Canon IPF6400 resolution

[DryAxE]

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.

[JohnBrew]

I have both printers. A print from either one, mounted on the wall, is indistinguishable from two feet away.

[DryAxE]

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?

[Mark D Segal]

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! :-)

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

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 I created for that purpose.

If resampling is involved, then I'd recommend to review your resampling and output sharpening workflow.

Cheers,
Bart

[DryAxE]

"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.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

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

[DryAxE]

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...

[Mark D Segal]

"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.

[Czornyj]

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.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

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

[DryAxE]

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. 

[Pete Berry]

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

[Scott Hein]

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

[Wayne Fox]

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.

[Czornyj]

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.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

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

[Wayne Fox]

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.

[Czornyj]

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.

[samueljohnchia]

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.





Here is a macro photograph (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.