QTR-Quadtone RIP

QuadToneRIP version 2.7.0 Release Notes

  This is a new release for both Mac OS X and Windows
  
Support for new Epson 3880 printer
Bug fixes:
	R2880 Manual Roll print positioning fixed

!! Mac Users take NOTE  !!

Major Upgrades to the Mac version of QTR Software:
8-bit and 16-bit image data supported -- from app to driver.
32-bit and 64-bit applications now supported.

With this release only Leopard 10.5 and Snow Leopard 10.6 are officially supported.
  Version 2.5.2 can still be used with Jaguar.
  Version 2.6.2 can still be used with Panther and Tiger.

Attention to Mac users of Photoshop CS4 and Lightroom 2.1 under OSX 10.5 Leopard 
There are color management problems with B&W printing with both Epson ABW and QTR.
Until that is resolved its best to keep CS3 loaded on your machine and use that
for printing.

!! Windows Users take NOTE !!

Major Upgrade to the Windows version of QTR Software:

JPG files are now supported as well as TIFF files.

The Windows implementation does not pass the data through
the print system like the Mac version does.  So 16-bit data 
changes noted above to not apply to the Windows version.  However
QTR continues to use all 16-bits of a TIFF data file for
creating a print.

QTR works with all the current versions of Windows -- 
XP, Vista, and Windows 7 in both the 32-bit and 64-bit flavors.

Hi Roy,

Great to see 16bit support.
How are you handling the curve data, I can't imagine you've got 65536
entries per curve.
Are you interpolating between the 256 values you have currently per curve?

Also did you add the R1900 roll/manual fix that you and I figured out after
the last release?

Many txs,

Mike

On 28 March 2010 21:03, Roy <roy@...> wrote:

>
>
> QuadToneRIP version 2.7.0 Release Notes
>
> This is a new release for both Mac OS X and Windows
>
> Support for new Epson 3880 printer
> Bug fixes:
> R2880 Manual Roll print positioning fixed
>
> !! Mac Users take NOTE !!
>
> Major Upgrades to the Mac version of QTR Software:
> 8-bit and 16-bit image data supported -- from app to driver.
> 32-bit and 64-bit applications now supported.
>
> With this release only Leopard 10.5 and Snow Leopard 10.6 are officially
> supported.
> Version 2.5.2 can still be used with Jaguar.
> Version 2.6.2 can still be used with Panther and Tiger.
>
> Attention to Mac users of Photoshop CS4 and Lightroom 2.1 under OSX 10.5
> Leopard
> There are color management problems with B&W printing with both Epson ABW
> and QTR.
> Until that is resolved its best to keep CS3 loaded on your machine and use
> that
> for printing.
>
> !! Windows Users take NOTE !!
>
> Major Upgrade to the Windows version of QTR Software:
>
> JPG files are now supported as well as TIFF files.
>
> The Windows implementation does not pass the data through
> the print system like the Mac version does. So 16-bit data
> changes noted above to not apply to the Windows version. However
> QTR continues to use all 16-bits of a TIFF data file for
> creating a print.
>
> QTR works with all the current versions of Windows --
> XP, Vista, and Windows 7 in both the 32-bit and 64-bit flavors.
>
>  
>


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

Yes and yes.
Roy

On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 1:26 PM, Michael King <drmrking@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Roy,
>
> Great to see 16bit support.
> How are you handling the curve data, I can't imagine you've got 65536
> entries per curve.
> Are you interpolating between the 256 values you have currently per curve?
>
> Also did you add the R1900 roll/manual fix that you and I figured out after
> the last release?
>
> Many txs,
>
> Mike
>
> On 28 March 2010 21:03, Roy <roy@...> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> QuadToneRIP version 2.7.0 Release Notes
>>
>> This is a new release for both Mac OS X and Windows
>>
>> Support for new Epson 3880 printer
>> Bug fixes:
>> R2880 Manual Roll print positioning fixed
>>
>> !! Mac Users take NOTE !!
>>
>> Major Upgrades to the Mac version of QTR Software:
>> 8-bit and 16-bit image data supported -- from app to driver.
>> 32-bit and 64-bit applications now supported.
>>
>> With this release only Leopard 10.5 and Snow Leopard 10.6 are officially
>> supported.
>> Version 2.5.2 can still be used with Jaguar.
>> Version 2.6.2 can still be used with Panther and Tiger.
>>
>> Attention to Mac users of Photoshop CS4 and Lightroom 2.1 under OSX 10.5
>> Leopard
>> There are color management problems with B&W printing with both Epson ABW
>> and QTR.
>> Until that is resolved its best to keep CS3 loaded on your machine and use
>> that
>> for printing.
>>
>> !! Windows Users take NOTE !!
>>
>> Major Upgrade to the Windows version of QTR Software:
>>
>> JPG files are now supported as well as TIFF files.
>>
>> The Windows implementation does not pass the data through
>> the print system like the Mac version does. So 16-bit data
>> changes noted above to not apply to the Windows version. However
>> QTR continues to use all 16-bits of a TIFF data file for
>> creating a print.
>>
>> QTR works with all the current versions of Windows --
>> XP, Vista, and Windows 7 in both the 32-bit and 64-bit flavors.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

Thanks, Roy!!!

From: QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com [mailto:QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Roy
Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2010 1:03 PM
To: QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [QuadtoneRIP] New Release of QuadToneRIP 2.7.0 for both Mac and PC

 

  

QuadToneRIP version 2.7.0 Release Notes

This is a new release for both Mac OS X and Windows

Support for new Epson 3880 printer
Bug fixes:
R2880 Manual Roll print positioning fixed

!! Mac Users take NOTE !!

Major Upgrades to the Mac version of QTR Software:
8-bit and 16-bit image data supported -- from app to driver.
32-bit and 64-bit applications now supported.

With this release only Leopard 10.5 and Snow Leopard 10.6 are officially
supported.
Version 2.5.2 can still be used with Jaguar.
Version 2.6.2 can still be used with Panther and Tiger.

Attention to Mac users of Photoshop CS4 and Lightroom 2.1 under OSX 10.5
Leopard 
There are color management problems with B&W printing with both Epson ABW
and QTR.
Until that is resolved its best to keep CS3 loaded on your machine and use
that
for printing.

!! Windows Users take NOTE !!

Major Upgrade to the Windows version of QTR Software:

JPG files are now supported as well as TIFF files.

The Windows implementation does not pass the data through
the print system like the Mac version does. So 16-bit data 
changes noted above to not apply to the Windows version. However
QTR continues to use all 16-bits of a TIFF data file for
creating a print.

QTR works with all the current versions of Windows -- 
XP, Vista, and Windows 7 in both the 32-bit and 64-bit flavors.





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

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "Roy" <roy@...> wrote:
>
> QuadToneRIP version 2.7.0 Release Notes
> 
> !! Mac Users take NOTE  !!
> 
> Major Upgrades to the Mac version of QTR Software:
> 8-bit and 16-bit image data supported -- from app to driver.

I had already assumed that 16bit support was present in QTR, was this not the case?

Is there any benefit in re-creating custom curves for this new version? I have just finished profiling two papers for QTR and wonder if they would be a) compatible, b) have greater accuracy with this new version?

Thanks for your work on this Roy, great software.

Roy,

What would I use "Create ICC for Linearization with PhotoShop ACV curves"
for ?
I know its been around a while, but I've only just noticed it :)

Also the rgb-raw-16.psd file only has RGB values from 43 - 213, but you text
suggests they should be from 0 - 255.

Cheers,

Mike

On 29 March 2010 15:50, dj_joy_uk <yahoo@...> wrote:

>
>
> --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com <QuadtoneRIP%40yahoogroups.com>, "Roy"
> <roy@...> wrote:
> >
> > QuadToneRIP version 2.7.0 Release Notes
> >
> > !! Mac Users take NOTE !!
> >
> > Major Upgrades to the Mac version of QTR Software:
> > 8-bit and 16-bit image data supported -- from app to driver.
>
> I had already assumed that 16bit support was present in QTR, was this not
> the case?
>
> Is there any benefit in re-creating custom curves for this new version? I
> have just finished profiling two papers for QTR and wonder if they would be
> a) compatible, b) have greater accuracy with this new version?
>
> Thanks for your work on this Roy, great software.
>
>  
>


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

>>Is there any benefit in re-creating custom curves for this new version? I
have just finished profiling two papers for QTR and wonder if they would be
a) compatible, b) have greater accuracy with this new version?

As I read in Roy's answer to my earlier question - there has been no change
to profiling. Its still 8 bit based. BUT he is interpolating between the 8
bit values to generate intermediate values to support 16bit.

To be honest paper coatings are barely consistent enough across the page to
let you profile at 7 bits (128 values) never mind more than 8 bits. So we
would be able to gain nothing from Roy directly increasing the curve
resolution beyond 8 bits.

You might ask what's the benefit of 16 bit printing ? Well I expect the main
benefit is in helping smooth tonal areas avoid posterization, by creating
more ink values in the tonal graduation.

I've been wrestling with this issue for the last few months and have been
experimenting with Cone style overlapping curves and QTR less overlapping
style. There is no doubt more overlap reduces the problem BUT also for some
papers overlapping curves reduces dmax. So as usual there is no free lunch.
I am excited about the potential of 16 bit printing to address this issue -
just got to Hackintosh my PC first :)

Mike

On 29 March 2010 15:50, dj_joy_uk <yahoo@...> wrote:

>
>
> --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com <QuadtoneRIP%40yahoogroups.com>, "Roy"
> <roy@...> wrote:
> >
> > QuadToneRIP version 2.7.0 Release Notes
> >
> > !! Mac Users take NOTE !!
> >
> > Major Upgrades to the Mac version of QTR Software:
> > 8-bit and 16-bit image data supported -- from app to driver.
>
> I had already assumed that 16bit support was present in QTR, was this not
> the case?
>
> Is there any benefit in re-creating custom curves for this new version? I
> have just finished profiling two papers for QTR and wonder if they would be
> a) compatible, b) have greater accuracy with this new version?
>
> Thanks for your work on this Roy, great software.
>
>  
>


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

On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 7:50 AM, dj_joy_uk <yahoo@...> wrote:
> --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "Roy" <roy@...> wrote:
>>
>> QuadToneRIP version 2.7.0 Release Notes
>>
>> !! Mac Users take NOTE  !!
>>
>> Major Upgrades to the Mac version of QTR Software:
>> 8-bit and 16-bit image data supported -- from app to driver.
>
> I had already assumed that 16bit support was present in QTR, was this not the case?
>
> Is there any benefit in re-creating custom curves for this new version? I have just finished profiling two papers for QTR and wonder if they would be a) compatible, b) have greater accuracy with this new version?
>
> Thanks for your work on this Roy, great software.
>

QTR has always used 16-bit internally.

The 16-bit thru the OS is the added part and also the least important
part.   The printer
manufacturers -- Epson & Canon -- have made a big deal of this but in
reality its
not as big a deal as you might think.  (looks good in the marketing
brochures and
makes for a good check box item).

QTR curves are the same as before.

Roy

On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 8:35 AM, Michael King <drmrking@...> wrote:
> Roy,
>
> What would I use "Create ICC for Linearization with PhotoShop ACV curves"
> for ?
> I know its been around a while, but I've only just noticed it :)
>
> Also the rgb-raw-16.psd file only has RGB values from 43 - 213, but you text
> suggests they should be from 0 - 255.

I'm not sure what you are looking at but the file does in fact have
all the values.
Look at the Histogram.  Somehow you seem to be doing some color management
conversion inadvertently.

This special feature is pretty esoteric.  Paul uses it for linearizing
while using
the Epson driver for his special inks.

Roy

>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike
>
> On 29 March 2010 15:50, dj_joy_uk <yahoo@...> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com <QuadtoneRIP%40yahoogroups.com>, "Roy"
>> <roy@...> wrote:
>> >
>> > QuadToneRIP version 2.7.0 Release Notes
>> >
>> > !! Mac Users take NOTE !!
>> >
>> > Major Upgrades to the Mac version of QTR Software:
>> > 8-bit and 16-bit image data supported -- from app to driver.
>>
>> I had already assumed that 16bit support was present in QTR, was this not
>> the case?
>>
>> Is there any benefit in re-creating custom curves for this new version? I
>> have just finished profiling two papers for QTR and wonder if they would be
>> a) compatible, b) have greater accuracy with this new version?
>>
>> Thanks for your work on this Roy, great software.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 9:02 AM, Michael King <drmrking@...> wrote:
>>>Is there any benefit in re-creating custom curves for this new version? I
> have just finished profiling two papers for QTR and wonder if they would be
> a) compatible, b) have greater accuracy with this new version?
>
> As I read in Roy's answer to my earlier question - there has been no change
> to profiling. Its still 8 bit based. BUT he is interpolating between the 8
> bit values to generate intermediate values to support 16bit.

There have always been 256 points in the QTR curves but the values at each
of the points have always been 16-bit.   The 256 points are already way overkill
compared to, for instance, color ICC profiles.  ICC color management typically
uses interpolation with just 25 points so QTR curves have 10 times that.
Interpolation is a perfectly good technique.

>
> To be honest paper coatings are barely consistent enough across the page to
> let you profile at 7 bits (128 values) never mind more than 8 bits. So we
> would be able to gain nothing from Roy directly increasing the curve
> resolution beyond 8 bits.
>
> You might ask what's the benefit of 16 bit printing ? Well I expect the main
> benefit is in helping smooth tonal areas avoid posterization, by creating
> more ink values in the tonal graduation.

If you have posterization issues it's almost certainly due to other issues.
More bits and more overlap are pretty much the very last things to be
concerned about.  Posterization is usually in the image or you have bad inks.

Roy

>
> I've been wrestling with this issue for the last few months and have been
> experimenting with Cone style overlapping curves and QTR less overlapping
> style. There is no doubt more overlap reduces the problem BUT also for some
> papers overlapping curves reduces dmax. So as usual there is no free lunch.
> I am excited about the potential of 16 bit printing to address this issue -
> just got to Hackintosh my PC first :)
>
> Mike
>

Roy,

>>If you have posterization issues it's almost certainly due to other
issues.
More bits and more overlap are pretty much the very last things to be
concerned about. Posterization is usually in the image or you have bad inks

So all I can say is that I have a image that posterizes with QTR curves
(limited overlap) but not Cone style overlapping curves. Same inks, same
printer. Solved the problem by using using overlapping curves and
linearizing with my own spreadsheet based linearization tool. This 7 ink set
up is using a mix of HP-PK and Eboni MK (18% & 100%). It may have been
caused by some other effect that I removed by using overlapping curves, but
there is no doubt that overlapping curves solved the problem, whatever is
causing it.

Mike




On 29 March 2010 19:00, Roy Harrington <roy@...> wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 9:02 AM, Michael King <drmrking@...m<drmrking%40gmail.com>>
> wrote:
> >>>Is there any benefit in re-creating custom curves for this new version?
> I
> > have just finished profiling two papers for QTR and wonder if they would
> be
> > a) compatible, b) have greater accuracy with this new version?
> >
> > As I read in Roy's answer to my earlier question - there has been no
> change
> > to profiling. Its still 8 bit based. BUT he is interpolating between the
> 8
> > bit values to generate intermediate values to support 16bit.
>
> There have always been 256 points in the QTR curves but the values at each
> of the points have always been 16-bit. The 256 points are already way
> overkill
> compared to, for instance, color ICC profiles. ICC color management
> typically
> uses interpolation with just 25 points so QTR curves have 10 times that.
> Interpolation is a perfectly good technique.
>
>
> >
> > To be honest paper coatings are barely consistent enough across the page
> to
> > let you profile at 7 bits (128 values) never mind more than 8 bits. So we
> > would be able to gain nothing from Roy directly increasing the curve
> > resolution beyond 8 bits.
> >
> > You might ask what's the benefit of 16 bit printing ? Well I expect the
> main
> > benefit is in helping smooth tonal areas avoid posterization, by creating
> > more ink values in the tonal graduation.
>
> If you have posterization issues it's almost certainly due to other issues.
> More bits and more overlap are pretty much the very last things to be
> concerned about. Posterization is usually in the image or you have bad
> inks.
>
> Roy
>
>
> >
> > I've been wrestling with this issue for the last few months and have been
> > experimenting with Cone style overlapping curves and QTR less overlapping
> > style. There is no doubt more overlap reduces the problem BUT also for
> some
> > papers overlapping curves reduces dmax. So as usual there is no free
> lunch.
> > I am excited about the potential of 16 bit printing to address this issue
> -
> > just got to Hackintosh my PC first :)
> >
> > Mike
> >
>
>  
>


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

Mike,

I must say I have never ecountered posterization issues with customary inks that use K, LK, and LLK alone, or as backbone followed by LM, LC, and others for toning via use of "toner" or "copy curve from" in QTR ink setup.

I think Cone type overlap may (perhaps) be required when using 4+ gray inks, which in my opinion is at best an overkill, and technical mas@#$%^tion at worst. I have not seen a print that was better simply because it had 6 or 7 shades of gray. Try to reduce the number of gray inks in your set up, and use standard QTR curves design tools. I am curious what your eyes will see.

Shilesh

Shilesh

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, Michael King <drmrking@...> wrote:

>
> Roy,
> 
> >>If you have posterization issues it's almost certainly due to other
> issues.
> More bits and more overlap are pretty much the very last things to be
> concerned about. Posterization is usually in the image or you have bad inks
> 
> So all I can say is that I have a image that posterizes with QTR curves
> (limited overlap) but not Cone style overlapping curves. Same inks, same
> printer. Solved the problem by using using overlapping curves and
> linearizing with my own spreadsheet based linearization tool. This 7 ink set
> up is using a mix of HP-PK and Eboni MK (18% & 100%). It may have been
> caused by some other effect that I removed by using overlapping curves, but
> there is no doubt that overlapping curves solved the problem, whatever is
> causing it.
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 29 March 2010 19:00, Roy Harrington <roy@...> wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 9:02 AM, Michael King <drmrking@...<drmrking%40gmail.com>>
> > wrote:
> > >>>Is there any benefit in re-creating custom curves for this new version?
> > I
> > > have just finished profiling two papers for QTR and wonder if they would
> > be
> > > a) compatible, b) have greater accuracy with this new version?
> > >
> > > As I read in Roy's answer to my earlier question - there has been no
> > change
> > > to profiling. Its still 8 bit based. BUT he is interpolating between the
> > 8
> > > bit values to generate intermediate values to support 16bit.
> >
> > There have always been 256 points in the QTR curves but the values at each
> > of the points have always been 16-bit. The 256 points are already way
> > overkill
> > compared to, for instance, color ICC profiles. ICC color management
> > typically
> > uses interpolation with just 25 points so QTR curves have 10 times that.
> > Interpolation is a perfectly good technique.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > To be honest paper coatings are barely consistent enough across the page
> > to
> > > let you profile at 7 bits (128 values) never mind more than 8 bits. So we
> > > would be able to gain nothing from Roy directly increasing the curve
> > > resolution beyond 8 bits.
> > >
> > > You might ask what's the benefit of 16 bit printing ? Well I expect the
> > main
> > > benefit is in helping smooth tonal areas avoid posterization, by creating
> > > more ink values in the tonal graduation.
> >
> > If you have posterization issues it's almost certainly due to other issues.
> > More bits and more overlap are pretty much the very last things to be
> > concerned about. Posterization is usually in the image or you have bad
> > inks.
> >
> > Roy
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I've been wrestling with this issue for the last few months and have been
> > > experimenting with Cone style overlapping curves and QTR less overlapping
> > > style. There is no doubt more overlap reduces the problem BUT also for
> > some
> > > papers overlapping curves reduces dmax. So as usual there is no free
> > lunch.
> > > I am excited about the potential of 16 bit printing to address this issue
> > -
> > > just got to Hackintosh my PC first :)
> > >
> > > Mike
> > >
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Hi Shilesh,

> I must say I have never ecountered posterization issues with customary inks
> that use K, LK, and LLK alone, or as backbone followed by LM, LC, and others
> for toning via use of "toner" or "copy curve from" in QTR ink setup.
>
Tomorrow I'll upload the section of the image that tends to posterise and
you can try for yourself :)
I'll email when its done. You might be surprised....

>
> I think Cone type overlap may (perhaps) be required when using 4+ gray
> inks, which in my opinion is at best an overkill, and technical mas@#$%^tion
> at worst. I have not seen a print that was better simply because it had 6 or
> 7 shades of gray. Try to reduce the number of gray inks in your set up, and
> use standard QTR curves design tools. I am curious what your eyes will see.
>
I don't think there's a particular reason why more overlap is required with
more inks, but maybe as the ink curves bunch more together. I think its more
about smoothing the tonal change in the inks sets, especially the splits.

But the one place that overlap is required with some papers is at dmax. Some
papers require both #1 and #2 ink densities to reach dmax, maybe 30 on the
QTR graph scale for #2 ink, Canson Photorag is such a paper. With #1 ink
only you achieve at best approx L= 1.0 less. On the other hand on other
papers such as Epson Hot Press Bright, dmax can be achieved easiest without
any #2 ink @ dmax.

Mike


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

Hi Roy,

I see you didn't get to fix the "feature" where a space in a QTR profile
name in Windows means its not recognised by QTR @ print time. Could you at
least make the GUI and the runtime engine do the same thing. Or that it
doesn't print if it can't find the profile. Right now it just prints anyway
and wastes another sheet of expensive paper while reporting that it can't
find the profile, sometime after its started printing.

Txs,

Mike

On 28 March 2010 21:03, Roy <roy@...> wrote:

>
>
> QuadToneRIP version 2.7.0 Release Notes
>
> This is a new release for both Mac OS X and Windows
>
> Support for new Epson 3880 printer
> Bug fixes:
> R2880 Manual Roll print positioning fixed
>
> !! Mac Users take NOTE !!
>
> Major Upgrades to the Mac version of QTR Software:
> 8-bit and 16-bit image data supported -- from app to driver.
> 32-bit and 64-bit applications now supported.
>
> With this release only Leopard 10.5 and Snow Leopard 10.6 are officially
> supported.
> Version 2.5.2 can still be used with Jaguar.
> Version 2.6.2 can still be used with Panther and Tiger.
>
> Attention to Mac users of Photoshop CS4 and Lightroom 2.1 under OSX 10.5
> Leopard
> There are color management problems with B&W printing with both Epson ABW
> and QTR.
> Until that is resolved its best to keep CS3 loaded on your machine and use
> that
> for printing.
>
> !! Windows Users take NOTE !!
>
> Major Upgrade to the Windows version of QTR Software:
>
> JPG files are now supported as well as TIFF files.
>
> The Windows implementation does not pass the data through
> the print system like the Mac version does. So 16-bit data
> changes noted above to not apply to the Windows version. However
> QTR continues to use all 16-bits of a TIFF data file for
> creating a print.
>
> QTR works with all the current versions of Windows --
> XP, Vista, and Windows 7 in both the 32-bit and 64-bit flavors.
>
>  
>


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

I think Shilesh has a valid point.  With the standard QTR transitions when
you use more inks the slope of the transitions are steeper since there are
more up and downs.  With just 3 grays the transitions are naturally wider.
Graph Piezo K7 curves and QTR UCk3 curves and note that the slopes a pretty
comparable.   What all this means is that you need to be more accurate
in the relative density measurements with K7 inks and QTR curves.
(I take it you are creating your own curves with K7 inks using QTR curves).

I must admit I haven't made many K7 curves since Cone provides them,
but like Shilesh says with K3 inks I've never had issue with smoothness.
What I think you are calling posterization is actually flat spots in a what
should be a smooth gradient.

In the new release I've included a bullseye.tif pattern in the Eye-One folder.
Print that out with your setup.  This shows anomalies very easily in the top
half.  Then the bottom half makes it easy to see where the issue is.
With a graph of the curves you can see which inks are in transition at that
point.  If its a flat spot the lighter ink is marked lighter that it really is.

Roy

On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 4:07 PM, Michael King <drmrking@...> wrote:
> Hi Shilesh,
>
>> I must say I have never ecountered posterization issues with customary inks
>> that use K, LK, and LLK alone, or as backbone followed by LM, LC, and others
>> for toning via use of "toner" or "copy curve from" in QTR ink setup.
>>
> Tomorrow I'll upload the section of the image that tends to posterise and
> you can try for yourself :)
> I'll email when its done. You might be surprised....
>
>>
>> I think Cone type overlap may (perhaps) be required when using 4+ gray
>> inks, which in my opinion is at best an overkill, and technical mas@#$%^tion
>> at worst. I have not seen a print that was better simply because it had 6 or
>> 7 shades of gray. Try to reduce the number of gray inks in your set up, and
>> use standard QTR curves design tools. I am curious what your eyes will see.
>>
> I don't think there's a particular reason why more overlap is required with
> more inks, but maybe as the ink curves bunch more together. I think its more
> about smoothing the tonal change in the inks sets, especially the splits.
>
> But the one place that overlap is required with some papers is at dmax. Some
> papers require both #1 and #2 ink densities to reach dmax, maybe 30 on the
> QTR graph scale for #2 ink, Canson Photorag is such a paper. With #1 ink
> only you achieve at best approx L= 1.0 less. On the other hand on other
> papers such as Epson Hot Press Bright, dmax can be achieved easiest without
> any #2 ink @ dmax.
>
> Mike
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

Sure I'll do some tests with the bullseye.
I am checking the smoothness of the linearity and I didn't see any flat
spots.
More on this after some testing. But also its a tough image to print.
As I said I'll upload the section that tends to posterize for people to test
if they want.

Mike

On 30 March 2010 00:36, Roy Harrington <roy@...> wrote:

>
>
> I think Shilesh has a valid point. With the standard QTR transitions when
> you use more inks the slope of the transitions are steeper since there are
> more up and downs. With just 3 grays the transitions are naturally wider.
> Graph Piezo K7 curves and QTR UCk3 curves and note that the slopes a pretty
> comparable. What all this means is that you need to be more accurate
> in the relative density measurements with K7 inks and QTR curves.
> (I take it you are creating your own curves with K7 inks using QTR curves).
>
> I must admit I haven't made many K7 curves since Cone provides them,
> but like Shilesh says with K3 inks I've never had issue with smoothness.
> What I think you are calling posterization is actually flat spots in a what
> should be a smooth gradient.
>
> In the new release I've included a bullseye.tif pattern in the Eye-One
> folder.
> Print that out with your setup. This shows anomalies very easily in the top
> half. Then the bottom half makes it easy to see where the issue is.
> With a graph of the curves you can see which inks are in transition at that
> point. If its a flat spot the lighter ink is marked lighter that it really
> is.
>
> Roy
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 4:07 PM, Michael King <drmrking@...<drmrking%40gmail.com>>
> wrote:
> > Hi Shilesh,
> >
> >> I must say I have never ecountered posterization issues with customary
> inks
> >> that use K, LK, and LLK alone, or as backbone followed by LM, LC, and
> others
> >> for toning via use of "toner" or "copy curve from" in QTR ink setup.
> >>
> > Tomorrow I'll upload the section of the image that tends to posterise and
> > you can try for yourself :)
> > I'll email when its done. You might be surprised....
> >
> >>
> >> I think Cone type overlap may (perhaps) be required when using 4+ gray
> >> inks, which in my opinion is at best an overkill, and technical mas@
> #$%^tion
> >> at worst. I have not seen a print that was better simply because it had
> 6 or
> >> 7 shades of gray. Try to reduce the number of gray inks in your set up,
> and
> >> use standard QTR curves design tools. I am curious what your eyes will
> see.
> >>
> > I don't think there's a particular reason why more overlap is required
> with
> > more inks, but maybe as the ink curves bunch more together. I think its
> more
> > about smoothing the tonal change in the inks sets, especially the splits.
> >
> > But the one place that overlap is required with some papers is at dmax.
> Some
> > papers require both #1 and #2 ink densities to reach dmax, maybe 30 on
> the
> > QTR graph scale for #2 ink, Canson Photorag is such a paper. With #1 ink
> > only you achieve at best approx L= 1.0 less. On the other hand on other
> > papers such as Epson Hot Press Bright, dmax can be achieved easiest
> without
> > any #2 ink @ dmax.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>  
>


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

On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 4:32 PM, Michael King <drmrking@...> wrote:
> Hi Roy,
>
> I see you didn't get to fix the "feature" where a space in a QTR profile
> name in Windows means its not recognised by QTR @ print time. Could you at
> least make the GUI and the runtime engine do the same thing. Or that it
> doesn't print if it can't find the profile. Right now it just prints anyway
> and wastes another sheet of expensive paper while reporting that it can't
> find the profile, sometime after its started printing.
>
> Txs,
>
> Mike
>

Mike,

Special characters are illegal in lots of places on computers, so I took
the approach that they would be illegal in curves.  Before that there were
too many cases where some system thing would crap out.
The Curve Create tool gives you an error -- Illegal Curve Name right?
So it seems to me you can't make a curve with a space unless you do it by hand.

Roy

Roy,

Sometimes I cause the problem by renaming profiles, but yes you are right
the main cause is where I am linearizing profiles myself and editing their
filenames.

The root of the issue is that the GUI accepts it just fine and the print
engine still prints. If either of those blocked it, as the curve creation
tool does,  I would just get a bit frustrated, but at least I wouldn't waste
paper and time.

That said I don't believe that a "space" is an illegal character in the
filenames of the OS that you currently support and to me that seems to be
the obvious defining point, not what happens in other OS current or in the
past. Its just much easier to visually parse profile names with spaces. Also
its a trivial change to make. I Googled 20 simple ways to do it with just
"windows file name checker" search.

Mike



I'm can't remember what the Curve creation tool does, but I think it can




On 30 March 2010 00:53, Roy Harrington <roy@...> wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 4:32 PM, Michael King <drmrking@...<drmrking%40gmail.com>>
> wrote:
> > Hi Roy,
> >
> > I see you didn't get to fix the "feature" where a space in a QTR profile
> > name in Windows means its not recognised by QTR @ print time. Could you
> at
> > least make the GUI and the runtime engine do the same thing. Or that it
> > doesn't print if it can't find the profile. Right now it just prints
> anyway
> > and wastes another sheet of expensive paper while reporting that it can't
> > find the profile, sometime after its started printing.
> >
> > Txs,
> >
> > Mike
> >
>
> Mike,
>
> Special characters are illegal in lots of places on computers, so I took
> the approach that they would be illegal in curves. Before that there were
> too many cases where some system thing would crap out.
> The Curve Create tool gives you an error -- Illegal Curve Name right?
> So it seems to me you can't make a curve with a space unless you do it by
> hand.
>
> Roy
>  
>


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

You'd be just as upset or more if the GUI left out the curves with
spaces in them.
Use underscore or dash for more room in the names.

Despite what you may think is simple -- there are lots of implications.
Roy

On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Michael King <drmrking@...> wrote:
> Roy,
>
> Sometimes I cause the problem by renaming profiles, but yes you are right
> the main cause is where I am linearizing profiles myself and editing their
> filenames.
>
> The root of the issue is that the GUI accepts it just fine and the print
> engine still prints. If either of those blocked it, as the curve creation
> tool does,  I would just get a bit frustrated, but at least I wouldn't waste
> paper and time.
>
> That said I don't believe that a "space" is an illegal character in the
> filenames of the OS that you currently support and to me that seems to be
> the obvious defining point, not what happens in other OS current or in the
> past. Its just much easier to visually parse profile names with spaces. Also
> its a trivial change to make. I Googled 20 simple ways to do it with just
> "windows file name checker" search.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> I'm can't remember what the Curve creation tool does, but I think it can
>
>
>
>
> On 30 March 2010 00:53, Roy Harrington <roy@...> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 4:32 PM, Michael King <drmrking@...<drmrking%40gmail.com>>
>> wrote:
>> > Hi Roy,
>> >
>> > I see you didn't get to fix the "feature" where a space in a QTR profile
>> > name in Windows means its not recognised by QTR @ print time. Could you
>> at
>> > least make the GUI and the runtime engine do the same thing. Or that it
>> > doesn't print if it can't find the profile. Right now it just prints
>> anyway
>> > and wastes another sheet of expensive paper while reporting that it can't
>> > find the profile, sometime after its started printing.
>> >
>> > Txs,
>> >
>> > Mike
>> >
>>
>> Mike,
>>
>> Special characters are illegal in lots of places on computers, so I took
>> the approach that they would be illegal in curves. Before that there were
>> too many cases where some system thing would crap out.
>> The Curve Create tool gives you an error -- Illegal Curve Name right?
>> So it seems to me you can't make a curve with a space unless you do it by
>> hand.
>>
>> Roy
>>
>>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

On 29/03/10 12:18 PM, "Michael King" <drmrking@...> wrote:

> Solved the problem by using using overlapping curves and
> linearizing with my own spreadsheet based linearization tool. This 7 ink set
> up is using a mix of HP-PK and Eboni MK (18% & 100%). It may have been
> caused by some other effect that I removed by using overlapping curves, but
> there is no doubt that overlapping curves solved the problem, whatever is
> causing it.

Mike, would you be willing to share your approach, and spreadsheet? I would
find it very helpful.

Feel free to e-mail me off-list if that is more appropriate.

Thanks.

Terry.

On 29/03/10 5:49 PM, "Michael King" <drmrking@...> wrote:

> Sure I'll do some tests with the bullseye.
> I am checking the smoothness of the linearity and I didn't see any flat
> spots.
> More on this after some testing. But also its a tough image to print.
> As I said I'll upload the section that tends to posterize for people to test
> if they want.

I think I know what Michael is trying to describe. When I build 7 ink
profiles for my Cone inks and I print the bulls eye on Keith Cooper's test
print (Northlight Images) I get what appears to be "banding". The concentric
circles do not progress smoothly, instead there are light and dark bands.
I've had a number of custom profiles made by Jon's team and they conversely,
are smooth. I know that Jon's profiling tool gradually overlaps the inks. I
also know that it defines each of the 256 points for all seven inks. He
makes a "master curve" for each printer supported, which I understand is a
lot of work. Simply put, the tool is very sophisticated.

On 29/03/10 5:36 PM, "Roy Harrington" <roy@...> wrote:

> I think Shilesh has a valid point.  With the standard QTR transitions when
> you use more inks the slope of the transitions are steeper since there are
> more up and downs.  With just 3 grays the transitions are naturally wider.
> Graph Piezo K7 curves and QTR UCk3 curves and note that the slopes a pretty
> comparable.   What all this means is that you need to be more accurate
> in the relative density measurements with K7 inks and QTR curves.
> (I take it you are creating your own curves with K7 inks using QTR curves).

Perhaps its a combination of ink partitioning and getting the density of
each ink set at the right level. I've wondered lately if I've been setting
the density of each ink too high, which would lead to steep transitions.

> I must admit I haven't made many K7 curves since Cone provides them,
> but like Shilesh says with K3 inks I've never had issue with smoothness.
> What I think you are calling posterization is actually flat spots in a what
> should be a smooth gradient.

That makes a lot of sense. My profiles are nice and linear, and there is
nothing to indicate a significant problem, yet I still get this "banding". I
assume there are problems in between the 5% steps that do not manifest when
the 21 step wedge is printed.

> In the new release I've included a bullseye.tif pattern in the Eye-One folder.
> Print that out with your setup.  This shows anomalies very easily in the top
> half.  Then the bottom half makes it easy to see where the issue is.
> With a graph of the curves you can see which inks are in transition at that
> point.  If its a flat spot the lighter ink is marked lighter that it really
> is.

Sounds like a great tool. It will be interesting to see what it reveals.

Terry.

StudioPrint uses rather severe partitioning, and successfully linearizes 6 and 7 inks. Of course it costs much much more. My only point is that lots of overlap is not necessary for this, it can be done, and the number of inks is not the problem.
Also, many of us prefer not to lessen the number of grays, as we don't find 3 Ks adequate for our particular needs. If you do, kudos, but one of QTR's great benefits is it's flexibility as a monochrome driver for all kinds of demanding setups for a variety of needs.
Mike, are you at 1440 or 1880? Variable dot in every, of many, grays (1440x720) can be very difficult, even only 3. In many of these setups it works because of heavy light ink limiting, which is likely primarily small dots...
Tyler

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

>
> Mike,
> 
> I must say I have never ecountered posterization issues with customary inks that use K, LK, and LLK alone, or as backbone followed by LM, LC, and others for toning via use of "toner" or "copy curve from" in QTR ink setup.
> 
> I think Cone type overlap may (perhaps) be required when using 4+ gray inks, which in my opinion is at best an overkill, and technical mas@#$%^tion at worst. I have not seen a print that was better simply because it had 6 or 7 shades of gray. Try to reduce the number of gray inks in your set up, and use standard QTR curves design tools. I am curious what your eyes will see.
> 
> Shilesh
> 
> Shilesh
> 
> --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, Michael King <drmrking@> wrote:
> >
> > Roy,
> > 
> > >>If you have posterization issues it's almost certainly due to other
> > issues.
> > More bits and more overlap are pretty much the very last things to be
> > concerned about. Posterization is usually in the image or you have bad inks
> > 
> > So all I can say is that I have a image that posterizes with QTR curves
> > (limited overlap) but not Cone style overlapping curves. Same inks, same
> > printer. Solved the problem by using using overlapping curves and
> > linearizing with my own spreadsheet based linearization tool. This 7 ink set
> > up is using a mix of HP-PK and Eboni MK (18% & 100%). It may have been
> > caused by some other effect that I removed by using overlapping curves, but
> > there is no doubt that overlapping curves solved the problem, whatever is
> > causing it.
> > 
> > Mike
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On 29 March 2010 19:00, Roy Harrington <roy@> wrote:
> > 
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 9:02 AM, Michael King <drmrking@<drmrking%40gmail.com>>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>>Is there any benefit in re-creating custom curves for this new version?
> > > I
> > > > have just finished profiling two papers for QTR and wonder if they would
> > > be
> > > > a) compatible, b) have greater accuracy with this new version?
> > > >
> > > > As I read in Roy's answer to my earlier question - there has been no
> > > change
> > > > to profiling. Its still 8 bit based. BUT he is interpolating between the
> > > 8
> > > > bit values to generate intermediate values to support 16bit.
> > >
> > > There have always been 256 points in the QTR curves but the values at each
> > > of the points have always been 16-bit. The 256 points are already way
> > > overkill
> > > compared to, for instance, color ICC profiles. ICC color management
> > > typically
> > > uses interpolation with just 25 points so QTR curves have 10 times that.
> > > Interpolation is a perfectly good technique.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > To be honest paper coatings are barely consistent enough across the page
> > > to
> > > > let you profile at 7 bits (128 values) never mind more than 8 bits. So we
> > > > would be able to gain nothing from Roy directly increasing the curve
> > > > resolution beyond 8 bits.
> > > >
> > > > You might ask what's the benefit of 16 bit printing ? Well I expect the
> > > main
> > > > benefit is in helping smooth tonal areas avoid posterization, by creating
> > > > more ink values in the tonal graduation.
> > >
> > > If you have posterization issues it's almost certainly due to other issues.
> > > More bits and more overlap are pretty much the very last things to be
> > > concerned about. Posterization is usually in the image or you have bad
> > > inks.
> > >
> > > Roy
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I've been wrestling with this issue for the last few months and have been
> > > > experimenting with Cone style overlapping curves and QTR less overlapping
> > > > style. There is no doubt more overlap reduces the problem BUT also for
> > > some
> > > > papers overlapping curves reduces dmax. So as usual there is no free
> > > lunch.
> > > > I am excited about the potential of 16 bit printing to address this issue
> > > -
> > > > just got to Hackintosh my PC first :)
> > > >
> > > > Mike
> > > >
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>

I am using 2880 and only 2880. Why use anything else :)
Mike

On 30 March 2010 06:36, tboleyyh <tyler@...> wrote:

>
>
> StudioPrint uses rather severe partitioning, and successfully linearizes 6
> and 7 inks. Of course it costs much much more. My only point is that lots of
> overlap is not necessary for this, it can be done, and the number of inks is
> not the problem.
> Also, many of us prefer not to lessen the number of grays, as we don't find
> 3 Ks adequate for our particular needs. If you do, kudos, but one of QTR's
> great benefits is it's flexibility as a monochrome driver for all kinds of
> demanding setups for a variety of needs.
> Mike, are you at 1440 or 1880? Variable dot in every, of many, grays
> (1440x720) can be very difficult, even only 3. In many of these setups it
> works because of heavy light ink limiting, which is likely primarily small
> dots...
> Tyler
>
>
> --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com <QuadtoneRIP%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "shileshjani" <shileshjani@...> wrote:
> >
> > Mike,
> >
> > I must say I have never ecountered posterization issues with customary
> inks that use K, LK, and LLK alone, or as backbone followed by LM, LC, and
> others for toning via use of "toner" or "copy curve from" in QTR ink setup.
> >
> > I think Cone type overlap may (perhaps) be required when using 4+ gray
> inks, which in my opinion is at best an overkill, and technical mas@#$%^tion
> at worst. I have not seen a print that was better simply because it had 6 or
> 7 shades of gray. Try to reduce the number of gray inks in your set up, and
> use standard QTR curves design tools. I am curious what your eyes will see.
> >
> > Shilesh
> >
> > Shilesh
> >
> > --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com <QuadtoneRIP%40yahoogroups.com>,
> Michael King <drmrking@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Roy,
> > >
> > > >>If you have posterization issues it's almost certainly due to other
> > > issues.
> > > More bits and more overlap are pretty much the very last things to be
> > > concerned about. Posterization is usually in the image or you have bad
> inks
> > >
> > > So all I can say is that I have a image that posterizes with QTR curves
> > > (limited overlap) but not Cone style overlapping curves. Same inks,
> same
> > > printer. Solved the problem by using using overlapping curves and
> > > linearizing with my own spreadsheet based linearization tool. This 7
> ink set
> > > up is using a mix of HP-PK and Eboni MK (18% & 100%). It may have been
> > > caused by some other effect that I removed by using overlapping curves,
> but
> > > there is no doubt that overlapping curves solved the problem, whatever
> is
> > > causing it.
> > >
> > > Mike
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 29 March 2010 19:00, Roy Harrington <roy@> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 9:02 AM, Michael King <drmrking@<drmrking%
> 40gmail.com>>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >>>Is there any benefit in re-creating custom curves for this new
> version?
> > > > I
> > > > > have just finished profiling two papers for QTR and wonder if they
> would
> > > > be
> > > > > a) compatible, b) have greater accuracy with this new version?
> > > > >
> > > > > As I read in Roy's answer to my earlier question - there has been
> no
> > > > change
> > > > > to profiling. Its still 8 bit based. BUT he is interpolating
> between the
> > > > 8
> > > > > bit values to generate intermediate values to support 16bit.
> > > >
> > > > There have always been 256 points in the QTR curves but the values at
> each
> > > > of the points have always been 16-bit. The 256 points are already way
> > > > overkill
> > > > compared to, for instance, color ICC profiles. ICC color management
> > > > typically
> > > > uses interpolation with just 25 points so QTR curves have 10 times
> that.
> > > > Interpolation is a perfectly good technique.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > To be honest paper coatings are barely consistent enough across the
> page
> > > > to
> > > > > let you profile at 7 bits (128 values) never mind more than 8 bits.
> So we
> > > > > would be able to gain nothing from Roy directly increasing the
> curve
> > > > > resolution beyond 8 bits.
> > > > >
> > > > > You might ask what's the benefit of 16 bit printing ? Well I expect
> the
> > > > main
> > > > > benefit is in helping smooth tonal areas avoid posterization, by
> creating
> > > > > more ink values in the tonal graduation.
> > > >
> > > > If you have posterization issues it's almost certainly due to other
> issues.
> > > > More bits and more overlap are pretty much the very last things to be
> > > > concerned about. Posterization is usually in the image or you have
> bad
> > > > inks.
> > > >
> > > > Roy
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I've been wrestling with this issue for the last few months and
> have been
> > > > > experimenting with Cone style overlapping curves and QTR less
> overlapping
> > > > > style. There is no doubt more overlap reduces the problem BUT also
> for
> > > > some
> > > > > papers overlapping curves reduces dmax. So as usual there is no
> free
> > > > lunch.
> > > > > I am excited about the potential of 16 bit printing to address this
> issue
> > > > -
> > > > > just got to Hackintosh my PC first :)
> > > > >
> > > > > Mike
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
>
>  
>


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

Hello Mike,

I am also using the Epson 2880 and I am pleased with the results.
Up to now I printed mostly wih the ABW mode. Now I want to move into printing with QTR.

As I am new to QTR I ask you for your experience. Did you create specific curves that are not included in QTR? Coming from Germany I mostly use Hahnemuehle papers like Photo Rag, Bamboo and Baryta.

Best regards
Matthias

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Michael King  
Gesendet: 30.03.2010 10:27:09
An: QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com
Betreff: Re: [QuadtoneRIP] Re: New Release of QuadToneRIP 2.7.0 for both Mac  and PC

>I am using 2880 and only 2880. Why use anything else :)
>Mike
>
>On 30 March 2010 06:36, tboleyyh   wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> StudioPrint uses rather severe partitioning, and successfully linearizes 6
>> and 7 inks. Of course it costs much much more. My only point is that lots of
>> overlap is not necessary for this, it can be done, and the number of inks is
>> not the problem.
>> Also, many of us prefer not to lessen the number of grays, as we don't find
>> 3 Ks adequate for our particular needs. If you do, kudos, but one of QTR's
>> great benefits is it's flexibility as a monochrome driver for all kinds of
>> demanding setups for a variety of needs.
>> Mike, are you at 1440 or 1880? Variable dot in every, of many, grays
>> (1440x720) can be very difficult, even only 3. In many of these setups it
>> works because of heavy light ink limiting, which is likely primarily small
>> dots...
>> Tyler
>>
>>
>> --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com ,
>> "shileshjani"  wrote:
>> >
>> > Mike,
>> >
>> > I must say I have never ecountered posterization issues with customary
>> inks that use K, LK, and LLK alone, or as backbone followed by LM, LC, and
>> others for toning via use of "toner" or "copy curve from" in QTR ink setup.
>> >
>> > I think Cone type overlap may (perhaps) be required when using 4+ gray
>> inks, which in my opinion is at best an overkill, and technical mas@#$%^tion
>> at worst. I have not seen a print that was better simply because it had 6 or
>> 7 shades of gray. Try to reduce the number of gray inks in your set up, and
>> use standard QTR curves design tools. I am curious what your eyes will see.
>> >
>> > Shilesh
>> >
>> > Shilesh
>> >
>> > --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com ,
>> Michael King   wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Roy,
>> > >
>> > > >>If you have posterization issues it's almost certainly due to other
>> > > issues.
>> > > More bits and more overlap are pretty much the very last things to be
>> > > concerned about. Posterization is usually in the image or you have bad
>> inks
>> > >
>> > > So all I can say is that I have a image that posterizes with QTR curves
>> > > (limited overlap) but not Cone style overlapping curves. Same inks,
>> same
>> > > printer. Solved the problem by using using overlapping curves and
>> > > linearizing with my own spreadsheet based linearization tool. This 7
>> ink set
>> > > up is using a mix of HP-PK and Eboni MK (18% & 100%). It may have been
>> > > caused by some other effect that I removed by using overlapping curves,
>> but
>> > > there is no doubt that overlapping curves solved the problem, whatever
>> is
>> > > causing it.
>> > >
>> > > Mike
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On 29 March 2010 19:00, Roy Harrington   wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 9:02 AM, Michael King  > 40gmail.com>>
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > > >>>Is there any benefit in re-creating custom curves for this new
>> version?
>> > > > I
>> > > > > have just finished profiling two papers for QTR and wonder if they
>> would
>> > > > be
>> > > > > a) compatible, b) have greater accuracy with this new version?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > As I read in Roy's answer to my earlier question - there has been
>> no
>> > > > change
>> > > > > to profiling. Its still 8 bit based. BUT he is interpolating
>> between the
>> > > > 8
>> > > > > bit values to generate intermediate values to support 16bit.
>> > > >
>> > > > There have always been 256 points in the QTR curves but the values at
>> each
>> > > > of the points have always been 16-bit. The 256 points are already way
>> > > > overkill
>> > > > compared to, for instance, color ICC profiles. ICC color management
>> > > > typically
>> > > > uses interpolation with just 25 points so QTR curves have 10 times
>> that.
>> > > > Interpolation is a perfectly good technique.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > To be honest paper coatings are barely consistent enough across the
>> page
>> > > > to
>> > > > > let you profile at 7 bits (128 values) never mind more than 8 bits.
>> So we
>> > > > > would be able to gain nothing from Roy directly increasing the
>> curve
>> > > > > resolution beyond 8 bits.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > You might ask what's the benefit of 16 bit printing ? Well I expect
>> the
>> > > > main
>> > > > > benefit is in helping smooth tonal areas avoid posterization, by
>> creating
>> > > > > more ink values in the tonal graduation.
>> > > >
>> > > > If you have posterization issues it's almost certainly due to other
>> issues.
>> > > > More bits and more overlap are pretty much the very last things to be
>> > > > concerned about. Posterization is usually in the image or you have
>> bad
>> > > > inks.
>> > > >
>> > > > Roy
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I've been wrestling with this issue for the last few months and
>> have been
>> > > > > experimenting with Cone style overlapping curves and QTR less
>> overlapping
>> > > > > style. There is no doubt more overlap reduces the problem BUT also
>> for
>> > > > some
>> > > > > papers overlapping curves reduces dmax. So as usual there is no
>> free
>> > > > lunch.
>> > > > > I am excited about the potential of 16 bit printing to address this
>> issue
>> > > > -
>> > > > > just got to Hackintosh my PC first :)
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Mike
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>  
>>
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>  To visit your group on the web, go to:
>    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/QuadtoneRIP/
>
>  Your email settings:
>    Individual Email | Traditional
>
>  To change settings online go to:
>    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/QuadtoneRIP/join
>    (Yahoo! ID required)
>
>  To change settings via email:
>    QuadtoneRIP-digest@yahoogroups.com 
>    QuadtoneRIP-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
>
>  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>    QuadtoneRIP-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
>    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
___________________________________________________________
GRATIS für alle WEB.DE-Nutzer: Die maxdome Movie-FLAT!
Jetzt freischalten unter http://movieflat.web.de

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, Terry Ritz <t.ritz@...> wrote:

> 
> That makes a lot of sense. My profiles are nice and linear, and there is
> nothing to indicate a significant problem, yet I still get this "banding". I
> assume there are problems in between the 5% steps that do not manifest when
> the 21 step wedge is printed.
> 
> Sounds like a great tool. It will be interesting to see what it reveals.
> 
> Terry.
>

The "bullseyes" are extremely useful for a visual check on smoothness, but if you want an objective measure, and if you have an i1, you can use the 256-step wedge that I posted some time ago. It's in the Tools section of the Files.

Oh, and before anyone accuses me of being anal, my excuse is that I am a retired physicist who had nothing better to do one rainy day!

Roger

No doubt QTR is a fantastic tool for demanding needs not satisfied by Epson color or ABW drivers. This community should be applauding (and thanking) QTR developers at every opportunity. I use QTR (and custom ink set ups) all the time to get a color response and split-tone effcts that ABW cannot deliver. Having said that, and providing you are using a paper that is a good match for Epson ABW driver's ink limits, and you linearize the printed grayscale, ABW with K3 inks will deliver smoothness that rivals K6/K7. Whether you like the various color schemes available in ABW is a matter of personal taste. But L response from paper white to DMax is adequately addressed with linearized ABW. Maybe I am just a Philistine about these matters, but even sample K6/K7 prints from Cone have left me saying "ho-hum." The skills of the printer trumps the technology they use.

Shilesh

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "tboleyyh" <tyler@...> wrote:

>
> StudioPrint uses rather severe partitioning, and successfully linearizes 6 and 7 inks. Of course it costs much much more. My only point is that lots of overlap is not necessary for this, it can be done, and the number of inks is not the problem.
> Also, many of us prefer not to lessen the number of grays, as we don't find 3 Ks adequate for our particular needs. If you do, kudos, but one of QTR's great benefits is it's flexibility as a monochrome driver for all kinds of demanding setups for a variety of needs.
> Mike, are you at 1440 or 1880? Variable dot in every, of many, grays (1440x720) can be very difficult, even only 3. In many of these setups it works because of heavy light ink limiting, which is likely primarily small dots...
> Tyler
> 
> --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "shileshjani" <shileshjani@> wrote:
> >
> > Mike,
> > 
> > I must say I have never ecountered posterization issues with customary inks that use K, LK, and LLK alone, or as backbone followed by LM, LC, and others for toning via use of "toner" or "copy curve from" in QTR ink setup.
> > 
> > I think Cone type overlap may (perhaps) be required when using 4+ gray inks, which in my opinion is at best an overkill, and technical mas@#$%^tion at worst. I have not seen a print that was better simply because it had 6 or 7 shades of gray. Try to reduce the number of gray inks in your set up, and use standard QTR curves design tools. I am curious what your eyes will see.
> > 
> > Shilesh
> > 
> > Shilesh
> > 
> > --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, Michael King <drmrking@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Roy,
> > > 
> > > >>If you have posterization issues it's almost certainly due to other
> > > issues.
> > > More bits and more overlap are pretty much the very last things to be
> > > concerned about. Posterization is usually in the image or you have bad inks
> > > 
> > > So all I can say is that I have a image that posterizes with QTR curves
> > > (limited overlap) but not Cone style overlapping curves. Same inks, same
> > > printer. Solved the problem by using using overlapping curves and
> > > linearizing with my own spreadsheet based linearization tool. This 7 ink set
> > > up is using a mix of HP-PK and Eboni MK (18% & 100%). It may have been
> > > caused by some other effect that I removed by using overlapping curves, but
> > > there is no doubt that overlapping curves solved the problem, whatever is
> > > causing it.
> > > 
> > > Mike
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On 29 March 2010 19:00, Roy Harrington <roy@> wrote:
> > > 
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 9:02 AM, Michael King <drmrking@<drmrking%40gmail.com>>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >>>Is there any benefit in re-creating custom curves for this new version?
> > > > I
> > > > > have just finished profiling two papers for QTR and wonder if they would
> > > > be
> > > > > a) compatible, b) have greater accuracy with this new version?
> > > > >
> > > > > As I read in Roy's answer to my earlier question - there has been no
> > > > change
> > > > > to profiling. Its still 8 bit based. BUT he is interpolating between the
> > > > 8
> > > > > bit values to generate intermediate values to support 16bit.
> > > >
> > > > There have always been 256 points in the QTR curves but the values at each
> > > > of the points have always been 16-bit. The 256 points are already way
> > > > overkill
> > > > compared to, for instance, color ICC profiles. ICC color management
> > > > typically
> > > > uses interpolation with just 25 points so QTR curves have 10 times that.
> > > > Interpolation is a perfectly good technique.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > To be honest paper coatings are barely consistent enough across the page
> > > > to
> > > > > let you profile at 7 bits (128 values) never mind more than 8 bits. So we
> > > > > would be able to gain nothing from Roy directly increasing the curve
> > > > > resolution beyond 8 bits.
> > > > >
> > > > > You might ask what's the benefit of 16 bit printing ? Well I expect the
> > > > main
> > > > > benefit is in helping smooth tonal areas avoid posterization, by creating
> > > > > more ink values in the tonal graduation.
> > > >
> > > > If you have posterization issues it's almost certainly due to other issues.
> > > > More bits and more overlap are pretty much the very last things to be
> > > > concerned about. Posterization is usually in the image or you have bad
> > > > inks.
> > > >
> > > > Roy
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I've been wrestling with this issue for the last few months and have been
> > > > > experimenting with Cone style overlapping curves and QTR less overlapping
> > > > > style. There is no doubt more overlap reduces the problem BUT also for
> > > > some
> > > > > papers overlapping curves reduces dmax. So as usual there is no free
> > > > lunch.
> > > > > I am excited about the potential of 16 bit printing to address this issue
> > > > -
> > > > > just got to Hackintosh my PC first :)
> > > > >
> > > > > Mike
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >  
> > > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
>

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, Michael King <drmrking@...> wrote:
>
> I am using 2880 and only 2880. Why use anything else :)

exactly... but it was worth asking to make sure...
Tyler

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, Michael King <drmrking@...> wrote:
>
> I am using 2880 and only 2880. Why use anything else :)

I never really use it as it's usually a waste of ink, the differences are imperceptible on most papers.

When I was profiling Epson Exhibition Fibre/Traditional Photo Paper on my 7880 I tried an ink limit test on both 1440 and 2880.

Naturally the 2880 saturated well before the 1440, the ink limit on 1440dpi was 85% and on 2880dpi it was 70%.

When I subsequently printed out the calibration strip again with the respective ink limits set, the DMAX at 100% on both 1440dpi and 2880dpi was absolutely identical.

So if there is a benefit in printing 2880dpi, it's not DMAX. There may feasibly be some difference in smoothness, but I've not compared, I may do some testing out of curiosity.

Hi Matthias,

Sorry I confused you - I was replying to a question about about what print
resolution I was using 1440 or 2880.
I am using 2880 resolution on a R1900 printer.

Mike

On 30 March 2010 11:01, Matthias Eblen <matthias.eblen@...> wrote:

>
>
> Hello Mike,
>
> I am also using the Epson 2880 and I am pleased with the results.
> Up to now I printed mostly wih the ABW mode. Now I want to move into
> printing with QTR.
>
> As I am new to QTR I ask you for your experience. Did you create specific
> curves that are not included in QTR? Coming from Germany I mostly use
> Hahnemuehle papers like Photo Rag, Bamboo and Baryta.
>
> Best regards
> Matthias
>
> -----Urspr�ngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Michael King
> Gesendet: 30.03.2010 10:27:09
> An: QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com <QuadtoneRIP%40yahoogroups.com>
> Betreff: Re: [QuadtoneRIP] Re: New Release of QuadToneRIP 2.7.0 for both
> Mac and PC
>
>
> >I am using 2880 and only 2880. Why use anything else :)
> >Mike
> >
> >On 30 March 2010 06:36, tboleyyh wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> StudioPrint uses rather severe partitioning, and successfully linearizes
> 6
> >> and 7 inks. Of course it costs much much more. My only point is that
> lots of
> >> overlap is not necessary for this, it can be done, and the number of
> inks is
> >> not the problem.
> >> Also, many of us prefer not to lessen the number of grays, as we don't
> find
> >> 3 Ks adequate for our particular needs. If you do, kudos, but one of
> QTR's
> >> great benefits is it's flexibility as a monochrome driver for all kinds
> of
> >> demanding setups for a variety of needs.
> >> Mike, are you at 1440 or 1880? Variable dot in every, of many, grays
> >> (1440x720) can be very difficult, even only 3. In many of these setups
> it
> >> works because of heavy light ink limiting, which is likely primarily
> small
> >> dots...
> >> Tyler
> >>
> >>
> >> --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com <QuadtoneRIP%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> >> "shileshjani" wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Mike,
> >> >
> >> > I must say I have never ecountered posterization issues with customary
> >> inks that use K, LK, and LLK alone, or as backbone followed by LM, LC,
> and
> >> others for toning via use of "toner" or "copy curve from" in QTR ink
> setup.
> >> >
> >> > I think Cone type overlap may (perhaps) be required when using 4+ gray
> >> inks, which in my opinion is at best an overkill, and technical mas@
> #$%^tion
> >> at worst. I have not seen a print that was better simply because it had
> 6 or
> >> 7 shades of gray. Try to reduce the number of gray inks in your set up,
> and
> >> use standard QTR curves design tools. I am curious what your eyes will
> see.
> >> >
> >> > Shilesh
> >> >
> >> > Shilesh
> >> >
> >> > --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com <QuadtoneRIP%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> >> Michael King wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > Roy,
> >> > >
> >> > > >>If you have posterization issues it's almost certainly due to
> other
> >> > > issues.
> >> > > More bits and more overlap are pretty much the very last things to
> be
> >> > > concerned about. Posterization is usually in the image or you have
> bad
> >> inks
> >> > >
> >> > > So all I can say is that I have a image that posterizes with QTR
> curves
> >> > > (limited overlap) but not Cone style overlapping curves. Same inks,
> >> same
> >> > > printer. Solved the problem by using using overlapping curves and
> >> > > linearizing with my own spreadsheet based linearization tool. This 7
> >> ink set
> >> > > up is using a mix of HP-PK and Eboni MK (18% & 100%). It may have
> been
> >> > > caused by some other effect that I removed by using overlapping
> curves,
> >> but
> >> > > there is no doubt that overlapping curves solved the problem,
> whatever
> >> is
> >> > > causing it.
> >> > >
> >> > > Mike
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > On 29 March 2010 19:00, Roy Harrington wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 9:02 AM, Michael King > 40gmail.com>>
>
> >> > > > wrote:
> >> > > > >>>Is there any benefit in re-creating custom curves for this new
> >> version?
> >> > > > I
> >> > > > > have just finished profiling two papers for QTR and wonder if
> they
> >> would
> >> > > > be
> >> > > > > a) compatible, b) have greater accuracy with this new version?
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > As I read in Roy's answer to my earlier question - there has
> been
> >> no
> >> > > > change
> >> > > > > to profiling. Its still 8 bit based. BUT he is interpolating
> >> between the
> >> > > > 8
> >> > > > > bit values to generate intermediate values to support 16bit.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > There have always been 256 points in the QTR curves but the values
> at
> >> each
> >> > > > of the points have always been 16-bit. The 256 points are already
> way
> >> > > > overkill
> >> > > > compared to, for instance, color ICC profiles. ICC color
> management
> >> > > > typically
> >> > > > uses interpolation with just 25 points so QTR curves have 10 times
> >> that.
> >> > > > Interpolation is a perfectly good technique.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > To be honest paper coatings are barely consistent enough across
> the
> >> page
> >> > > > to
> >> > > > > let you profile at 7 bits (128 values) never mind more than 8
> bits.
> >> So we
> >> > > > > would be able to gain nothing from Roy directly increasing the
> >> curve
> >> > > > > resolution beyond 8 bits.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > You might ask what's the benefit of 16 bit printing ? Well I
> expect
> >> the
> >> > > > main
> >> > > > > benefit is in helping smooth tonal areas avoid posterization, by
> >> creating
> >> > > > > more ink values in the tonal graduation.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > If you have posterization issues it's almost certainly due to
> other
> >> issues.
> >> > > > More bits and more overlap are pretty much the very last things to
> be
> >> > > > concerned about. Posterization is usually in the image or you have
> >> bad
> >> > > > inks.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Roy
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > I've been wrestling with this issue for the last few months and
> >> have been
> >> > > > > experimenting with Cone style overlapping curves and QTR less
> >> overlapping
> >> > > > > style. There is no doubt more overlap reduces the problem BUT
> also
> >> for
> >> > > > some
> >> > > > > papers overlapping curves reduces dmax. So as usual there is no
> >> free
> >> > > > lunch.
> >> > > > > I am excited about the potential of 16 bit printing to address
> this
> >> issue
> >> > > > -
> >> > > > > just got to Hackintosh my PC first :)
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Mike
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> >------------------------------------
>
> >
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> > To visit your group on the web, go to:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/QuadtoneRIP/
>
> >
> > Your email settings:
> > Individual Email | Traditional
> >
> > To change settings online go to:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/QuadtoneRIP/join
>
> > (Yahoo! ID required)
> >
> > To change settings via email:
> > QuadtoneRIP-digest@yahoogroups.com<QuadtoneRIP-digest%40yahoogroups.com>
> > QuadtoneRIP-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com<QuadtoneRIP-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
>
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > QuadtoneRIP-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com<QuadtoneRIP-unsubscribe%40yahoogroups.com>
>
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> __________________________________________________________
> GRATIS f�r alle WEB.DE-Nutzer: Die maxdome Movie-FLAT!
> Jetzt freischalten unter http://movieflat.web.de
>
>  
>


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

Hallo,

you can find a german explanation for custom curves at the following link:

http://www.tauberlin.de/QTRKurven.pdf

Best Regards

Rainer


Am 30.03.2010 12:01, schrieb Matthias Eblen:
>
> Hello Mike,
>
> I am also using the Epson 2880 and I am pleased with the results.
> Up to now I printed mostly wih the ABW mode. Now I want to move into 
> printing with QTR.
>
> As I am new to QTR I ask you for your experience. Did you create 
> specific curves that are not included in QTR? Coming from Germany I 
> mostly use Hahnemuehle papers like Photo Rag, Bamboo and Baryta.
>
> Best regards
> Matthias
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Michael King
> Gesendet: 30.03.2010 10:27:09
> An: QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com <mailto:QuadtoneRIP%40yahoogroups.com>
> Betreff: Re: [QuadtoneRIP] Re: New Release of QuadToneRIP 2.7.0 for 
> both Mac and PC
>
> >I am using 2880 and only 2880. Why use anything else :)
> >Mike
> >
> >On 30 March 2010 06:36, tboleyyh wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> StudioPrint uses rather severe partitioning, and successfully 
> linearizes 6
> >> and 7 inks. Of course it costs much much more. My only point is 
> that lots of
> >> overlap is not necessary for this, it can be done, and the number 
> of inks is
> >> not the problem.
> >> Also, many of us prefer not to lessen the number of grays, as we 
> don't find
> >> 3 Ks adequate for our particular needs. If you do, kudos, but one 
> of QTR's
> >> great benefits is it's flexibility as a monochrome driver for all 
> kinds of
> >> demanding setups for a variety of needs.
> >> Mike, are you at 1440 or 1880? Variable dot in every, of many, grays
> >> (1440x720) can be very difficult, even only 3. In many of these 
> setups it
> >> works because of heavy light ink limiting, which is likely 
> primarily small
> >> dots...
> >> Tyler
> >>
> >>
> >> --- In QuadtoneRIP@...m 
> <mailto:QuadtoneRIP%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> >> "shileshjani" wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Mike,
> >> >
> >> > I must say I have never ecountered posterization issues with 
> customary
> >> inks that use K, LK, and LLK alone, or as backbone followed by LM, 
> LC, and
> >> others for toning via use of "toner" or "copy curve from" in QTR 
> ink setup.
> >> >
> >> > I think Cone type overlap may (perhaps) be required when using 4+ 
> gray
> >> inks, which in my opinion is at best an overkill, and technical 
> mas@#$%^tion
> >> at worst. I have not seen a print that was better simply because it 
> had 6 or
> >> 7 shades of gray. Try to reduce the number of gray inks in your set 
> up, and
> >> use standard QTR curves design tools. I am curious what your eyes 
> will see.
> >> >
> >> > Shilesh
> >> >
> >> > Shilesh
> >> >
> >> > --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com 
> <mailto:QuadtoneRIP%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> >> Michael King wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > Roy,
> >> > >
> >> > > >>If you have posterization issues it's almost certainly due to 
> other
> >> > > issues.
> >> > > More bits and more overlap are pretty much the very last things 
> to be
> >> > > concerned about. Posterization is usually in the image or you 
> have bad
> >> inks
> >> > >
> >> > > So all I can say is that I have a image that posterizes with 
> QTR curves
> >> > > (limited overlap) but not Cone style overlapping curves. Same inks,
> >> same
> >> > > printer. Solved the problem by using using overlapping curves and
> >> > > linearizing with my own spreadsheet based linearization tool. 
> This 7
> >> ink set
> >> > > up is using a mix of HP-PK and Eboni MK (18% & 100%). It may 
> have been
> >> > > caused by some other effect that I removed by using overlapping 
> curves,
> >> but
> >> > > there is no doubt that overlapping curves solved the problem, 
> whatever
> >> is
> >> > > causing it.
> >> > >
> >> > > Mike
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > On 29 March 2010 19:00, Roy Harrington wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 9:02 AM, Michael King > 40gmail.com>>
> >> > > > wrote:
> >> > > > >>>Is there any benefit in re-creating custom curves for this new
> >> version?
> >> > > > I
> >> > > > > have just finished profiling two papers for QTR and wonder 
> if they
> >> would
> >> > > > be
> >> > > > > a) compatible, b) have greater accuracy with this new version?
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > As I read in Roy's answer to my earlier question - there 
> has been
> >> no
> >> > > > change
> >> > > > > to profiling. Its still 8 bit based. BUT he is interpolating
> >> between the
> >> > > > 8
> >> > > > > bit values to generate intermediate values to support 16bit.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > There have always been 256 points in the QTR curves but the 
> values at
> >> each
> >> > > > of the points have always been 16-bit. The 256 points are 
> already way
> >> > > > overkill
> >> > > > compared to, for instance, color ICC profiles. ICC color 
> management
> >> > > > typically
> >> > > > uses interpolation with just 25 points so QTR curves have 10 
> times
> >> that.
> >> > > > Interpolation is a perfectly good technique.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > To be honest paper coatings are barely consistent enough 
> across the
> >> page
> >> > > > to
> >> > > > > let you profile at 7 bits (128 values) never mind more than 
> 8 bits.
> >> So we
> >> > > > > would be able to gain nothing from Roy directly increasing the
> >> curve
> >> > > > > resolution beyond 8 bits.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > You might ask what's the benefit of 16 bit printing ? Well 
> I expect
> >> the
> >> > > > main
> >> > > > > benefit is in helping smooth tonal areas avoid 
> posterization, by
> >> creating
> >> > > > > more ink values in the tonal graduation.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > If you have posterization issues it's almost certainly due to 
> other
> >> issues.
> >> > > > More bits and more overlap are pretty much the very last 
> things to be
> >> > > > concerned about. Posterization is usually in the image or you 
> have
> >> bad
> >> > > > inks.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Roy
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > I've been wrestling with this issue for the last few months and
> >> have been
> >> > > > > experimenting with Cone style overlapping curves and QTR less
> >> overlapping
> >> > > > > style. There is no doubt more overlap reduces the problem 
> BUT also
> >> for
> >> > > > some
> >> > > > > papers overlapping curves reduces dmax. So as usual there is no
> >> free
> >> > > > lunch.
> >> > > > > I am excited about the potential of 16 bit printing to 
> address this
> >> issue
> >> > > > -
> >> > > > > just got to Hackintosh my PC first :)
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Mike
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> >------------------------------------
> >
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> > To visit your group on the web, go to:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/QuadtoneRIP/ 
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/QuadtoneRIP/>
> >
> > Your email settings:
> > Individual Email | Traditional
> >
> > To change settings online go to:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/QuadtoneRIP/join 
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/QuadtoneRIP/join>
> > (Yahoo! ID required)
> >
> > To change settings via email:
> > QuadtoneRIP-digest@yahoogroups.com 
> <mailto:QuadtoneRIP-digest%40yahoogroups.com>
> > QuadtoneRIP-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com 
> <mailto:QuadtoneRIP-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > QuadtoneRIP-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com 
> <mailto:QuadtoneRIP-unsubscribe%40yahoogroups.com>
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>
> >
> __________________________________________________________
> GRATIS für alle WEB.DE-Nutzer: Die maxdome Movie-FLAT!
> Jetzt freischalten unter http://movieflat.web.de <http://movieflat.web.de>
>
> 



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

Terry, let's discuss this off list. I'll email you. Mike

On 30 March 2010 05:56, Terry Ritz <t.ritz@...> wrote:

>
>
> On 29/03/10 12:18 PM, "Michael King" <drmrking@...<drmrking%40gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
> > Solved the problem by using using overlapping curves and
> > linearizing with my own spreadsheet based linearization tool. This 7 ink
> set
> > up is using a mix of HP-PK and Eboni MK (18% & 100%). It may have been
> > caused by some other effect that I removed by using overlapping curves,
> but
> > there is no doubt that overlapping curves solved the problem, whatever is
> > causing it.
>
> Mike, would you be willing to share your approach, and spreadsheet? I would
> find it very helpful.
>
> Feel free to e-mail me off-list if that is more appropriate.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Terry.
>
>  
>


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

The different dpi's should use about the same amount of ink for the
same print density.
Yes, you probably need different ink limits for the different dpi's
but once you get it
so the same density print comes out the ink usage should be very close.

The main cost to 2880dpi is just the extra time to print.

Roy

On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 9:41 AM, dj_joy_uk <yahoo@...> wrote:
> --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, Michael King <drmrking@...> wrote:
>>
>> I am using 2880 and only 2880. Why use anything else :)
>
> I never really use it as it's usually a waste of ink, the differences are imperceptible on most papers.
>
> When I was profiling Epson Exhibition Fibre/Traditional Photo Paper on my 7880 I tried an ink limit test on both 1440 and 2880.
>
> Naturally the 2880 saturated well before the 1440, the ink limit on 1440dpi was 85% and on 2880dpi it was 70%.
>
> When I subsequently printed out the calibration strip again with the respective ink limits set, the DMAX at 100% on both 1440dpi and 2880dpi was absolutely identical.
>
> So if there is a benefit in printing 2880dpi, it's not DMAX. There may feasibly be some difference in smoothness, but I've not compared, I may do some testing out of curiosity.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

Roy,

Should we expect the 2880dpi mode to also invoke more smaller dot usage?
Hence maybe an advantage to 3MK users?

Also the R1800, 1900 and 1400 have a superfine mode 5760dpi mode.
Can we activate that through QTR?

Txs,

Mike

On 30 March 2010 21:55, Roy Harrington <roy@...> wrote:

>
>
> The different dpi's should use about the same amount of ink for the
> same print density.
> Yes, you probably need different ink limits for the different dpi's
> but once you get it
> so the same density print comes out the ink usage should be very close.
>
> The main cost to 2880dpi is just the extra time to print.
>
> Roy
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 9:41 AM, dj_joy_uk <yahoo@...<yahoo%40joy.org.uk>>
> wrote:
> > --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com <QuadtoneRIP%40yahoogroups.com>,
> Michael King <drmrking@...> wrote:
> >>
> >> I am using 2880 and only 2880. Why use anything else :)
> >
> > I never really use it as it's usually a waste of ink, the differences are
> imperceptible on most papers.
> >
> > When I was profiling Epson Exhibition Fibre/Traditional Photo Paper on my
> 7880 I tried an ink limit test on both 1440 and 2880.
> >
> > Naturally the 2880 saturated well before the 1440, the ink limit on
> 1440dpi was 85% and on 2880dpi it was 70%.
> >
> > When I subsequently printed out the calibration strip again with the
> respective ink limits set, the DMAX at 100% on both 1440dpi and 2880dpi was
> absolutely identical.
> >
> > So if there is a benefit in printing 2880dpi, it's not DMAX. There may
> feasibly be some difference in smoothness, but I've not compared, I may do
> some testing out of curiosity.
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>  
>


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

Hi,
I am a registered user. I hope it is ok to discuss this issue here.

I have a TIF file (kind of large).

http://www.pbase.com/mwj_3142/image/123931516/large

That I printed with QTR by opening the file.
	Windows Vista x64
	Epson Stylus photo 1400

When I print it on either 11 x 17 or letter size, There are bands
on either side as exhibited in this scan of the 8.5 x 11 print.

http://www.pbase.com/mwj_3142/image/123931713

Thanks
Mike Johnston

"Mike Johnston" <wpajohnson@...> wrote:
>
> ... printed with QTR by opening the file.
> 	Windows Vista x64
> 	Epson Stylus photo 1400
> 
> When I print it on either 11 x 17 or letter size, There are bands
> on either side as exhibited in this scan of the 8.5 x 11 print.
> 
> http://www.pbase.com/mwj_3142/image/123931713
> 


The 1400 needs both sets of its paper feed rollers engaged to avoid microbanding.  So, there need to be substantial margins at the top and bottom of the paper.  Thick paper probably has more problems with paper transport issues and banding than thinner paper.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Thanks Paul,
It may also be related to the ink.
The EPSON monitor said they were almost empty.
So I filled them but non were less than half full.
The issue is much better but not perfect.
This will lead to my next question.

Thanks
Mike J.

-----Original Message-----
From: QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com [mailto:QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of pr_roark
Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 8:46 AM
To: QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [QuadtoneRIP] Re: Problem with banding

"Mike Johnston" <wpajohnson@...> wrote:
>
> ... printed with QTR by opening the file.
> 	Windows Vista x64
> 	Epson Stylus photo 1400
>
> When I print it on either 11 x 17 or letter size, There are bands
> on either side as exhibited in this scan of the 8.5 x 11 print.
>
> http://www.pbase.com/mwj_3142/image/123931713
>


The 1400 needs both sets of its paper feed rollers engaged to avoid
microbanding.  So, there need to be substantial margins at the top and
bottom of the paper.  Thick paper probably has more problems with paper
transport issues and banding than thinner paper.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com




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

Yahoo! Groups Links