limited by some internal counter to 14 bits, though the
paper
size command does show 16 bits can be used, but that is printer
independent,
and possibly the 3000 has a firmware max of 14 bits in and of it self.

I'll bet if we check the Epson command set, it'll say that somewhere.  I
did
find in the 4ch_98b command set document, that the 3000 has a maximum
printable height of 15,599 dots, assuming 1/360" dot size (p. 21).  So,
it
sounds to me like this is not an OS limit, but a printer hardware limit.

Regards,

Austin



Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this
same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- Include your full name with your message.
- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to
keep them short.
- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject
header.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
"flames."
- Complete your Yahoo profile.
- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage. 


 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

> Although I haven't tried printing, IP5 didn't complain when I set a
> paper length > 44". If this is true, wouldn't this eliminate the OS as
> the limiting factor?
> Stan

Hi Stan,

I don't believe there is an OS limiting factor.  I believe that PS has a 30k
pixel limiting factor, and the 3000 has a 15,599 1/360" limiting factor.

BTW, what printer were you using to do this?

Regards,

Austin

Austin,

If it is a printer hardware limit, how do you explain that (according to
Epson) the 3000 will print to 227" from Adobe Illustrator and 1800" from
Coreldraw. Also that in MacOS and 98/ME the 7500 has a limit of 90.5, but in
NT/2000/XP the limit is 590.5? The 3000 has the same limits for each OS!

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...>
>
> OK.  So, let's see what the limits are.  PS is 30,000 pixels, which has
> nothing to do with the printer driver or anything else.  The Epson printer
> driver has a limit, which you say is 41.667"???  Where does that limit
come
> from?  If you use a different application, is that limit different?
>
> Now onto the OS limit...apparently there is some limit, since the Cone
> driver can't go above 44"...but Cone blamed that on Epson, and the
physical
> hardware...so I don't believe that is an OS limit, but an Epson
> hardware/command set limit...which is probably why the driver has a limit.
>
> If I remember right, that 44" limit of the hardware is based on an
internal
> counter in the hardware.  This should be easy to figure out why.  The
> printer steps a 1/360 of an inch, so 44 * 360 = 15840...which looks to me
> like they are limited by some internal counter to 14 bits, though the
paper
> size command does show 16 bits can be used, but that is printer
independent,
> and possibly the 3000 has a firmware max of 14 bits in and of it self.
>
> I'll bet if we check the Epson command set, it'll say that somewhere.  I
did

> find in the 4ch_98b command set document, that the 3000 has a maximum
> printable height of 15,599 dots, assuming 1/360" dot size (p. 21).  So, it
> sounds to me like this is not an OS limit, but a printer hardware limit.

2200

-----Original Message-----
From: Austin Franklin [mailto:darkroom@...] 
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 2:59 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Optimal DPI


> Although I haven't tried printing, IP5 didn't complain when I set a
> paper length > 44". If this is true, wouldn't this eliminate the OS as
> the limiting factor?
> Stan

Hi Stan,

I don't believe there is an OS limiting factor.  I believe that PS has a
30k
pixel limiting factor, and the 3000 has a 15,599 1/360" limiting factor.

BTW, what printer were you using to do this?

Regards,

Austin


Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this
same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- Include your full name with your message.
- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to
keep them short.
- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject
header.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
"flames."
- Complete your Yahoo profile.
- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage. 


 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

> Austin,
>
> If it is a printer hardware limit, how do you explain that (according to
> Epson) the 3000 will print to 227" from Adobe Illustrator and 1800" from
> Coreldraw. Also that in MacOS and 98/ME the 7500 has a limit of
> 90.5, but in
> NT/2000/XP the limit is 590.5? The 3000 has the same limits for each OS!
>
> Bob Frost.

Hi Bob,

I am only quoting from the hardware documentation for the printer that lists
it's limit, and that limit is listed not dependant on any OS, or driver or
anything.

I also don't know that what you say is true or not...as I have never printed
using Illustrator or Coreldraw, but I do know I tried using AutoCAD, and it
was limited to something like 44".  I also know nothing about the 7500.

I'll try Illustrator 7 right now.  OK, it tells me in the set-up, when I
select "User Defined" paper size that I have a maximum limit of 4400 0.01
inch in Illustrator 7, so that says that the 44" limit exists with the Epson
3000.

Could you point me to where Epson claim that the 3000 will print to 227"
with Illustrator?  I mean, it should be possible to simply chain printing
without moving the paper, with a special driver, and basically print in 44"
increments forever!  I don't know why they would even limit it to 227".

Just FYI, my 1270 using "User Defined" from Illustrator shows 12,900 0.01
inch maximum length.  Seems it's not an Illustrator or OS issue if that's
the case!

Regards,

Austin

Stanley,

When Epson talk of OS limits to print size, I assume they mean printing
using the built-in OS printing routines, e.g. from your IE or Mac equivalent
browser. If you are using IP5, doesn't it have its own driver,and thus have
its own limitations?

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message -----

From: "Shire,Stanley" <sshire@...>


> Although I haven't tried printing, IP5 didn't complain when I set a
> paper length > 44". If this is true, wouldn't this eliminate the OS as
> the limiting factor?

Hi Bob,

I don't believe there is any OS limit to page length, per so, there is only
the application limit, driver limit and hardware limit.  I believe that when
you print, it always invokes the, typically, manufacturers supplied printer
driver.

I believe even the Cone plug-in uses the Epson driver to some degrees.
Obviously, you can bypass some aspects of the driver, as the Cone plug-in
supposedly does.

Regards,

Austin

> Stanley,
>
> When Epson talk of OS limits to print size, I assume they mean printing
> using the built-in OS printing routines, e.g. from your IE or Mac
> equivalent
> browser. If you are using IP5, doesn't it have its own driver,and
> thus have
> its own limitations?
>
> Bob Frost.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Shire,Stanley" <sshire@...>
>
>
> > Although I haven't tried printing, IP5 didn't complain when I set a
> > paper length > 44". If this is true, wouldn't this eliminate the OS as
> > the limiting factor?

Yes, IP has it's own driver. Does the difference in limit mean that
either a)Epson and IP are not calling the same print routines from the
OS or b) IP is not calling the OS routine, but one of their own,
or.............
S.

-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Frost [mailto:bobfrost@...] 
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 6:05 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Optimal DPI

Stanley,

When Epson talk of OS limits to print size, I assume they mean printing
using the built-in OS printing routines, e.g. from your IE or Mac
equivalent
browser. If you are using IP5, doesn't it have its own driver,and thus
have
its own limitations?

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Shire,Stanley" <sshire@...>


> Although I haven't tried printing, IP5 didn't complain when I set a
> paper length > 44". If this is true, wouldn't this eliminate the OS as
> the limiting factor?



Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this
same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- Include your full name with your message.
- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to
keep them short.
- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject
header.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
&amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
- Complete your Yahoo profile.
- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage. 


 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Hi Stan,

> Yes, IP has it's own driver.

Does it "invoke" the Epson driver, like the Piezo "driver" does?

Knowing what we "believe" we know about resampling to 720, it is very
possible the Cone Piezo driver actually does just that...and still uses the
Epson driver, but just sends it pre-resampled four ink data.  It's not
actually a "driver".

> Does the difference in limit mean that
> either a)Epson and IP are not calling the same print routines from the
> OS or b) IP is not calling the OS routine, but one of their own,
> or.............

I'm not sure there are any "OS print routines" (except spooling).  I think
that there is a standard API to the printer driver, and the driver
communicates with the printer thorough the OS, but only using it as a port
manager, like USB, parallel, serial...I don't believe the port management
function has any printer specific (or limiting) stuff in it.

I've written a printer "driver" routine to do alignment on the 3000, and it
calls only I/O routines to send Epson specific commands to the parallel
port.  Any limitation on page length exists only in the printer it
self...not in the I/O calls.  There may be something different for spooling,
which I have never done.

Regards,

Austin

I see where you're coming from, but if you've worked at a technical 
corporation, you know that the decision-makers are not as savvy as 
the engineers. Do the engineers know that the RIP produces less 
metamerism? Two or three color engineers probably do, and they've 
probably tried to communicate this to their superiors. Where that 
information goes from there is an exercise in beauracracy and the 
ability of less technically inclined business types to directly 
observe what engineers are talking about. The engineers probably had 
a difficult time explaining the situation, and even when they got the 
ears of someone who understood, there was probably disagreement about 
whether it was important.

I was in many such situations when I worked at Quark. I really don't 
think Epson is trying to milk you for all you're worth, or they would 
have marketed the RIP to photographers as well as graphic designers 
(to milk even more of us!). No, I think it's more a case of the right 
hand not knowing what the left hand is doing. If you went to the 
president of Epson and asked, "Why aren't you giving us the 
metamerism-free option right out of the box?" he would probably 
say, "What is metamerism?" If you showed it to him, he'd probably 
say, "Hmm -- Personally, I like the one produced from the standard 
Epson driver better."

Do not understimate your own technical knowledge and high technical 
standards as compared with that of Epson decision-makers. They are 
not evil -- they are simply part of the corporate world, which is not 
a very technically unified place.


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Nelson 
<peter@s...>" <peter@s...> wrote:
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "maracaholics 
> <maracaholics@y...>" <maracaholics@y...> wrote:
> > 
> > "just so their printer can produce a half-decent black-and-
white" --
>  
> > 
> > That statement is off-base. The whole point of the Epson RIP is 
to 
> > allow graphic designers (not photographers) to print brochure 
proofs

>  
> . . . etc.
> 
> No $#!+, Sherlock!  That is exactly my point!!
> Which was that Epson is a strange and eccentric company
> and the example I was using was that they apparently know
> perfectly well how to make the Epson 2200 make decent
> metamerism-free black and white prints, but instead of 
> shipping that capability with the printer they bury it
> in a totally irelevant and disconnected product, which
> as you correctly point out, is not even designed for 
> the purpose!
> 
> Suppose you bought a pickup truck for your ranch in Texas,
> where it gets hot.  And suppose you wanted factory air,
> but the manufacturer said that the only way to get A/C 
> with this truck was to buy the special boat-towing 
> package that includes a special boat-mount, heavy-duty 
> winch, reinforced suspension and intercooler.  Wouldn't
> that seem weird?   You're absolutely right that the
> ability to print in black and white has NOTHING to do 
> with why anyone would normally buy a RIP.   So how
> come Epson didn't built the ability into their regular
> driver?

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "maracaholics 
<maracaholics@y...>" <maracaholics@y...> wrote:
> 
> I see where you're coming from, but if you've worked at a technical 
> corporation, you know that the decision-makers are not as savvy as 
> the engineers. 

I work for a company that's about 3 times the size (by revenue)
of Seiko Epson Corporation, and has about 3.5 times the number
of employees.  Like Seiko Epson we have many different divisions
in many different markets (and we are direct competitors of
S/E in several of them).   You probably have some of our 
products around your house or business.  

My division makes display and imaging equipment used in 
scientific and medical applications and it's a huge division
(billions of dollars of revenue).  You are right that the
President of our parent company would have no idea about the
technical merits of our products, but that doesn't matter
because the parent company doesn't meddle with our product
plans or marketing.  You can BET that our division's 
management DOES understand the technology!   We know exactly
who's using our products, how they're using them, and
what features they like and dislike.  I'm a design engineer
specializing in image processing and I get regular customer
feedback.  My upper management spends a great deal of time
traveling all over the world meeting with actual hands-on
customers.

So I don't agree that a successful modern high tech company
would be unaware of who is using their products, and in
what WAYS they're using them.  That Epson added better 
metamerism control to their RIP but not to their standard
product was no accident.  WHY they did it is another
question.

Peter you are absolutely correct. Most large technology based companies 
are organized somewhat the way you describe. In most cases the divisions 
such as yours have their own R&D budgets and it is not unlimited. 
Decisions have to be made as to the best way to invest this budget. 
There are always more good ideas and proposals on the table than there 
is money so the programs have to be prioritized and some things just 
fall below the cut line. One of the questions that must be addressed in 
this prioritization is "what is the return on the investment - both in 
the short run and in the long run, and does it fit into the long range 
plan of the division and company."

I suspect that the B&W printing market is not or is not projected to be 
large enough to warrant the investment into the development of this 
product. There was another market that was and the B&W printing 
benefited as a byproduct.

Truman

Peter Nelson wrote:

>
>So I don't agree that a successful modern high tech company
>would be unaware of who is using their products, and in
>what WAYS they're using them.  That Epson added better 
>metamerism control to their RIP but not to their standard
>product was no accident.  WHY they did it is another
>question.
>
>
>  
>



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