Digital BW, The Print

Thomas Fors was kind enough to send me a couple of sample images from 
RIPs he's using:  the IP RIP and the Epson RIP.  

The Epson RIP had a strong, unpleasant magenta cast but the IP RIP 
image was perfectly neutral under fluorescent and incandescent 
light.  I'll look at it under sunlight tomorrow if we get any sun 
here!

I was a little surprised at the texturing ("dotting") of the IP RIP 
print, especially in the mid-light areas.  I scanned a sample area 
and posted it on my website:

http://studio-nelson.com/tmpimage/forsip1.jpg

. . . that's about a 1.2 cm section, so it's highly enlarged.  With 
the naked eye it's noticable out to a foot or so away but probably 
not at typical viewing distances for 8x12 or 13x19 prints.  Also note 
the blue fringing around some of the black areas - again not 
noticable unless you look closely - although I'd love to know what 
the IP algorithm did to come up with that!

Would someone who is getting good results with the Epson RIP be 
willing to send me a sample to avaluate?   Send me an email and I'll 
give you my address.   Thanks in advance!

I just bought the IP RIP Mac os X .
The course dithering/dot grain in the mid to light areas are just 
too excessive to be acceptable for my printing needs.
I'm returning it for a refund.

The Epson driver w/Atkinson prints smoother highlights but 
lousy shadows, and IP prints gorgeous neutrals and smooth 
shadows but lousy hightlights.
I wish I had the best of both worlds!

It's unfortunate, I know my 9600 is capable of printing perfectly 
neutral smooth prints from light to dark,....still looking and 
waiting for the right software.

Andrew G.



> I was a little surprised at the texturing ("dotting") of the IP RIP 
> print, especially in the mid-light areas.  I scanned a sample 
area 
> and posted it on my website:
> 
> http://studio-nelson.com/tmpimage/forsip1.jpg
> 
> . . . that's about a 1.2 cm section, so it's highly enlarged.  With 
> the naked eye it's noticable out to a foot or so away but 
probably 
> not at typical viewing distances for 8x12 or 13x19 prints.  Also 
note 
> the blue fringing around some of the black areas - again not 
> noticable unless you look closely - although I'd love to know 
what 
> the IP algorithm did to come up with that!

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Nelson 
<peter@s...>" <peter@s...> wrote:
> Thomas Fors was kind enough to send me a couple of sample images 
from 
> RIPs he's using:  the IP RIP and the Epson RIP.  
> 
> The Epson RIP had a strong, unpleasant magenta cast but the IP RIP 
> image was perfectly neutral under fluorescent and incandescent 
> light.  I'll look at it under sunlight tomorrow if we get any sun 
> here!

OK, I've looked at the IP print under sunlight and it looks
real good - no noticable metamerism going between fluorescent
and daylight!

I've also spent more time comparing the texturing, and I'd
say the "dotting" is about midway between the default Epson
driver and Black Only printing.  My guess, looking at the
magnified image, is that they achieve this by using mainly
the black ink, and very modest amounts of SOME of the other
colors.   I'm going to rescan the test image and crank up 
the saturation to see if I can get a count. 

I would like to once again ask if anyone who is getting 
good results with the Epson RIP would be willing to send 
me a sample to evaluate.  I'll happily pay postage and
paper/media cost if that's an issue.   Thanks in advance.

> I was a little surprised at the texturing ("dotting") of the IP RIP 
> print, especially in the mid-light areas.  I scanned a sample area 
> and posted it on my website:
> 
> http://studio-nelson.com/tmpimage/forsip1.jpg

For: A. Andrew Gonzalez

> I just bought the IP RIP Mac os X .
> The course dithering/dot grain in the mid to light areas are just
> too excessive to be acceptable for my printing needs.
> I'm returning it for a refund.

I am looking at a B&W print I just made with IP5 on the 7600, and can't 
see what you're talking about: looking with 4x, 6, and 10x loupes I 
don't see any "coarseness" whatsoever in the mid- and light-tone areas. 
In fact, the print has the same, or better, smoothness than prints I've 
made with PiezographyBW on the 1160, which produced very "smooth" 
prints owing to the fine dithering of PiezographyBW.

--Mitch/Bangkok

Mitch,

I quickly scanned a couple of samples for comparison at:
http://www.sublimatrix.com/html/test.html
(no modifications in PS other than sizing)

I've seen a few other post mention the IP courseness in the 
highlights. It's really quite visible without a loupe.

Andrew G.


> 
> > I just bought the IP RIP Mac os X .
> > The course dithering/dot grain in the mid to light areas are 
just
> > too excessive to be acceptable for my printing needs.
> > I'm returning it for a refund.
> 
> I am looking at a B&W print I just made with IP5 on the 7600, 
and can't 
> see what you're talking about: looking with 4x, 6, and 10x 
loupes I 
> don't see any "coarseness" whatsoever in the mid- and 
light-tone areas. 
> In fact, the print has the same, or better, smoothness than 
prints I've 
> made with PiezographyBW on the 1160, which produced very 
"smooth" 

> prints owing to the fine dithering of PiezographyBW.
> 
> --Mitch/Bangkok

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Mitch Alland 
<malland@x> wrote:
> For: A. Andrew Gonzalez
> 
> > I just bought the IP RIP Mac os X .
> > The course dithering/dot grain in the mid to light areas are just
> > too excessive to be acceptable for my printing needs.
> > I'm returning it for a refund.
> 
> I am looking at a B&W print I just made with IP5 on the 7600, and 
can't 
> see what you're talking about: looking with 4x, 6, and 10x loupes I 
> don't see any "coarseness" whatsoever in the mid- and light-tone 
areas. 

I just posted an image to my website of an IP5 RIP image from the 
2200.  And there is no quesation that it's a bit coarse.
This is 1.2 cm:

http://studio-nelson.com/tmpimage/forsip1.jpg

Otherwise it's nice and neutral, excellent shadow detail, no 
metamerism, etc. 

Do you have a hi-res flatbed scanner you could post a 
sample of your output from?

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "A. Andrew 
Gonzalez <a_andrew_gonzalez@y...>" <a_andrew_gonzalez@y...> wrote:
> Mitch,
> 
> I quickly scanned a couple of samples for comparison at:
> http://www.sublimatrix.com/html/test.html
> (no modifications in PS other than sizing)
> 
> I've seen a few other post mention the IP courseness in the 
> highlights. It's really quite visible without a loupe.

I second that.  I tried sample images on my wife and some
of her musician friends and most people found it quite
noticable and significantly coarser than the stock Epson
driver.  Still, I prefer the IP because the coarsness goes
away if you stand more than a foot or so from the print,
whereas the metamerism of the Epson driver print is visible
from across the room!

I dunno - Mitch - do you see the dots in Black Only 
printing?   Some people just don't have very good
closeup vision, or if they do, it doesn't bother them.

Andrew G.:

> I quickly scanned a couple of samples for comparison at:
> http://www.sublimatrix.com/html/test.html
> (no modifications in PS other than sizing)

Your scans are convincing and disturbing. Are these prints with a 2200 
or a 7600 printer? Are you using 1440-8 pass? I am printing on a 7600 
and have not noticed this coarseness looking with a powerful loop.

Have you informed ColorByte?

--Mitch/Bangkok

I'm assuming that both of these are running in full color...given that IP
can't get that warm in grayscale mode?

Robert

On 3/5/03 11:47 PM, "Mitch Alland" <malland@...> wrote:

> Andrew G.:
> 
>> I quickly scanned a couple of samples for comparison at:
>> http://www.sublimatrix.com/html/test.html
>> (no modifications in PS other than sizing)
> 
> Your scans are convincing and disturbing. Are these prints with a 2200
> or a 7600 printer? Are you using 1440-8 pass? I am printing on a 7600
> and have not noticed this coarseness looking with a powerful loop.
> 
> Have you informed ColorByte?
> 
> --Mitch/Bangkok
> 
> 
> 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/
> 
> 
>

> Your scans are convincing and disturbing. Are these prints with 
a 2200 
> or a 7600 printer? Are you using 1440-8 pass? I am printing on 
a 7600 
> and have not noticed this coarseness looking with a powerful 
loop.
> 
> Have you informed ColorByte?
> 
> --Mitch/Bangkok

Yes Mitch,...I'm using the 9600, printing on EEM 1440-8 pass.
I've informed John at Colorbyte, no respsonse yet.

I noticed this same issue with the IP 5 mac demo. I mentioned it 
to John and he told me "There are big differences in the color 
engine and driver technology for our OS X version.  The OS 9 
version is at least one generation behind in our technology..."

The only way for me to find out was to buy it! 

Unfortunately, still the same problem.

ImagePrint would be perfect if there is a solution to this course 
dithering.

Andrew

Robert,  that's correct in my case.
Andrew G.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, 
Robert Morrison <rmorrison@p...> wrote:
> I'm assuming that both of these are running in full color...given 
that IP
> can't get that warm in grayscale mode?
> 
> Robert




> On 3/5/03 11:47 PM, "Mitch Alland" <malland@x...> wrote:
> 
> > Andrew G.:
> > 
> >> I quickly scanned a couple of samples for comparison at:
> >> http://www.sublimatrix.com/html/test.html
> >> (no modifications in PS other than sizing)
> > 
> > Your scans are convincing and disturbing. Are these prints 
with a 2200
> > or a 7600 printer? Are you using 1440-8 pass? I am printing 
on a 7600
> > and have not noticed this coarseness looking with a powerful 
loop.

> > 
> > Have you informed ColorByte?
> > 
> > --Mitch/Bangkok

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "A. Andrew 
Gonzalez" <a_andrew_gonzalez@y...> wrote:

> ImagePrint would be perfect if there is a solution to this course 
> dithering.

I posted some hi-res scanned images of the IP output a
few days ago.  The coarse dithering is a result of
using only a subset of the inkset, which is how they
overcome the UC inks' matamerism.   The Epson RIP does
this also and has the same result.   I'll post some 
scans soon.

Technically, there's no way around it.  All dithering
algorithms represent a tradeoff between spatial resolution
and color (or grayscale value) resolution.  For a given 
ink drop size, the number of different values you can 
create is a function of the area of your dither pattern and
the number of different values or colors of ink you have
to work with.  The RIPs don't use the yellow because 
it's highly metameristc.  This also forces them to reduce
the cyan and magenta because the yellow component of
the "light black" is limited.   With such a limited palette
coarseness is inevitable.  It's a somewhat less extreme
version of why black-only is so coarse - that's a REAL
limited palette - white and black.

Yes, this makes sense.
Only I'm not printing with the grey profiles for B/W printing.
I'm using full color profiles and printing color because I'm 
reproducing color artwork . Even my monochromatic images 
need to be printed in color because of the very warm and subtle 
color tones I use in my paintings.
So even in color printing the hightlights are course.
And under a loupe in the highlights it seems that there is no use 
of the varible drop size?

Andrew G.




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Peter 
Nelson" <peter@s...> wrote:
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "A. 
Andrew 
> Gonzalez" <a_andrew_gonzalez@y...> wrote:
> 
> > ImagePrint would be perfect if there is a solution to this 
course 

> > dithering.
> 
> I posted some hi-res scanned images of the IP output a
> few days ago.  The coarse dithering is a result of
> using only a subset of the inkset, which is how they
> overcome the UC inks' matamerism.   The Epson RIP does
> this also and has the same result.   I'll post some 
> scans soon.
> 
> Technically, there's no way around it.  All dithering
> algorithms represent a tradeoff between spatial resolution
> and color (or grayscale value) resolution.  For a given 
> ink drop size, the number of different values you can 
> create is a function of the area of your dither pattern and
> the number of different values or colors of ink you have
> to work with.  The RIPs don't use the yellow because 
> it's highly metameristc.  This also forces them to reduce
> the cyan and magenta because the yellow component of
> the "light black" is limited.   With such a limited palette
> coarseness is inevitable.  It's a somewhat less extreme
> version of why black-only is so coarse - that's a REAL
> limited palette - white and black.

Andrew G.:

> I quickly scanned a couple of samples for comparison at:
> http://www.sublimatrix.com/html/test.html
> (no modifications in PS other than sizing)

Your scans are convincing and disturbing. Are these prints with a 2200
or a 7600 printer? Are you using 1440-8 pass? I am printing on a 7600
and have not noticed this coarseness looking with a powerful loop.

Have you informed ColorByte?

--Mitch/Bangkok

On 3/6/03 1:10 PM, "A. Andrew Gonzalez" <a_andrew_gonzalez@...> wrote:

> Yes, this makes sense.
> Only I'm not printing with the grey profiles for B/W printing.
> I'm using full color profiles and printing color because I'm
> reproducing color artwork . Even my monochromatic images
> need to be printed in color because of the very warm and subtle
> color tones I use in my paintings.
> So even in color printing the hightlights are course.
> And under a loupe in the highlights it seems that there is no use
> of the varible drop size?

What resolution are you printing at with IP and Epson?   There are several
color profiles for IP at 2880 available on their web site.  Colorbyte's
initial advise was that 2880 shouldn't make any difference in output because
1440 uses variable droplet size when it is needed.  I assumed that this was
also true for Epson.  Perhaps there is something about the exact color of
your images that is resulting in the two profiles (Epson vs. IP) reading
them differently and IP for some reason doesn't think it needs variable
droplet when it does.

Regardless, your test seems to be sensitive to something here and it would
be great to see a 1440 vs. 2880 IP vs. Epson test here.  It will also be
important to know your exact driver settings for the Epson driver.

Robert