Digital BW, The Print

If you want to use piezo inks or MIS FS you need the piezo driver. If not,
the MIS VM would be fine using Paul's curves. There is no one 'best'
solution - a lot of people here argue stongly for particular brands/inks
combinations. it all depends on what you like. The only provisos are that
you use the necessary technical bits i.e. the correct driver for the inks.
I'd rather have the driver and handfill the carts - you could buy the inks
in 4oz bottles and fill them yourself. So the cheapest route is for MIS VM
using either CIS or handfilling the carts - next up is the Cone kit with MIS
FS afterwards. You maybe able to do a deal with someone to buy the inks. But
an initial purchase of 56USD for MIS VM isn't a bad place to start. You may
not need anything else.

Julian

Julian
----- Original Message -----
From: "markhahn2000" <markhahn2000@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2001 6:44 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] Inks, Epson vs. Cone etc. was:(more newbie q's)


> Paul, Jason and Julian,
>
> Thanks.
>
> Cost is an issue to me... that is why I would like to try out the
> $150 MIS CFS first with a proven workflow instead of just sending
> Cone $600 for their driver and CIS.  Is it really going to take the
> Cone driver to get great prints?  If this is the case I sould
> probably start out with MIS FS and then get the Cone driver... the
> problem is that Cone will not just sell the driver.  If you already
> have a CFS on you printer Cone still makes you purchase a kit
> complete with carts that you don't need, they won't even give you
> store credit for them (which I think is a little hard-nosed).
>
> mark
>
> ...
> > I hate to say it but I prefer the lookof FS - everyone who has seen
> side by
> > side comparisons of my pre and post piezo prints agree.
> ...
> > > If you use the Piezo driver and inks you are going to get great
> prints.
> > Use
> > > the FS inks with the Piezo driver if cost is an issue. No
> workflow, just
> > > print...
> ...
> etc.
>
>
>
> 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
>
> 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/
>
>
>

Mark,

I want weigh in with Julian below. The Piezo, Piezo with FS and 
Paul's MIS VM workflows are the most developed and best supported. 
While you can use the MIS Originals and FS inks with the Epson 
driver, fewer people seem to be doing this so you would be more on 
your own than with other workflows.

Martin Wesley

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Julian Thomas" 
<julianthomas@t...> wrote:
> If you want to use piezo inks or MIS FS you need the piezo driver. 
If not,
> the MIS VM would be fine using Paul's curves. There is no one 'best'
> solution - a lot of people here argue stongly for particular 
brands/inks
> combinations. it all depends on what you like. The only provisos 
are that
> you use the necessary technical bits i.e. the correct driver for 
the inks.
> I'd rather have the driver and handfill the carts - you could buy 
the inks
> in 4oz bottles and fill them yourself. So the cheapest route is for 
MIS VM
> using either CIS or handfilling the carts - next up is the Cone kit 
with MIS
> FS afterwards. You maybe able to do a deal with someone to buy the 
inks. But
> an initial purchase of 56USD for MIS VM isn't a bad place to start. 
You may
> not need anything else.
> 
> Julian
> 

(snip)

Yes, I know that no one wants to get into a bitter arguement over 
this and I recognize the potential:)  ...but has anyone compared 
results from Paul's VM and John Woolf's FS 1160 workflow?  ...or 
being less confrontational, willing to say, "I use X and get great 
results."  Can anyone confirm John's assertation that the Cone driver 
is no better than Epson with a 1160?

thanks for all the hand-holding!

mark

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Julian Thomas" 
<julianthomas@t...> wrote:
> If you want to use piezo inks or MIS FS you need the piezo driver. 
If not,
> the MIS VM would be fine using Paul's curves. There is no one 'best'
> solution - a lot of people here argue stongly for particular 
brands/inks
> combinations. it all depends on what you like. The only provisos 
are that
> you use the necessary technical bits i.e. the correct driver for 
the inks.
> I'd rather have the driver and handfill the carts - you could buy 
the inks
> in 4oz bottles and fill them yourself. So the cheapest route is for 
MIS VM
> using either CIS or handfilling the carts - next up is the Cone kit 
with MIS
> FS afterwards. You maybe able to do a deal with someone to buy the 
inks. But
> an initial purchase of 56USD for MIS VM isn't a bad place to start. 
You may

> not need anything else.
> 
> Julian

I have never used the Piezo driver but from having participated in three
print exchanges I can say I don't "notice" a difference in quality between
the PiezoBW driver and a well executed workflow through the Epson driver.
They each have slightly different characteristics, but neither better than
the other.

They do have different capabilities, costs, benefits, and workflows, which
do need to be considered, but of "quality" of print I'd say they're quite
equal.

(Of course a printer which is acting up on with either system is a killer)

Todd

> Yes, I know that no one wants to get into a bitter arguement over
> this and I recognize the potential:)  ...but has anyone compared
> results from Paul's VM and John Woolf's FS 1160 workflow?  ...or
> being less confrontational, willing to say, "I use X and get great
> results."  Can anyone confirm John's assertation that the Cone driver
> is no better than Epson with a 1160?
> 
> thanks for all the hand-holding!
> 
> mark
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Julian Thomas"
> <julianthomas@t...> wrote:
>> If you want to use piezo inks or MIS FS you need the piezo driver.
> If not,
>> the MIS VM would be fine using Paul's curves. There is no one 'best'
>> solution - a lot of people here argue stongly for particular
> brands/inks
>> combinations. it all depends on what you like. The only provisos
> are that
>> you use the necessary technical bits i.e. the correct driver for
> the inks.
>> I'd rather have the driver and handfill the carts - you could buy
> the inks
>> in 4oz bottles and fill them yourself. So the cheapest route is for
> MIS VM
>> using either CIS or handfilling the carts - next up is the Cone kit
> with MIS
>> FS afterwards. You maybe able to do a deal with someone to buy the
> inks. But
>> an initial purchase of 56USD for MIS VM isn't a bad place to start.
> You may
>> not need anything else.
>> 
>> Julian
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 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/
> 
>

I'm afraid I disagree totally. I've tried FS with the Epson and W. workflow
and it is lacking in smoothness and has dots. The Cone driver makes the
print head 'fill in' the gaps in the dots and effectively doubles the res of
the printer. i talso has profile for the papers - very important. I've seen
VM with Paul's curves (thanks Bernd!) and it is very good. if I hadn't
already got the piezo driver I'd be using a 6 pot printer and VM.

Julian
----- Original Message -----
From: "markhahn2000" <markhahn2000@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2001 8:50 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Inks, Epson vs. Cone etc. was:(more newbie q's)


> Yes, I know that no one wants to get into a bitter arguement over
> this and I recognize the potential:)  ...but has anyone compared
> results from Paul's VM and John Woolf's FS 1160 workflow?  ...or
> being less confrontational, willing to say, "I use X and get great
> results."  Can anyone confirm John's assertation that the Cone driver
> is no better than Epson with a 1160?
>
> thanks for all the hand-holding!
>
> mark
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Julian Thomas"
> <julianthomas@t...> wrote:
> > If you want to use piezo inks or MIS FS you need the piezo driver.
> If not,
> > the MIS VM would be fine using Paul's curves. There is no one 'best'
> > solution - a lot of people here argue stongly for particular
> brands/inks
> > combinations. it all depends on what you like. The only provisos
> are that
> > you use the necessary technical bits i.e. the correct driver for
> the inks.
> > I'd rather have the driver and handfill the carts - you could buy
> the inks
> > in 4oz bottles and fill them yourself. So the cheapest route is for
> MIS VM
> > using either CIS or handfilling the carts - next up is the Cone kit
> with MIS
> > FS afterwards. You maybe able to do a deal with someone to buy the
> inks. But
> > an initial purchase of 56USD for MIS VM isn't a bad place to start.
> You may
> > not need anything else.
> >
> > Julian
>
>
>
> 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
>
> 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/
>
>
>

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

From: "Julian Thomas" <julianthomas@...>


> I'm afraid I disagree totally. I've tried FS with the Epson and W.
workflow
> and it is lacking in smoothness and has dots. The Cone driver makes the
> print head 'fill in' the gaps in the dots and effectively doubles the res
of
> the printer.

Sorry but this is simply wrong - I have print samples of Cone with Piezo,
MIS FS with Piezo (from Bernd) and I have my own Epson with FS - with the
right curve - I adjusted the Woolf curve - and the Epson, while being much
slower  - prints with exactly the same smoothness if not finer, tones are
equal. I don\ufffdt see dots - maybe you have a bad sample of the 1160, mine
doesn\ufffdt print dots, under a 7x magnification you see a structure, but its
not dots.

Greetings Bernhard

> I have never used the Piezo driver but from having participated in three
> print exchanges I can say I don't "notice" a difference in quality between
> the PiezoBW driver and a well executed workflow through the Epson driver.

Todd,

You ARE using quad-tone inks, and therefore using all four inks and some
kind of dither pattern, right?

An interesting note, I believe Cone claims 2160DPI for their driver...and I
have not been able to verify this at all...and every time I enquire, I get
no response...  I don't find a way of doing 2160 in the Epson command set,
which is why I an questioning whether they really can get 2160 out of it.
I'm not saying they can't, I just can't verify that it is even possible.

Regards,

Austin

All I can tell you is what I see - I have 2 1160s and the results are the
same. FS is better with the Cone driver, although I believe that VM with the
Epson is the same as FS with Cone driver - if oyu use 6 inkprinters.

Julian

Julian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bernie Ess" <albatros.bee@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2001 10:54 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Inks, Epson vs. Cone etc. was:(more newbie q's)


> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Julian Thomas" <julianthomas@...>
>
>
> > I'm afraid I disagree totally. I've tried FS with the Epson and W.
> workflow
> > and it is lacking in smoothness and has dots. The Cone driver makes the
> > print head 'fill in' the gaps in the dots and effectively doubles the
res
> of
> > the printer.
>
> Sorry but this is simply wrong - I have print samples of Cone with Piezo,
> MIS FS with Piezo (from Bernd) and I have my own Epson with FS - with the
> right curve - I adjusted the Woolf curve - and the Epson, while being much
> slower  - prints with exactly the same smoothness if not finer, tones are
> equal. I don\ufffdt see dots - maybe you have a bad sample of the 1160, mine
> doesn\ufffdt print dots, under a 7x magnification you see a structure, but its
> not dots.
>
> Greetings Bernhard
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
> 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/
>
>
>

While we are on the subject of Bernds driver comparison, I saw something in
there that I had never seen before. Look at the two smaller prints that were
both printed with the Piezo driver. The large smoke stack on the left has a
moiré  pattern in it's lower third. It's not there in the Epson driver
print, but that is a larger print, so I wouldn't expect them to be the same.
But what could be the cause of that moiré ?

Todd

>> I'm afraid I disagree totally. I've tried FS with the Epson and W.
> workflow
>> and it is lacking in smoothness and has dots. The Cone driver makes the
>> print head 'fill in' the gaps in the dots and effectively doubles the res
> of
>> the printer.
> 
> Sorry but this is simply wrong - I have print samples of Cone with Piezo,
> MIS FS with Piezo (from Bernd) and I have my own Epson with FS - with the
> right curve - I adjusted the Woolf curve - and the Epson, while being much
> slower  - prints with exactly the same smoothness if not finer, tones are
> equal. I don´t see dots - maybe you have a bad sample of the 1160, mine
> doesn´t print dots, under a 7x magnification you see a structure, but its
> not dots.
> 
> Greetings Bernhard

on 12/15/01 5:14 PM, Austin Franklin wrote:

> 
>> I have never used the Piezo driver but from having participated in three
>> print exchanges I can say I don't "notice" a difference in quality between
>> the PiezoBW driver and a well executed workflow through the Epson driver.
> 
> Todd,
> 
> You ARE using quad-tone inks, and therefore using all four inks and some
> kind of dither pattern, right?

Austin

Sorry, I don't see what you are getting at.

Todd

I'm guessing that since the Piezo driver prints off of a grid pattern and the Epson driver uses a stochastic
pattern, the Piezo grid is reacting with the the bricks on the smokestack and causing the moiré.

Harvey  Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC


Todd Flashner wrote:

>
> While we are on the subject of Bernds driver comparison, I saw something in
> there that I had never seen before. Look at the two smaller prints that were
> both printed with the Piezo driver. The large smoke stack on the left has a
> moiré  pattern in it's lower third. It's not there in the Epson driver
> print, but that is a larger print, so I wouldn't expect them to be the same.
> But what could be the cause of that moiré ?
>
> Todd
>
>
> >> I'm afraid I disagree totally. I've tried FS with the Epson and W.
> > workflow
> >> and it is lacking in smoothness and has dots. The Cone driver makes the
> >> print head 'fill in' the gaps in the dots and effectively doubles the res
> > of
> >> the printer.
> >
> > Sorry but this is simply wrong - I have print samples of Cone with Piezo,
> > MIS FS with Piezo (from Bernd) and I have my own Epson with FS - with the
> > right curve - I adjusted the Woolf curve - and the Epson, while being much
> > slower  - prints with exactly the same smoothness if not finer, tones are
> > equal. I don´t see dots - maybe you have a bad sample of the 1160, mine
> > doesn´t print dots, under a 7x magnification you see a structure, but its
> > not dots.
> >
> > Greetings Bernhard
>





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

> ...
> While we are on the subject of Bernds driver comparison, ...

As long as we are comparing, I was trying to see if I should get the ver. 6
Piezo for my 1160, but my observations & questions would fit here too.

The blacks printed with the Epson driver are darker on my 1160 than are the
blacks printed with the Piezo driver.  For, example, with the 21-step test
file printed with both on EAM, scanned in grayscale, with auto levels
applied to the entire scan of both test strips, I get the following
Photoshop Histogram measure of the depth of the 100% patch blacks:

Piezo driver:  17.38

Epson driver:   9.25

(256 scale)

A lower number indicates a darker black.

So, the 100% black with the Piezo driver would be about like the 97% black
printed with the Epson driver.

Also, while using the Piezo driver (ver. 513e) recently I was reminded of an
irritating characteristic.  I can't do any other work in Photoshop while the
Piezo driver is working.  I can continue to work when the Epson driver is
printing.

Has there been any improvement in these two characteristics with Ver. 6 of
the Piezo driver?

On a different note, I find the Woolf workflow with FS inks to have
surprisingly good (smooth) highlights on my 1160, but not quite equal to the
Piezo driver's performance.  I'm not sure most would see the difference,
however.

The shadows are where I see the Woolf workflow falling a bit short.  That
workflow shows both more roughness than the Piezo driver, and there are more
prominent vertical lines in the ramp of the test file.  (Going to 24 bit and
separating the color curves just slightly helps break up these lines.)

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com

Paul,

I'm guessing that you must be a Mac user - because the spooling is not an
issue with Piezo on Windows; I'm guessing a little but I 'lose' the use of
Photoshop (but not other apps) for about 5seconds to spool an A4 page, at a
guess.

Nij

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Roark [mailto:paul.roark@...]
<snip>
> Also, while using the Piezo driver (ver. 513e) recently I was
> reminded of an
> irritating characteristic.  I can't do any other work in
> Photoshop while the
> Piezo driver is working.  I can continue to work when the Epson driver is
> printing.
>
> Has there been any improvement in these two characteristics with Ver. 6 of
> the Piezo driver?
<snip>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Todd Flashner 
<tflash@e...> wrote:
> 
> While we are on the subject of Bernds driver comparison, I 
saw something in
> there that I had never seen before. Look at the two smaller 
prints that were
> both printed with the Piezo driver. The large smoke stack on 
the left has a
> moiré  pattern in it's lower third. It's not there in the Epson 
driver
> print, but that is a larger print, so I wouldn't expect them to be 
the same.
> But what could be the cause of that moiré ?
> 
> Todd

Todd., this is a phaenomenem which has nothing to do with the 
drivers. I should have mentioned this in my data sheet.
It has something to do with the grade of magnification of the 
image in PS. It seems to be a form of interference of fine 
structures (lines) during the sampling/resampling process in PS  
which appears while creating larer or smaller images. The 
raw-files of the images are the same. The interferrence came up 
by downscaling the large image. If I upscale it again, it 
disappears. You can reproduce the same phaenomenem with 
the piezo test file (lines pattern) which comes with the piezo 
software, it is visible on the monitor by stepwise magnification.
Best regards
Bernd

Austin,

Epson printers print at 720dpi. They then offer the 1440dpi mode 
which tells the head to make 2 passes per line, and 2880dpi mode 
which instructs the head to make 4 passes per line. 

So in reality, I guess what they are really saying is that the Piezo 
dpi is really a 3 pass dither.

The new copy of ImagePrint 4 that I got recently offers 8 pass 
printing. To watch the printer is really interesting. The head goes 
backa nd forth 8 times before the paper advances.

Mike

mkravit wrote:
> 
> Austin,
> 
> Epson printers print at 720dpi. They then offer the 1440dpi mode
> which tells the head to make 2 passes per line, and 2880dpi mode
> which instructs the head to make 4 passes per line.
> 
> So in reality, I guess what they are really saying is that the Piezo
> dpi is really a 3 pass dither.
> 

I don't think that is what is going on with the Piezo driver since the
Piezo driver prints much faster than the Epson driver at 1440. I think
the Piezo driver is telling the head to make LESS passes.

-Jeff

> Todd., this is a phaenomenem which has nothing to do with the drivers. I
> should have mentioned this in my data sheet. It has something to do with the
> grade of magnification of the image in PS. It seems to be a form of
> interference of fine structures (lines) during the sampling/resampling process
> in PS  which appears while creating larer or smaller images. The raw-files of
> the images are the same. The interferrence came up by downscaling the large
> image. If I upscale it again, it disappears. You can reproduce the same
> phaenomenem with the piezo test file (lines pattern) which comes with the
> piezo software, it is visible on the monitor by stepwise magnification. Best
> regards Bernd


Bernd 

I'm familiar with the type of aliasing you are talking about in PS - at
least I think I am - let's see.... And I *think* it's called aliasing, but
I'm not sure of that either.

 What I experience is not related to file size so much as image
magnification. The image has poorer representation on screen at odd
magnifications than even. Thus 33.3% magnification is more aliased than at
50%, and 66.7% is worse than 75%. (This is one reason to never check your
sharpening, or other filters, at those odd magnifications. 100% is the only
"true" test, though 50% and 25% can be useful, but never 33.3% or 66.7%,
etc.)

However this aliasing of which I speak is never present in print. It's
purely a screen representation. I personally have never experienced what I
see in your print from up or down sizing in PS, but then I'm no expert. All
I know is I always use bicubic interpolation for photos, and so far I've
been lucky as such.

But the true test to me would be if an Epson driver print of that same file
(that produced the moiré in the Piezo driver) also produces the moiré. Have
you tried that? 

Thanks,
Todd

>> While we are on the subject of Bernds driver comparison, I saw something in
>> there that I had never seen before. Look at the two smaller prints that were
>> both printed with the Piezo driver. The large smoke stack on the left has a
>> moiré  pattern in it's lower third. It's not there in the Epson driver print,
>> but that is a larger print, so I wouldn't expect them to be the same. But
>> what could be the cause of that moiré ?
>> 
>> Todd
>>

Jeff,

With all due respect,  I have been told by the developer of the Piezo 
software that this is exactly what Epson  and the Piezo driver are doing.

Regards,

Michael J. Kravit
Architect/Photographer
Delray Beach, Florida

architectmike1@... wrote:
> 
> Jeff,
> 
> With all due respect,  I have been told by the developer of the Piezo
> software that this is exactly what Epson  and the Piezo driver are doing.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Michael J. Kravit
> Architect/Photographer
> Delray Beach, Florida


Mike;

I know that is what the Epson driver is doing... but how can the Piezo
driver make more passes in less time? The only way is perhaps the Piezo
prints in both directions?

-Jeff

> Austin,
>
> Epson printers print at 720dpi. They then offer the 1440dpi mode
> which tells the head to make 2 passes per line, and 2880dpi mode
> which instructs the head to make 4 passes per line.

Hi Mike,

I really don't believe the number of passes has anything to do with
resolution of the printer.  It MAY make N passes, but I think that is
subsequent to the resolution...

> So in reality, I guess what they are really saying is that the Piezo
> dpi is really a 3 pass dither.

No, like I said above, the number of passes really has nothing to do with
the resolution of the printer, though the printer may implement/use N passes
because of some other reason...but the printer resolution is simply at what
increment can the print head/paper can advance...in additional to the print
nozzle spacing.  Those are all fixed, no matter how many passes the print
head may make.

> The new copy of ImagePrint 4 that I got recently offers 8 pass
> printing. To watch the printer is really interesting. The head goes
> backa nd forth 8 times before the paper advances.

Does that give it 8x the resolution ;-)

Regards,

Austin

Nij,

You wrote:

>I'm guessing that you must be a Mac user - because the spooling is not an
>issue with Piezo on Windows; ...

No, I'm on a Win 98 machine.  I don't know if it is "spooling" or whatever,
but all I see is the hour-glass in the Photoshop area.  And, it's not just
for a little while.  It's during the entire printing process.

Paul


> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Paul Roark [mailto:paul.roark@...]
<snip>
>> Also, while using the Piezo driver (ver. 513e) recently I was
>> reminded of an
>> irritating characteristic.  I can't do any other work in
>> Photoshop while the
>> Piezo driver is working.  I can continue to work when the Epson driver is
>> printing.
>
>> Has there been any improvement in these two characteristics with Ver. 6
of
>> the Piezo driver?
<snip>

Austin,

As Mike says I believe the Epson's are printing at 720 dpi in the 
direction of head travel and the 1440, 2160, 2880 and 5760(?) would 
be in the direction of paper travel as a function of the paper 
advance increments. With the 1280 I noticed neglible improvement in 
print quality (with Epson driver) at 2880 over 1440 at a horrible 
decrease in print speed.

The "Good", "Better" and "Best" settings in the latest Piezo driver 
seem to be linked to these transport increments which probably vary 
from model to model. I think most of the Piezo claims are based 
around the 3000 but I am not sure.

Martin Wesley

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin" 
<darkroom@i...> wrote:
> 
> > Austin,
> >
> > Epson printers print at 720dpi. They then offer the 1440dpi mode
> > which tells the head to make 2 passes per line, and 2880dpi mode
> > which instructs the head to make 4 passes per line.
> 
> Hi Mike,
> 
> I really don't believe the number of passes has anything to do with
> resolution of the printer.  It MAY make N passes, but I think that 
is
> subsequent to the resolution...
> 
> > So in reality, I guess what they are really saying is that the 
Piezo
> > dpi is really a 3 pass dither.
> 
> No, like I said above, the number of passes really has nothing to 
do with
> the resolution of the printer, though the printer may implement/use 
N passes
> because of some other reason...but the printer resolution is simply 
at what
> increment can the print head/paper can advance...in additional to 
the print
> nozzle spacing.  Those are all fixed, no matter how many passes the 
print
> head may make.
> 
> > The new copy of ImagePrint 4 that I got recently offers 8 pass
> > printing. To watch the printer is really interesting. The head 
goes

> > backa nd forth 8 times before the paper advances.
> 
> Does that give it 8x the resolution ;-)
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Austin

I would find the Piezo claims more compelling if they would show some 
comparisons using a 1160 or 1280...

mark

[...]
> I think most of the Piezo claims are based 
> around the 3000 but I am not sure.
[...]

Julian, Bernhard,

Just want to toss in that there is a great deal of printer-to-printer 
variation and you may both be right based on what you each have seen.

Martin

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Julian Thomas" 
<julianthomas@t...> wrote:
> All I can tell you is what I see - I have 2 1160s and the results 
are the
> same. FS is better with the Cone driver, although I believe that VM 
with the
> Epson is the same as FS with Cone driver - if oyu use 6 inkprinters.
> 
> Julian
> 
> Julian
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bernie Ess" <albatros.bee@w...>
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y...>
> Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2001 10:54 PM
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Inks, Epson vs. Cone etc. was:(more 
newbie q's)
> 
> 
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Julian Thomas" <julianthomas@t...>
> >
> >
> > > I'm afraid I disagree totally. I've tried FS with the Epson and 
W.
> > workflow
> > > and it is lacking in smoothness and has dots. The Cone driver 
makes the
> > > print head 'fill in' the gaps in the dots and effectively 
doubles the
> res
> > of
> > > the printer.
> >
> > Sorry but this is simply wrong - I have print samples of Cone 
with Piezo,
> > MIS FS with Piezo (from Bernd) and I have my own Epson with FS - 
with the
> > right curve - I adjusted the Woolf curve - and the Epson, while 
being much
> > slower  - prints with exactly the same smoothness if not finer, 
tones are
> > equal. I don´t see dots - maybe you have a bad sample of the 
1160, mine
> > doesn´t print dots, under a 7x magnification you see a structure, 
but its
> > not dots.
> >
> > Greetings Bernhard
> >
(snip)

Harvey,

That makes sense. The underlying pattern of the Piezo driver seems to 
be on a square grid. The "window screen" pattern that can show up on 
very smooth papers. Given a slight differnce in angle of an image 
texture with rectangular grid and you have moiré.

Martin

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., SKID Photography 
<skid@b...> wrote:
> I'm guessing that since the Piezo driver prints off of a grid 
pattern and the Epson driver uses a stochastic
> pattern, the Piezo grid is reacting with the the bricks on the 
smokestack and causing the moiré.
> 
> Harvey  Ferdschneider
> partner, SKID Photography, NYC
> 
> 
(snip)

Paul,

I am on Win 2000 and I have no trouble continuing on in Photoshop 
once it has spooled the file. Something off in your printer settings 
maybe?

Martin

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> Nij,
> 
> You wrote:
> 
> >I'm guessing that you must be a Mac user - because the spooling is 
not an
> >issue with Piezo on Windows; ...
> 
> No, I'm on a Win 98 machine.  I don't know if it is "spooling" or 
whatever,
> but all I see is the hour-glass in the Photoshop area.  And, it's 
not just
> for a little while.  It's during the entire printing process.
> 
> Paul
> 
> 
(snip)

Todd,
you are right in respect of the monitor aliasing.
At 33 and 66 (or at 500)% the aliasing is extrem, while on 100 % 
is it completely gone.

The moire pattern in my image may not be the same thing, but 
maybe of the same origin.

Actually the moire pattern is printed with the Epson driver not only 
if I print the file on my 1160 with MIS FS inks  - but also on my 
1290 with MIS VM inks.
I suppose this "aliasing" has to do with something I would 
discribe as "interference" between the resolution (actually the 
distance) of the bricks on my negative (wich is 8x10) - the 
scanning resolution - and the amount of magnification in 
photoshop (which actually is no "magnification" in the case of the 
smaller prints, but a "minorisation"). 

Neither am I a mathematic nor a technican - nor do I really 
understand anything about  the inner workflow of a scanner ...
So these are just thoughts. 

The essence is, the moire pattern is independent of the driver, 
so you should ignore it in the driver-discussion.

BTW, I´m sorry that I hadn´t already got the MIS FS inks at the 
time I printed my exchange images, I would have added a  MIS 
VM print from my 1290. At 2880 it prints virtually as dotless as the 
piezo driver does, but is much slower.

Bernd
If anybody seriously wants to have a 1290/MIS VM hex print from 
the same file, mail me offline - Paul yours is on its way at last.
Bernd



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Todd Flashner 
<tflash@e...> wrote:
> > Todd., this is a phaenomenem which has nothing to do with 
the drivers. I
> > should have mentioned this in my data sheet. It has 
something to do with the
> > grade of magnification of the image in PS. It seems to be a 
form of
> > interference of fine structures (lines) during the 
sampling/resampling process
> > in PS  which appears while creating larer or smaller images. 
The raw-files of
> > the images are the same. The interferrence came up by 
downscaling the large
> > image. If I upscale it again, it disappears. You can reproduce 
the same
> > phaenomenem with the piezo test file (lines pattern) which 
comes with the
> > piezo software, it is visible on the monitor by stepwise 
magnification. Best
> > regards Bernd
> 
> 
> Bernd 
> 
> I'm familiar with the type of aliasing you are talking about in PS 
- at
> least I think I am - let's see.... And I *think* it's called aliasing, 
but
> I'm not sure of that either.
> 
>  What I experience is not related to file size so much as image
> magnification. The image has poorer representation on screen 
at odd
> magnifications than even. Thus 33.3% magnification is more 
aliased than at
> 50%, and 66.7% is worse than 75%. (This is one reason to 
never check your
> sharpening, or other filters, at those odd magnifications. 100% 
is the only
> "true" test, though 50% and 25% can be useful, but never 
33.3% or 66.7%,
> etc.)
> 
> However this aliasing of which I speak is never present in print. 
It's
> purely a screen representation. I personally have never 
experienced what I
> see in your print from up or down sizing in PS, but then I'm no 
expert. All
> I know is I always use bicubic interpolation for photos, and so 
far I've
> been lucky as such.
> 
> But the true test to me would be if an Epson driver print of that 
same file
> (that produced the moiré in the Piezo driver) also produces the 
moiré. Have
> you tried that? 
> 
> Thanks,
> Todd
> 
> 
> >> While we are on the subject of Bernds driver comparison, I 
saw something in
> >> there that I had never seen before. Look at the two smaller 
prints that were
> >> both printed with the Piezo driver. The large smoke stack on 
the left has a
> >> moiré  pattern in it's lower third. It's not there in the Epson 
driver print,
> >> but that is a larger print, so I wouldn't expect them to be the 
same. But

> >> what could be the cause of that moiré ?
> >> 
> >> Todd
> >>

> Austin,
>
> As Mike says I believe the Epson's are printing at 720 dpi in the
> direction of head travel and the 1440, 2160, 2880 and 5760(?) would
> be in the direction of paper travel

Hi Martin,

No, the 1440 is in the direction of the head, and the paper travel is fixed
at 720...according to the Epson service manual, and the Epson command set.

Regards,

Austin

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "ruhrfoto" 
<ruhrfoto@y...> wrote:

> BTW, I´m sorry that I hadn´t already got the MIS FS inks at the 
> time I printed my exchange images, I would have added a  MIS 
> VM print from my 1290. At 2880 it prints virtually as dotless as 
> the piezo driver does, but is much slower.

Messed the inks up again, you should read:

..I´m sorry that I hadn´t got the MIS VM inks at the time I printed....

B.

Paul,

I'm a bit hazy on Win98 settings, but I think that if you go to the Printers
'app', select your Piezo printer and right click to get the properties
dialog. On Win2000, the Spooling options are on the 'Advanced' tab - select
the "Spool documents so program finishes faster" option, along with "Start
printing immediately"

That ought to do the trick - though the options in Win98 may only be
'similar' to this and not exactly the same.

Best,
Nij

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Roark [mailto:paul.roark@...]
>
>
> Nij,
>
> You wrote:
>
> >I'm guessing that you must be a Mac user - because the spooling is not an
> >issue with Piezo on Windows; ...
>
> No, I'm on a Win 98 machine.  I don't know if it is "spooling" or
> whatever,
> but all I see is the hour-glass in the Photoshop area.  And, it's not just
> for a little while.  It's during the entire printing process.
>
> Paul
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Paul Roark [mailto:paul.roark@...]
> <snip>
> >> Also, while using the Piezo driver (ver. 513e) recently I was
> >> reminded of an
> >> irritating characteristic.  I can't do any other work in
> >> Photoshop while the
> >> Piezo driver is working.  I can continue to work when the
> Epson driver is
> >> printing.
> >
> >> Has there been any improvement in these two characteristics with Ver. 6
> of
> >> the Piezo driver?
> <snip>

Austin,

I believe the you are missing the point.

Epson claims 1440 or 2880 dpi. It is Madison Avenue hype. They figure that if 
their printers print at 720dpi and they then let the head pass twice in 
essence they have 1440 and so on and so forth.

HP and Encad print at 600 dpi. They specifically say they will not quote 
inflated dpi numbers as hype.

MIke

Regards,

Michael J. Kravit
Architect/Photographer
Delray Beach, Florida

Nij,

My W98 Spool Settings are: "Spool print jobs so program finishes printing
faster."  (The alternative is, "Print directly to the printer.") Under the
first setting I've checked, "Start printing after first page is spooled."
(The alternative is after the last page is spooled.)   The spool data format
is RAW.

This sounds like what you described.

Well, I'll be going to Win XP after the first of the year.  So this might be
moot for me.  Also, frankly, I don't use the Piezo driver that much.

Thanks for the suggestions.

Paul
_____________________

Original message:

Paul,

I'm a bit hazy on Win98 settings, but I think that if you go to the Printers
'app', select your Piezo printer and right click to get the properties
dialog. On Win2000, the Spooling options are on the 'Advanced' tab - select
the "Spool documents so program finishes faster" option, along with "Start
printing immediately"

That ought to do the trick - though the options in Win98 may only be
'similar' to this and not exactly the same.

Best,
Nij

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Roark [mailto:paul.roark@...]
>
>
> Nij,
>
> You wrote:
>
> >I'm guessing that you must be a Mac user - because the spooling is not an
> >issue with Piezo on Windows; ...
>
> No, I'm on a Win 98 machine.  I don't know if it is "spooling" or
> whatever,
> but all I see is the hour-glass in the Photoshop area.  And, it's not just
> for a little while.  It's during the entire printing process.
>
> Paul
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Paul Roark [mailto:paul.roark@...]
> <snip>
> >> Also, while using the Piezo driver (ver. 513e) recently I was
> >> reminded of an
> >> irritating characteristic.  I can't do any other work in
> >> Photoshop while the
> >> Piezo driver is working.  I can continue to work when the
> Epson driver is
> >> printing.
> >
> >> Has there been any improvement in these two characteristics with Ver. 6
> of
> >> the Piezo driver?
> <snip>

Hi Mike,

I don't believe I'm missing anything.  Just passing the head twice does NOT
make it twice the resolution.

The 3000 prints 1440 using "microweave", which, does "interleave" the dot
positions.  The dot position is in smaller vertical increments and the
nozzles fired in a staggered sequence.  That does require two passes.

Have you taken a close look at a print that was done at 720 and then again
at 1440?

Regards,

Austin

> Austin,
>
> I believe the you are missing the point.
>
> Epson claims 1440 or 2880 dpi. It is Madison Avenue hype. They
> figure that if
> their printers print at 720dpi and they then let the head pass twice in
> essence they have 1440 and so on and so forth.
>
> HP and Encad print at 600 dpi. They specifically say they will not quote
> inflated dpi numbers as hype.
>
> MIke
>
> Regards,
>
> Michael J. Kravit
> Architect/Photographer
> Delray Beach, Florida

One warning regarding XP: if you use an Agfa parallel port device be 
prepared to chuck it in the garbage bin, Agfa has made the corporate 
decission to abandon all support for its parallel port devices so 
there are never going to be any new drivers... I have vowed never to 
ever buy another Agfa digital device, but am using it as an excuse to 
purchase the very cool new Epson Perfection 2450 (transparencies up 
to 4x9" at 2400 dpi for under $400!).


mark

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Paul Roark" 
[...]> Well, I'll be going to Win XP after the first of the year.  So 
this might be

> moot for me.  Also, frankly, I don't use the Piezo driver that much.
> 
> Thanks for the suggestions.
> 
> Paul

Thank you Bernd.

I don't understand it either, but at least we know it's outside the driver.
I guess certain patterns have resonance at certain magnifications, and it
doesn't matter if that frequency is viewed on screen or in print.  (Forgive
what I'm sure is improperly used terminology.)

Todd

> Todd,
> you are right in respect of the monitor aliasing.
> At 33 and 66 (or at 500)% the aliasing is extrem, while on 100 %
> is it completely gone.
> 
> The moire pattern in my image may not be the same thing, but
> maybe of the same origin.
> 
> Actually the moire pattern is printed with the Epson driver not only
> if I print the file on my 1160 with MIS FS inks  - but also on my
> 1290 with MIS VM inks.
> I suppose this "aliasing" has to do with something I would
> discribe as "interference" between the resolution (actually the
> distance) of the bricks on my negative (wich is 8x10) - the
> scanning resolution - and the amount of magnification in
> photoshop (which actually is no "magnification" in the case of the
> smaller prints, but a "minorisation").
> 
> Neither am I a mathematic nor a technican - nor do I really
> understand anything about  the inner workflow of a scanner ...
> So these are just thoughts.
> 
> The essence is, the moire pattern is independent of the driver,
> so you should ignore it in the driver-discussion.
> 
> BTW, I´m sorry that I hadn´t already got the MIS FS inks at the
> time I printed my exchange images, I would have added a  MIS
> VM print from my 1290. At 2880 it prints virtually as dotless as the
> piezo driver does, but is much slower.
> 
> Bernd
> If anybody seriously wants to have a 1290/MIS VM hex print from
> the same file, mail me offline - Paul yours is on its way at last.
> Bernd

Austin,

Exactly, passing 4 times does NOT make 2880 either. But go tell that to 
Epson. Their feeling is that if you pass once and get 720 and pass twice you 
1440. Just does not make any sense unless you are a marketing type looking to 
sell product.

When I said you are missing the point, I meant that you are looking at it 
from an engineering point of view. We have to take a step back and look at it 
from the nonsensical marketing perspective.

Mike

Regards,

Michael J. Kravit
Architect/Photographer
Delray Beach, Florida

Hi Mike,

> Exactly, passing 4 times does NOT make 2880 either. But go tell that to
> Epson. Their feeling is that if you pass once and get 720 and
> pass twice you
> 1440. Just does not make any sense unless you are a marketing
> type looking to
> sell product.

But I don't believe that is their claim, is it?  You DO get 1440 out of the
3000...I can't vouch at all for the printers that claim 2880.

> When I said you are missing the point, I meant that you are looking at it
> from an engineering point of view. We have to take a step back
> and look at it
> from the nonsensical marketing perspective.

But that's what I meant...it isn't marketing hype as far as I can tell...the
printer REALLY DOES get 1440 horizontally.

Regards,

Austin

Hello,

Interlacing in printing and scanning is a common technique to achieve variable resolution - it is used in many high-end products. What is important how many Dots Per Inch are on the paper at the end of the print.

Correct me if I am wrong.

Ze'ev Kantor
zeevk@...

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: architectmike1@... 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2001 5:27 PM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Inks, Epson vs. Cone etc. was:(more newbie q's)


  Austin,

  I believe the you are missing the point.

  Epson claims 1440 or 2880 dpi. It is Madison Avenue hype. They figure that if 
  their printers print at 720dpi and they then let the head pass twice in 
  essence they have 1440 and so on and so forth.

  HP and Encad print at 600 dpi. They specifically say they will not quote 
  inflated dpi numbers as hype.

  MIke

  Regards,

  Michael J. Kravit
  Architect/Photographer
  Delray Beach, Florida

  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

  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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 



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

Passing twice will give 1440dpi resolution if the second pass starts not at the same point but shifted by 1" / 720 /2 - thus placing all "dots" in between the existing dots from previous ass. I believe this is what Epson and other printers do.

Ze'ev Kantor
zeevk@...

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: architectmike1@... 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2001 11:25 PM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Inks, Epson vs. Cone etc. was:(more newbie q's)


  Austin,

  Exactly, passing 4 times does NOT make 2880 either. But go tell that to 
  Epson. Their feeling is that if you pass once and get 720 and pass twice you 
  1440. Just does not make any sense unless you are a marketing type looking to 
  sell product.

  When I said you are missing the point, I meant that you are looking at it 
  from an engineering point of view. We have to take a step back and look at it 
  from the nonsensical marketing perspective.

  Mike

  Regards,

  Michael J. Kravit
  Architect/Photographer
  Delray Beach, Florida

        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
       
       

  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

  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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 



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

> Hello,
>
> Interlacing in printing and scanning is a common technique to
> achieve variable resolution - it is used in many high-end
> products. What is important how many Dots Per Inch are on the
> paper at the end of the print.
>
> Correct me if I am wrong.
>
> Ze'ev Kantor

Hi Ze'ev,

It is certainly used in video display graphics...but I don't know about its
use at all in scanning.  What would be the point in scanning, which is an
input?  Might you mean interpolating?

Regards,

Austin

Hi Austin,

Interlacing and interpolating are not the same. Interlacing is "shifted multi-pass" applied both in acquiring and creating an image. This allows to achieve resolution that is higher than the physical spacing between sensors (in scanning) or mussels (in ink-jet printers).

In many scanning applications the sensor is a line-CCD device - an array of several hundreds (or thousands) of sensors placed at a pre-defined distance between each other. The optical system (magnification) determines the distance between corresponding pixels on the scanned media - which is the "optical" resolution. This can be increased by multi-passing with an initial shift in CCD position so the next pass covers areas that felt "between-the-sensors" in previous pass.

Multi-passing without shift is also known technique for scanning intended to improve signal-to-noise ratio (not to improve resolution) - it is seldom used in modern scanners.

Interpolating is generally referred to a software process in which "artificial" pixels are added to existing data. This is common in scanning - my desktop scanner has an optical resolution of 600dpi, an "mechanical" resolution of 1200dpi (via interlacing or multipass) and an "electronical" resolution of 9600dpi. The 9600dpi is achieved by inserting calculated pixels in-between the "real" pixels obtained from the scanner.

Ze'ev Kantor
zeevk@...

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Austin Franklin 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 12:59 AM
  Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Inks, Epson vs. Cone etc. was:(more newbie q's)


  > Hello,
  >
  > Interlacing in printing and scanning is a common technique to
  > achieve variable resolution - it is used in many high-end
  > products. What is important how many Dots Per Inch are on the
  > paper at the end of the print.
  >
  > Correct me if I am wrong.
  >
  > Ze'ev Kantor

  Hi Ze'ev,

  It is certainly used in video display graphics...but I don't know about its
  use at all in scanning.  What would be the point in scanning, which is an
  input?  Might you mean interpolating?

  Regards,

  Austin


        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
       
       

  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

  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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 



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

Austin,

Thanks for setting me straight on that one.

Martin

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin" 
<darkroom@i...> wrote:
> 
> > Austin,
> >
> > As Mike says I believe the Epson's are printing at 720 dpi in the
> > direction of head travel and the 1440, 2160, 2880 and 5760(?) 
would
> > be in the direction of paper travel
> 
> Hi Martin,
> 
> No, the 1440 is in the direction of the head, and the paper travel 
is fixed
> at 720...according to the Epson service manual, and the Epson 
command set.

> 
> Regards,
> 
> Austin

Guys,

There is an explanation in great technical detail of how this Epson
resolution
stuff all works. At least from the view of a 3rd party driver/rip.

Go download the latest gimp-print v4.2 source code for Linux at:
(gimp-print is the excellent open source Epson printer driver for Linux)

http://sourceforge.net/projects/gimp-print

In the archive, read one of the doc files entitled "/doc/weave.texi"
This doc is in portable texinfo format.

From my understanding after reading the weave document, it certainly looks
as if the heads need to
make multiple passes to achieve 1440 and 2880.

Cheers,

Dave Ewaldz

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Austin Franklin [mailto:darkroom@...]
> Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2001 5:00 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Inks, Epson vs. Cone etc. was:(more newbie
> q's)
>
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > Interlacing in printing and scanning is a common technique to
> > achieve variable resolution - it is used in many high-end
> > products. What is important how many Dots Per Inch are on the
> > paper at the end of the print.
> >
> > Correct me if I am wrong.
> >
> > Ze'ev Kantor
>
> Hi Ze'ev,
>
> It is certainly used in video display graphics...but I don't know
> about its
> use at all in scanning.  What would be the point in scanning, which is an
> input?  Might you mean interpolating?
>
> Regards,
>
> Austin

> No, I'm on a Win 98 machine.  I don't know if it is "spooling" or whatever,
> but all I see is the hour-glass in the Photoshop area.  And, it's not just
> for a little while.  It's during the entire printing process.
> 

Have you checked your printer settings Control Panel -> Printers ->
"Your printer" -> Right Mouse click: Properties -> Advanced

Martin

Hi Dave,

> From my understanding after reading the weave document, it certainly looks
> as if the heads need to
> make multiple passes to achieve 1440 and 2880.

Thanks for the info.  When writing my 3000 alignment utility, I conversed
quite a bit with one of the authors of GimpPrint, Robert Krawitz.  He was
quite helpful.  He also speculates, from what I read in the file you
mentioned, that the reason for the multiple passes is drying time...and also
says as I read in the Epson printer command language document:

"The manual
actually makes it fairly clear how to do this [1440] (it requires two passes
with horizontal head movement between passes), and it is presumably
possible to do this with MicroWeave."

...that the head is moved slightly between passes to get the offset between
the two 720 spaced dots...therefore, the resolution is really 1440.

My real objection to the initial statement, was the claim that the 1440 was
somehow nothing but marketing garbage, when IMO, it's clearly not just
marketing garbage, that the printer (Epson 3000) does in fact allow 1440
horizontally.

Regards,

Austin

Thanks Dave,

It seems that everytime I reveal my sources for info I get slammed. After a while you get slap happy! ;-)

So thanks for providing the supporting documentation. I have been told by two software developers that the Epson driver in reality prints at 720dpi in its first pass. I don't know if this is for both vertical and horizontal or just vertical printing.

In any event, I really don't have any need to know other than for a bit of conversation. As long as my prints look good, I am happy enough to live in uninformed bliss.

Regards and Happy Holidays to all....

<Mike

Hi Mike,

> I have been
> told by two software developers that the Epson driver in reality
> prints at 720dpi in its first pass. I don't know if this is for
> both vertical and horizontal or just vertical printing.

Yes, the hardware only prints at 720 in both horizontal and vertical...but
because of microweave, can shift the heads over between the 720 pitch, and
print at 720 again...but between the first pass dots, and therefore give
1440 horizontally.

Regards,

Austin

Austin,

I never said it was "Marketing Garbage", I said it was Madison Avenue Marketing Hype.

There are many ways to interpret and advertise a product. If the head prints at 720dpi then it prints at 720 dpi. If it makes two passes and infills to obtain the equivalent of 1440 dpi then the clain that the printer prints at 1440 dpi may be a bit deceptive to potential buyers that are interested in detailed specs.

I know that HP claims they print at 600dpi, they use some other technology to get dot free images, but they stilll say that their printers are 600 dpi machines.

In any event, I guess the bottom line is to get quality output from the printer. 

Happy Holidays,

Mike 

>>Austin wrote: My real objection to the initial >>statement, was the claim that the 1440 was
>>somehow nothing but marketing garbage, when IMO, it's >>clearly not just marketing garbage, that the printer >>(Epson 3000) does in fact allow 1440
>>horizontally.

Austin,

That is what I thought.

Last night I printed a few color images on my 1280 in 2880 mode. Looking at the images with a 4x loupe there is just a hint of dither in the very lightest areas. The 1280 is an awesome printer, I can't imagine anything better.

It would be really nice if they made a 3000 size printer out of the 1280. Maybe call it a 3280! The fine smooth dither at 2880 with no dots! and 17x22 size!

Mike

>One warning regarding XP: if you use an Agfa parallel port device be
>prepared to chuck it in the garbage bin, Agfa has made the corporate
>decission to abandon all support for its parallel port devices so
>there are never going to be any new drivers... I have vowed never to
>ever buy another Agfa digital device, but am using it as an excuse to
>purchase the very cool new Epson Perfection 2450 (transparencies up
>to 4x9" at 2400 dpi for under $400!).
>
>mark

FYI:

At 3:47 PM +0000 10/30/01, Steven Chambers wrote:

>Delivered-To: samcc@...
>From: "Steven Chambers" <steven.chambers@btinternet.com>
>To: <scan@...>
>Subject: RE: Epson 2450 Scanner
>Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 15:47:26 -0000
>X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
>Importance: Normal
>X-Server: VPOP3 V1.5.0 - Registered
>Sender: owner-scan@...
>Reply-To: scan@...
>
>Tony,
>
>I have been waiting for some feedback on the 2450 as an option for MF 6x6
>scanning. The 2450 has been available in the UK for a few weeks. In the
>abscence of any reports of first hand experience (and having now retired
>from being an early adopter !)I called Epson Technical Support for
>information. I have seen MF scans on a 1640 which look 'soft' to me. My
>needs are sharp scans which I can print at 10x10 with a reasonably good
>tonal range. My marriage will not survive the cost of a dedicated MF film
>scanner. Technical Support at Epson recommended going for the Expression
>1680 Pro over the 2450 1. The Dual Focus system will produce sharper scans
>and 2. the higher Dmax in the Expression will give a better tonal range.
>
>The question remains - is the improvement in quality worth the extra £500 ?
>
>Steve Chambers
>steven.chambers@...
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-scan@... [mailto:owner-scan@leben.com]On Behalf Of
>Tony Riley
>Sent: 30 October 2001 08:13
>To: scan@leben.com
>Subject: Epson 2450 Scanner
>
>
>Not seen any mention here yet about this new Epson flatbed - anyone know
>anything?
>
>Tony Riley
>ar@...m

on 12/17/01 10:57 AM, architectmike1@... wrote:

> Austin,
> 
> That is what I thought.
> 
> Last night I printed a few color images on my 1280 in 2880 mode. Looking at
> the images with a 4x loupe there is just a hint of dither in the very lightest
> areas. The 1280 is an awesome printer, I can't imagine anything better.
> 
> It would be really nice if they made a 3000 size printer out of the 1280.
> Maybe call it a 3280! The fine smooth dither at 2880 with no dots! and 17x22
> size!

Now let me get really annoying! How would you compare output between the
1280 and a 7000? Have you tried them both with the same inks?

Sorry, just thinking of upgrading...

Todd

Hi Mike,

> I never said it was "Marketing Garbage", I said it was Madison
> Avenue Marketing Hype.

Well EXCUUUUUUUUUUUUSE ME for misquoting you ;-)

> There are many ways to interpret and advertise a product. If the
> head prints at 720dpi then it prints at 720 dpi. If it makes two
> passes and infills to obtain the equivalent of 1440 dpi then the
> clain that the printer prints at 1440 dpi may be a bit deceptive
> to potential buyers that are interested in detailed specs.

Not deceptive at all, IMO.  If the printer can truly shift the head over
1/1440 of an inch...then the resolution is truly 1440.  From what I read, it
sounds like that's exactly what it does.

> Happy Holidays,

You too,

Austin

Todd,

Yes, I have used the Epson 25 year color inks in both printers. There is no comaprison. The 1280 wins hands down for image quality. Unfortunately it will only print 13" wide.

Austin,

You are excused, just watch yourself in the future. ;-)

Mike

You've been spoiled!

Julian
----- Original Message -----
From: <architectmike1@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 7:48 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Inks, Epson vs. Cone etc. was:(more newbie q's)


> Todd,
>
> Yes, I have used the Epson 25 year color inks in both printers. There is
no comaprison. The 1280 wins hands down for image quality. Unfortunately it
will only print 13" wide.
>
>
>
> 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
>
> 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/
>
>
>

Persoanlly, I don't trust anyone's print resolution claims, but why 
doesn't anyone just do a simple test.  Make tiny images at 700, 1400, 
2000 and 2800 dpi and write a test word in pixels and then print it, 
if you can resolve the letters under a loupe you are really getting 
the promised resolution, if not you have to question the claims.  

mark

> >One warning regarding XP: if you use an Agfa parallel port device be
> >prepared to chuck it in the garbage bin, Agfa has made the corporate
> >decission to abandon all support for its parallel port devices so
> >there are never going to be any new drivers... I have vowed never to
> >ever buy another Agfa digital device, but am using it as an excuse to
> >purchase the very cool new Epson Perfection 2450 (transparencies up
> >to 4x9" at 2400 dpi for under $400!).
> >
> >mark
>
>FYI:
>
>At 3:47 PM +0000 10/30/01, Steven Chambers wrote: [snip]

Since I posted Steven Chambers' e-mail I've seen Colin Conway's 
e-mail (quoted below) on the Epson scanners.


At 3:19 PM +0200 12/17/01, Colin Conway wrote:
>Delivered-To: samcc@...
>Subject: RE: Epson 2450 Scanner
>Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 15:19:11 +0200
>Thread-Topic: RE: Epson 2450 Scanner
>Thread-Index: AcGG+VjV4/Um+Z1uRke9b8T0ceR06wAA/jJg
>From: "Colin Conway" <cconway@...>
>To: <scan@...>
>Sender: owner-scan@...
>Reply-To: scan@...
>
>
>		Hi,
>
>		Through contacts made on this list and others I had a
>645 XP2 negative scanned for me, using Vuescan in each case, on a
>1680Pro and on an Epson 2450 Photo and digital files sent to me on CD.
>This was a portrait of a young woman wearing a black flock dress - lots
>of shadow detail.  I have 5"x4" wet darkroom experience but am new to
>digital photography and struggling up the learning mountain.  I have the
>Nikon 4000 film scanner and need a flatbed for MF and LF.  (I didn't
>know the Minolta was on its way when I bought the Nikon!)
>		I have printed selected enlargements of these
>unmanipulated scans on A4 paper equivalent to A3 size.  I could discern
>no difference in sharpness on Epson Premium Photo Glossy but there were
>ugly artifacts in the shadows on both..
>		I manipulated the scans using PS curves to make them as
>close to each other as I could and printed on Epson heavy weight matt.
>Again no sharpness difference that I could see.  Tonality in the shadows
>may be about the same - I did not get the same characteristics exactly
>(I'm a beginner remember) but it is a bit like trying to get an image of
>a subject on the same film type, one for printing in a diffuser and the
>other on a condenser enlarger using the same paper and grade, which I
>believe can be done.
>		I sharpened both to different extents using auto modes
>with EdgeSharpener Pro from www.fredmiranda.com on HWM and, to me at A3,
>they are acceptably sharp, but not bitingly so as I would expect from a
>silver print on glossy, without going over the top.
>		My new found friend from the 'Piezo' group sent me an
>unsharpened piezo image about 10' by 8 "from a slightly manipulated
>print on Photorag.  There were no artifacts, a lovely print, which would
>benefit from a only a little sharpening.
>		I did not ask for colour (neg or slide) tests.  However
>I used my office Primax Colorado 1200 - a 600 dpi budget machine to scan
>a 5" x 4" transparency with a light box on top as source.  I got
>acceptable colour from this - amazing!.  I have also printed Photos 10
>and 12 from http://www.myalbum.ne.jp/cgi-bin/a_menu?id=fa268931  which
>used the Canon 2400 and the Nikon 4000.  I was able to get close colour
>representation one with another, so I doubt that the Epson 2450 Photo
>will fare worse.
>		You might like to check out
>http://www.virtualtraveller.org/epson2450.htm.  In this context the neg
>was in the holder for the 1680Pro which, presumably was how it was
>designed, and on the glass for the 1240 Photo.  If the neg is sharper on
>the glass for the 1680 pro, that would make a difference.
>		In any event, I am buy the 2450 (I am told it will be in
>the store today or tomorrow) - as an amateur, I cannot justify the extra
>expense of the 1680 - if it is indeed justifiable.
>		In the US - I live in Greece - the 2450 comes bundled
>with Silverfast SE and, I think, the 1680 pro with the full version: if
>this checks out the cost difference may be less substantial.  Here,
>neither is bundled as far as I know.  The 2450 costs about $400 in the
>US and here about $510.  QUESTION So do I buy Silverfast (full or SE) or
>Vuescan?  Any advice, from anywhere on the relative advantages of the
>three, would be welcome.
>
>		I hope this helps you and others.
		Colin Conway

Having done a whole bunch of tests today, if you scan on the 1680pro at 3200
(in Vuescan anyway) in 48bit RGB mode and then convert to 16bit greyscale
from the green chanel only, there is a small but significant difference. I'm
in the middle of writing this up for my website so I'll put up the different
scans there.

Julian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sam A. McCandless" <samcc@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 9:55 PM
Subject: Epson 1680 vs 2450 scanner (was Re: XP, agfa etc. was:Re: [Digital
BW] Spooling for Paul (was something else))


> > >One warning regarding XP: if you use an Agfa parallel port device be
> > >prepared to chuck it in the garbage bin, Agfa has made the corporate
> > >decission to abandon all support for its parallel port devices so
> > >there are never going to be any new drivers... I have vowed never to
> > >ever buy another Agfa digital device, but am using it as an excuse to
> > >purchase the very cool new Epson Perfection 2450 (transparencies up
> > >to 4x9" at 2400 dpi for under $400!).
> > >
> > >mark
> >
> >FYI:
> >
> >At 3:47 PM +0000 10/30/01, Steven Chambers wrote: [snip]
>
> Since I posted Steven Chambers' e-mail I've seen Colin Conway's
> e-mail (quoted below) on the Epson scanners.
>
>
> At 3:19 PM +0200 12/17/01, Colin Conway wrote:
> >Delivered-To: samcc@...
> >Subject: RE: Epson 2450 Scanner
> >Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 15:19:11 +0200
> >Thread-Topic: RE: Epson 2450 Scanner
> >Thread-Index: AcGG+VjV4/Um+Z1uRke9b8T0ceR06wAA/jJg
> >From: "Colin Conway" <cconway@...>
> >To: <scan@...>
> >Sender: owner-scan@...
> >Reply-To: scan@...
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Through contacts made on this list and others I had a
> >645 XP2 negative scanned for me, using Vuescan in each case, on a
> >1680Pro and on an Epson 2450 Photo and digital files sent to me on CD.
> >This was a portrait of a young woman wearing a black flock dress - lots
> >of shadow detail.  I have 5"x4" wet darkroom experience but am new to
> >digital photography and struggling up the learning mountain.  I have the
> >Nikon 4000 film scanner and need a flatbed for MF and LF.  (I didn't
> >know the Minolta was on its way when I bought the Nikon!)
> > I have printed selected enlargements of these
> >unmanipulated scans on A4 paper equivalent to A3 size.  I could discern
> >no difference in sharpness on Epson Premium Photo Glossy but there were
> >ugly artifacts in the shadows on both..
> > I manipulated the scans using PS curves to make them as
> >close to each other as I could and printed on Epson heavy weight matt.
> >Again no sharpness difference that I could see.  Tonality in the shadows
> >may be about the same - I did not get the same characteristics exactly
> >(I'm a beginner remember) but it is a bit like trying to get an image of
> >a subject on the same film type, one for printing in a diffuser and the
> >other on a condenser enlarger using the same paper and grade, which I
> >believe can be done.
> > I sharpened both to different extents using auto modes
> >with EdgeSharpener Pro from www.fredmiranda.com on HWM and, to me at A3,
> >they are acceptably sharp, but not bitingly so as I would expect from a
> >silver print on glossy, without going over the top.
> > My new found friend from the 'Piezo' group sent me an
> >unsharpened piezo image about 10' by 8 "from a slightly manipulated
> >print on Photorag.  There were no artifacts, a lovely print, which would
> >benefit from a only a little sharpening.
> > I did not ask for colour (neg or slide) tests.  However
> >I used my office Primax Colorado 1200 - a 600 dpi budget machine to scan
> >a 5" x 4" transparency with a light box on top as source.  I got
> >acceptable colour from this - amazing!.  I have also printed Photos 10
> >and 12 from http://www.myalbum.ne.jp/cgi-bin/a_menu?id=fa268931  which
> >used the Canon 2400 and the Nikon 4000.  I was able to get close colour
> >representation one with another, so I doubt that the Epson 2450 Photo
> >will fare worse.
> > You might like to check out
> >http://www.virtualtraveller.org/epson2450.htm.  In this context the neg
> >was in the holder for the 1680Pro which, presumably was how it was
> >designed, and on the glass for the 1240 Photo.  If the neg is sharper on
> >the glass for the 1680 pro, that would make a difference.
> > In any event, I am buy the 2450 (I am told it will be in
> >the store today or tomorrow) - as an amateur, I cannot justify the extra
> >expense of the 1680 - if it is indeed justifiable.
> > In the US - I live in Greece - the 2450 comes bundled
> >with Silverfast SE and, I think, the 1680 pro with the full version: if
> >this checks out the cost difference may be less substantial.  Here,
> >neither is bundled as far as I know.  The 2450 costs about $400 in the
> >US and here about $510.  QUESTION So do I buy Silverfast (full or SE) or
> >Vuescan?  Any advice, from anywhere on the relative advantages of the
> >three, would be welcome.
> >
> > I hope this helps you and others.
> Colin Conway
>
>
>
> 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
>
> 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/
>
>
>