Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: The future of printing  (Read 10032 times)
dkeyes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 259


WWW
« Reply #20 on: February 12, 2008, 02:04:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Doug,

The current high def monitor standard is 1920 x 1080 pixels (2 MP).  If this is the way things are going we can throw away our current crop of DSLRs and go back to point & shoots.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174099\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Obviously we're not there yet in the digital display world but I think it will happen before I quit taking pictures.
Logged

Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2730


« Reply #21 on: February 12, 2008, 03:15:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Obviously we're not there yet in the digital display world but I think it will happen before I quit taking pictures.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


There's digital paper that becomes available as well. There's the low bit B&W type from more companies that should replace books etc but larger ones with CMYK are tried for for signs some years already. There will be larger backlit and reflective displays based on cheaper technology (and the screens made with industrial inkjets) that will fit in between LCD and digital paper. At the end of the year I will add 50% to my bookshelves though. One day retired and with no space for so many books I might get one of the digital devices with a roll-up display, the characters enlarged for easy reading. Sometimes reading a new McEwan or just returning to what I had on the shelves. Maybe the best defense to new technology is in content.

Television screens didn't replace paintings, art prints or photographs on the wall. The new displays may have an impact on digital printing one day but I would be more worried about the "recession" and especially the house prices, building industry decline etc that must have an influence on how many walls get new decoration. Next stage is energy prices, any display with electronics inside will use energy, how little it may be.


Ernst Dinkla

try: [a href=\"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/[/url]
Logged
NikoJorj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1063


WWW
« Reply #22 on: February 12, 2008, 03:32:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I think the real valuable evolution will come from making color management ubiquitous and easy.  [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=172780\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
User-friendly color management seems the main area  for improvement... but it's rather a software problem, not a hardware one - LR is already half on the way, and many people hope to see softproofing in the 2.0 version.
The printers could help if they all have a built-in spectro (or a cheaper colorimeter at the very least)... That means you'll buy 2 spectros when you buy 2 printers - it's very interesting for the manufacturers, so it's very probable we'll see that soon   .

Another comparable area would be to have the output sharpening dealt in the same way, with output sharpening profiles that are relatively transparent to the user.
Logged

Nicolas from Grenoble
A small gallery
NikoJorj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1063


WWW
« Reply #23 on: February 12, 2008, 03:35:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
1. Papers and/or inksets that eliminate gloss differential and bronzing all the way from dMax black to blank paper (just like silver based prints).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=172910\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Can't that be made with simple gloss varnishes, as in the R800/R1800/R1900?

There is probably a reason for Epson not to use that in the pro printers, but which?
Logged

Nicolas from Grenoble
A small gallery
Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2730


« Reply #24 on: February 12, 2008, 05:01:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Can't that be made with simple gloss varnishes, as in the R800/R1800/R1900?

There is probably a reason for Epson not to use that in the pro printers, but which?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Both your comments suggest that you did not get much HP Z3100 information to read so far. It's all included, Spectrometer, gloss enhancer and more.


Ernst Dinkla

try: [a href=\"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/[/url]
« Last Edit: February 12, 2008, 07:01:54 AM by Ernst Dinkla » Logged
rdonson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1420


WWW
« Reply #25 on: February 12, 2008, 07:59:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Another comparable area would be to have the output sharpening dealt in the same way, with output sharpening profiles that are relatively transparent to the user.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174158\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You might want to look at Qimage.  It handles output sharpening and uprezzing remarkably well.
Logged

[span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'][span style='font-family:Arial'][span style='font-family:Geneva'][span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%']Regards,
Ron[/span][/span][/span][/span]
NikoJorj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1063


WWW
« Reply #26 on: February 12, 2008, 08:51:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
You might want to look at Qimage.  It handles output sharpening and uprezzing remarkably well.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174193\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I already looked at it, given it can handle long panos that the #@! crimped epson driver can't (with its arbitrary 110cm long limitation).
I managed to do a single pano print with Qimage but felt a bit too intimidated at the UI   to dive into the advanced options and all that army of tiny buttons... I still should have time left to try it, so I hope I'll have the courage to explore that soon.   Your suggestion adds a bit to that motivation, thanks!


What I was thinking with "output sharpening profiles" was to print a target (could be something very simple, like the ImaTest MTF target maybe?), scan it with enough resolution to go far enough beyond what the eye can see, and analyze its blurring (actually its MTF in a few directions) to find the "correct" amont of sharpening, to give back an "acceptable" (or maybe rather optimal) amount of MTF on the print.
Of course, a fair number of assumptions are needed to deal with the former words "correct" and "acceptable"   , but aren't such assumptions already in use (not without success) in the color management area?

Then, given a printer and a set of print settings, you'd just select a sharpening profile for these,  instead of tinker with a few sliders and print a few proofs. There's still plenty of room left for "creative" sharpening in the workflow, of course.
The output sharpening, as far as I understand, is really much more device-dependent than image-dependent, hence my idea of profiling it - or am I wrong?
Logged

Nicolas from Grenoble
A small gallery
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #27 on: February 12, 2008, 10:43:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Photokit has had "output sharpening profiles" for a few years now.
Logged

NikoJorj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1063


WWW
« Reply #28 on: February 12, 2008, 11:44:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Photokit has had "output sharpening profiles" for a few years now.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174247\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ok, it seems like I tried to invent warm water...  

Though, it would be nice to create a new sharpening profile at home for a new paper or a new printer, simply with a scanner, wouldn't it?
But you convinced me : after I explore the depths of Qimage, I'll also take a tour of PKS.
Logged

Nicolas from Grenoble
A small gallery
JeffKohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #29 on: February 12, 2008, 12:22:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Photokit has had "output sharpening profiles" for a few years now.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174247\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
They're pretty generic though, and hardly perfect. I could see the benefit of  a sharpening profile specific to a printer/paper/ink combination. For instance prints on the new Harman fiber-gloss paper seem to be sharper than other fiber-gloss papes I've tried, so there's defnitely a place for paper-specific sharpening.
Logged

Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2730


« Reply #30 on: February 12, 2008, 02:48:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
They're pretty generic though, and hardly perfect. I could see the benefit of  a sharpening profile specific to a printer/paper/ink combination. For instance prints on the new Harman fiber-gloss paper seem to be sharper than other fiber-gloss papes I've tried, so there's defnitely a place for paper-specific sharpening.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Add extrapolation ratio specific print sharpening (I think Qimage goes a bit that way) and content specific sharpening and suddenly the human brain + taste isn't doing a bad job either.


Ernst Dinkla

try: [a href=\"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/[/url]
Logged
NikoJorj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1063


WWW
« Reply #31 on: February 13, 2008, 05:43:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Add extrapolation ratio specific print sharpening (I think Qimage goes a bit that way) and content specific sharpening and suddenly the human brain + taste isn't doing a bad job either.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174326\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm very much tempted to see "content specific sharpening" as "creative sharpening", the only step that SHALL be under 100% user control - am I wrong?

Sorry to ask a newbie question, but what do you mean with "extrapolation ratio specific print sharpening"?

And generally speaking, I'm glad to see JeffKohn on my side : there are sharpness differences from one paper to another, and it could be nice NOT to have to evaluate this at the user level.
Logged

Nicolas from Grenoble
A small gallery
Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2730


« Reply #32 on: February 13, 2008, 07:53:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'm very much tempted to see "content specific sharpening" as "creative sharpening", the only step that SHALL be under 100% user control - am I wrong?

Sorry to ask a newbie question, but what do you mean with "extrapolation ratio specific print sharpening"?

And generally speaking, I'm glad to see JeffKohn on my side : there are sharpness differences from one paper to another, and it could be nice NOT to have to evaluate this at the user level.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Creative sharpening should be a wider territory than content specific sharpening and happens in the editing stage, areas can be selected etc.. As this thread is about the future of printing I had print sharpening in mind and at printing time I could see a choice of print sharpening routines that suit the content better, landscape versus cityscape versus portrait.

Extrapolation artifacts usually form a bad combination with print sharpening. The less data and the larger the print you better pull that print sharpening slider to its lowest settings as the artifacts get only more pronounced.

I use Qimage for printing and it has a smart print sharpening feature that will check some printer/print parameters before it does its work (on luminosity so good for B&W and color). A good paper coating allows a higher DPI print resolution and if that's selected the driver then will ask for a higher PPI native input resolution which Qimage will serve to the driver with Q's best resampling routines, up or down (with anti-aliasing) so the driver will not do it itself with possibly worse routines. Qimage knows the resampling ratio, the selected resampling routine, the native PPI number and the print resolution in DPI and could in theory use all that information to give the best print sharpening. The user then still has a choice to select the amount of sharpening. This all works nice in most printing but for real blow-ups you better make a cropped proof to check all the extrapolation and sharpening effects. Print sharpening in general looks as overdone sharpening on a screen but is usually alright in a print. Add to that the image origins like scanned film with grain or not versus digital from compacts to scan backs and you can get a wide variety of noise types at pixel and/or grain levels.

I think you will need a lot of print sharpening profiles to suit all conditions or a very complex piece of software to get that incorporated. Qimage already has some smart pieces of that and allows user overruling.


Ernst Dinkla

try: [a href=\"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/[/url]
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad