Digital BW, The Print

Ergosoft recently came out with an upgrade to StudioPrint with a some
interesting developments for quad users.
Until recently, StudioPrint was very difficult if not impossible to
linearize with multiple light inks and variable dot. Variable dot
worked with with one light ink per color obviously (for color work),
but more partitioning was a problem. So quads, hexes, seps, etc. were
single dot size per ink. This worked beautifully, but created minor
limitations that few would notice...
There are some new controls and dither settings in v12 that literally
allow the user to select which of 3 dots sizes, at what percent, are
used, per ink. For multiple gray mono work that means per gray
(black). That takes a moment to get your head around.
Now, the very lightest gray can be brought in at the very smallest dot
size to begin with, and at the black end, the K ink can be finished
off at the largest dot size, allowing the maximum dmax available given
 media constraints.
Another resulting improvement- previously, under a loup, it was
possible to detect the dark gray coming in over the mid gray with
widely spaced darker dots. This essentially results in some minute
gray values represented less than optimally, and a loss of resolution
in low contrast detail within those particular grays.
Now, with very carefully chosen settings, that ink can be brought in
with a smaller dot, resulting in closer dot spacing, more detail, and
more represented shades of gray.
Needless to say, the amount of testing required to get this right is
daunting, I doubt many will go down this road. But the tools are there
for the insane. Using 100% of all 3 dot sizes in all 4 inks (quad)
will not work with the current built in partitioning algorithm, and
it's probably not necessary anyway.
Also, the availability of the largest dot at 100% K has brought back
the dmax I lost to v11s "distributed" function when using a double ink K.
I realize this post will be of interest to very few if any. These
improvements are slight to the naked eye, but any move toward a more
photographic output is significant to me, and the difference can seen.
So for me, without going to a 6 or 7 ink setup, v12 has allowed me to
improve output and remains a very interesting and evolving tool.
Tyler

So... v12 doesn't have a working algorithm to pick which size dot to use 
for each ink then? I would have thought that this is part of what you 
pay the big bucks for. This information doesn't make me want to lay out 
the money for the upgrade.

Any idea how your tweaked quad output would compare to non-tweaked hex- 
or sep-tone output in terms of print quality? In other words, if I have 
a hex-tone set available, should I use that rather than going through 
the pain and effort of tweaking the RIP for quads?
--
Bruce Watson



Tyler Boley wrote:

> Ergosoft recently came out with an upgrade to StudioPrint with a some
> interesting developments for quad users.
> Until recently, StudioPrint was very difficult if not impossible to
> linearize with multiple light inks and variable dot. Variable dot
> worked with with one light ink per color obviously (for color work),
> but more partitioning was a problem. So quads, hexes, seps, etc. were
> single dot size per ink. This worked beautifully, but created minor
> limitations that few would notice...
> There are some new controls and dither settings in v12 that literally
> allow the user to select which of 3 dots sizes, at what percent, are
> used, per ink. For multiple gray mono work that means per gray
> (black). That takes a moment to get your head around.
> Now, the very lightest gray can be brought in at the very smallest dot
> size to begin with, and at the black end, the K ink can be finished
> off at the largest dot size, allowing the maximum dmax available given
> media constraints.
> Another resulting improvement- previously, under a loup, it was
> possible to detect the dark gray coming in over the mid gray with
> widely spaced darker dots. This essentially results in some minute
> gray values represented less than optimally, and a loss of resolution
> in low contrast detail within those particular grays.
> Now, with very carefully chosen settings, that ink can be brought in
> with a smaller dot, resulting in closer dot spacing, more detail, and
> more represented shades of gray.
> Needless to say, the amount of testing required to get this right is
> daunting, I doubt many will go down this road. But the tools are there
> for the insane. Using 100% of all 3 dot sizes in all 4 inks (quad)
> will not work with the current built in partitioning algorithm, and
> it's probably not necessary anyway.
> Also, the availability of the largest dot at 100% K has brought back
> the dmax I lost to v11s "distributed" function when using a double ink K.
> I realize this post will be of interest to very few if any. These
> improvements are slight to the naked eye, but any move toward a more
> photographic output is significant to me, and the difference can seen.
> So for me, without going to a 6 or 7 ink setup, v12 has allowed me to
> improve output and remains a very interesting and evolving tool.
> Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, hogarth@... wrote:
>
> So... v12 doesn't have a working algorithm to pick which size dot to
use 
> for each ink then? I would have thought that this is part of what you 
> pay the big bucks for. This information doesn't make me want to lay out 
> the money for the upgrade.

Bruce, I'm not absolutely positive I understand what you mean by such
an algorithm but if I do, I think it would be extraordinarily complex.
It would be dependant on the nature of the particular ink, and the
particular media. There is obvioulsy a built in algorithm that
transitions from one dot size to the next, probably based on Epsons
own. You can control which dot size or sizes to use and how much of
each, per ink. But after playing with this a bit, I can't imagine how
it could be automated. Too many things have to be seen to decide how
to proceed, and for mono inks, I'm seeing no need for the larger dot
sizes at all in the light inks. In fact some media won't handle it.
I recall a thread some time ago, Roy and a few others were talking
about the difficulty of partitioning and linearizing multiple K inks
along with variable dot. I think that's one reason the K7s are best
used with a 2880 set up. It's only one dot size, the smallest, making
so many inks easier to deal with. Also, with so many inks dithering in
and out, I don't see why one would even need variable dot.
For those less masochistic than I, the standard setup without variable
dots works very well, as you know, and the old versions do that just
fine. One step beyond that in v12 would be to set the K to open to the
large dot size, and maybe the lightest ink start with the smallest,
and gain some advantage there from the new feature. Other than
relinearizing, not much tweaking there.

> Any idea how your tweaked quad output would compare to non-tweaked hex- 
> or sep-tone output in terms of print quality? In other words, if I have 
> a hex-tone set available, should I use that rather than going through 
> the pain and effort of tweaking the RIP for quads?

Though I have buried my nose in some K7 output and am very impressed,
I have none here now for direct comparison. I don't intend to switch
to it so having it around taunting me would not be healthy.
I can say this is a step up for quads, subtle though. I sent the
tweaked dot setup to a very experienced pro friend, and he said he
made the best quad print he's ever made with it. Would most people see
that difference, or place a value on it? I think there is no beating
K7 output for neutral smooth B&W artifact free digital printing on art
papers that I have seen. I would not expect v12 quads with tweaked
dots to hold up to K7 under a loup. Without a loup, I don't know. I
need variable hues, so other considerations come to play.
I needed v12 for 9800 color, so had to get it anyway. Basically, I'm
reporting on miniscul obscure issues of interest to me. I hope it
didn't sound like an ad for the new version.
Both Roy and John Dean have working K6 setups right now, I think they
could say more about that quality.
Too bad we are all so far aprt, bringing everyone together with their
print and problems would be very informative.
Tyler

Hi Tyler.
Do I understand you correctly in that you're saying that each jet can
have 1 of 3 dot sizes selected independently of the other jets? If so,
I suspect that Roy could rather easily permit that choice within QTR
as well. (Likely, as you indicate, to be used only by the deranged
among us, including perhaps those with older generation printers
looking to get the most from them :-] ) I recall, from seeing the gimp
source code, that the dot size control was available if I wasn't
dreaming the vision. I can imagine it might be a very useful tool for
moderating the tint in quads as well as limiting total ink output for
the lighter inks.

Regards
Duane



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley"
<tyler@...> wrote:
>
> Ergosoft recently came out with an upgrade to StudioPrint with a some
> interesting developments for quad users.
> Until recently, StudioPrint was very difficult if not impossible to
> linearize with multiple light inks and variable dot. Variable dot
> worked with with one light ink per color obviously (for color work),
> but more partitioning was a problem. So quads, hexes, seps, etc. were
> single dot size per ink. This worked beautifully, but created minor
> limitations that few would notice...
> There are some new controls and dither settings in v12 that literally
> allow the user to select which of 3 dots sizes, at what percent, are
> used, per ink. For multiple gray mono work that means per gray
> (black). That takes a moment to get your head around.
> Now, the very lightest gray can be brought in at the very smallest dot
> size to begin with, and at the black end, the K ink can be finished
> off at the largest dot size, allowing the maximum dmax available given
>  media constraints.
> Another resulting improvement- previously, under a loup, it was
> possible to detect the dark gray coming in over the mid gray with
> widely spaced darker dots. This essentially results in some minute
> gray values represented less than optimally, and a loss of resolution
> in low contrast detail within those particular grays.
> Now, with very carefully chosen settings, that ink can be brought in
> with a smaller dot, resulting in closer dot spacing, more detail, and
> more represented shades of gray.
> Needless to say, the amount of testing required to get this right is
> daunting, I doubt many will go down this road. But the tools are there
> for the insane. Using 100% of all 3 dot sizes in all 4 inks (quad)
> will not work with the current built in partitioning algorithm, and
> it's probably not necessary anyway.
> Also, the availability of the largest dot at 100% K has brought back
> the dmax I lost to v11s "distributed" function when using a double
ink K.

> I realize this post will be of interest to very few if any. These
> improvements are slight to the naked eye, but any move toward a more
> photographic output is significant to me, and the difference can seen.
> So for me, without going to a 6 or 7 ink setup, v12 has allowed me to
> improve output and remains a very interesting and evolving tool.
> Tyler
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "dlruckus"
<dlruckus@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Tyler.
> Do I understand you correctly in that you're saying that each jet can
> have 1 of 3 dot sizes selected independently of the other jets?

Yes, assuming a jet is a particular ink, or tank, or... humvie
wait... 
no.
More than that, for each ink you can select any combination of 3
different dots sizes and the percentage of each dot size picked-
independent of your choices for the other inks.
Not just select one dot per ink, though you can obvioulsy do that too.
Man, this is hard to 'splane..
Roy could 'splane it better I imagine. None of this is for the impatient.
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley" <tyler@...> 
wrote:
>
> Ergosoft recently came out with an upgrade to StudioPrint with a some
> interesting developments for quad users.
> Until recently, StudioPrint was very difficult if not impossible to
> linearize with multiple light inks and variable dot. Variable dot
> worked with with one light ink per color obviously (for color work),
> but more partitioning was a problem. So quads, hexes, seps, etc. were
> single dot size per ink. This worked beautifully, but created minor
> limitations that few would notice...
> There are some new controls and dither settings in v12 that literally
> allow the user to select which of 3 dots sizes, at what percent, are
> used, per ink. For multiple gray mono work that means per gray
> (black). That takes a moment to get your head around.
> Now, the very lightest gray can be brought in at the very smallest dot
> size to begin with, and at the black end, the K ink can be finished
> off at the largest dot size, allowing the maximum dmax available given
>  media constraints.
> Another resulting improvement- previously, under a loup, it was
> possible to detect the dark gray coming in over the mid gray with
> widely spaced darker dots. This essentially results in some minute
> gray values represented less than optimally, and a loss of resolution
> in low contrast detail within those particular grays.
> Now, with very carefully chosen settings, that ink can be brought in
> with a smaller dot, resulting in closer dot spacing, more detail, and
> more represented shades of gray.
> Needless to say, the amount of testing required to get this right is
> daunting, I doubt many will go down this road. But the tools are there
> for the insane. Using 100% of all 3 dot sizes in all 4 inks (quad)
> will not work with the current built in partitioning algorithm, and
> it's probably not necessary anyway.
> Also, the availability of the largest dot at 100% K has brought back
> the dmax I lost to v11s "distributed" function when using a double ink K.
> I realize this post will be of interest to very few if any. These
> improvements are slight to the naked eye, but any move toward a more
> photographic output is significant to me, and the difference can seen.
> So for me, without going to a 6 or 7 ink setup, v12 has allowed me to
> improve output and remains a very interesting and evolving tool.
> Tyler
>

I must say the dot size controls sound way too complicated and unnecessary.
Each printer model has fixed dot sizes available and which ones to use are
based on the resolution you are using.  The Epson manuals specify which size
to use for each resolution.  So getting the user involved in that is not needed.
A RIP ought to have all that builtin. Admittedly the variable dot transitions are
more complicated than single dot sizes, but again that ought to be calibrated
and built into the RIP.

My 2 cents.
Roy

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Roy Harrington"
<roy@...> wrote:
...
> I must say the dot size controls sound way too complicated and
unnecessary
....
> A RIP ought to have all that builtin. Admittedly the variable dot
transitions are
> more complicated than single dot sizes, but again that ought to be
calibrated
> and built into the RIP.

I guess I'm misleading people. Obvioulsy one needn't get that far
under the hood if they don't want to. Many built-in options are at hand.
I can't help but stress this would only be of interest to a few.
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley" <tyler@...> 
wrote:
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Roy Harrington"
> <roy@> wrote:
> ...
> > I must say the dot size controls sound way too complicated and
> unnecessary
> ....
> > A RIP ought to have all that builtin. Admittedly the variable dot
> transitions are
> > more complicated than single dot sizes, but again that ought to be
> calibrated
> > and built into the RIP.
> 
> I guess I'm misleading people. Obvioulsy one needn't get that far
> under the hood if they don't want to. Many built-in options are at hand.
> I can't help but stress this would only be of interest to a few.
> Tyler
>

I just can't imagine what benefit the user could possibly provide.  There's really
only one "right" way to do the dots and that should be builtin.  But from your
first post it sounds like they had some difficulties in past, so I guess they are
both improving some of the issues and letting you get around others.

Roy

Thanks Tyler.
It does sound like, as Roy says, something better left to the Roys on
earth, unique as they may be. It is probably the perfect way to ensure
all testing and few prints produced for most of us. Nevertheless it is
interesting. The gimp version I last looked at, admittedly some time
ago, I think indicated that it wasn't possible to shift sizes
midstream as it were within the output stream. Obviously that isn't
true now.

Regards
Duane



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley"
<tyler@...> wrote:
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "dlruckus"
> <dlruckus@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Tyler.
> > Do I understand you correctly in that you're saying that each jet can
> > have 1 of 3 dot sizes selected independently of the other jets?
> 
> Yes, assuming a jet is a particular ink, or tank, or... humvie
> wait... 
> no.
> More than that, for each ink you can select any combination of 3
> different dots sizes and the percentage of each dot size picked-
> independent of your choices for the other inks.
> Not just select one dot per ink, though you can obvioulsy do that too.
> Man, this is hard to 'splane..
> Roy could 'splane it better I imagine. None of this is for the
impatient.
> Tyler
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "dlruckus"
<dlruckus@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks Tyler.
> It does sound like, as Roy says, something better left to the Roys on
> earth, unique as they may be.

I don't know, and I don't have an informed reply to you or Roy about
the value of this. Here's what I know- I was very happy before, I'm
even happier now, it's better, it was great before. There are other
things going on in every commercially available paritioning
monochromatic solution that I wish I could control becaue I think it
could be better, and can't. The possible exception may be IJC, not
sure because I don't have it, and there could be other trade-offs. So
the more control given back to me, the better. For others, not the case.
In retrospect my comments were probably only of interest to a few
current StudioPrint quad users. I like this stuff, I find it
interesting. I certainly didn't intend to sound like a "great new
features" article.
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley" 
<tyler@...> wrote:
> I can't help but stress this would only be of interest to a few.
> Tyler
>

I found it interesting, thank you. Other RIPs have had something 
similar to this for a while, I guess I though SP also had for some 
time. Though I was surprised to read that you couldn't get a full 
black with the older version when using one of the smaller drop 
sizes. In theory you should be able to put enough ink down that drop 
size no longer matters very much.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley"
<tyler@...> wrote:
>
>So the more control given back to me, the better. 

Indeed. Total agreement with that desire.

> I like this stuff, I find it
> interesting. I certainly didn't intend to sound like a "great new
> features" article.
> Tyler
>
You didn't and even though I'm not a Studioprint user I was still
interested in your information.

Regards
Duane

Well, I didn't understand how the printer actually wants to work - that 
is, given a printer resolution, a particular dot size is used by all 
channels. Smallest dots for 2880, bigger dots for lower resolutions. I 
thought Epson meant to use this feature for more than just that.

What I was envisioning (be careful there!) was a driver smart enough to 
use all the dot sizes all the time, and smart enough to determine when a 
given dot size was appropriate. The drivers (Epson, StudioPrint, QTR, 
etc.) seem to be smart enough to run dither patterns and decide how to 
place dots, and which dots to place, to make good smooth tonal 
transitions. I just thought they could do this with dot sizes too, 
because clearly variable dot size has the potential to improve the 
smoothness of tonal transitions, and improve sharpness too. Yet variable 
dot size doesn't appear to be used that way. My bad.

I can see how it would be good to have the biggest dots in the darkest 
regions - to ensure good coverage of the substrate so that no "paper 
white" shows through. As in, better Dmax. This would clearly be easier 
to do with bigger dots since they could more easily overlap if needed. I 
can also see that the smallest dots would be most useful in the lightest 
tones because there you have to have some paper white showing through to 
get those 1% tones.

But I can also see how the ink and coating are going to have a major 
influence on when and where you need to use the big or small dots. Dot 
gain comes to mind. If you have a lot of dot gain, you probably don't 
need the biggest dots to ensure full coverage of the darkest areas. If 
you have less dot gain, you might need the bigger dots. That sort of thing.

It's almost like we need to extend the ICC profiles - to carry 
information like that to help the driver do a good job of picking dot 
sizes as required to get the tonal transitions we want. Before that 
though I want the ICC profiles extended to do a better job of handling 
neutral tones ;-)
--
Bruce Watson



Tyler Boley wrote:

> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, hogarth@... wrote:
> >
> > So... v12 doesn't have a working algorithm to pick which size dot to
> use
> > for each ink then? I would have thought that this is part of what you
> > pay the big bucks for. This information doesn't make me want to lay out
> > the money for the upgrade.
>
> Bruce, I'm not absolutely positive I understand what you mean by such
> an algorithm but if I do, I think it would be extraordinarily complex.
> It would be dependant on the nature of the particular ink, and the
> particular media. There is obvioulsy a built in algorithm that
> transitions from one dot size to the next, probably based on Epsons
> own. You can control which dot size or sizes to use and how much of
> each, per ink. But after playing with this a bit, I can't imagine how
> it could be automated. Too many things have to be seen to decide how
> to proceed, and for mono inks, I'm seeing no need for the larger dot
> sizes at all in the light inks. In fact some media won't handle it.
> I recall a thread some time ago, Roy and a few others were talking
> about the difficulty of partitioning and linearizing multiple K inks
> along with variable dot. I think that's one reason the K7s are best
> used with a 2880 set up. It's only one dot size, the smallest, making
> so many inks easier to deal with. Also, with so many inks dithering in
> and out, I don't see why one would even need variable dot.
> For those less masochistic than I, the standard setup without variable
> dots works very well, as you know, and the old versions do that just
> fine. One step beyond that in v12 would be to set the K to open to the
> large dot size, and maybe the lightest ink start with the smallest,
> and gain some advantage there from the new feature. Other than
> relinearizing, not much tweaking there.
>
> > Any idea how your tweaked quad output would compare to non-tweaked hex-
> > or sep-tone output in terms of print quality? In other words, if I have
> > a hex-tone set available, should I use that rather than going through
> > the pain and effort of tweaking the RIP for quads?
>
> Though I have buried my nose in some K7 output and am very impressed,
> I have none here now for direct comparison. I don't intend to switch
> to it so having it around taunting me would not be healthy.
> I can say this is a step up for quads, subtle though. I sent the
> tweaked dot setup to a very experienced pro friend, and he said he
> made the best quad print he's ever made with it. Would most people see
> that difference, or place a value on it? I think there is no beating
> K7 output for neutral smooth B&W artifact free digital printing on art
> papers that I have seen. I would not expect v12 quads with tweaked
> dots to hold up to K7 under a loup. Without a loup, I don't know. I
> need variable hues, so other considerations come to play.
> I needed v12 for 9800 color, so had to get it anyway. Basically, I'm
> reporting on miniscul obscure issues of interest to me. I hope it
> didn't sound like an ad for the new version.
> Both Roy and John Dean have working K6 setups right now, I think they
> could say more about that quality.
> Too bad we are all so far aprt, bringing everyone together with their
> print and problems would be very informative.
> Tyler

Bruce, I don't want to get into too much trouble here. Roy and others
know much more about the inner working of dithers etc..
Your assumptions below I believe to be correct. For 2880 the smallest
dots are used, for best settings with 1440 I believe all dot sizes are
used in every ink with the "intellegence" you mention. I'm not sure
what settings may insure only the largest dot in use, maybe 720?
So no, no bad.
I'm pretty sure this is how the Epson driver works. With SP, there are
many more controls as you know, but It's obvious only ultra micro is
available with 2880, many more options from single size to variable
when other quality settings and dithers are selected. For example,
7000/9000 output can be mimicked on the 7600/9600s by selecting
"normal" dot size, rather than another that will allow micro or more,
even though both are available for 1440x720 output.
You are also correct about unusual media. There are papers I play with
that clearly cannot take the largest dot size without mottle or bleed.
So some optimization is possible for those, like japanese.
It's possible to put down even more ink than just the largest dot
size, I'm not sure how it's done, but I can make HPR bleed like crazy
with some settings and achieve a 1.75 dmax. But it's unusable.
Don't know the answer to coverage vrs dot size and how it relates to
dmax, to both you and Greg.
I do know that the various generations of Epsons I've had, the larger
dot printers always had the highest dmax on good papers.
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, hogarth@... wrote:
>
> Well, I didn't understand how the printer actually wants to work - that 
> is, given a printer resolution, a particular dot size is used by all 
> channels. Smallest dots for 2880, bigger dots for lower resolutions. I 
> thought Epson meant to use this feature for more than just that.
> 
> What I was envisioning (be careful there!) was a driver smart enough to 
> use all the dot sizes all the time, and smart enough to determine
when a 
> given dot size was appropriate. The drivers (Epson, StudioPrint, QTR, 
> etc.) seem to be smart enough to run dither patterns and decide how to 
> place dots, and which dots to place, to make good smooth tonal 
> transitions. I just thought they could do this with dot sizes too, 
> because clearly variable dot size has the potential to improve the 
> smoothness of tonal transitions, and improve sharpness too. Yet
variable 
> dot size doesn't appear to be used that way. My bad.
> 
> I can see how it would be good to have the biggest dots in the darkest 
> regions - to ensure good coverage of the substrate so that no "paper 
> white" shows through. As in, better Dmax. This would clearly be easier 
> to do with bigger dots since they could more easily overlap if
needed. I 
> can also see that the smallest dots would be most useful in the
lightest 
> tones because there you have to have some paper white showing
through to 
> get those 1% tones.
> 
> But I can also see how the ink and coating are going to have a major 
> influence on when and where you need to use the big or small dots. Dot 
> gain comes to mind. If you have a lot of dot gain, you probably don't 
> need the biggest dots to ensure full coverage of the darkest areas. If 
> you have less dot gain, you might need the bigger dots. That sort of
thing.
> 
> It's almost like we need to extend the ICC profiles - to carry 
> information like that to help the driver do a good job of picking dot 
> sizes as required to get the tonal transitions we want. Before that 
> though I want the ICC profiles extended to do a better job of handling 
> neutral tones ;-)
> --
> Bruce Watson
> 
> 
> 
> Tyler Boley wrote:
> 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, hogarth@ wrote:
> > >
> > > So... v12 doesn't have a working algorithm to pick which size dot to
> > use
> > > for each ink then? I would have thought that this is part of
what you
> > > pay the big bucks for. This information doesn't make me want to
lay out
> > > the money for the upgrade.
> >
> > Bruce, I'm not absolutely positive I understand what you mean by such
> > an algorithm but if I do, I think it would be extraordinarily complex.
> > It would be dependant on the nature of the particular ink, and the
> > particular media. There is obvioulsy a built in algorithm that
> > transitions from one dot size to the next, probably based on Epsons
> > own. You can control which dot size or sizes to use and how much of
> > each, per ink. But after playing with this a bit, I can't imagine how
> > it could be automated. Too many things have to be seen to decide how
> > to proceed, and for mono inks, I'm seeing no need for the larger dot
> > sizes at all in the light inks. In fact some media won't handle it.
> > I recall a thread some time ago, Roy and a few others were talking
> > about the difficulty of partitioning and linearizing multiple K inks
> > along with variable dot. I think that's one reason the K7s are best
> > used with a 2880 set up. It's only one dot size, the smallest, making
> > so many inks easier to deal with. Also, with so many inks dithering in
> > and out, I don't see why one would even need variable dot.
> > For those less masochistic than I, the standard setup without variable
> > dots works very well, as you know, and the old versions do that just
> > fine. One step beyond that in v12 would be to set the K to open to the
> > large dot size, and maybe the lightest ink start with the smallest,
> > and gain some advantage there from the new feature. Other than
> > relinearizing, not much tweaking there.
> >
> > > Any idea how your tweaked quad output would compare to
non-tweaked hex-
> > > or sep-tone output in terms of print quality? In other words, if
I have
> > > a hex-tone set available, should I use that rather than going
through

> > > the pain and effort of tweaking the RIP for quads?
> >
> > Though I have buried my nose in some K7 output and am very impressed,
> > I have none here now for direct comparison. I don't intend to switch
> > to it so having it around taunting me would not be healthy.
> > I can say this is a step up for quads, subtle though. I sent the
> > tweaked dot setup to a very experienced pro friend, and he said he
> > made the best quad print he's ever made with it. Would most people see
> > that difference, or place a value on it? I think there is no beating
> > K7 output for neutral smooth B&W artifact free digital printing on art
> > papers that I have seen. I would not expect v12 quads with tweaked
> > dots to hold up to K7 under a loup. Without a loup, I don't know. I
> > need variable hues, so other considerations come to play.
> > I needed v12 for 9800 color, so had to get it anyway. Basically, I'm
> > reporting on miniscul obscure issues of interest to me. I hope it
> > didn't sound like an ad for the new version.
> > Both Roy and John Dean have working K6 setups right now, I think they
> > could say more about that quality.
> > Too bad we are all so far aprt, bringing everyone together with their
> > print and problems would be very informative.
> > Tyler
>

Hello.
    Finally I bought epson r2400. Thank you for your advise. 
  Now I have two more question. what means, when epson said, Ink Shelf Life 2 years from production date; 6 months from first use. For example if I don't go to print so many photos in 6 months I will loses my ink??. 
  What papper do you recommend for experiment in B/W and color.
  Thank you.
  Yoelis.

		
---------------------------------
Brings words and photos together (easily) with
 PhotoMail  - it's free and works with Yahoo! Mail.

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

As far as I can determine, the droplet size is not set by DPI.  Colorbyte says (if I recall correctly) that at 2880 on the x800 printers, the droplet size is limited to a single size per line.  At 1440 the droplet size can be differents sizes on the same line.  They don't seem to be much in favor of 2880 profiles, apparently for this reason.  This implies that they are using some internal software to help determine which to use.  If they are doing it, other RIP makers could certainly do it.
   
  Tom Baker

hogarth@snappydsl.net wrote:
  Well, I didn't understand how the printer actually wants to work - that 
is, given a printer resolution, a particular dot size is used by all 
channels. Smallest dots for 2880, bigger dots for lower resolutions. I 
thought Epson meant to use this feature for more than just that.

What I was envisioning (be careful there!) was a driver smart enough to 
use all the dot sizes all the time, and smart enough to determine when a 
given dot size was appropriate. The drivers (Epson, StudioPrint, QTR, 
etc.) seem to be smart enough to run dither patterns and decide how to 
place dots, and which dots to place, to make good smooth tonal 
transitions. I just thought they could do this with dot sizes too, 
because clearly variable dot size has the potential to improve the 
smoothness of tonal transitions, and improve sharpness too. Yet variable 
dot size doesn't appear to be used that way. My bad.

I can see how it would be good to have the biggest dots in the darkest 
regions - to ensure good coverage of the substrate so that no "paper 
white" shows through. As in, better Dmax. This would clearly be easier 
to do with bigger dots since they could more easily overlap if needed. I 
can also see that the smallest dots would be most useful in the lightest 
tones because there you have to have some paper white showing through to 
get those 1% tones.

But I can also see how the ink and coating are going to have a major 
influence on when and where you need to use the big or small dots. Dot 
gain comes to mind. If you have a lot of dot gain, you probably don't 
need the biggest dots to ensure full coverage of the darkest areas. If 
you have less dot gain, you might need the bigger dots. That sort of thing.

It's almost like we need to extend the ICC profiles - to carry 
information like that to help the driver do a good job of picking dot 
sizes as required to get the tonal transitions we want. Before that 
though I want the ICC profiles extended to do a better job of handling 
neutral tones ;-)
--
Bruce Watson



Tyler Boley wrote:

> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, hogarth@... wrote:
> >
> > So... v12 doesn't have a working algorithm to pick which size dot to
> use
> > for each ink then? I would have thought that this is part of what you
> > pay the big bucks for. This information doesn't make me want to lay out
> > the money for the upgrade.
>
> Bruce, I'm not absolutely positive I understand what you mean by such
> an algorithm but if I do, I think it would be extraordinarily complex.
> It would be dependant on the nature of the particular ink, and the
> particular media. There is obvioulsy a built in algorithm that
> transitions from one dot size to the next, probably based on Epsons
> own. You can control which dot size or sizes to use and how much of
> each, per ink. But after playing with this a bit, I can't imagine how
> it could be automated. Too many things have to be seen to decide how
> to proceed, and for mono inks, I'm seeing no need for the larger dot
> sizes at all in the light inks. In fact some media won't handle it.
> I recall a thread some time ago, Roy and a few others were talking
> about the difficulty of partitioning and linearizing multiple K inks
> along with variable dot. I think that's one reason the K7s are best
> used with a 2880 set up. It's only one dot size, the smallest, making
> so many inks easier to deal with. Also, with so many inks dithering in
> and out, I don't see why one would even need variable dot.
> For those less masochistic than I, the standard setup without variable
> dots works very well, as you know, and the old versions do that just
> fine. One step beyond that in v12 would be to set the K to open to the
> large dot size, and maybe the lightest ink start with the smallest,
> and gain some advantage there from the new feature. Other than
> relinearizing, not much tweaking there.
>
> > Any idea how your tweaked quad output would compare to non-tweaked hex-
> > or sep-tone output in terms of print quality? In other words, if I have
> > a hex-tone set available, should I use that rather than going through
> > the pain and effort of tweaking the RIP for quads?
>
> Though I have buried my nose in some K7 output and am very impressed,
> I have none here now for direct comparison. I don't intend to switch
> to it so having it around taunting me would not be healthy.
> I can say this is a step up for quads, subtle though. I sent the
> tweaked dot setup to a very experienced pro friend, and he said he
> made the best quad print he's ever made with it. Would most people see
> that difference, or place a value on it? I think there is no beating
> K7 output for neutral smooth B&W artifact free digital printing on art
> papers that I have seen. I would not expect v12 quads with tweaked
> dots to hold up to K7 under a loup. Without a loup, I don't know. I
> need variable hues, so other considerations come to play.
> I needed v12 for 9800 color, so had to get it anyway. Basically, I'm
> reporting on miniscul obscure issues of interest to me. I hope it
> didn't sound like an ad for the new version.
> Both Roy and John Dean have working K6 setups right now, I think they
> could say more about that quality.
> Too bad we are all so far aprt, bringing everyone together with their
> print and problems would be very informative.
> Tyler



Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated.

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:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See “Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines” in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.




  SPONSORED LINKS 
        Digital wedding photography   Learn digital photography   Digital photography college     Digital photography   Digital photography web site   Digital photography course 
    
---------------------------------
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS 

    
    Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint" on the web.
    
    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
 DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
    
    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 

    
---------------------------------
  

  



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

The Epson hardware has very specific capability.  The jets themselves are
capable of many drop sizes but what you can take advantage of during a
single print is limited.  Take the x800 printers for instance.  The approximate
drop sizes possible are (in picoliters) about 4, 8, 20, 40, and 80.  Before starting
a page you must pick the resolution and the drop sizes to be used -- it cannot
be change during an entire page.   With variable dot you have a set of three sizes
say (4,8,20)  or  (8,20,40)  or (20,40,80).   The ultra micro dot lets you use just (4).
All inks use the same sizes and everything on the page must use the same set.

The dpi doesn't select the droplet size but does determine what has to be used.
With 2880x1440dpi there are up to 2880x1440 drops/sq.in.  and it turns out that 
4 pl drops gives enough ink to make a full black.  So you use the ultra micro,
single dot size drops.  For 1440x720 that are 1/4 the number of possible drops so 
you must use larger drops.  The only thing that makes sense is to use (4,8,20).  That
way the largest drops can be used for dMax and the smallest can be used in the
lighter areas and of course the mid size in the middle range.  Note that the smallest
dot is the same for both cases -- so the light grays will be similar in dots/sq.in.
in either resolution.   This is probably why 2880dpi is not favored particularly.  It
takes 4 times as long and the results are "similar".

If you were to go to 720x720 the 20pl dot would not be large enough 
for a dMax black so you would need to use (8,20,40) and the lightest
gray areas would show half as many bigger dots as the above cases.

So based on the dpi you pick, you must pick a large drop that is big enough to
give a dMax black.  If it turns out there are smaller dots that can be used together
with that large dot in a variable dot mode then it make sense to use it.

it just seems to me that what needs to be used is pre-determined.  In fact the
Epson manuals show all this in their table of recommended usage.

Roy

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Tom Baker 
<tbaker1328@...> wrote:
>
> As far as I can determine, the droplet size is not set by DPI.  Colorbyte says (if I 
recall correctly) that at 2880 on the x800 printers, the droplet size is limited to a 
single size per line.  At 1440 the droplet size can be differents sizes on the same line.  
They don't seem to be much in favor of 2880 profiles, apparently for this reason.  
This implies that they are using some internal software to help determine which to 
use.  If they are doing it, other RIP makers could certainly do it.
>    
>   Tom Baker
> 
> hogarth@... wrote:
>   Well, I didn't understand how the printer actually wants to work - that 
> is, given a printer resolution, a particular dot size is used by all 
> channels. Smallest dots for 2880, bigger dots for lower resolutions. I 
> thought Epson meant to use this feature for more than just that.
> 
> What I was envisioning (be careful there!) was a driver smart enough to 
> use all the dot sizes all the time, and smart enough to determine when a 
> given dot size was appropriate. The drivers (Epson, StudioPrint, QTR, 
> etc.) seem to be smart enough to run dither patterns and decide how to 
> place dots, and which dots to place, to make good smooth tonal 
> transitions. I just thought they could do this with dot sizes too, 
> because clearly variable dot size has the potential to improve the 
> smoothness of tonal transitions, and improve sharpness too. Yet variable 
> dot size doesn't appear to be used that way. My bad.
> 
> I can see how it would be good to have the biggest dots in the darkest 
> regions - to ensure good coverage of the substrate so that no "paper 
> white" shows through. As in, better Dmax. This would clearly be easier 
> to do with bigger dots since they could more easily overlap if needed. I 
> can also see that the smallest dots would be most useful in the lightest 
> tones because there you have to have some paper white showing through to 
> get those 1% tones.
> 
> But I can also see how the ink and coating are going to have a major 
> influence on when and where you need to use the big or small dots. Dot 
> gain comes to mind. If you have a lot of dot gain, you probably don't 
> need the biggest dots to ensure full coverage of the darkest areas. If 
> you have less dot gain, you might need the bigger dots. That sort of thing.
> 
> It's almost like we need to extend the ICC profiles - to carry 
> information like that to help the driver do a good job of picking dot 
> sizes as required to get the tonal transitions we want. Before that 
> though I want the ICC profiles extended to do a better job of handling 
> neutral tones ;-)
> --
> Bruce Watson
> 
> 
> 
> Tyler Boley wrote:
> 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, hogarth@ wrote:
> > >
> > > So... v12 doesn't have a working algorithm to pick which size dot to
> > use
> > > for each ink then? I would have thought that this is part of what you
> > > pay the big bucks for. This information doesn't make me want to lay out
> > > the money for the upgrade.
> >
> > Bruce, I'm not absolutely positive I understand what you mean by such
> > an algorithm but if I do, I think it would be extraordinarily complex.
> > It would be dependant on the nature of the particular ink, and the
> > particular media. There is obvioulsy a built in algorithm that
> > transitions from one dot size to the next, probably based on Epsons
> > own. You can control which dot size or sizes to use and how much of
> > each, per ink. But after playing with this a bit, I can't imagine how
> > it could be automated. Too many things have to be seen to decide how
> > to proceed, and for mono inks, I'm seeing no need for the larger dot
> > sizes at all in the light inks. In fact some media won't handle it.
> > I recall a thread some time ago, Roy and a few others were talking
> > about the difficulty of partitioning and linearizing multiple K inks
> > along with variable dot. I think that's one reason the K7s are best
> > used with a 2880 set up. It's only one dot size, the smallest, making
> > so many inks easier to deal with. Also, with so many inks dithering in
> > and out, I don't see why one would even need variable dot.
> > For those less masochistic than I, the standard setup without variable
> > dots works very well, as you know, and the old versions do that just
> > fine. One step beyond that in v12 would be to set the K to open to the
> > large dot size, and maybe the lightest ink start with the smallest,
> > and gain some advantage there from the new feature. Other than
> > relinearizing, not much tweaking there.
> >
> > > Any idea how your tweaked quad output would compare to non-tweaked hex-
> > > or sep-tone output in terms of print quality? In other words, if I have
> > > a hex-tone set available, should I use that rather than going through
> > > the pain and effort of tweaking the RIP for quads?
> >
> > Though I have buried my nose in some K7 output and am very impressed,
> > I have none here now for direct comparison. I don't intend to switch
> > to it so having it around taunting me would not be healthy.
> > I can say this is a step up for quads, subtle though. I sent the
> > tweaked dot setup to a very experienced pro friend, and he said he
> > made the best quad print he's ever made with it. Would most people see
> > that difference, or place a value on it? I think there is no beating
> > K7 output for neutral smooth B&W artifact free digital printing on art
> > papers that I have seen. I would not expect v12 quads with tweaked
> > dots to hold up to K7 under a loup. Without a loup, I don't know. I
> > need variable hues, so other considerations come to play.
> > I needed v12 for 9800 color, so had to get it anyway. Basically, I'm
> > reporting on miniscul obscure issues of interest to me. I hope it
> > didn't sound like an ad for the new version.
> > Both Roy and John Dean have working K6 setups right now, I think they
> > could say more about that quality.
> > Too bad we are all so far aprt, bringing everyone together with their
> > print and problems would be very informative.
> > Tyler
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are 
often being updated.
> 
> 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:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them 
short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, 
aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without 
notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. 
Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, 
and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See 
"Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> 
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND 
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO 
YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR 
EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF 
PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  
"OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN 
ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR 
THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) 
UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) 
STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE 
PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   SPONSORED LINKS 
>         Digital wedding photography   Learn digital photography   Digital 
photography college     Digital photography   Digital photography web site   Digital 
photography course 

>     
> ---------------------------------
>   YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS 
> 
>     
>     Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint" on the web.
>     
>     To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>  DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>     
>     Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 
> 
>     
> ---------------------------------
>   
> 
>   
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Roy Harrington"
<roy@...> wrote:
...
> If you were to go to 720x720 the 20pl dot would not be large enough 
> for a dMax black so you would need to use (8,20,40) and the lightest
> gray areas would show half as many bigger dots as the above cases.
> 
> So based on the dpi you pick, you must pick a large drop that is big
enough to
> give a dMax black.

So there is an obvious math relationship between a size 40 dot
grouping at 720 dpi, and a size 20 dot grouping at 1440 dpi.
I imagine physical oddities and realities of ink on paper though, so
they may or may not result in the same actual density and explain why
different dot size printers give different dmax, given various
ink/media characteristics.
Perhaps?
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley" <tyler@...> 
wrote:
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Roy Harrington"
> <roy@> wrote:
> ...
> > If you were to go to 720x720 the 20pl dot would not be large enough 
> > for a dMax black so you would need to use (8,20,40) and the lightest
> > gray areas would show half as many bigger dots as the above cases.
> > 
> > So based on the dpi you pick, you must pick a large drop that is big
> enough to
> > give a dMax black.
> 
> So there is an obvious math relationship between a size 40 dot
> grouping at 720 dpi, and a size 20 dot grouping at 1440 dpi.
> I imagine physical oddities and realities of ink on paper though, so
> they may or may not result in the same actual density and explain why
> different dot size printers give different dmax, given various
> ink/media characteristics.
> Perhaps?
> Tyler
>

Yes, basically you need a certain total volume of ink to produce a certain
density, so the first approximation is just (number of dots) x (size of dot).
But all the little differences of paper, coating, dropsize and dot gain have 
secondary effects that give some variability.

Roy

Hogarth,

That is just what the Epson drivers do; they use all three drop sizes 
depending on the amount of ink to be laid down and the color mixing 
required.

For example, here is an extract from a decoded Epson R800 print file, 
showing the numbers of the drops of different sizes (d1-d3) of the four 
different inks ( r=B (blue), r=p (photoK), r=C (Cyan), r=Y (yellow)) used to 
print this grey band (rgb=25/25/25):-

Esc($ 4 AbsHorz = 10115
Esc i Data r=B c=1 b=2 hz=182 vt=180 d0=130887 d1=153 d2=0 d3=0
<cr>
Esc($ 4 AbsHorz = 10115
Esc i Data r=p c=1 b=2 hz=182 vt=180 d0=129345 d1=550 d2=921 d3=224
<cr>
Esc($ 4 AbsHorz = 10115
Esc i Data r=C c=1 b=2 hz=182 vt=180 d0=130512 d1=495 d2=33 d3=0
<cr>
Esc($ 4 AbsHorz = 10115
Esc i Data r=Y c=1 b=2 hz=182 vt=180 d0=130929 d1=111 d2=0 d3=0

Note that the PhotoK is using all three sizes of drops, whereas the yellow 
and blue are only using the smallest and the cyan is using the smallest and 
medium sizes.


At the other end of the scale, rgb=225/225/225, the grey band is printed 
using only the smallest drops of the three inks Magenta, Cyan, and Yellow, 
while the first ink line (wrongly labelled r=C) is actually the GLOP which 
is laid down in the white and near-white areas and uses all three drop 
sizes:

Esc i Data r=C c=1 b=2 hz=182 vt=180 d0=123701 d1=2917 d2=4281 d3=141
<cr>
Esc($ 4 AbsHorz = 4162
Esc i Data r=M c=1 b=2 hz=182 vt=180 d0=129975 d1=1065 d2=0 d3=0
<cr>
Esc($ 4 AbsHorz = 4162
Esc i Data r=C c=1 b=2 hz=182 vt=180 d0=130254 d1=786 d2=0 d3=0
<cr>
Esc($ 4 AbsHorz = 4162
Esc i Data r=Y c=1 b=2 hz=182 vt=180 d0=130797 d1=243 d2=0 d3=0

Isn't that what you wanted, or did you want completely variable drops sizes?

Bob Frost.

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

What I was envisioning (be careful there!) was a driver smart enough to
use all the dot sizes all the time, and smart enough to determine when a
given dot size was appropriate. The drivers (Epson, StudioPrint, QTR,
etc.) seem to be smart enough to run dither patterns and decide how to
place dots, and which dots to place, to make good smooth tonal
transitions. I just thought they could do this with dot sizes too,
because clearly variable dot size has the potential to improve the
smoothness of tonal transitions, and improve sharpness too. Yet variable
dot size doesn't appear to be used that way. My bad.

Forgot to say that these grey patches were printed using the PhotoRPM 
setting of the R800 printer (5760x1440).

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bob Frost" <bob@...>

Hogarth,

That is just what the Epson drivers do; they use all three drop sizes
depending on the amount of ink to be laid down and the color mixing
required.

For example, here is an extract from a decoded Epson R800 print file,
showing the numbers of the drops of different sizes (d1-d3) of the four
different inks ( r=B (blue), r=p (photoK), r=C (Cyan), r=Y (yellow)) used to
print this grey band (rgb=25/25/25):-

Tyler,
For us "non-scientist" types following this thread, am I  
understanding you have achieved the "under-print" you have spoken of  
only available in v10, to add better fade resistant for portfolio black?
Mark

On Feb 12, 2006, at 7:06 AM, Bob Frost wrote:

> Forgot to say that these grey patches were printed using the PhotoRPM
> setting of the R800 printer (5760x1440).
>
> Bob Frost.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bob Frost" <bob@...>
>
> Hogarth,
>
> That is just what the Epson drivers do; they use all three drop sizes
> depending on the amount of ink to be laid down and the color mixing
> required.
>
> For example, here is an extract from a decoded Epson R800 print file,
> showing the numbers of the drops of different sizes (d1-d3) of the  
> four
> different inks ( r=B (blue), r=p (photoK), r=C (Cyan), r=Y  
> (yellow)) used to
> print this grey band (rgb=25/25/25):-
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other  
> resources as they are often being updated.
>
> 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:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages  
> to keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or  
> flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed  
> from the membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital  
> B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be  
> removed from the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules  
> and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the  
> group Owner and Moderators. See “Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines”  
> in the Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE  
> PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE  
> “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL  
> NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL,  
> CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO,  
> DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER  
> INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL  
> BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF  
> SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE  
> THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO  
> OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR  
> CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO  
> GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE  
> PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Frost" 
<bob@...> wrote:
>
> Forgot to say that these grey patches were printed using the 
PhotoRPM 
> setting of the R800 printer (5760x1440).
> 
> Bob Frost.


What did you use to collect the data stream?

Greg,

Simply print the image to a file. Roy then has a little editor that 
translates the code, and you can output that as a txt file to read in 
notepad.

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Greg" <dfaprinting@...>


What did you use to collect the data stream?

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Frost" 
<bob@...> wrote:
>
> Greg,
> 
> Simply print the image to a file. Roy then has a little editor that 
> translates the code, and you can output that as a txt file to read 
in 
> notepad.
> 
> Bob Frost.

That's kind of what I thought. Wonder if the editor works for jobs 
sent in Postscript. The old Epson RIP for my 1520 had to be printed 
through the postscript driver to a file, then the RIP would read the 
file and print it. Might be interestng to see what that file 
contained.

I'd like to correct a reply that was somewhat BS on my part. The "very
happy before, I'm even happier now, it's better, it was great before"
post.
Despite being a firm believer in letting the impact of the final
print, without dogma, be the judge, I'm a believer in the numbers as
well. So the previous was lacking in many ways. In fact, for all my
"is the print beautiful?" talk, I've probably spent as much time with
spectros, numbers, linearizations, dots, partitioning, etc. as anyone
here. This is art, but there's difficult craft along the way.
So...

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Roy Harrington"
<roy@...> wrote:

> I just can't imagine what benefit the user could possibly provide. 
There's really
> only one "right" way to do the dots and that should be builtin.  But
from your
> first post it sounds like they had some difficulties in past, so I
guess they are
> both improving some of the issues and letting you get around others.

Roy, I have no idea if there was anything wrong with the way SP
functioned before. If there was, it was not apparent. It seemed as
good as any quad output I have ever seen. However, I always find
things I'd like to be better with all of this stuff. The one problem I
did have with it, they introduced a function to fix multiple inks
bleeding with the 7000/9000 models. This created less density when two
different inks were assign to the same portion of the scale for
blends. Fine for the 7000/9000s. To my knowledge I'm the only goofball
wanting to "underprint" my K, when doing so the new "feature" dropped
my dmax considerably on the 9600. So I used a previous version without
"distributed". No one but me, and Perhaps Mark, cared about this,
7000/9000 users were happy with the change.
Regarding the variable dot. All I know is that this is allowing me,
with some work, to further improve tonality, the appearance of the
dither in some areas, and dmax. So there is a benifit to me. Whether
this indicates a failing in the previous version, or an actual advance
of some kind, I can't say. You know far more about that side of things
than I and I would take your word for it. I also have no direct info
from ErgoSoft about any of this. From your description of dot size
assignments having to be the same for every ink on a per page basis,
I'm inclined to think this is something new as this restriction does
not seem to be here, if your info is that it can't be done I don't
have an informed reply.
I can't really comment on the potential value to the user, if I'm
given a new toy, I'm going to explore it even if it winds up useless,
at the expense of having a life. Believe me, most of it over the years
has been useless.
In fact, previous performance was just dandy for everyone else. So
most of the time, I'm talking about stuff of interest only to myself
and a few other SP users.
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley" 
<tyler@...> wrote:
> I've probably spent as much time with
> spectros, numbers, linearizations, dots, partitioning, etc. as 
anyone
> here. This is art, but there's difficult craft along the way.
> So...
> 


I consider configuring a RIP to get the most out of it an art in and 
of itself. OK, maybe it is a craft. Either way some skill is required 
to step out around the pre-programmed settings.

> I can't really comment on the potential value to the user, if I'm
> given a new toy, I'm going to explore it even if it winds up useless,
> at the expense of having a life. Believe me, most of it over the years
> has been useless.
> Tyler

If StudioPrint isn't letting you have a life printing B+W...what happens when you try to print 
color? Any last requests?

But seriously will StudioPrint be able to outperform or match the Epson driver with Bill 
Atkinson's new 4000+ target profiles?

John V.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "John Vitollo"
<jvlist@...> wrote:
...
> If StudioPrint isn't letting you have a life printing B+W...what
happens when you try to print 
> color?

Well, I use it for color too, what's that tell you? Actually, color is
more straightforward then B&W. That's what Epsons were made for, and
far more technology attention into getting it to work.

> Any last requests?

A Dye ink set with longevity

> But seriously will StudioPrint be able to outperform or match the
Epson driver with Bill 
> Atkinson's new 4000+ target profiles?

I'm in the midst of finding that out. However, after seeing Bill's
efforts, I doubt I can afford the toys to make the most of his info
anyway.
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "John Vitollo" 
<jvlist@...> wrote:
> But seriously will StudioPrint be able to outperform or match the 
Epson driver with Bill 
> Atkinson's new 4000+ target profiles?
> 
> John V.
>

Well, if you are using CMYK output profiles, then yes it might as you 
now have some control over the black generation. Running through the 
Epson "black box" driver will only let you control as much as they 
allow you to control. With the past Epson drivers, when you print 
black, you get a mix of C, M, Y, and K. If you print through a RIP 
with CMYK output profiles, you can customize the black generation so 
that when you feed it RGB 0,0,0 you get only K as the output. No 
matter how many patches you use, you can only do that with the Epson 
driver if it allows you to do that, and I don't think it does allow 
that. Same can be said for the other neutral RGB tones. This assumes 
that you have a neutral set of K inks, with the Epson inks you will 
always be using some color component to produce neutral tones since 
the Epson K inks are not completely neutral.

Most of the decent RIPs also have a different (custom) dither that 
may give you a more desired result. Then there is the ink limit 
feature of a RIP that will help you use any paper or fabric that you 
can safely send through the printer. Some textiles need a lot of ink, 
far more than the Epson driver will allow. Other papers need far less 
than the Epson driver allows, which will give you a low gamut and 
possible puddles on the paper. Then of course there is the maximum 
print length limit of the Epson driver (but that has nothing to do 
with the color accuracy).

A RIP isn't for everyone, but I still feel the benefits are worth the 
money for me (at least for the older printers). The benefits are 
certainly getting smaller as the printer hardware improves...

That would have been in response to one of my dumb comments I think.

Nice to hear you're actually just another techie with only an
occasional remission to the touchy/feely part of the art. I'm not
unaquainted with numbers myself though not so much in your context. I
spent most of several technical careers dealing with them. The
interest has not gone away completely but I am currently just playing
with other things I enjoy and had no previous time for. (Earning a
living took precedence over any artistic bent even though I did spend
a decade in the 70's trying to make a living at it. Mostly, made a
living for a couple of employees and several suppliers while damn near
starving myself. Didn't seem equitable somehow so I went back to
technical work,pensions and gray suits instead of scales.) 

Personally, I sort of got the idea you were in the bs'y mood a bit
but, feel free, as far as I'm concerned you're entitled. I do believe
 in your firm believer part as the motivator for the second part of
parts etc etc. 

Incidentaly, you did generate excellent input from Roy and Bob that
might not have come had you not posted, so thanks again.

Regards
Duane


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley"
<tyler@...> wrote:

>
> I'd like to correct a reply that was somewhat BS on my part. The "very
> happy before, I'm even happier now, it's better, it was great before"
> post.
> Despite being a firm believer in letting the impact of the final
> print, without dogma, be the judge, I'm a believer in the numbers as
> well. So the previous was lacking in many ways. In fact, for all my
> "is the print beautiful?" talk, I've probably spent as much time with
> spectros, numbers, linearizations, dots, partitioning, etc. as anyone
> here. This is art, but there's difficult craft along the way.
> So...

Roy Harrington wrote:

> The dpi doesn't select the droplet size but does determine what has to be used.
> With 2880x1440dpi there are up to 2880x1440 drops/sq.in.  and it turns out that 
> 4 pl drops gives enough ink to make a full black.  So you use the ultra micro,
> single dot size drops.  For 1440x720 that are 1/4 the number of possible drops so 
> you must use larger drops.  The only thing that makes sense is to use (4,8,20).  That
> way the largest drops can be used for dMax and the smallest can be used in the
> lighter areas and of course the mid size in the middle range.  Note that the smallest
> dot is the same for both cases -- so the light grays will be similar in dots/sq.in.
> in either resolution.   This is probably why 2880dpi is not favored particularly.  It
> takes 4 times as long and the results are "similar".
> 
> If you were to go to 720x720 the 20pl dot would not be large enough 
> for a dMax black so you would need to use (8,20,40) and the lightest
> gray areas would show half as many bigger dots as the above cases.
> 
> So based on the dpi you pick, you must pick a large drop that is big enough to
> give a dMax black.  If it turns out there are smaller dots that can be used together
> with that large dot in a variable dot mode then it make sense to use it.

Roy,

This relates to my QTR trials with the Epson 10000CF. As 
written before the 9000/9500 driver works with the 10000CF and 
with the 9600 driver it will crash. However the 9000 driver 
doesn't have the droplet variation data for the 10000CF (as I 
guessed and more convinced now with your message here) so it 
reaches Dmax at 30% in the calibration ramps. Any chance you 
can do something about it ? Make a trial 10000 driver that I 
can test and report back on?

Ernst

                    --
           Ernst Dinkla


www.pigment-print.com
(         unvollendet         )

> 
> Roy,
> 
> This relates to my QTR trials with the Epson 10000CF. As 
> written before the 9000/9500 driver works with the 10000CF and 
> with the 9600 driver it will crash. However the 9000 driver 
> doesn't have the droplet variation data for the 10000CF (as I 
> guessed and more convinced now with your message here) so it 
> reaches Dmax at 30% in the calibration ramps. Any chance you 
> can do something about it ? Make a trial 10000 driver that I 
> can test and report back on?
> 
> Ernst
> 
>                     --
>            Ernst Dinkla
> 

Hi Ernst,

I've been meaning to get back to you.  From the 10000 manuals it is supposed
to be upwardly compatible to with the 9500 driver.  But dot control seems
to be the big addition of the 10000 vs the 9500.  It supports several fixed
size dots and two variable size dot sets.  There's no indication of how big the
dots actually are though.  It sounds like the default size that the 9500 driver
is using is pretty big.

The dot size issues are the main problem since I don't have any access to a
printer.  Using the variable dots is more trouble since the dot sizes have to be
measured to get the transitions smooth.  If you use an inkset like NK6 it may
not be a problem using the large dots.

Roy

Roy,

Got some bouncing problems with Yahoo so this is without your 
reply.

AFAIK the 9500 has a droplet size of 11 picoliter, the 10000CF 
smallest droplet is 5 picolitre.
I guess a range of 3 sizes on 1440 x 720 dpi would be normal 
and the sizes then most likely resemble the 9600 range but 
slightly larger 5,10,25.  720 x 720 > 10, 25, 50

Ernst


                    --
           Ernst Dinkla


www.pigment-print.com
(         unvollendet         )

Are you guys going to try 6 channel monochrome output with the 10K CF?
Roy if you adapt QTR for it do you think Cone offer K6 carts for it?
Now that would be one hell of a  moncochrome machine and I would just
love to have that speed and big cart capability.

John



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Roy Harrington"
<roy@...> wrote:
>
> 
> > 
> > Roy,
> > 
> > This relates to my QTR trials with the Epson 10000CF. As 
> > written before the 9000/9500 driver works with the 10000CF and 
> > with the 9600 driver it will crash. However the 9000 driver 
> > doesn't have the droplet variation data for the 10000CF (as I 
> > guessed and more convinced now with your message here) so it 
> > reaches Dmax at 30% in the calibration ramps. Any chance you 
> > can do something about it ? Make a trial 10000 driver that I 
> > can test and report back on?
> > 
> > Ernst
> > 
> >                     --
> >            Ernst Dinkla
> > 
> 
> Hi Ernst,
> 
> I've been meaning to get back to you.  From the 10000 manuals it is
supposed
> to be upwardly compatible to with the 9500 driver.  But dot control
seems
> to be the big addition of the 10000 vs the 9500.  It supports
several fixed
> size dots and two variable size dot sets.  There's no indication of
how big the
> dots actually are though.  It sounds like the default size that the
9500 driver
> is using is pretty big.
> 
> The dot size issues are the main problem since I don't have any
access to a
> printer.  Using the variable dots is more trouble since the dot
sizes have to be
> measured to get the transitions smooth.  If you use an inkset like
NK6 it may

> not be a problem using the large dots.
> 
> Roy
>

Does anyone on this list happen to know the recommended resolutions  
for sending a print to the Canon W8400D printer? Such as, with an  
Epson printer, either 240, 360 or 720. (Not the resolution of the  
printer....)

Thanks to anyone who can answer.

Barbara White


barbara@...
http://www.barbarawhitephoto.com

Barbara White wrote:
> Does anyone on this list happen to know the recommended resolutions  
> for sending a print to the Canon W8400D printer? Such as, with an  
> Epson printer, either 240, 360 or 720. (Not the resolution of the  
> printer....)
> 
> Thanks to anyone who can answer.
> 
> Barbara White
> 
> 
> barbara@...
> http://www.barbarawhitephoto.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated.
> 
> 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:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd in the Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> 
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 

Get the trial version of Qimage and it will be shown above the 
preview window for the different paper settings, print 
resolutions.

www.ddisoftware.com

Ernst

                    --
           Ernst Dinkla


www.pigment-print.com
(         unvollendet         )

Sounds like a possibility.  I'll look into some trials. 
I imagine for K6 inks you'd just get the pint bottles and some empty carts.

Roy


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean" 
<deanwork2003@...> wrote:

>
> Are you guys going to try 6 channel monochrome output with the 10K CF?
> Roy if you adapt QTR for it do you think Cone offer K6 carts for it?
> Now that would be one hell of a  moncochrome machine and I would just
> love to have that speed and big cart capability.
> 
> John
> 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Roy Harrington"
> <roy@> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > > 
> > > Roy,
> > > 
> > > This relates to my QTR trials with the Epson 10000CF. As 
> > > written before the 9000/9500 driver works with the 10000CF and 
> > > with the 9600 driver it will crash. However the 9000 driver 
> > > doesn't have the droplet variation data for the 10000CF (as I 
> > > guessed and more convinced now with your message here) so it 
> > > reaches Dmax at 30% in the calibration ramps. Any chance you 
> > > can do something about it ? Make a trial 10000 driver that I 
> > > can test and report back on?
> > > 
> > > Ernst
> > > 
> > >                     --
> > >            Ernst Dinkla
> > > 
> > 
> > Hi Ernst,
> > 
> > I've been meaning to get back to you.  From the 10000 manuals it is
> supposed
> > to be upwardly compatible to with the 9500 driver.  But dot control
> seems
> > to be the big addition of the 10000 vs the 9500.  It supports
> several fixed
> > size dots and two variable size dot sets.  There's no indication of
> how big the
> > dots actually are though.  It sounds like the default size that the
> 9500 driver
> > is using is pretty big.
> > 
> > The dot size issues are the main problem since I don't have any
> access to a
> > printer.  Using the variable dots is more trouble since the dot
> sizes have to be
> > measured to get the transitions smooth.  If you use an inkset like
> NK6 it may
> > not be a problem using the large dots.
> > 
> > Roy
> >
>

Roy Harrington wrote:
> Sounds like a possibility.  I'll look into some trials. 
> I imagine for K6 inks you'd just get the pint bottles and some empty carts.
> 
> Roy
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean" 
> <deanwork2003@...> wrote:
>> Are you guys going to try 6 channel monochrome output with the 10K CF?
>> Roy if you adapt QTR for it do you think Cone offer K6 carts for it?
>> Now that would be one hell of a  moncochrome machine and I would just
>> love to have that speed and big cart capability.
>>
>> John

There's no urge for me to switch the 10000CF to quad inks yet. 
I would have to purchase a fast color printer first as a 
replacement. There was a 10000CF on Ebay in Europe I thought 
about and the new Canon W8400P seems a promising color machine 
so that's why I am looking in QTR's compatibility with the 
10000CF when the last is no longer needed for color. The 9000 
quad is aging.

I still would like to keep some toning in a quad set. Paul's 
latest Blue + Cyan + Warm Carbon is an ultra low gamut set 
that suits different paper whites better I think. On the other 
hand I have a sepia in the 9000 that is nice too. The minimum 
droplet size in the 10000CF is half the 9000's so there's a 
quality gain already. It is close to the 9600 droplet size.

Right now I just want to test roughly what changes the QTR 
10000 driver needs to give reasonable inklimits with the right 
droplet sizes. That can be done on a color machine too.

Ernst

                    --
           Ernst Dinkla


www.pigment-print.com
(         unvollendet         )

With K6 on the 10K, like Ernst suggests, the dot size would be very
nice and outperform the 7000 that I'm using now, which is itself
extremely smooth. The carts won't be easy to deal with since they are
pressurized and specialized, but the speed alone would make this an
extremely sedutive alternative. There are a lot of these machines out
there that need to be put to good use. I can't think of a better thing
to put in them.

John


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Roy Harrington"
<roy@...> wrote:
>
> 
> Sounds like a possibility.  I'll look into some trials. 
> I imagine for K6 inks you'd just get the pint bottles and some empty
carts.

> 
> Roy
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean" 
> <deanwork2003@> wrote:
> >
> > Are you guys going to try 6 channel monochrome output with the 10K CF?
> > Roy if you adapt QTR for it do you think Cone offer K6 carts for it?
> > Now that would be one hell of a  moncochrome machine and I would just
> > love to have that speed and big cart capability.
> > 
> > John
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Roy Harrington"
> > <roy@> wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Roy,
> > > > 
> > > > This relates to my QTR trials with the Epson 10000CF. As 
> > > > written before the 9000/9500 driver works with the 10000CF and 
> > > > with the 9600 driver it will crash. However the 9000 driver 
> > > > doesn't have the droplet variation data for the 10000CF (as I 
> > > > guessed and more convinced now with your message here) so it 
> > > > reaches Dmax at 30% in the calibration ramps. Any chance you 
> > > > can do something about it ? Make a trial 10000 driver that I 
> > > > can test and report back on?
> > > > 
> > > > Ernst
> > > > 
> > > >                     --
> > > >            Ernst Dinkla
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Hi Ernst,
> > > 
> > > I've been meaning to get back to you.  From the 10000 manuals it is
> > supposed
> > > to be upwardly compatible to with the 9500 driver.  But dot control
> > seems
> > > to be the big addition of the 10000 vs the 9500.  It supports
> > several fixed
> > > size dots and two variable size dot sets.  There's no indication of
> > how big the
> > > dots actually are though.  It sounds like the default size that the
> > 9500 driver
> > > is using is pretty big.
> > > 
> > > The dot size issues are the main problem since I don't have any
> > access to a
> > > printer.  Using the variable dots is more trouble since the dot
> > sizes have to be
> > > measured to get the transitions smooth.  If you use an inkset like
> > NK6 it may
> > > not be a problem using the large dots.
> > > 
> > > Roy
> > >
> >
>

Speaking of dot size for the older machines, I've never found an official
rating for the 7500 and its siblings.  Inkjetart.com has a couple of
statements regarding this generation of printer:

"[T]he 7500 is a static 8 picoliter droplet size (according to one Epson rep
we spoke to at the PMA show)."
http://www.inkjetart.com/news/archive/IJN_02-20-01.html

On the other hand they also have an old comparison that mentions a different
measurement: "The Epson Pro 5000 printer and the new Epson Pro 9000
wide-format printer are a different "breed" ... These two printers have
Epson's Micro Piezo Dual Density Droplet (DX3) Print Technology which offers
precise 11-nanogram dot size for remarkably small, clean, sharp dot
placement, and achieving remarkable photographic clarity."
http://www.inkjetart.com/news/dot_comp.html

I'm not sure how the 2 different measures compare.  I'd guess that the
specific gravity of the ink should be used to equate the 2.  If so, that
would put the ink at about 1.38.  I've never measured it precisely, but I
was of the impression it's about 1.2.

The name of the head technology suggests it might support a variable dot,
but I've never heard that any rip actually accomplishes this.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ernst
> Dinkla
> Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 12:59 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] StudioPrint v12 and quads
> 
> Roy,
> 
> Got some bouncing problems with Yahoo so this is without your
> reply.
> 
> AFAIK the 9500 has a droplet size of 11 picoliter, the 10000CF
> smallest droplet is 5 picolitre.
> I guess a range of 3 sizes on 1440 x 720 dpi would be normal
> and the sizes then most likely resemble the 9600 range but
> slightly larger 5,10,25.  720 x 720 > 10, 25, 50
> 
> Ernst
> 
> 
>                     --
>            Ernst Dinkla
> 
> 
> www.pigment-print.com
> (         unvollendet         )
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
> they are often being updated.
> 
> 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:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
> Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
> membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
> printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
> the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner
> and Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files
> section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> 
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND
> "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO
> YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR
> EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF
> PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE
> "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN
> ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE
> OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii)
> UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii)
> STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE
> PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
>

When I bought the 1200, the buzz was all about the DX3 technology and
3 drop sizes with the 1200 quoted as 6 picoliter. This was in
comparision to the 1270 that had just been brought out with, I
believe, the 4 pico figure. I purchased the 1200 specifically because
it was chipless and I wanted bulk pigment inks. It was some time
before carts and chip resetters were available for the new machines.
At the same time I recall seeing comments that Epson tested new
technology on desktops before carrying it over to new pro models. I've
seen several comments on the 7000/7500 referring to either 11 or 7
pico dots. Never seen anything official though either.

Perhaps Roy has some info in this direction as he has detailed
knowledge of the machines, apparently via manuals for developers.

Regards
Duane
 


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark"
<paul.roark@...> wrote:
>
> Speaking of dot size for the older machines, I've never found an
official
> rating for the 7500 and its siblings.  Inkjetart.com has a couple of
> statements regarding this generation of printer:
> 
> "[T]he 7500 is a static 8 picoliter droplet size (according to one
Epson rep
> we spoke to at the PMA show)."
> http://www.inkjetart.com/news/archive/IJN_02-20-01.html
> 
> On the other hand they also have an old comparison that mentions a
different
> measurement: "The Epson Pro 5000 printer and the new Epson Pro 9000
> wide-format printer are a different "breed" ... These two printers have
> Epson's Micro Piezo Dual Density Droplet (DX3) Print Technology
which offers
> precise 11-nanogram dot size for remarkably small, clean, sharp dot
> placement, and achieving remarkable photographic clarity."
> http://www.inkjetart.com/news/dot_comp.html
> 
> I'm not sure how the 2 different measures compare.  I'd guess that the
> specific gravity of the ink should be used to equate the 2.  If so, that
> would put the ink at about 1.38.  I've never measured it precisely,
but I
> was of the impression it's about 1.2.
> 
> The name of the head technology suggests it might support a variable
dot,

> but I've never heard that any rip actually accomplishes this.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "dlruckus" 
<dlruckus@...> wrote:
It is my understanding that the 7/9000 series machines do have a 
variable drop, but nothing with hard proof, there is nothing in the 
service manuals about this. My RIP lists normal and micro drop sizes, 
but I have never tried to compare the two drops. I always run it as 
micro dot. The 1520 was also in that unclear realm, and I know I saw a 
big difference between regular driver prints, and the cheapo Epson RIP, 
not sure if that was drop size or just a better dither.

The biggest problem with those older machines was the dot gain. 
Changing to some of the modern inks make a huge difference in the dot 
size on most papers. Too bad UV cure technology doesn't work with these 
print heads. Current drop sizes for the UV cure machines are much 
larger than even those old Epson printers, and running at around a high 
of 600dpi.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Greg" <dfaprinting@...> wrote:
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "dlruckus" 
> <dlruckus@> wrote:
> It is my understanding that the 7/9000 series machines do have a 
> variable drop, but nothing with hard proof, there is nothing in the 
> service manuals about this. My RIP lists normal and micro drop sizes, 
> but I have never tried to compare the two drops. I always run it as 
> micro dot. The 1520 was also in that unclear realm, and I know I saw a 
> big difference between regular driver prints, and the cheapo Epson RIP, 
> not sure if that was drop size or just a better dither.
> 
> The biggest problem with those older machines was the dot gain. 
> Changing to some of the modern inks make a huge difference in the dot 
> size on most papers. Too bad UV cure technology doesn't work with these 
> print heads. Current drop sizes for the UV cure machines are much 
> larger than even those old Epson printers, and running at around a high 
> of 600dpi.
>

Virtually all the printers can produce multiple drop sizes, but not on the same print.
The variable dot printers refer to selecting 1 of 3 dot sizes on each and every dot.
Simply whether you send 1 bit or 2 bits per dot determines the variable capability.
The 7000 ... 9500 documentation pretty explicitly states one dot size at a time.
(not that docs are perfect, but there are multiple references that all agree).

One interesting thing though is that the "micro dot" reference that was in the x000
docs was removed on the x500 printer docs.

Greg, if you have a RIP that allows selecting either "micro" or "normal" it would be
nice to know if that makes any difference on your 7000.

Thanks,
Roy

I would have expected the Epson driver to be very well tuned for its inks
and papers.  (Wishful thinking?)  Re profiles, there is/was a debate going
on on the Colorsync forum as to whether the number of observations used by
Bill for his profiles was of any added benefit.  The conclusion, I believe,
is that it likely does but it would be extremely difficult to prove the
point.  Having made the above comments re the Epson driver, it is still
interesting to note their "partnership" with Colorburst.  (Colorburst's
terminology.)  FYI CB is about to incorporate Monaco's CMYK profiling engine
as a free upgrade, so CB is about to go up quite a notch for colour guys.

I would have said the key advantage of a RIP is (1) for advanced B&W and (2)
for using non-Epson ink sets, particularly non-clones, and media.  For (1),
Epson's Adv B&W substantially narrowed the gap left by the old Epson colour
driver and there are a couple of cheaper alternatives, QTR and IJC/OPM, but
each of these rely on the Gimp dither engine.  I have no idea if the extra
options offered by SP make the expense worthwhile.  For (2) a RIP almost
becomes compulsory unless the Epson driver ink limits just happen to work
well (unlikely for non-clones).  For colour, it seems the bulk of the battle
is being fought between SP and CB (at least in the non press environment)
with SP offering head-spinning functionality but at a massively greater
price. CB dumped their Quadtone effort when they "partnered" with Epson.

> From: Greg <dfaprinting@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 04:01:03 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: StudioPrint v12 and quads
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "John Vitollo"
> <jvlist@...> wrote:
>> But seriously will StudioPrint be able to outperform or match the
> Epson driver with Bill
>> Atkinson's new 4000+ target profiles?
>> 
>> John V.
>> 
> 
> Well, if you are using CMYK output profiles, then yes it might as you
> now have some control over the black generation. Running through the
> Epson "black box" driver will only let you control as much as they
> allow you to control. With the past Epson drivers, when you print
> black, you get a mix of C, M, Y, and K. If you print through a RIP
> with CMYK output profiles, you can customize the black generation so
> that when you feed it RGB 0,0,0 you get only K as the output. No
> matter how many patches you use, you can only do that with the Epson
> driver if it allows you to do that, and I don't think it does allow
> that. Same can be said for the other neutral RGB tones. This assumes
> that you have a neutral set of K inks, with the Epson inks you will
> always be using some color component to produce neutral tones since
> the Epson K inks are not completely neutral.
> 
> Most of the decent RIPs also have a different (custom) dither that
> may give you a more desired result. Then there is the ink limit
> feature of a RIP that will help you use any paper or fabric that you
> can safely send through the printer. Some textiles need a lot of ink,
> far more than the Epson driver will allow. Other papers need far less
> than the Epson driver allows, which will give you a low gamut and
> possible puddles on the paper. Then of course there is the maximum
> print length limit of the Epson driver (but that has nothing to do
> with the color accuracy).
> 
> A RIP isn't for everyone, but I still feel the benefits are worth the
> money for me (at least for the older printers). The benefits are
> certainly getting smaller as the printer hardware improves...

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Barbara White
<barbara@...> wrote:
>
> Does anyone on this list happen to know the recommended resolutions  
> for sending a print to the Canon W8400D printer? Such as, with an  
> Epson printer, either 240, 360 or 720. (Not the resolution of the  
> printer....)

300 or 600.

Ciao!

Joe

Roy Harrington wrote:
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Greg" <dfaprinting@...> wrote:
>> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "dlruckus" 
>> <dlruckus@> wrote:
>> It is my understanding that the 7/9000 series machines do have a 
>> variable drop, but nothing with hard proof, there is nothing in the 
>> service manuals about this. My RIP lists normal and micro drop sizes, 
>> but I have never tried to compare the two drops. I always run it as 
>> micro dot. The 1520 was also in that unclear realm, and I know I saw a 
>> big difference between regular driver prints, and the cheapo Epson RIP, 
>> not sure if that was drop size or just a better dither.
>>
>> The biggest problem with those older machines was the dot gain. 
>> Changing to some of the modern inks make a huge difference in the dot 
>> size on most papers. Too bad UV cure technology doesn't work with these 
>> print heads. Current drop sizes for the UV cure machines are much 
>> larger than even those old Epson printers, and running at around a high 
>> of 600dpi.

BTW, I actually think that one of the UV curing Mutoh models 
still uses the Epson heads as it was based on the low solvent 
model that also uses Epson heads. The solvent models are based 
on Xaar or Spectra heads.

> Virtually all the printers can produce multiple drop sizes, but not on the same print.
> The variable dot printers refer to selecting 1 of 3 dot sizes on each and every dot.
> Simply whether you send 1 bit or 2 bits per dot determines the variable capability.
> The 7000 ... 9500 documentation pretty explicitly states one dot size at a time.
> (not that docs are perfect, but there are multiple references that all agree).
> 
> One interesting thing though is that the "micro dot" reference that was in the x000
> docs was removed on the x500 printer docs.
> 
> Greg, if you have a RIP that allows selecting either "micro" or "normal" it would be
> nice to know if that makes any difference on your 7000.
> 
> Thanks,
> Roy

The Wasatch SoftRip 9000/9500 driver menu gives  the following 
"Dot" volumes for 720 DPI: Default, Micro, Normal, Double,  in 
1440 DPI those choices are no longer available and Default is 
selected. The same for 360 DPI.

The 7000/7500 is like the 9000/9500 driver.

The 3000 driver has Default, Normal, Micro, that is for a 
slightly older  9000 type head.

More interesting is the 5000 driver for the same heads the 
9000 uses: 5 choices at all 1440, 720, 360 DPI settings: 
Default, Super Micro, Micro, Normal, Double.

The 5500 driver however follows the conventions of the 
9000/9500 driver but has one special 1440 x 720 DPI selection 
with Variable Dot volumes. But the 5500 has the same 96 nozzle 
count per color the 9600 has and not the 64 nozzles of the 
9000 heads.

The 10000 driver at 720 DPI is like the 9000 but Default is 
replaced by Variable, the 1440 DPI setting gives: Variable, 
Micro, Normal, but no Double. The 720 x 360 DPI gives the same 
choices 1440 DPI has. But 360 DPI gives 4 choices again.

The 10600 driver is like the 10000 driver.

The 9600 driver has only Variable Dot at 2880 x 1440 DPI but 
4 choices at 1440 x 720 DPI and for all the DPI settings below 
that + they also have a Light and Dark density setting on top 
of that which the 2880 DPI setting doesn't have. It must be 
related to dot volume as there are many other ways to change 
ink limits, curves etc if more or less ink is needed.

Choices of passes vary but the number of passes goes down with 
the lower resolutions chosen. Which is understandable when 
speed prevails quality.

Hope this helps a bit. The menu structures per driver vary so 
it is hard to see a consistent relation between the Dot Volume 
(Droplet Size ?) and the menu choices.



Ernst


                    --
           Ernst Dinkla


www.pigment-print.com
(         unvollendet         )

Not to draw this out more, but I almost ditched my 1520 because I was 
so unhappy with the results. Then I decided to try that one more 
thing and threw another $80 at it for the RIP. Suddenly night turned 
into day, and despite being a 4 ink machine, it can still make a 
great print (if I resurrect it that is). Shortly after adding the RIP 
I went to pigment inks.

And as far as UV cure ink goes... doesn't look good. I contacted many 
ink manufacturers, and the only one to reply was Walter at Image 
Specialists, and they don't even make a UV cure ink. He said the 
chemicals in most of the UV cure inks are still too damaging to the 
Epson print heads, or at least the modern Epson heads. I'm almost 
positive that the heads used in the 5/7/9000 printers were used in 
the Mimaki, Mutoh, and maybe a couple other mild solvent printers. 
Apparently the viscosity of the UV cure inks is much thicker than the 
ink needed for almost all of the Epson inkjet heads. In addition to 
that, it looks like you would need to spend anywhere from about $600+ 
to provide a "soft" cure light source to the inks as they hit the 
paper, then another bunch of money for the final cure light source. 
It wasn't going to be cheap, but if it worked would have been great 
for something I wanted to try. Now it's back to contacting paper 
manufacturers looking for products that don't exist, and something 
that they can't see a market for...

Hello Greg.
Are you referring here to the postscript stylus rip?

Regards
Duane




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Greg"
<dfaprinting@...> wrote:

>
> Not to draw this out more, but I almost ditched my 1520 because I was 
> so unhappy with the results. Then I decided to try that one more 
> thing and threw another $80 at it for the RIP. Suddenly night turned 
> into day, and despite being a 4 ink machine, it can still make a 
> great print (if I resurrect it that is). Shortly after adding the RIP 
> I went to pigment inks.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "dlruckus" 
<dlruckus@...> wrote:
>
> Hello Greg.
> Are you referring here to the postscript stylus rip?


Yup, you can get that RIP on Ebay for about $40 now. It was extremely 
limited to Epson papers, but it also (from memory) passes CMYK files 
through without touching them, so you could convert images to your 
output profile and print them. You might also be able to edit the 
profile so that all the text matched the Epson profiles, then just 
substitute your custom profile for the Epson profile. Back then I did 
things the hard way, so some of that is slightly speculation based on 
my memory, been several years since that machine was last powered up.