Printer resolution

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

In the past, I have printed color photos at 300dpi. This has worked well.
I am going to upgrade my old HP color printer to something newer. Looking
at the market, the newer printers print at higher dpi. Most state 4800dpi.
When I print at 300dpi, I get a really nice looking picture. What's with
the 4800dpi printers? These should look better?

Assuming I have a jpg that has 2400 (or higher) dpi, will I get a
significantly better picture printed from the newer printers?
21 answers Last reply
More about printer resolution
  1. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "Pper" <piper222@hotmailnospam.com> wrote in message
    news:TLqdnSzi8Yzss_TcRVn-qA@comcast.com...
    > In the past, I have printed color photos at 300dpi. This has worked well.
    > I am going to upgrade my old HP color printer to something newer. Looking
    > at the market, the newer printers print at higher dpi. Most state
    4800dpi.
    > When I print at 300dpi, I get a really nice looking picture. What's with
    > the 4800dpi printers? These should look better?

    I was slightly surprised to find that I _did_ see an improvement when I
    printed the same image at 300dpi on a 4800 dpi capable printer when compared
    to a 300dpi capable printer. After some thought I concludede that this was
    for two reasons...

    a) To achieve 4800dpi the printer must be capable of producing very small
    droplets of ink. It still uses these small droplets (but more of them) when
    you print at 300dpi. Several small droplets probably don't spread/smear/blur
    as much as the larger ones used in a 300dpi printer.

    b) 4800 dpi printers are more modern - so the firmware inside is better.
  2. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    In article <TLqdnSzi8Yzss_TcRVn-qA@comcast.com>,
    piper222@hotmailnospam.com (Pper) wrote:

    > Looking at the market, the newer printers print at higher dpi. Most
    > state 4800dpi. When I print at 300dpi, I get a really nice looking
    > picture. What's with the 4800dpi printers? These should look better?

    Personally, I don't think there's any point in going above 1440 dpi and
    720 dpi is often adequate.

    Jon.
  3. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "Pper" <piper222@hotmailnospam.com> wrote in message
    news:TLqdnSzi8Yzss_TcRVn-qA@comcast.com...
    > In the past, I have printed color photos at 300dpi. This has worked well.
    > I am going to upgrade my old HP color printer to something newer. Looking
    > at the market, the newer printers print at higher dpi. Most state
    4800dpi.
    > When I print at 300dpi, I get a really nice looking picture. What's with
    > the 4800dpi printers? These should look better?
    >
    > Assuming I have a jpg that has 2400 (or higher) dpi, will I get a
    > significantly better picture printed from the newer printers?
    >
    >
    You are confusing dpi (dots per inch) with ppi (pixels per inch). Dots and
    pixels are not the same thing at all. Keep sending 300 ppi files to your
    printer. I can seel little improvement with higher than 1440 dpi prints.
    Jim
  4. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 22:55:15 GMT, "Jim" <j.n@nospam.com> wrote:

    >
    >"Pper" <piper222@hotmailnospam.com> wrote in message
    >news:TLqdnSzi8Yzss_TcRVn-qA@comcast.com...
    >> In the past, I have printed color photos at 300dpi. This has worked well.
    >> I am going to upgrade my old HP color printer to something newer. Looking
    >> at the market, the newer printers print at higher dpi. Most state
    >4800dpi.
    >> When I print at 300dpi, I get a really nice looking picture. What's with
    >> the 4800dpi printers? These should look better?
    >>
    >> Assuming I have a jpg that has 2400 (or higher) dpi, will I get a
    >> significantly better picture printed from the newer printers?
    >>
    >>
    >You are confusing dpi (dots per inch) with ppi (pixels per inch). Dots and
    >pixels are not the same thing at all. Keep sending 300 ppi files to your
    >printer. I can seel little improvement with higher than 1440 dpi prints.
    >Jim
    >
    Actually, if you have a 1440 dpi printer, the likely native resolution
    is 720 dpi, so you're better off with a 360 ppi image. (i.e a fraction
    of the native resolution).

    --

    Hecate - The Real One
    Hecate@newsguy.com
    veni, vidi, reliqui
  5. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Pper wrote:
    > In the past, I have printed color photos at 300dpi. This has worked well.
    > I am going to upgrade my old HP color printer to something newer. Looking
    > at the market, the newer printers print at higher dpi. Most state 4800dpi.
    > When I print at 300dpi, I get a really nice looking picture. What's with
    > the 4800dpi printers? These should look better?
    >
    > Assuming I have a jpg that has 2400 (or higher) dpi, will I get a
    > significantly better picture printed from the newer printers?

    Resolution on modern printers is not important in any more. The most
    important thing is the number of inks (6 or 8 in the latest HP ones - I
    don't know about the others) and the number of pixels per inch.

    The reason that more inks are important is that this means more
    effective colours. The reason that pixels per inch is more important
    means that you can get more of these millions of colours into a pixel by
    overlaying the inks.

    These days, with the right paper, there's very little difference between
    the top three vendors, HP, Epson and Canon. HP trys to match colours as
    best as possible, Epson seem to go for oversaturated eye-catching
    colours to catch the uninformed home user. Canon too.

    In my opinion, the new HP 8 ink printers (using the Vivera inks) with
    the HP Premium Plus photo paper which will gives over 100 years
    light-fastness are far and away the most complete closed-loop system. YMMV.

    --
    Mushroom
  6. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    This is a continually confusing area for most people, and the
    manufacturers, rather than making it easier to understand, seem to add
    to the confusion because people are always impressed with big numbers.

    Before going any further, let me just say, that if at all possible,
    allow your eyes to make the decision. Try to look at samples of the
    printer output. Most companies provide free samples if requested. You
    will note that most companies tend to NOT print the image at the highest
    resolution the printer is capable of. The reason is the printer speed
    is quite reduced when the printer is used in it's very high resolution
    modes, and the quality is only slightly improved. In general, any
    printing mode over 1200 dpi is barely visible on the output.

    OK, now to try to help regarding input and output resolutions.

    The input resolution, is the resolution of the image you are getting
    ready to print, which is identified as XXX ppi or dpi at the final
    printing size. So, if one is to use 300 dpi (which is most adequate for
    even smaller prints which you will view quite closely), a 8" x 10" image
    should have the total pixel dimensions of 300 x 8" or 2400 pixels by 300
    x 10" or 3000 pixels, or 8" x 10" x 300 ppi/dpi.

    Input resolutions of between about 250 and 350 ppi/dpi provide
    photographic quality for even smaller closely viewed prints. The
    average one hour lab image is about 200-250 dpi equivalent. A custom
    color print is typically between 300-350 dpi. A very high quality large
    format print may be up to 400 dpi.

    ALso, keep in mind that the larger the print is, and therefore the
    further away you will view it, the lower the input resolution you can use.

    Now, as to output resolution. This is the resolution the printer
    uses to create the image onto the paper.

    Each printing technology requires differing resolutions depending upon
    the mechanics of how the image is created. A dye sublimation printer,
    which usually can produce millions of colors per "dot" can represent an
    image pixel with just one dot. After all, any pixel in an image is only
    of one luminosity and one color. Dye sub printers, use three of four
    "layers" of transparent dye "vapor" that are transferred onto a special
    receptor paper. Most have at least 128 different density levels for
    each of dye colors, making literally millions of colors for any one dot.

    Inkjet printers don't work the same way. They typically have only one,
    or maybe two levels of any ink color, so even if they were completely
    transparent colors and overlaid perfectly, they may be able to create
    anything from a few dozen to maybe a hundred color combinations with all
    the inks. That's not enough to make a photographic-like image.

    So the way inkjet printers create colors is by a process of placing a
    lot of very small dots near one another. That, mixed with the
    background paper white, provide an illusion of hundreds of thousands or
    even millions of colors. In order to do this, the addressable position
    density for any one dot has to be much finer, and so, these printers
    need over 1000 dpi and more importantly very very small dots, to get
    photo-like results.

    When a printer claims 4800 dpi, or even high as some do, that's the
    potential number of addressable places a dot can be positioned on the
    paper, but if the printer actually printed 4800 or more dots right next
    to one another, they would overlap each other, because the dots are
    still larger than 1/4800th of an inch.

    In general, 1200-1500 dpi is just about the maximum that your eye will
    call photographic, and going higher will mainly just slow the process
    down, with little improvement, it also requires more memory for the
    spooler process.

    If the dots finally get small enough, there may be some advantage to
    slightly higher resolutions, but the question comes down to if you will
    be viewing your images with an unaided eye or with a photo loupe.

    Art


    Pper wrote:

    > In the past, I have printed color photos at 300dpi. This has worked well.
    > I am going to upgrade my old HP color printer to something newer. Looking
    > at the market, the newer printers print at higher dpi. Most state 4800dpi.
    > When I print at 300dpi, I get a really nice looking picture. What's with
    > the 4800dpi printers? These should look better?
    >
    > Assuming I have a jpg that has 2400 (or higher) dpi, will I get a
    > significantly better picture printed from the newer printers?
    >
    >
  7. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    OK, let's define some terms...

    What color inkjet printer prints output at 300 dpi? I don't think any
    have done so for about 8 or more years.

    Yes, the 4800 dpi printer probably has a fairly small dot, although it
    is unlikely to be 1/4800th of an inch.

    Much older inkjet printers started out with about 20 picolitre dots.
    Newest printers can use as small as 2 picolitre dots (many printers use
    variable dot size, which can be changed on the fly for upward of 8
    sizes). A picolitre is a volume of ink, not a size, since the size can
    be different depending on how it lands on the page, and how much dot
    gain occurs based upon the paper type.

    Art

    CWatters wrote:

    > "Pper" <piper222@hotmailnospam.com> wrote in message
    > news:TLqdnSzi8Yzss_TcRVn-qA@comcast.com...
    >
    >>In the past, I have printed color photos at 300dpi. This has worked well.
    >>I am going to upgrade my old HP color printer to something newer. Looking
    >>at the market, the newer printers print at higher dpi. Most state
    >
    > 4800dpi.
    >
    >>When I print at 300dpi, I get a really nice looking picture. What's with
    >>the 4800dpi printers? These should look better?
    >
    >
    > I was slightly surprised to find that I _did_ see an improvement when I
    > printed the same image at 300dpi on a 4800 dpi capable printer when compared
    > to a 300dpi capable printer. After some thought I concludede that this was
    > for two reasons...
    >
    > a) To achieve 4800dpi the printer must be capable of producing very small
    > droplets of ink. It still uses these small droplets (but more of them) when
    > you print at 300dpi. Several small droplets probably don't spread/smear/blur
    > as much as the larger ones used in a 300dpi printer.
    >
    > b) 4800 dpi printers are more modern - so the firmware inside is better.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
  8. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Hecate wrote:

    > On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 22:55:15 GMT, "Jim" <j.n@nospam.com> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>"Pper" <piper222@hotmailnospam.com> wrote in message
    >>news:TLqdnSzi8Yzss_TcRVn-qA@comcast.com...
    >>
    >>>In the past, I have printed color photos at 300dpi. This has worked well.
    >>>I am going to upgrade my old HP color printer to something newer. Looking
    >>>at the market, the newer printers print at higher dpi. Most state
    >>
    >>4800dpi.
    >>
    >>>When I print at 300dpi, I get a really nice looking picture. What's with
    >>>the 4800dpi printers? These should look better?
    >>>
    >>>Assuming I have a jpg that has 2400 (or higher) dpi, will I get a
    >>>significantly better picture printed from the newer printers?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>
    >>You are confusing dpi (dots per inch) with ppi (pixels per inch). Dots and
    >>pixels are not the same thing at all. Keep sending 300 ppi files to your
    >>printer. I can seel little improvement with higher than 1440 dpi prints.
    >>Jim
    >>
    >
    > Actually, if you have a 1440 dpi printer, the likely native resolution
    > is 720 dpi, so you're better off with a 360 ppi image. (i.e a fraction
    > of the native resolution).
    >
    > --

    There has been a lot of empirical testing done regarding this issue, and
    the consensus, at least with Epson printers, is that with the early 720
    x 720 dpi printers, using 240 or 360 dpi tended to reduce some printing
    artifacts. Since the newer drivers in the 1440 and higher printers, it
    seems to make no difference if you use "sweet" numbers or not. The
    drivers for these printers use 720 x 720 dpi spooling, while the wide
    carriage printers now use 360 x 360 dpi. Possibly, if you used 720 x
    720 ppi input on a consumer model, you might reduce some artifacting,
    but the drivers today are so good that it makes little, if any,
    difference.

    In fact, people found that manipulating the input ppi/dpi to try to up
    or downsample to get to the "sweet" numbers did more damage to the file
    than just leaving the image at whatever resolution it ended being at the
    output size, unless it was great overkill (like 800 ppi/dpi or
    something). I know of some cases where tests were done with even
    leaving the ppi/dpi at odd numbers like 334.7, as an example, and that
    produced a very slightly better result than upsampling to 360, for
    instance. In conclusion, with modern drivers, it probably is not
    worthwhile trying to make the image meet sweet numbers.

    Art
  9. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 02:08:18 GMT, Arthur Entlich <artistic@telus.net>
    wrote:


    >There has been a lot of empirical testing done regarding this issue, and
    >the consensus, at least with Epson printers, is that with the early 720
    >x 720 dpi printers, using 240 or 360 dpi tended to reduce some printing
    >artifacts. Since the newer drivers in the 1440 and higher printers, it
    >seems to make no difference if you use "sweet" numbers or not. The
    >drivers for these printers use 720 x 720 dpi spooling, while the wide
    >carriage printers now use 360 x 360 dpi. Possibly, if you used 720 x
    >720 ppi input on a consumer model, you might reduce some artifacting,
    >but the drivers today are so good that it makes little, if any,
    >difference.
    >
    >In fact, people found that manipulating the input ppi/dpi to try to up
    >or downsample to get to the "sweet" numbers did more damage to the file
    >than just leaving the image at whatever resolution it ended being at the
    >output size, unless it was great overkill (like 800 ppi/dpi or
    >something). I know of some cases where tests were done with even
    >leaving the ppi/dpi at odd numbers like 334.7, as an example, and that
    >produced a very slightly better result than upsampling to 360, for
    >instance. In conclusion, with modern drivers, it probably is not
    >worthwhile trying to make the image meet sweet numbers.
    >
    I would never suggest anyone should upsample anyway. Most of the time
    I am downsampling to those resolutions from 120Mb files.

    Other than that, I would have to disagree in general. With the Epson
    printers I have seen to suggest that aiming for a multiple of the
    native resolution doesn't lead to a better print. If you have that
    information, I'd appreciate it if you shared it.

    --

    Hecate - The Real One
    Hecate@newsguy.com
    veni, vidi, reliqui
  10. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    In article <rjtom0phv4tanasq6ksml3vadc6baqdpvs@4ax.com>,
    hecate@newsguy.com (Hecate) wrote:

    > I would never suggest anyone should upsample anyway.

    But if you /have/ to upsample, QImage is the tool to use.

    Jon.
  11. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Hecate wrote:


    >
    > Other than that, I would have to disagree in general. With the Epson
    > printers I have seen to suggest that aiming for a multiple of the
    > native resolution doesn't lead to a better print. If you have that
    > information, I'd appreciate it if you shared it.
    >

    I'm sorry, but I am unclear what your last paragraph (above) is stating.
    This is not a flame of any kind. I'm suspecting it's just the
    sentence construction which is confusing me.

    Are you stating that you do find that using even multiples of native
    resolution provide you with better results with most current Epson
    printers/drivers?

    My information was from a series of tests that a number of people did on
    one of the Epson printer groups a few years back. These were scanned at
    high dpi (I don't recall the resolution anymore) and enlarged and
    scrutinized by a number of people including myself. I no longer have
    the files on my system. The consensus was as I stated.

    It is certainly possible your results could be different. Subject
    matter, saturation, and contrast can all alter the nature of the
    results. If you are using a digital camera image as your source, that
    might influence the result (we were working with analogue grain film
    images). Heck, even changes in the manner Epson used in their printer
    drivers may be unique to a certain model. As I stated in my earlier
    posting, Epson printer drivers have certainly evolved.

    At the time, the group involved in the comparisons was pretty much in
    agreement that the natural multiples were no longer relevant, as long as
    adequate input resolution was provided.

    Perhaps a more important question is, with the nature and complexity of
    error diffusion printing is if any methods can completely eliminate
    printer induced artifacting of some sort, and also, whether anyone
    viewing such an image at anything approaching normal viewing distances
    could really tell.

    I certainly am not trying to suggest what it is you are or aren't
    seeing, as perception is quite subjective at a certain level.

    In the end, what matters is how the print is perceived, by both the
    originator and others. After a certain point, for instance, unsharp
    masking creates no new real information, but many people still prefer
    higher frequency sharpening even when it introduces error artifacts.
    Who am I to suggest they are "creating" information that wasn't in the
    original image or that it matters?

    If you have found resampling (down or up) to a native multiple of the
    driver's 720 works in providing a more pleasing, or more accurate print
    result, then that is probably worthwhile pursuing. Others have not
    encountered the same results, but quite honestly, in our comparisons, we
    found we were splitting hairs at high magnification and there might have
    been other confounding issues, like the scanners.

    Art
  12. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Thanks for the explanation. Not too long ago, 600dpi printers were
    out-performing 2400 (and higher) Epson printers. Epson was touting XXXX
    dpi. "It must be better! ..." HP was touting 600 dpi with drop overlaps.
    Putting pictures side-by-side and visually examining them (without a loupe)
    showed they were nearly identical. But, HP was loosing sales to the
    "higher" dpi crowd. Now HP has joined the "others" with the 2400/3600/4800
    dpi to sell to the person who looks just at the dpi ratings.

    Examining printouts from Epson, HP, and Canon in the $150-$200 range all
    appear to be similar. Printers with 6 ink colors appear to be better than
    those with 3.

    "Arthur Entlich" <artistic@telus.net> wrote in message
    news:5qGad.11536$qU.5806@clgrps13...
    > This is a continually confusing area for most people, and the
    > manufacturers, rather than making it easier to understand, seem to add to
    > the confusion because people are always impressed with big numbers.
    >
    > Before going any further, let me just say, that if at all possible, allow
    > your eyes to make the decision. Try to look at samples of the printer
    > output. Most companies provide free samples if requested. You will note
    > that most companies tend to NOT print the image at the highest resolution
    > the printer is capable of. The reason is the printer speed is quite
    > reduced when the printer is used in it's very high resolution modes, and
    > the quality is only slightly improved. In general, any printing mode over
    > 1200 dpi is barely visible on the output.
    >
    > OK, now to try to help regarding input and output resolutions.
    >
    > The input resolution, is the resolution of the image you are getting ready
    > to print, which is identified as XXX ppi or dpi at the final printing
    > size. So, if one is to use 300 dpi (which is most adequate for even
    > smaller prints which you will view quite closely), a 8" x 10" image should
    > have the total pixel dimensions of 300 x 8" or 2400 pixels by 300 x 10" or
    > 3000 pixels, or 8" x 10" x 300 ppi/dpi.
    >
    > Input resolutions of between about 250 and 350 ppi/dpi provide
    > photographic quality for even smaller closely viewed prints. The average
    > one hour lab image is about 200-250 dpi equivalent. A custom color print
    > is typically between 300-350 dpi. A very high quality large format print
    > may be up to 400 dpi.
    >
    > ALso, keep in mind that the larger the print is, and therefore the further
    > away you will view it, the lower the input resolution you can use.
    >
    > Now, as to output resolution. This is the resolution the printer
    > uses to create the image onto the paper.
    >
    > Each printing technology requires differing resolutions depending upon the
    > mechanics of how the image is created. A dye sublimation printer, which
    > usually can produce millions of colors per "dot" can represent an image
    > pixel with just one dot. After all, any pixel in an image is only of one
    > luminosity and one color. Dye sub printers, use three of four "layers" of
    > transparent dye "vapor" that are transferred onto a special receptor
    > paper. Most have at least 128 different density levels for each of dye
    > colors, making literally millions of colors for any one dot.
    >
    > Inkjet printers don't work the same way. They typically have only one, or
    > maybe two levels of any ink color, so even if they were completely
    > transparent colors and overlaid perfectly, they may be able to create
    > anything from a few dozen to maybe a hundred color combinations with all
    > the inks. That's not enough to make a photographic-like image.
    >
    > So the way inkjet printers create colors is by a process of placing a lot
    > of very small dots near one another. That, mixed with the background
    > paper white, provide an illusion of hundreds of thousands or even millions
    > of colors. In order to do this, the addressable position density for any
    > one dot has to be much finer, and so, these printers need over 1000 dpi
    > and more importantly very very small dots, to get photo-like results.
    >
    > When a printer claims 4800 dpi, or even high as some do, that's the
    > potential number of addressable places a dot can be positioned on the
    > paper, but if the printer actually printed 4800 or more dots right next to
    > one another, they would overlap each other, because the dots are still
    > larger than 1/4800th of an inch.
    >
    > In general, 1200-1500 dpi is just about the maximum that your eye will
    > call photographic, and going higher will mainly just slow the process
    > down, with little improvement, it also requires more memory for the
    > spooler process.
    >
    > If the dots finally get small enough, there may be some advantage to
    > slightly higher resolutions, but the question comes down to if you will be
    > viewing your images with an unaided eye or with a photo loupe.
    >
    > Art
    >
    >
    > Pper wrote:
    >
    >> In the past, I have printed color photos at 300dpi. This has worked
    >> well. I am going to upgrade my old HP color printer to something newer.
    >> Looking at the market, the newer printers print at higher dpi. Most
    >> state 4800dpi. When I print at 300dpi, I get a really nice looking
    >> picture. What's with the 4800dpi printers? These should look better?
    >>
    >> Assuming I have a jpg that has 2400 (or higher) dpi, will I get a
    >> significantly better picture printed from the newer printers?
    >>
    >>
    >
  13. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 12:34:37 GMT, Arthur Entlich <artistic@telus.net>
    wrote:

    >Hecate wrote:
    >
    >
    >>
    >> Other than that, I would have to disagree in general. With the Epson
    >> printers I have seen to suggest that aiming for a multiple of the
    >> native resolution doesn't lead to a better print. If you have that
    >> information, I'd appreciate it if you shared it.
    >>
    >
    >I'm sorry, but I am unclear what your last paragraph (above) is stating.
    > This is not a flame of any kind. I'm suspecting it's just the
    >sentence construction which is confusing me.

    Oh, I realise you weren't flaming ;-)

    I was trying to say that, generally, I have found that matching the
    native resolution of the printer provides better prints than not doing
    so. And I was asking that, if you knew different (i.e if you had
    information that could show I was being subjective) I'd be glad to
    look at it. :)

    --

    Hecate - The Real One
    Hecate@newsguy.com
    veni, vidi, reliqui
  14. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    In article <xh9bd.21256$Ia5.15589@edtnps89>, Arthur Entlich
    <artistic@telus.net> writes
    >Hecate wrote:
    >
    >
    >> Other than that, I would have to disagree in general. With the Epson
    >> printers I have seen to suggest that aiming for a multiple of the
    >> native resolution doesn't lead to a better print. If you have that
    >> information, I'd appreciate it if you shared it.
    >>
    >
    >I'm sorry, but I am unclear what your last paragraph (above) is
    >stating. This is not a flame of any kind. I'm suspecting it's just
    >the sentence construction which is confusing me.
    >
    >Are you stating that you do find that using even multiples of native
    >resolution provide you with better results with most current Epson
    >printers/drivers?
    >
    >My information was from a series of tests that a number of people did
    >on one of the Epson printer groups a few years back. These were
    >scanned at high dpi (I don't recall the resolution anymore) and
    >enlarged and
    >scrutinized by a number of people including myself. I no longer have
    >the files on my system. The consensus was as I stated.
    >
    Art, you may be referring to some of the tests that I was involved in
    and the conclusion then certainly was that the opposite of what you are
    suggesting. Avoiding resampling by the printer driver is ALWAYS better,
    although the difference may often be imperceptible.

    Epson printer drivers only apply nearest neighbour resampling if the DCC
    option (if present) is unselected and bilinear resampling if this option
    is selected. Particularly when downsampling, but also visible on high
    contrast near vertical/horizontal edges with upsampling, this is visibly
    inferior to the alternative resampling options available in even modest
    image editing applications.
    --
    Kennedy
    Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
    A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
    Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
  15. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Hi Kennedy,

    The tests I was referring to I do not believe involved you at the time,
    to the best of my knowledge. As I recall, beer bottles and their labels
    photographed at a fair distance were involved.

    You may have missed my first response in this thread. The question that
    came up was if using 360 or some other exact multiple of the native
    printer driver resolution was beneficial over other numbers.

    I stated that the conclusions of the tests I looked at were that doing
    no resampling prior to printing, and just allowing the resolution to end
    up where it may (and therefore allowing the printer driver to do its
    upsampling to 720 dpi as most of the consumer Epsons do) appeared to
    leave fine detail less altered than sampling to something like 360 or
    240 dpi or whatever, and then leaving the printer to resample again to
    720 dpi. I also stated that earlier Epson's seems to benefit more from
    these multiples. I don't know if older Epson desktop printers (like 1st
    and 2nd generation) used 360 or 720 dpi driver resolutions).

    Perhaps down or up sampling to 720 dpi prior to printing might have an
    advantage, for those who work with files that large. Most people
    neither have that type of resolution from a scan or digicam (other than
    for quite small prints) nor do they wish to work with such large files.

    Art


    Kennedy McEwen wrote:

    > In article <xh9bd.21256$Ia5.15589@edtnps89>, Arthur Entlich
    > <artistic@telus.net> writes
    >
    >> Hecate wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>> Other than that, I would have to disagree in general. With the Epson
    >>> printers I have seen to suggest that aiming for a multiple of the
    >>> native resolution doesn't lead to a better print. If you have that
    >>> information, I'd appreciate it if you shared it.
    >>>
    >>
    >> I'm sorry, but I am unclear what your last paragraph (above) is
    >> stating. This is not a flame of any kind. I'm suspecting it's just
    >> the sentence construction which is confusing me.
    >>
    >> Are you stating that you do find that using even multiples of native
    >> resolution provide you with better results with most current Epson
    >> printers/drivers?
    >>
    >> My information was from a series of tests that a number of people did
    >> on one of the Epson printer groups a few years back. These were
    >> scanned at high dpi (I don't recall the resolution anymore) and
    >> enlarged and
    >> scrutinized by a number of people including myself. I no longer have
    >> the files on my system. The consensus was as I stated.
    >>
    > Art, you may be referring to some of the tests that I was involved in
    > and the conclusion then certainly was that the opposite of what you are
    > suggesting. Avoiding resampling by the printer driver is ALWAYS better,
    > although the difference may often be imperceptible.
    >
    > Epson printer drivers only apply nearest neighbour resampling if the DCC
    > option (if present) is unselected and bilinear resampling if this option
    > is selected. Particularly when downsampling, but also visible on high
    > contrast near vertical/horizontal edges with upsampling, this is visibly
    > inferior to the alternative resampling options available in even modest
    > image editing applications.
  16. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    In article <wQObd.6594$_u6.1613@edtnps89>, Arthur Entlich
    <artistic@telus.net> writes
    >Hi Kennedy,
    >
    >The tests I was referring to I do not believe involved you at the time,
    >to the best of my knowledge. As I recall, beer bottles and their labels
    >photographed at a fair distance were involved.
    >
    >You may have missed my first response in this thread. The question
    >that came up was if using 360 or some other exact multiple of the
    >native printer driver resolution was beneficial over other numbers.
    >
    >I stated that the conclusions of the tests I looked at were that doing
    >no resampling prior to printing, and just allowing the resolution to
    >end up where it may (and therefore allowing the printer driver to do
    >its upsampling to 720 dpi as most of the consumer Epsons do) appeared
    >to leave fine detail less altered than sampling to something like 360
    >or 240 dpi or whatever, and then leaving the printer to resample again
    >to 720 dpi. I also stated that earlier Epson's seems to benefit more
    >from these multiples. I don't know if older Epson desktop printers
    >(like 1st and 2nd generation) used 360 or 720 dpi driver resolutions).
    >
    I may indeed have missed your original response, the earliest I have
    seen was posted on Mon, 11 Oct 2004 20:08:18 MDT, and this is where you
    refer to the "empirical tests". You may also recall some empirical
    testing that was also conducted which proved conclusively that the
    recent (eg. printers with >=1440dpi resolution) Epson desktop printer
    drivers not only resampled to 720ppi (360ppi on large format printers)
    but, unless set to cope with low resolution material, used crude nearest
    neighbour resampling to do so. These proofs were achieved by printing
    specific images at and near "sweet spot" resolutions and observing the
    resulting aliased effects.

    If the "sweet spot" did not offer any visual advantage (ie. no aliasing
    introduced) then these tests would not have been conclusive.
    Consequently, it is clear that for some images the difference is
    dramatic - where significant contrast is present between adjacent
    pixels. Where this is not present the difference is less pronounced,
    and this certainly can be the case with images scanned from film at
    sufficient resolution, however the benefit of resampling to the "sweet
    spot" at an integer division of 720ppi is never zero.

    >Perhaps down or up sampling to 720 dpi prior to printing might have an
    >advantage, for those who work with files that large. Most people
    >neither have that type of resolution from a scan or digicam (other than
    >for quite small prints) nor do they wish to work with such large files.
    >
    That is a different question - one of convenience and effort. I
    wouldn't care to make any recommendation on such a matter since I rarely
    understand why many people cannot be bothered to make the effort to do
    anything right in many fields.
    --
    Kennedy
    Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
    A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
    Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
  17. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 20:05:35 +0100, Kennedy McEwen
    <rkm@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:


    >That is a different question - one of convenience and effort. I
    >wouldn't care to make any recommendation on such a matter since I rarely
    >understand why many people cannot be bothered to make the effort to do
    >anything right in many fields.


    LOL! I think I'll print that out and frame it! ;-)

    --

    Hecate - The Real One
    Hecate@newsguy.com
    veni, vidi, reliqui
  18. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    > Hecate wrote:
    >
    >> On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 20:05:35 +0100, Kennedy McEwen
    >> <rkm@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>That is a different question - one of convenience and effort. I
    >>>wouldn't care to make any recommendation on such a matter since I rarely
    >>>understand why many people cannot be bothered to make the effort to do
    >>>anything right in many fields.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> LOL! I think I'll print that out and frame it! ;-)
    >>
    >> --


    If only the issue were so clear cut.

    The effort that goes into a process may relate to the intent of the
    outcome, the time involved, the cost, and so on.

    Assuming anyone knows what is acceptable or even desirable for someone
    else is a bit of a gamble, at best.

    Some people search for the holy grail (and some may even find it) but at
    a cost of time, effort, expense, and perhaps even loss of creative
    output to get there.

    In some cases, it can even be pathological (Obsessive compulsive disorder).

    To take some liberty with the concept behind "Zen and the Art of
    Motorcycle Maintenance" one person may use a bottle cap to fix his
    motorcycle and get it back on the road to continue his journey while
    another might find himself without transportation for weeks waiting for
    the exact part to come in from the manufacturer.

    Scrutinizing an inkjet print output with a loupe may indeed prove
    interesting, and even enlightening, but the differences between prints
    may be completely insignificant to anyone seeing them at normal viewing
    distance, in which case all the extra effort and expense involved in
    getting the print beyond the point that the unaided eye can ascertain a
    difference isn't much more than personal satisfaction for the technician.

    Determining that Van Gogh used fast, broad brush and pallet knife
    strokes, often without cleaning them between each use seems to have had
    no negative consequence upon the value of his paintings today. In fact,
    it may indeed be part of the charm that sets them apart.

    Assuming one needs at least 720 dpi of real data to produce an image on
    an Epson printer to make the image meaningful, with it's commensurate
    extra cost for a high res scanner or digicam, a computer with more
    memory and faster processor, and a larger hard drive to store it all in
    order to make the image worthwhile, or before it reaches some level of
    required sophistication no longer has anything to do with producing art,
    and is instead about producing "image by specification". Sorry, but I
    neither buy art on that basis, nor do I produce it that way.

    Good technique is valuable, but secondary to the image content, and
    microscopic "improvements" are nearly meaningless. Certainly, if basic
    good practice can lead to better quality results without sacrificing
    other matters, than why not, but splitting hairs over issues that
    actually are not visible to the non-assisted observer, to me at least,
    are of minimal, if any value.

    I recall once hearing Zamfir (the pan flute player - anyone remember
    him) commenting on a talk show that the music of the Beatles was with
    little merit, because it was undisciplined and didn't conform to the
    qualities of good music, or good musicianship.

    Art


    Hecate wrote:

    > On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 20:05:35 +0100, Kennedy McEwen
    > <rkm@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >>That is a different question - one of convenience and effort. I
    >>wouldn't care to make any recommendation on such a matter since I rarely
    >>understand why many people cannot be bothered to make the effort to do
    >>anything right in many fields.
    >
    >
    >
    > LOL! I think I'll print that out and frame it! ;-)
    >
    > --
    >
    > Hecate - The Real One
    > Hecate@newsguy.com
    > veni, vidi, reliqui
  19. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    In article <AJ5cd.8616$cr4.7407@edtnps84>, Arthur Entlich
    <artistic@telus.net> writes

    >Scrutinizing an inkjet print output with a loupe may indeed prove
    >interesting, and even enlightening, but the differences between prints
    >may be completely insignificant to anyone seeing them at normal viewing
    >distance

    The point is that you don't need a loupe to see aliased image content.
    Spatial aliasing is its own magnifier. If you don't take steps to
    control aliasing - and the Epson print drivers themselves don't - then
    the detail that you would need a loupe to see can often become so
    distorted and enlarged that it is readily seen at long viewing ranges.
    --
    Kennedy
    Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
    A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
    Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
  20. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 14:11:16 +0100, Kennedy McEwen
    <rkm@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:

    >In article <AJ5cd.8616$cr4.7407@edtnps84>, Arthur Entlich
    ><artistic@telus.net> writes
    >
    >>Scrutinizing an inkjet print output with a loupe may indeed prove
    >>interesting, and even enlightening, but the differences between prints
    >>may be completely insignificant to anyone seeing them at normal viewing
    >>distance
    >
    >The point is that you don't need a loupe to see aliased image content.
    >Spatial aliasing is its own magnifier. If you don't take steps to
    >control aliasing - and the Epson print drivers themselves don't - then
    >the detail that you would need a loupe to see can often become so
    >distorted and enlarged that it is readily seen at long viewing ranges.

    Indeed. It's especially visible for larger images. If you never print
    above 10x8, you may never notice, but when you start printing at A3+
    you definitely will.

    --

    Hecate - The Real One
    Hecate@newsguy.com
    veni, vidi, reliqui
  21. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    OK, then let's get down to the specifics and see what we need to avoid
    the horrors of spatial aliasing.

    Do we need to have optically pure, non-resampled, non-interpolated data
    of at least 720 ppi, and then printed at input source of 720 dpi to
    avoid this defect? What kind an image demands this? How commonplace is
    this type of image feature? At what viewing distance is it visible?

    Can we develop some reasonable rules to follow, such as: when printing
    highly contrasted monochromic images, spatial aliasing becomes severe
    enough to warrant using XXX resolution with Epson printers to avoid
    aliasing visible at 12" from the print on an A4 print?

    Surely not all image features demand this type of treatment to avoid
    perceptible spatial aliasing? Does a complex color images with low
    contrast require this? Hell, do the vast majority of everyday images
    require it?

    Personally, I think overuse or underuse of USM (unsharp masking) is a
    much more real problem in digital printing than images requiring 720
    ppi/dpi source and input data to avoid spatial aliasing.

    I am not suggesting that the theory doesn't sometimes manifest itself in
    degrading the result if it has not been followed through upon, but that
    the circumstances where such exacting image quality is required to make
    a print that looks good to the naked eye are statistically small
    compared to a plethora of other problems the majority of people
    encounter in printing digitally, from clogged to misaligned print heads,
    to using wrong paper types, to processing the image incorrectly in the
    image processing software, to problems introduced in scanning, to
    problems introduced by digicams image sensors or during image
    compression or storage.

    My concern is that the impression may be left that anything below 720
    dpi/ppi pure data will make a bad print, and that certainly isn't true.
    That is why I ask for clarification as to under what extreme conditions
    is this extra "cost" of image processing worthwhile?

    Art


    Kennedy McEwen wrote:

    > In article <AJ5cd.8616$cr4.7407@edtnps84>, Arthur Entlich
    > <artistic@telus.net> writes
    >
    >> Scrutinizing an inkjet print output with a loupe may indeed prove
    >> interesting, and even enlightening, but the differences between prints
    >> may be completely insignificant to anyone seeing them at normal
    >> viewing distance
    >
    >
    > The point is that you don't need a loupe to see aliased image content.
    > Spatial aliasing is its own magnifier. If you don't take steps to
    > control aliasing - and the Epson print drivers themselves don't - then
    > the detail that you would need a loupe to see can often become so
    > distorted and enlarged that it is readily seen at long viewing ranges.
Ask a new question

Read More

Printers Resolution Hewlett Packard Peripherals