QTR-Quadtone RIP

Greetings - 

Thanks in advance for anyone who can offer advice towards resolving this issue. 

Haven't used QTR for a couple of years, and recently downloaded the latest version, 2.7.0.0. Running on a 64-bit Windows Server 2008R2, with 8GB RAM. 

Using the QTR GUI, when I attempt to print a file edited in Photoshop CS5, I set the width to be exactly 6 inches. It seems to take, but upon further investigation, there seems to be a requirement that the  image size exactly match a whole number percentage, as opposed to a decimal percentage. For instance, changing either the height or width of the image will move Scale from 20% to 21%, but exactly 6 inches in width lies in between the the 20 and 21 percentage points. And so QTR adjusts the image size (without any notification). 

When setting the width to 6.0, QTR changes it to 5.85, which matches 20%. The 21% size is 6.14. Can't imagine that this would be acceptable to anyone, and so I'm wondering if it's a result of my specific environment. 

Prior versions of QTR did not appear to have this issue. 

Anyone else encounter this, and if so, attain any sort of resolution? I generally need to print images in 3 sizes, and have always been able to avoid the maintenance nightmare of 3 separate copies of each image. 

Thanks again --

Ned Otter

Ned,

Yes, this is the way it works.  The size is passed around as a percentage of the
declared size.  So small percentages show a large increment.

The easy fix is to store the file as the small size and then the large
sizes have a
large percentage.  In your case save the file as 6 inches and your
large size will
show something like 488%.   This way the increment will be too small to see.
Note that I'm not saying you resample or change the data at all, just
change the declared size (with a corresponding increase in the resolution).

Roy

On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 9:57 AM, stealthmojo101 <ned@nedotter.com> wrote:
> Greetings -
>
> Thanks in advance for anyone who can offer advice towards resolving this issue.
>
> Haven't used QTR for a couple of years, and recently downloaded the latest version, 2.7.0.0. Running on a 64-bit Windows Server 2008R2, with 8GB RAM.
>
> Using the QTR GUI, when I attempt to print a file edited in Photoshop CS5, I set the width to be exactly 6 inches. It seems to take, but upon further investigation, there seems to be a requirement that the  image size exactly match a whole number percentage, as opposed to a decimal percentage. For instance, changing either the height or width of the image will move Scale from 20% to 21%, but exactly 6 inches in width lies in between the the 20 and 21 percentage points. And so QTR adjusts the image size (without any notification).
>
> When setting the width to 6.0, QTR changes it to 5.85, which matches 20%. The 21% size is 6.14. Can't imagine that this would be acceptable to anyone, and so I'm wondering if it's a result of my specific environment.
>
> Prior versions of QTR did not appear to have this issue.
>
> Anyone else encounter this, and if so, attain any sort of resolution? I generally need to print images in 3 sizes, and have always been able to avoid the maintenance nightmare of 3 separate copies of each image.
>
> Thanks again --
>
> Ned Otter
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>



-- 
Roy Harrington
roy@...
www.harrington.com

Ned, I don't have an answer for you, but was all set to post my issue when I read your post. I wonder if my issue is related.

I'm printing an image that measures 11 x 4.14 (it's a proof sheet for a couple of strips of 35mm negatives). My paper size is 8 1/2 x 11. When I open it in QTR, I reduce it to 91% to give me some borders at either end. However when I print it, the image becomes quite large, such that only about 4 of the six frames are printed, the frames on either end are cut off. I tried shutting down my computer and the printer and let them sit few several minutes, but no luck.

I'm using the current version of QTR also, am running XP Pro 32 bit, with 4GB RAM.

Like I say, I was about to start a new thread but your issue rang a bell. I don't mean to hijack your thread!

Regards,

Paul

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "stealthmojo101" <ned@...> wrote:

>
> Greetings - 
> 
> Thanks in advance for anyone who can offer advice towards resolving this issue. 
> 
> Haven't used QTR for a couple of years, and recently downloaded the latest version, 2.7.0.0. Running on a 64-bit Windows Server 2008R2, with 8GB RAM. 
> 
> Using the QTR GUI, when I attempt to print a file edited in Photoshop CS5, I set the width to be exactly 6 inches. It seems to take, but upon further investigation, there seems to be a requirement that the  image size exactly match a whole number percentage, as opposed to a decimal percentage. For instance, changing either the height or width of the image will move Scale from 20% to 21%, but exactly 6 inches in width lies in between the the 20 and 21 percentage points. And so QTR adjusts the image size (without any notification). 
> 
> When setting the width to 6.0, QTR changes it to 5.85, which matches 20%. The 21% size is 6.14. Can't imagine that this would be acceptable to anyone, and so I'm wondering if it's a result of my specific environment. 
> 
> Prior versions of QTR did not appear to have this issue. 
> 
> Anyone else encounter this, and if so, attain any sort of resolution? I generally need to print images in 3 sizes, and have always been able to avoid the maintenance nightmare of 3 separate copies of each image. 
> 
> Thanks again --
> 
> Ned Otter
>

Hi Roy,

Thanks for the quick reply and clarity. 

Having been in the software world for a while now, I can say with the utmost respect for you and your product that a change in behavior that causes one to re-save hundreds or thousands of images does not seem like an enhancement or improvement. Prior versions of QTR did not have this issue, so the impact is quite large, at least for me. 

I did as you suggested - saving the file at 6 inches wide - and while the image will print at exactly 6 inches wide, other larger sizes can not be set exactly. This may be a non-issue as you said, because the discrepancy is so small. 

Again, I mean no offense to you or your great effort to help us all print higher quality images. 

Best,

Ned

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

>
> Ned,
> 
> Yes, this is the way it works.  The size is passed around as a percentage of the
> declared size.  So small percentages show a large increment.
> 
> The easy fix is to store the file as the small size and then the large
> sizes have a
> large percentage.  In your case save the file as 6 inches and your
> large size will
> show something like 488%.   This way the increment will be too small to see.
> Note that I'm not saying you resample or change the data at all, just
> change the declared size (with a corresponding increase in the resolution).
> 
> Roy
> 
> On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 9:57 AM, stealthmojo101 <ned@...> wrote:
> > Greetings -
> >
> > Thanks in advance for anyone who can offer advice towards resolving this issue.
> >
> > Haven't used QTR for a couple of years, and recently downloaded the latest version, 2.7.0.0. Running on a 64-bit Windows Server 2008R2, with 8GB RAM.
> >
> > Using the QTR GUI, when I attempt to print a file edited in Photoshop CS5, I set the width to be exactly 6 inches. It seems to take, but upon further investigation, there seems to be a requirement that the  image size exactly match a whole number percentage, as opposed to a decimal percentage. For instance, changing either the height or width of the image will move Scale from 20% to 21%, but exactly 6 inches in width lies in between the the 20 and 21 percentage points. And so QTR adjusts the image size (without any notification).
> >
> > When setting the width to 6.0, QTR changes it to 5.85, which matches 20%. The 21% size is 6.14. Can't imagine that this would be acceptable to anyone, and so I'm wondering if it's a result of my specific environment.
> >
> > Prior versions of QTR did not appear to have this issue.
> >
> > Anyone else encounter this, and if so, attain any sort of resolution? I generally need to print images in 3 sizes, and have always been able to avoid the maintenance nightmare of 3 separate copies of each image.
> >
> > Thanks again --
> >
> > Ned Otter
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Roy Harrington
> roy@...
> www.harrington.com
>

Ned, as far as I know this has always been the way it worked.  At
least I don't know
of any changes that would have done this.  Main caveat I have though
is that I don't
use Windows -- I'm on a Mac.  (Otherwise, I probably would have
noticed this a long
time ago and changed it).

Sorry,
Roy

On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 3:41 PM, stealthmojo101 <ned@...> wrote:
> Hi Roy,
>
> Thanks for the quick reply and clarity.
>
> Having been in the software world for a while now, I can say with the utmost respect for you and your product that a change in behavior that causes one to re-save hundreds or thousands of images does not seem like an enhancement or improvement. Prior versions of QTR did not have this issue, so the impact is quite large, at least for me.
>
> I did as you suggested - saving the file at 6 inches wide - and while the image will print at exactly 6 inches wide, other larger sizes can not be set exactly. This may be a non-issue as you said, because the discrepancy is so small.
>
> Again, I mean no offense to you or your great effort to help us all print higher quality images.
>
> Best,
>
> Ned
>
> --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, Roy Harrington <roy@...> wrote:
>>
>> Ned,
>>
>> Yes, this is the way it works.  The size is passed around as a percentage of the
>> declared size.  So small percentages show a large increment.
>>
>> The easy fix is to store the file as the small size and then the large
>> sizes have a
>> large percentage.  In your case save the file as 6 inches and your
>> large size will
>> show something like 488%.   This way the increment will be too small to see.
>> Note that I'm not saying you resample or change the data at all, just
>> change the declared size (with a corresponding increase in the resolution).
>>
>> Roy
>>
>> On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 9:57 AM, stealthmojo101 <ned@...> wrote:
>> > Greetings -
>> >
>> > Thanks in advance for anyone who can offer advice towards resolving this issue.
>> >
>> > Haven't used QTR for a couple of years, and recently downloaded the latest version, 2.7.0.0. Running on a 64-bit Windows Server 2008R2, with 8GB RAM.
>> >
>> > Using the QTR GUI, when I attempt to print a file edited in Photoshop CS5, I set the width to be exactly 6 inches. It seems to take, but upon further investigation, there seems to be a requirement that the  image size exactly match a whole number percentage, as opposed to a decimal percentage. For instance, changing either the height or width of the image will move Scale from 20% to 21%, but exactly 6 inches in width lies in between the the 20 and 21 percentage points. And so QTR adjusts the image size (without any notification).
>> >
>> > When setting the width to 6.0, QTR changes it to 5.85, which matches 20%. The 21% size is 6.14. Can't imagine that this would be acceptable to anyone, and so I'm wondering if it's a result of my specific environment.
>> >
>> > Prior versions of QTR did not appear to have this issue.
>> >
>> > Anyone else encounter this, and if so, attain any sort of resolution? I generally need to print images in 3 sizes, and have always been able to avoid the maintenance nightmare of 3 separate copies of each image.
>> >
>> > Thanks again --
>> >
>> > Ned Otter
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ------------------------------------
>> >
>> > Yahoo! Groups Links
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Roy Harrington
>> roy@...
>> www.harrington.com
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>



-- 
Roy Harrington
roy@...
www.harrington.com

Hello Roy,

Perhaps you missed my post a few posts back, but I took a cue from your exchange with Ned. What I did was go back to my original file, which was substantially larger, and then reduce it within QTR. What I did earlier was to reduce the size outside QTR, in Photoshop.

It worked! Is this somehow related to Ned's question?

Thanks for your program!

Paul

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

>
> Ned, as far as I know this has always been the way it worked.  At
> least I don't know
> of any changes that would have done this.  Main caveat I have though
> is that I don't
> use Windows -- I'm on a Mac.  (Otherwise, I probably would have
> noticed this a long
> time ago and changed it).
> 
> Sorry,
> Roy

PS I forgot to say that in my first effort I did reduce it a little within QTR, to 91%, just to give me some margins. The second, and successful effort, I reduced the original, larger file, to 45%, within QTR.

Paul

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "Paul" <paulmwhiting@...> wrote:

>
> 
> 
> Hello Roy,
> 
> Perhaps you missed my post a few posts back, but I took a cue from your exchange with Ned. What I did was go back to my original file, which was substantially larger, and then reduce it within QTR. What I did earlier was to reduce the size outside QTR, in Photoshop.
> 
> It worked! Is this somehow related to Ned's question?
> 
> Thanks for your program!
> 
> Paul
> 
> --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, Roy Harrington <roy@> wrote:
> >
> > Ned, as far as I know this has always been the way it worked.  At
> > least I don't know
> > of any changes that would have done this.  Main caveat I have though
> > is that I don't
> > use Windows -- I'm on a Mac.  (Otherwise, I probably would have
> > noticed this a long
> > time ago and changed it).
> > 
> > Sorry,
> > Roy
>

Hi Paul,

I'm not sure exactly what your issue is.  Ned's I believe is due to
the scaling in 1%
increments.  Sounds like yours may be different.  I'm not sure whether
your "size"
references are "pixel sizes" or "linear sizes".

Another thing that has shown up sometimes is using JPG files.  A lot
of the programs
that save jpg's seem to leave out the "linear size" of the image.
(i.e. 1000 pixels could be
any number of inches).   Different libraries that read/write the file
then make different
resolution assumptions/defaults.   This makes the scaling a problem sometimes.

Are you using jpg's?  Did you find a setup that works consistently?
-- could be just that you used PS which I think always saves the linear size.

Roy

On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 5:56 AM, Paul <paulmwhiting@...> wrote:
>
>
> Hello Roy,
>
> Perhaps you missed my post a few posts back, but I took a cue from your exchange with Ned. What I did was go back to my original file, which was substantially larger, and then reduce it within QTR. What I did earlier was to reduce the size outside QTR, in Photoshop.
>
> It worked! Is this somehow related to Ned's question?
>
> Thanks for your program!
>
> Paul
>
> --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, Roy Harrington <roy@...> wrote:
>>
>> Ned, as far as I know this has always been the way it worked.  At
>> least I don't know
>> of any changes that would have done this.  Main caveat I have though
>> is that I don't
>> use Windows -- I'm on a Mac.  (Otherwise, I probably would have
>> noticed this a long
>> time ago and changed it).
>>
>> Sorry,
>> Roy
>


-- 
Roy Harrington
roy@...
www.harrington.com

Hi Roy, and thank you.

Looking back at my messages, I wasn't very clear on sizes. Let me try and briefly summarize: (and yes, I was using jpg's)

My original file was 3977 x 1498 pixels, and at 180 ppi, it worked out be a linear size of about 22" x 8.3". (It was a photocopy of two strips of 35mm film - that's how I make contact sheets in this digital age). I thought it didn't need to be that large for my 8 1/2" x 11" paper so I reduced it 1980 x 746 pixels, still at 180 ppi, which gave me a linear size of 11 x 4.1. When I loaded the reduced file in QTR, I wanted a 1/2" border at each end, so within QTR I reduced it to 91%. But the printout was huge, I only got the middle three frames or so of the strip of six frames.

Then getting an idea from your exchanges with Ned, I decided to load my original larger file into QTR. Again, I wanted a border, so I ended up with printing the file at 45% of its original size. This time the printout was fine.

Then something you said in your message to me gave me a clue: 

> Different libraries that read/write the file
> then make different resolution assumptions/defaults.
> This makes the scaling a problem sometimes.

I was reducing the original file using FastStone, a handy little utility I use for quick and dirty file work. But then I thought I'd try reducing the file in PhotoShop and voila, this time my printout was fine.

Moral of the story: if I'm going to print something in QTR I should do my file size reductions in PS.

It all worked out, and I learned something.

Many thanks!

Paul

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

>
> Hi Paul,
> 
> I'm not sure exactly what your issue is.  Ned's I believe is due to
> the scaling in 1%
> increments.  Sounds like yours may be different.  I'm not sure whether
> your "size"
> references are "pixel sizes" or "linear sizes".
> 
> Another thing that has shown up sometimes is using JPG files.  A lot
> of the programs
> that save jpg's seem to leave out the "linear size" of the image.
> (i.e. 1000 pixels could be
> any number of inches).   Different libraries that read/write the file
> then make different
> resolution assumptions/defaults.   This makes the scaling a problem sometimes.
> 
> Are you using jpg's?  Did you find a setup that works consistently?
> -- could be just that you used PS which I think always saves the linear size.
> 
> Roy
> 
> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 5:56 AM, Paul <paulmwhiting@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hello Roy,
> >
> > Perhaps you missed my post a few posts back, but I took a cue from your exchange with Ned. What I did was go back to my original file, which was substantially larger, and then reduce it within QTR. What I did earlier was to reduce the size outside QTR, in Photoshop.
> >
> > It worked! Is this somehow related to Ned's question?
> >
> > Thanks for your program!
> >
> > Paul