Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

   


   


   















      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[filmscanners] RE: Pixels and Prints



 I also suspect that the printer driver will always "touch" the binary data
flow. It would have to for control of how and where the inks are laid down.
There is also the issue of color gamut, though you do have some degree of
control if you are using some color management solution that includes ICC
profiles. I do know that third party printing software claims to use more
complex algorithms and proprietary print drivers that bypass the printer
manufacturers own drivers. By this method they directly control the printer
and its printing patterns for superior quality. My trial use of QImage, in
particular, seems to prove out this quality aspect on the Epson 2000 full
size prints. There is another application that I am aware of called
"Piezography BW" that uses a special printer driver and inks to acheive
outstanding B&W prints. Link to a review here
http://www.computer-darkroom.com/piezo/piezo_1.htm
 There are claims that Epson data states "the input resolution - the
resolution at which data is rasterized - is 720 "dpi" for desktops and 360
"dpi" for wide formats." Less understandable is the Epson recommendation of
300 ppi "at the size you intend to print" as their new magic number; if you
get to 220 or less, you start to see a difference in image quality, and
conversely, you won't see much improvement with bitmapped images by going
over 300 ppi. Hewlett-Packard, whose printheads are based on a 600-dpi
resolution instead of 720, recommends 150-200 ppi at final size for its
inkjet printers.
 The above paragraph contains information from "Mastering Digital Printing",
which includes everything you wanted to know about digital printing, EXCEPT
whether or not a 720 ppi file sent to an Epson printer is modified in any
way by the printer driver. Unless I missed the point, that is the question
we are trying to answer here.
 In my experience, this third party software (QImage) takes MUCH LONGER to
print. Using this as a clue, I would say that there is more detailed
calculation going on before the file is sent to the printer, even at 720
ppi. I believe the conversion of "pixels to dots" must involve some
"interpolation" by the printer driver, even at the native resolution.
 When using these different software, one would of course have to profile
their printer using the particular print engine.
Darrell

-----Original Message-----
From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
[mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of LAURIE SOLOMON
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 9:48 AM
To: loginguy01@telusplanet.net
Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Pixels and Prints


Thanks Darrell!

The link does offer some good information on the subject and does help
answer some of the questions - even the recent one involving the 240ppi vrs
720 ppi numbers.  According to the information on the document, all incoming
resolutions except the printers native resolution are resampled which means
that if they had been resampled once already they will have undergone a
resampling of the resample which can lead to poorer quality outputs.  The
document assumed that those files with the printers native resolution are
not resampled but just passed thru for further processing by the printer
driver; however, I am not so sure that this is the case without additional
explanation or evidence that the printers are that discriminating. I am
inclined to think that as a matter of general practice they perform an
resampling process on all incoming files regardless of their resolutions,
which means that a perfectly good 720 ppi incoming file will be altered in
accordance with the next neighbor formula so as to remain at 720 ppi but
with charafteristics different from what the original 720 ppi was.

-----Original Message-----
From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
[mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Darrell
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 11:20 PM
To: laurie@advancenet.net
Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Pixels and Prints


Hi all
 Good question Laurie. I see you have asked it several times. The one about
what the printer does with the binary data you send it. I vaguely recalled
seeing this explained, so it didn't take long to find this link
http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage/quality/
 The Lanczos interpolation really does seem to make a difference.
Darrell


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.528 / Virus Database: 324 - Release Date: 10/16/2003

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
or body

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body



 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.