Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: do epson printers use 360/720 ppi no matter what you set in photoshop ?  (Read 17007 times)
Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2883



WWW
« Reply #20 on: November 20, 2010, 01:09:19 PM »
ReplyReply

How does the driver differentiate between vector/text/line art and photographs? Answer: it doesn't.
Your may be right ...but the difference is the user enabling the option - that's how the driver knows.

Basically according to Eric Chan and others, finest detail forces the printer driver/printer to operate at 720dpi, whereas the default is 360dpi.  While this might be beneficial for the sharp clean edges of vector graphics, it is not recommended for photographs and large images.  It most likely has more to do with longer rendering times and memory issues when printing the file and not actual image quality. I've tested it several times years ago, and I couldn't ever see any improvement from enabling finest detail.

The challenge with any output is understanding and correctly applying output sharpening, so using finest detail after sizing to 720dpi and correctly sharpening may indeed be beneficial for some images, but using it without those steps most likely will accomplish nothing.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2010, 01:12:03 PM by Wayne Fox » Logged

Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 2866


« Reply #21 on: November 20, 2010, 02:16:35 PM »
ReplyReply

In Qimage there's another good reason to select a higher print quality that asks for a higher image resolution input than the image data delivers at 1:1 printsize. The downsampling + anti-aliasing processing, though excellent, is much slower than the upsampling routine. The print time will of course be longer.

In the past I have rasterised vector designs in Photoshop or exported them as Tiffs from vector design software at 720 PPI, in both cases anti-aliasing on, to feed them to the Epson 9000s that didn't have 720 PPI rendering resolutions. The fonts and designs were sharper that way than when I kept the input on 360 PPI. My best guess is that something similar is done with the Fine Detail setting in modern drivers. The actual print resolution not increased but the data optimised. In analogy to the sub pixel rendering/anti-aliasing of fonts for displays.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/
Logged
jeremypayne
Guest
« Reply #22 on: November 20, 2010, 02:25:59 PM »
ReplyReply

I've been playing around with this since LR 3 came out.  I have an Epson 2880 and an older 6 ink HP.

My conclusion: When the native PPI will fall under 360/300, I use LR to send 360/300.

When the native PPI will be above 360/300, I use LR to send approximately the native PPI ... but never more than 550.

I found that even when I have native 720 ppi to send, I can't see the any difference from about 550 and up.

Based on what I see with my own eyes, 480 wasn't such a bad place to draw the line ... but I appreciate the upgrade.
Logged
gromit
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 133


« Reply #23 on: November 20, 2010, 02:41:53 PM »
ReplyReply

The challenge with any output is understanding and correctly applying output sharpening, so using finest detail after sizing to 720dpi and correctly sharpening may indeed be beneficial for some images, but using it without those steps most likely will accomplish nothing.

I don't disagree with this assertion, I was just pointing out the nonsensical basis of Epson's oft-quoted guideline. In my experience, Finest Detail is beneficial with photographs when sufficient original resolution exists and the paper is capable of showing it. It also, as you point out, involves careful tandem resampling/sharpening rather than just turning it on. The best results I've be able to obtain have been with Qimage and Blow Up 2, both of which can outdo that of Photokit Sharpener 1.x (without attendant resampling to 720ppi). I have yet to test Lightroom 3 in this regard.

Note also that Finest Detail is required to preserve detail in 360ppi files when printed to roll media (it's not required  for sheets). Why there would be a difference is a mystery to me.
Logged
Farmer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1631


WWW
« Reply #24 on: November 20, 2010, 05:50:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Note also that Finest Detail is required to preserve detail in 360ppi files when printed to roll media (it's not required  for sheets). Why there would be a difference is a mystery to me.

Which printers, which versions of the drivers, and what evidence do you have for this?

Finest Detail is designed to deal with perfectly straight lines, such as you would find in vector output, along with the sharp edge contrast.  Most photographs, even of straight edges, aren't purely straight or such complete contrast as you have with vector art.  The 720 mode is designed for the type of output you would expect from vectors and may not provide an improvement in other printing.  You might get some benefit, but generally unless you have that much resolution natively, any opportunity for improvement will be lost in the upsampling process and you just have larger files that take longer to print.

For large native resolutions files, as Schewe said, it makes sense to send it through and take advantage of it.
Logged

gromit
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 133


« Reply #25 on: November 20, 2010, 06:25:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Which printers, which versions of the drivers, and what evidence do you have for this?

Originally tested on a 7900 and just repeated 2 minutes ago on my new 9900. Latest Mac driver. It's easy enough to test for yourself. Send a file with 180 line pairs per inch (vertical or horizontal), no color management (remember this?) and you'll get a flat patch on roll media, the lines precisely resolved on sheets. Finest Detail restores the lines on rolls. Surprising huh!
Logged
Farmer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1631


WWW
« Reply #26 on: November 21, 2010, 04:17:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Originally tested on a 7900 and just repeated 2 minutes ago on my new 9900. Latest Mac driver. It's easy enough to test for yourself. Send a file with 180 line pairs per inch (vertical or horizontal), no color management (remember this?) and you'll get a flat patch on roll media, the lines precisely resolved on sheets. Finest Detail restores the lines on rolls. Surprising huh!

What media and what media settings in the driver (for each run)?

Such lines should print better with Finest Detail, but there should be no difference between sheet and roll feed.  Once I have your driver settings and media, I'll do some testing.
Logged

gromit
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 133


« Reply #27 on: November 21, 2010, 05:05:49 PM »
ReplyReply

What media and what media settings in the driver (for each run)?

Such lines should print better with Finest Detail, but there should be no difference between sheet and roll feed.  Once I have your driver settings and media, I'll do some testing.

I'm not sure the media and settings make any difference. The original testing was done with Doubleweight Matte. I just re-ran some tests on Premium Lustre 260 on my 7900 with both 1440 and 2880 high speed. Only the run with Finest Detail shows the lines.

I've attached the file I'm using for testing.
Logged
Farmer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1631


WWW
« Reply #28 on: November 21, 2010, 07:24:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Very interesting!

I did the prints on 170gsm PGPP roll and sheet (sheets cut from roll) and there's no different using Finest Detail or not, but there is a difference between sheet and roll.

I was printing at 720x1440 super microweave on, using canned ICC profile and PS manages colour.

I'm going to look into it some more.
Logged

Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2883



WWW
« Reply #29 on: November 21, 2010, 11:45:10 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm not sure the media and settings make any difference. The original testing was done with Doubleweight Matte. I just re-ran some tests on Premium Lustre 260 on my 7900 with both 1440 and 2880 high speed. Only the run with Finest Detail shows the lines.

I've attached the file I'm using for testing.

So the file is a 240 dpi file 3x3 inches, did you print it 3x3? To me logically the test would be designed to use the image at 360 dpi printed at 2x2.    At 240 it isn't at the printers native resolution, so some dithering artifacts seem likely as it is resized.  Using Finest Detail, the dithering would optimize the straight lines (which it is engineered to do) so it might enhance the resizing of the driver.  Still that wouldn't explain the difference between roll and sheet.

Using Epson Premium luster on my 11880, printing it at 2x2/360 dpi on roll paper set to retain size gives me the same results as a sheet.  I can see the lines, but there is a sort of moire look to the pattern on both.  Using Finest Detail eliminates most of the moire as the dither optimizes the straight lines ... which it is designed to do, and again printed on roll or sheet match.  I didn't try with borderless (auto expand) which could definitely alter the results as the driver would also have to resize the file up slightly.

I'll play with it some more tomorrow on some Glossy paper and at the native size of the file.



Logged

gromit
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 133


« Reply #30 on: November 22, 2010, 12:22:06 AM »
ReplyReply

So the file is a 240 dpi file 3x3 inches ...

The file I attached is nominally 360ppi so if it's coming out at something else you may want to look at what's happening your end. Its resolution can be changed (Image Size, No Resampling) to test other image resolution/driver interactions. Note that after doing so you won't be printing images at 288ppi, 300ppi etc. anymore :-).
Logged
Berry
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #31 on: November 22, 2010, 06:42:42 AM »
ReplyReply

I have not looked at every reply to you question but as far as I know Epson printers have a native resolution of 360ppi-which should be set in PS.
Logged
Aristoc
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 199


« Reply #32 on: November 22, 2010, 07:39:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Berry

 Berry , as you know , if your image has sufficient resolution, then automatically resampling is not the preferred choice. If what you say is true, then this means that no matter what, you should be resampling any photo that is not 360 ppi upt to or down to 360.  Is this right or wrong? It doesn't really make a lot of sense.

Logged
Berry
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #33 on: November 22, 2010, 08:09:08 AM »
ReplyReply

I am by no means an expert but just relaying from experience-I could be wrong so anyone please correct me if I am.
Resolution choice is printer dependent like I commented before. While it's possible to set resolution at other values, such as 180dpi or 240dpi, etc., the printer will apply upward interpolation to such files to arrive at a printed resolution of 360dpi. This can create less than optimal results in sharpening, since the latter should always be based upon final image size. Other printers may have different native resolutions-if printing to a non-Epson printer,you should always determine native resolution and size the file accordingly. Does this make sense.
Logged
Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 2866


« Reply #34 on: November 22, 2010, 09:25:12 AM »
ReplyReply

I am by no means an expert but just relaying from experience-I could be wrong so anyone please correct me if I am.
Resolution choice is printer dependent like I commented before. While it's possible to set resolution at other values, such as 180dpi or 240dpi, etc., the printer will apply upward interpolation to such files to arrive at a printed resolution of 360dpi. This can create less than optimal results in sharpening, since the latter should always be based upon final image size. Other printers may have different native resolutions-if printing to a non-Epson printer,you should always determine native resolution and size the file accordingly. Does this make sense.

Qimage does the interpolation (up- down) to the native printer resolution automatically (300,600  360,720 PPI) on the fly with the knowledge it gathers of the available image resolution, image print size and native printer resolution. Based on that knowledge too it also applies smart print sharpening. Sliders, interpolation algorithm choices, allow you to interfere if you know better than what Qimage + its default settings do. All on the fly, without creating a special image print files and without affecting the original image file.

met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

Soon: spectral plots of +150 inkjet papers:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
Logged
Aristoc
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 199


« Reply #35 on: November 22, 2010, 09:28:57 AM »
ReplyReply

oh so the answer is to spend a $100 and by qimage. problems solved. OK everybody ..... forget my original question. I'll just buy qimage.  Angry

NOTE to self > buying qimage does not answer the question. Also, you don't need to buy qimage if you understand what is going on with the original software and you want make your own adjustments there (for free).





Qimage does the interpolation (up- down) to the native printer resolution automatically (300,600  360,720 PPI) on the fly with the knowledge it gathers of the available image resolution, image print size and native printer resolution. Based on that knowledge too it also applies smart print sharpening. Sliders, interpolation algorithm choices, allow you to interfere if you know better than what Qimage + its default settings do. All on the fly, without creating a special image print files and without affecting the original image file.

met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

Soon: spectral plots of +150 inkjet papers:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
Logged
BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 3749


« Reply #36 on: November 22, 2010, 10:30:10 AM »
ReplyReply

oh so the answer is to spend a $100 and by qimage. problems solved. OK everybody ..... forget my original question. I'll just buy qimage.  Angry

NOTE to self > buying qimage does not answer the question. Also, you don't need to buy qimage if you understand what is going on with the original software and you want make your own adjustments there (for free).

What you are missing is that Qimage interrogates the (in this case Epson) printer driver, which returns the answer to the original question. Depending on the driver settings (highest quality and e.g. glossy paper type), Qimage will select 720PPI, as requested by the printer driver. Whether people prefer a more manual workflow and use lower quality upsampling or not, is beside the point. People are free to ignore good advice, but the question has been answered; it depends on the driver settings.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 2866


« Reply #37 on: November 22, 2010, 10:34:06 AM »
ReplyReply

oh so the answer is to spend a $100 and by qimage. problems solved. OK everybody ..... forget my original question. I'll just buy qimage.  Angry

NOTE to self > buying qimage does not answer the question. Also, you don't need to buy qimage if you understand what is going on with the original software and you want make your own adjustments there (for free).


I should have added that Qimage does this in a transparent way. Above the preview window the printer driver requested native printer resolution is shown in PPI (in case your printer driver doesn't tell that, HP Z drivers do tell). Next to the degree choice of interpolation to be done by Qimage it shows the Qimage interpolation output resolution (0-25-50-100% of the requested resolution). In the print queue you will see the original image resolution but at printsize + the size in MB of the extrapolated file. Now you know anything you would like to know to change the Qimage defaults if they are not what you like to have. Of course a cropped proof of the intended print can also tell; you what the selected interpolation algorithm does and whether the paper coating is coping with the image data quality or vice versa. There are several nice crop tools in Qimage for that purpose, on the fly as well and not destructing your original file.

With that transparency Qimage is also a good tool to understand what is going on. That despite the fact that it can do things fast and automatic. And when there are questions, the manual is a good source, Mike's Technical essays on the subject of this thread unsurpassed:

http://ddisoftware.com/tech/articles/october-2008-interpolation-revisited/
http://ddisoftware.com/tech/articles/january-2005-coming-to-terms-with-dpi-ppi-and-size/
and more.

Qimage Light is 35$, there are more expensive video tutorials that tell less :-)


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

Soon, spectral plots of +150 inkjet papers:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm

Logged
Aristoc
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 199


« Reply #38 on: November 22, 2010, 11:19:44 AM »
ReplyReply

If, based on what people seem to be saying here, the epson driver requires 360ppi for best image reproduction, then why bother paying for qimage when all i have to do is type in 360ppi in photoshop ?  I gues qimage does a better job.
Logged
BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 3749


« Reply #39 on: November 22, 2010, 11:55:14 AM »
ReplyReply

I gues qimage does a better job.

Countless numbers of people have come to that conclusion. In the end, 720PPI and (if the output size requires it) better upsampling quality does pay off.

Cheers,
Bart
« Last Edit: November 22, 2010, 06:54:32 PM by BartvanderWolf » Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad