Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: DryAxE on September 02, 2015, 07:00:59 am
-
Hi Luminous Landscape,
i have recently sold Epson 3880 to upgrade to Canon IPF6400 mostly due to printing from roll. I have read lots of reviews that x400 series are very capable fine art printers, but when i compare prints with my ex. Epson 3880 there are clearly more visible dots due to smaller resolution. I have trouble to find a way to print the images at higher resolutions since all the driver offers is "highest 600x600dpi", no matter what the paper type is. This problem frustrates me since i expected superior quality to Epson 3880. Please help me find a way to push this printer to its maximal potential.
-
I have both printers. A print from either one, mounted on the wall, is indistinguishable from two feet away.
-
Yeah i believe that 2 feet away makes it indistinguishable but what about close up view. Online reviews could not say Epson x900 series and Canon x400 series have almost the same output if max resolution of canon is 600x600. Where is the option for 2400x1200?
-
Hi Luminous Landscape,
i have recently sold Epson 3880 to upgrade to Canon IPF6400 mostly due to printing from roll. I have read lots of reviews that x400 series are very capable fine art printers, but when i compare prints with my ex. Epson 3880 there are clearly more visible dots due to smaller resolution. I have trouble to find a way to print the images at higher resolutions since all the driver offers is "highest 600x600dpi", no matter what the paper type is. This problem frustrates me since i expected superior quality to Epson 3880. Please help me find a way to push this printer to its maximal potential.
I think John Brew hit the nail on the head. But I'm more curious about your initial post observations cited here. If you are able to see visible dots from either of these printers, it means there is something wrong with the printers, or you are using a magnifying glass. Most likely the latter. Why on earth is this important? Isn't the final objective to look at a print and be satisfied with the quality from normal viewing distance? As for the "dpi" business - forget about it - largely meaningless. The dithering algorithms of these printers are so sophisticated that none of us can tell anything from such a statistic. If Epson is 720 and Canon 600, without a great deal of other (proprietary and unavailable) information about how these printers manage droplet sizes and lay down the ink, the comparison is useless. I don't own one, but I'm pretty sure 600 dpi is the maximum from a Canon professional printer, which is fine. Instead of being frustrated, just focus on how to get the finest prints you can from your new printer, and enjoy! :-)
-
Hi Luminous Landscape,
i have recently sold Epson 3880 to upgrade to Canon IPF6400 mostly due to printing from roll. I have read lots of reviews that x400 series are very capable fine art printers, but when i compare prints with my ex. Epson 3880 there are clearly more visible dots due to smaller resolution.
Hi,
There will also be a visible difference (at closer than normal viewing conditions) due to the dithering method used, but the maximum resolution should still be 600 PPI maximum on the Canon's, which is visually almost impossible to distinguish from 300 PPI except for the very finest high contrast detail. It should therefore also be pretty close to the higher 720PPI Epson setting (with 'finest detail' switched on), and virtually indistinguishable at normal viewing distances.
I have trouble to find a way to print the images at higher resolutions since all the driver offers is "highest 600x600dpi", no matter what the paper type is.
The "Highest" 600 PPI setting does offer much more data to do the output sharpening on than with 300 PPI, and maybe you just need to use different settings than you are used to with your Epson. Also make sure that the head alignment is done on the actual paper you are using.
This problem frustrates me since i expected superior quality to Epson 3880. Please help me find a way to push this printer to its maximal potential.
Well 600 PPI is its max (and 720 PPI for the Epson), but maybe the output sharpening needs to be modified, or the printer is not optimally adjusted? You also didn't mention if the image data was 600 PPI natively, or if it was resampled to that resolution and then sharpened. Maybe you processing can be improved?
To verify the native resolution capabilities (so without resampling and output sharpening effects), and test if the printer achieves the 600 PPI resolution, you can use a test target (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=99905.msg818035#msg818035) I created for that purpose.
If resampling is involved, then I'd recommend to review your resampling and output sharpening workflow.
Cheers,
Bart
-
"Instead of being frustrated, just focus on how to get the finest prints you can from your new printer, and enjoy! :-)"
Actually Mark, this is what i have been trying for days now and the sole reason why i am asking here. I have kept my first print from Epson 3880 made on max settings (Hahnemuhle glossy paper 260gsm). Well my new Canon on max settings is not even close in resolution to this Epson print and all i want to achieve is match the quality. It is not like it is 720dpi vs 600dpi difference (that would be unnoticable), it is just huge difference and i believe i dont do it right. Prints will be used for custom photobooks where viewing distance is much smaller and some photos, especcially with smaller book sizes can get really small. Visible dots in such small prints are huge drawback since you loose lots of details. I print my books only in finest quality settings.
-
Yeah i believe that 2 feet away makes it indistinguishable but what about close up view. Online reviews could not say Epson x900 series and Canon x400 series have almost the same output if max resolution of canon is 600x600. Where is the option for 2400x1200?
Native printer resolution is limited to 720 PPI for Epsons, and 600 PPI for Canons. The higher DPI (= dots not pixels) settings only affect the dithering pattern, not the resolution.
Cheers,
Bart
-
So if i print the same photo that i have printed with Epson 3880 also with Canon ipf6400 and the last has clearly visible dots while with Epson 3880 print is almost impossible to see the dots, where is the problem then. Both printers on max quality setings...
-
"Instead of being frustrated, just focus on how to get the finest prints you can from your new printer, and enjoy! :-)"
Actually Mark, this is what i have been trying for days now and the sole reason why i am asking here. I have kept my first print from Epson 3880 made on max settings (Hahnemuhle glossy paper 260gsm). Well my new Canon on max settings is not even close in resolution to this Epson print and all i want to achieve is match the quality. It is not like it is 720dpi vs 600dpi difference (that would be unnoticable), it is just huge difference and i believe i dont do it right. Prints will be used for custom photobooks where viewing distance is much smaller and some photos, especcially with smaller book sizes can get really small. Visible dots in such small prints are huge drawback since you loose lots of details. I print my books only in finest quality settings.
As I said, if you are seeing printer dots at normal viewing distance, something is wrong - either with the printer or your technique. I think the advice Bart provided in reply #4 is excellent and you should investigate all of that before focusing on the printer as a cause of your difficulty.
-
The iPF print has slightly more grain than Epson SP due to more aggressive GCR.
Make sure that the printheads are properly aligned, calibrate paper feed and try to lower heads closer to paper.
-
So if i print the same photo that i have printed with Epson 3880 also with Canon ipf6400 and the last has clearly visible dots while with Epson 3880 print is almost impossible to see the dots, where is the problem then. Both printers on max quality setings...
Is that the same image data, just printed with another printer? In that case there will be resampling done by the printer driver, and the quality of resampling is often sub-par (not sure if that is what you describe as "clearly visible dots"). It's hard to imagine that you can see the inkjet dithering dots at 600 PPI (or even at 300 PPI).
Since it's hard for us to judge without seeing an example, it might help if you provided a scan of a similar cropped area of the two prints? Do mention the scanner resolution, otherwise we will not be able to view it at a normal magnification factor, say 30 centimeter or 12 inch viewing distance.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I created file with native 600ppi resolution and set paper type to gloss and it worked, the image si much better now. Still have to investigate furtherr. But 600ppi files are huge, i never had to create native 600ppi files with Epson. ???
-
I created file with native 600ppi resolution and set paper type to gloss and it worked, the image si much better now. Still have to investigate furtherr. But 600ppi files are huge, i never had to create native 600ppi files with Epson. ???
You've so far not answered the question about how you are viewing your prints to see these "dots". In looking at prints from my iPF 5100 with the same print head, at max quality and 300ppi files, with my severely myopic left eye (8" focal distance unaided), I can see no printer dots. So what is your viewing method & magnification.
Your Epson files are 360ppi, I presume? Try the Canon at 360 also - I think that printer "native resolution" makes little to no difference in the output of contemporary printers as long as the input ppi is above a certain threshold or higher. This is about 220ppi for me and my myopic left eye, though I still use the conventional 300ppi.
Pete
-
I recently replaced a 3800 with an iPF6400 and don't have any complaints about the print quality even when viewed from relatively close distances (no magnifying glass though...). I have reworked my previous print files and sharpening for 300ppi, and have been printing at Highest Quality (600ppi). Really my only complaint about the printer after using it for a couple of months is the handling of cut-sheet papers, which is a bit of a pain...
-Scott
-
Maybe some confusion between resolution of image data being sent (300, 600, 360, 720 ) and print quality resolution setting. At Max quality the Epson is using a 1440x2880 pattern the canon a 1200x2400 setting. I ran tests on this years ago and to be honest difference was only apparent with a loupe. If the canon visual quality is that apparent I think the OP is having trouble setting the Quality level setting in the driver.
-
Exactly, raster pattern is always the same. The only difference is the amount od head passes, which may result in better lineart, small font etc. rendition.
Paper feed calibration is what matters, it may have disturbe raster pattern making it look more grainy. Also head height may have some small influence. The resolution remains the same, it's automatically upressed to 600dpi.
-
The resolution remains the same, it's automatically upressed to 600dpi.
The printer driver can be set to 300 PPI or 600 PPI. That's what the driver will resample (up or down) the input image size to in order to reach the output size setting. However, the resampling quality of the printer driver is usually relatively poor compared to what we can do ourselves with better/slower resampling algorithms. In addition to that, we can apply additional output sharpening to that resampled image data, something that the printer will not be able to do as well as we can, if it even does any sharpening.
Resampling will usually create some level of blur (to avoid e.g. blocking and aliasing artifacts), so output sharpening after resampling (to 600 PPI) is a must for the best output quality, and we can do an even better job when we have more pixels (even if the pixels are too small to easily see). The raster dots are for dithering more intermediate colors from a limited number of ink colors.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Exactly, raster pattern is always the same. The only difference is the amount od head passes, which may result in better lineart, small font etc. rendition.
Paper feed calibration is what matters, it may have disturbe raster pattern making it look more grainy. Also head height may have some small influence. The resolution remains the same, it's automatically upressed to 600dpi.
yes, resolution of the data going to the printer remains the same. But the resolution used by the printer to control quality could be the issue.
I know in the older software, getting the printer to maximum quality required some obscure setting to be at 8 passes, and that wasn’t possible with some paper types. I’m not sure what settings need to be set on the current ipf printers so the printer will print at maximum quality (1200x2400), so I can’t really offer anything other than trying to find out those settings.
But I do believe that side by side there should be no real visual difference, even at less than two feet.
Good point regarding the paper feed calibration, it can easily degrade quality on any printer.
-
In x300 series the "Highest Quality High Precision" mode used 32 passes, now in x400 exactly the same quality (or even better, grey transitions and skin tones are slightly improved) is acheived in 16 passes, so the printer is 2x faster. There's no need to set any additional setting to activate it, Canon simpliefied it.
Anyway there's no difference in raster pattern, no matter what mode is used.
-
In x300 series the "Highest Quality High Precision" mode used 32 passes, now in x400 exactly the same quality (or even better, grey transitions and skin tones are slightly improved) is acheived in 16 passes, so the printer is 2x faster. There's no need to set any additional setting to activate it, Canon simpliefied it.
Anyway there's no difference in raster pattern, no matter what mode is used.
Sorry Marcin, I must beg to differ. At least for my iPF8400 printer, there is a visible to the naked eye difference in the raster pattern between for the Photoshop 16 bit Plug-in, Highest versus Highest (Max. No. of Passes) and for the standard printer driver, High (600dpi) verses Highest (600dpi). The latter in both cases results in much smoother looking dotty appearance, especially for smooth areas. On Bart can der Wolf's resolution test, the is also a slight but appreciable difference in resolution. Dot placement is better, more precise. Scott Martin has also mentioned this. (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=68554.msg542495#msg542495)
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/15547362/canon-ipf-driver-screenshot.png)
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/15547362/canon-ipf-plugin-screenshot.png)
Here is a macro photograph (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/15547362/smooth-areas-and-gradients.jpg) (1:1) of the Highest and Highest (Max. No. of Passes) dot pattern in the smooth area of Bart resolution test target. Download it and make sure you view at 100% magnification so your display does not downsample the screen preview.
-
The printer driver can be set to 300 PPI or 600 PPI.
More specifically, the option to set the driver (or plug-in) to 300dpi (the silly driver does not label it as ppi which it should) is only available for certain media settings like "Plain Paper". I would assume the OP is printing with a different media setting than that for the high-end photo books. So only the 600ppi setting is available. All the files will be resampled by driver, whether you like it or not, to 600ppi.
Anyway the resolution of the files has absolutely nothing to do with the dot pattern/screening. That is controlled by which pass mode is selected in the driver.
-
More specifically, the option to set the driver (or plug-in) to 300dpi (the silly driver does not label it as ppi which it should) is only available for certain media settings like "Plain Paper". I would assume the OP is printing with a different media setting than that for the high-end photo books. So only the 600ppi setting is available. All the files will be resampled by driver, whether you like it or not, to 600ppi.
Indeed, and that's why it is important to first make sure that the input image data was resampled to 600 PPI (and output sharpened), because otherwise the printer driver will resample (with a lower quality resampling method) and not sharpen.
Anyway the resolution of the files has absolutely nothing to do with the dot pattern/screening. That is controlled by which pass mode is selected in the driver.
Correct, the dithering does not materially influence the resolution but rather the smoothness of gradients and the creation of (more) subtle color nuances. As your macro shot clearly demonstrates, a very close-up inspection will reveal a difference in smoothness, but it would be harder to see from a bit of distance. The real difference in resolution comes from the input image data, it's either there or it isn't. All we can do is to keep what's there and not squander it by using a sub-optimal workflow and driver settings.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Indeed, and that's why it is important to first make sure that the input image data was resampled to 600 PPI (and output sharpened), because otherwise the printer driver will resample (with a lower quality resampling method) and not sharpen.
Correct, the dithering does not materially influence the resolution but rather the smoothness of gradients and the creation of (more) subtle color nuances. As your macro shot clearly demonstrates, a very close-up inspection will reveal a difference in smoothness, but it would be harder to see from a bit of distance. The real difference in resolution comes from the input image data, it's either there or it isn't. All we can do is to keep what's there and not squander it by using a sub-optimal workflow and driver settings.
Cheers,
Bart
Absolutely, we should be seeing the big picture, and optimize the quality in every way we can. But from the way the OP wrote about his struggles with dotty output from the Canon, he has my sympathy. It does not sound like he is having less than perfectly sharp prints. Rather dotty looking output.
I am able to quite clearly see the differences in Epson and Canon screening patterns with my naked eyes (the prints must be well illuminated). Often I find it much easier to judge the degree of dottiness without a loupe. The Highest (max. no. of passes) 16-pass setting brings the latest X400 generation Canon printers close to the Epson X900s and X880s in dither smoothness, but no so in the highlights. Arguably I prefer the Canon dither in the shadows. The Highest setting, as shown in my picture looks way worse to the naked eye than the macro image reveals. Some of my non-photographer friends can easily see the difference in dot smoothness with just their eyes too.
Aligning the heads perfectly can be a little challenging on these Canon printers. My experiments have shown that only the Initial Head Alignment (automatically performed by the printer) is capable of adjusting the dot accuracy sufficiently for the 16 pass setting. All the other auto alignments result in suboptimal dot placement accuracy. The manual alignment is not perfect either, despite how careful I am. Manual alignment does not print out the yellow channel. Less than perfect alignment does increase the dottiness in smooth areas quite visibly. Unidirectional printing improves the dot placement accuracy a little. Marcin is also right about the head height setting. It should be set to the lowest possible height that won't impact the paper. For many roll fine art papers on the iPF6450 that I tested, setting to "Low" is fine. Beware the initial couple of inches of the roll - the paper path direction is counter to the natural curl of the paper, so the leading edge will be raised slighly as a hump. Sometimes head strikes will occur only on the leading edge and be perfectly fine after for very curly papers.
-
Here is a macro photograph (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/15547362/smooth-areas-and-gradients.jpg) (1:1) of the Highest and Highest (Max. No. of Passes) dot pattern in the smooth area of Bart resolution test target. Download it and make sure you view at 100% magnification so your display does not downsample the screen preview.
I actually meant is that there's no difference in raster pattern resolution, the print head is physically 1200dpi and neither the size nor pattern of dots doesn't change. What really changes in 16 pass mode is the precision of dot placement, but to my eye the difference in perceptible graininess is visible, but not significant.
In the above mentioned case there are two possibilities - something's wrong with print settings and paper calibration, or someone expects same results as in case of SPx880/890/900. The latter is impossible to acheive on iPF, mainly due to different channel curves - and this is exactly what you found disturbing in bright areas:
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/19059944/iPFvsSP1.jpg)
The only way to counteract this is to use a RIP and create channel curves that put more bright inks in bright parts of the images. TBW makes it possible for B&W works, unfortunately color RIP solutions are way less affordable...
-
Absolutely, we should be seeing the big picture, and optimize the quality in every way we can. But from the way the OP wrote about his struggles with dotty output from the Canon, he has my sympathy. It does not sound like he is having less than perfectly sharp prints. Rather dotty looking output.
I'm not sure, because the OP stated:
I created file with native 600ppi resolution and set paper type to gloss and it worked, the image si much better now. Still have to investigate furtherr. But 600ppi files are huge, i never had to create native 600ppi files with Epson. ???
This suggests, to me anyway, that he now first resampled to 600 PPI and got better results. That may mean that the prior image data was of lower PPI, and thus (lower quality) resampled by the printer driver. Maybe that resulted in blocking artifacts that contributed to the sensation of 'lower resolution'. That, combined with the somewhat more visible dithering pattern, may give a sensation of graininess.
If it's the resampling that did the trick, then adding additional output sharpening would visually close the gap, if any, even further.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Well i haven't responsed some time beacuse i was busy testing and calibrating.
By any mean i dont think Canon print is bad, i just noticed it is slightly more grainy. Maybe that nonvariable dot seen on Czornyj post explains it. We are speaking in looking really close differences not important with wall prints but with photo book prints higher detail is just better.
But i must also explain that the high resolution print from Epson 3880 was made on Hahnemuhle gloss 260gsm paper and i do not have any left to do the same test print with Canon ipf6400. I was making comparable prints on "high resolution" but still really cheap 140gsm matt paper. I have already printed books with that 140gsm matt paper in past and with combination of Epson L1800 dye printer the prints were really detailed.
I have made a lot of printing from Epson 3880 (pigment) and Epson L1800 (dye) so i noticed that 3880 had more accurate colors (both calibrated with Colormunki), especially blacks were way more neutral. On the other hand colors on L1800 were more saturated and image detail was higher due to smaller dot (1.5 vs 3.5pl). Also on dye there was no bronzing or gloss differential issues and that is a big drawback for pigmented inks especially for book making. Dyes are also less prone to physical damage like scratches or fingerprints.
So i made upgrade on my pigmented printer (from 3880->ipf6400) but i also believe i will have to upgrade to some better dye printer. L1800 has great output quality but suffers from poor build quality and not the best inks. It also lacks roll and has poor feeding mechanism --> even if i manually help the printer to securely grab one large sheet it curves/warps the print anyway. Not visible on print but when you cut it in correct rectangle there is up to 2mm warp difference on 60cm large print. When you print the photos with even white band arround it that can become visible. Not to mention i have to make this manual help every 15 minutes (time between prints) and that printer suffers from head clogs so i have to make a lot of head cleanings..
So printer that would be ideal to my use would have 24" width, dye Claria or Ultrachrome D6 inks, superior image detail and colors. I know there is Epson D3000 dye drylab printer. It has all i have mentioned except width, but even 30,5cm would be fine. But cost of this printer is another story. Any other suggestions? ;)
My goal is to get the best possible prints for my photobooks -->resolution, color, no bronzing, no gloss differential, scratch resistant, longevity,...
I will still continue to research Canon ipf6400 printer drivers to learn and to find the best way to get the quality i want.