QTR-Quadtone RIP

I printed the one point text file I used earlier using Black-only at
2880dpi on the 4800, so I could compare it to the QTR/K7 and Epson K3
color inks prints.  I scanned the resulting print, again at 3200 dpi,
and added it to the other scans uploaded at the site.  As before, you
can find all the scans here:
http://tech.ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/QuadtoneRIP/photos/browse/d000

The 4800 will produce a print similar in quality and resolution to the
2200.  From the scan of my prints, the prints from the 4800 using the
color inks appeared deeper, more neutrally black, with more apparent
sharpness than the black only print.  I think the apparent sharpness
comes from what looks in the black-only print that black ink is
substituted for the lighter color inks used in the color print.  The
resulting print then appears little less sharp and fuzzier.  Look at
the scans and let me know what you think.

Ultimately, whichever way we approach printing this, all the prints
are fairly close -- and as Paul indicates, we are getting the most out
of the printers.  The only remaining question is what is the basis of
the one point text promotional print example.  It's resulting print
comparison is in marked contrast to what we see here.  Why is it so
different?

What I would be interested in seeing is how a print of the one point
text files would look printed with QTR and UT7 and/or UT-3D inksets. I
am wondering if there is an real difference in performance at this
fine level of detail when compared with the K7 inks.  If anyone who
can do this, and can scan the results wants to give this a try, you
can fine the TIFF file I used here: 
http://www.boncratious.com/images/one-point-text-crop.tif
If you have trouble getting the file, let me know.


--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "djon43" <djon43@...> wrote:
>
> Using 2200/K2 @ 2880 (a good idea only with some images and papers),I
> printed 1 pt from a 1 pt MS Word file. 
> 
> Viewing the originals, not scans, with an OK-quality 10X technical
> loupe, it appears that "Black Only" may be faintly more detailed than
> full inkset on Moab Kayenta (it's better with detail than glossies or
> EEM). 
> 
> Perhaps the spaces between the Black Only dots help define detail (the
> dots themselves are easily evident to the naked eye at 1440 black-only
> prints).
> 
> It appears that 1 pt at 2880 is nearing the limit of sharp detail
> resolution with 2200 using Epson driver and full color/QTR.
> 
> My guess is that paper selection is more important to detail
> resolution than is ink (or perhaps printer dot size, 2200 @ 2880 vs K3
> printer at that setting). I'll test that hypothesis carefully if the
> bargain-basement R800 I'm waiting for works properly.
> 
> See something wrong in this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "momoinu_dc" <LotusM50@> wrote:
> >
> > I've scanned in the print tests that I described below. I loaded crops
> > from the 3200 dpi scans into a album in the Photos section on the QTR
> > list's Yahoo Groups website.  Hopefully you will be able to tell if I
> > did something incorrectly.  Here is a link: 
> > http://tech.ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/QuadtoneRIP/photos/browse/d000
> > 
> > The scans show more than I could see with a good 10x loupe.  
> > 
> > The QTR-Neutral K7 print is smoother and lighter but also softer.  The
> > print using the Epson driver on the 4800 with the K3 inks produced a
> > deeper, more angular (searching for a word to describe it), but it
> > seems with more errors.  The Epson K3 print also does indeed use color
> > inks in the print.  Yellow, cyan(Lt?) and magenta(Lt?) do appear to be
> > used -- contrary to what I could see with the 10x loupe.  I'll leave
> > which is "better" to group discussion.
> > 
> > I guess the most surprising thing about this that I can not duplicate
> > the images used in the promotional 1-point text comparison. The
> > promotional comparison was done on an R2400 while this was done on a
> > 4800 -- but the 2 printers are capable of the same resolution and use
> > the same inkset.  The 2 print samples don't appear to be all that
> > different in resolution, so even if I used a smaller type point, I
> > don't think a difference similar to the comparison would appear.
> > 
> > Any thoughts, comments, etc.?