File Resolutions for HP Z3100

[Min]

Its always been said that with the Epson printers the best print will be got with a file rez of 360 ppi but one could go as low as 150 ppi on large prints and still get good print quality. What about on an HP Z3100? Ive heard as low as 100 ppi. Have also heard that any higher than 200 ppi and print quality declines! Doesn't seem right. Whats the optimum rez for the Z3100? HP offers little info on this subject and all the 'Big Dogs" at Photoshop World can't talk about the HP because of their contracts with Epson.

[adiallo]

How low you can go depends solely on your expectations for the print. Technically speaking both 300 and 600ppi are even divisions of the printhead resolution. So 300ppi for the HP is akin to 360 for the Epson. Just give the printer what you've got. And I certaily wouldn't readjust file resolution when moving between an Epson and an HP or Canon. Printer drivers do an impressive job of interpolating from pixels to dots.

As a side note, if anyone refused to talk about a competing product because of a contractual obligation, I'd consider them more a marketing consultant than a source of independent information and seek opinions elsewhere.

[Ernst Dinkla]

Its always been said that with the Epson printers the best print will be got with a file rez of 360 ppi but one could go as low as 150 ppi on large prints and still get good print quality. What about on an HP Z3100? Ive heard as low as 100 ppi. Have also heard that any higher than 200 ppi and print quality declines! Doesn't seem right. Whats the optimum rez for the Z3100? HP offers little info on this subject and all the 'Big Dogs" at Photoshop World can't talk about the HP because of their contracts with Epson.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The real quality check is in the print and there are some test targets at Qimage's site www.ddisoftware.com to check what a paper/ink/printer combination is capable off. Targets at 300 etc PPI for HP and Canon,  360 etc PPI for Epson. That's more or less the hardware side of the actual quality possible. That doesn't result in 360 PPI or 300 PPI or higher being best but will be an odd number. The 360 and 300 PPI is related to the following part.

If you use different image resolutions that do not fit the native resolutions 300-600-1200, 360-720 of the printers then extrapolation routines in the driver or in the application you print from start to play a role too. There have been bad up- and downsampling routines used in printer drivers in the past but most of the drivers have been improved and are still improving. Some applications like Qimage do an even better job on up- and downsampling (good anti-aliasing in downsampling for example) than the drivers. If the up or downsampling is bad in the driver or the application you print from then try to find a better routine in other software and prepare the file to the native resolution you will use: 300-600 PPI or 360-720 PPI, the driver will then no longer interfere with an extrapolation. That doesn't mean the paper coating/ink/printer hardware will deliver 360 PPI in image quality if it isn't capable to do better than 100 PPI, see the first part. It is a chain, one has to get all shacles optimal to get the total strength optimal.

I think it is a myth that a 200 PPI file of the same image prints worse than a 150 or 100 PPI file, the lowest native resolutions in today's practice are 300 and 360 PPI  so in all 3 cases upsampling takes place and the 200 PPI file should give better results when the paper coating allows quality differences between the 3, if the quality of the paper can't deliver better than 100 PPI input you will not get anything above of course, must be a newspaper quality though :-)

If downsampling happens: say a 543 PPI file is downsampled to 360 PPI native resolution with a certain driver setting then without good anti-aliasing routines available  in the driver or the application you print from it could result in a lower image quality. Downsampling has been a bit neglected in the developments, Qimage got some upgrades maybe 2 years ago to get that right too. BTW, I have several large 360 PPI files that I used for my Epsons when I print them now through Qimage + the Z3100 driver at 300 PPI native and the same image size then Qimage has to downsample to 300 PPI. If I use the medium setting anti-aliasing (not even the high setting) then it takes ages before Qimage ends its task. Much more than in a similar upsampling job actually. Using the low anti-aliasing setting makes it a lot faster. Either this means that the anti-aliasing routine used isn't optimised (most likely) or that good downsampling may be more difficult than good upsampling.

Ernst Dinkla

try: [a href=\"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/[/url]

[Min]

I do all my resizing in photoshop using bicubic smoother or sharper depending on which direction Im going. I resample the master file to the print size... always having had enough resolution for the epson printers I was using. Sounds like the super simple rule of thumb is to make the numbers divisable, or whatever the correct term would be. Thats what Ive always done...using 360 or 180 with epson printers. Im printing 2 1/4 film scanned at 3200 dpi... at 44" i get a resolution of some odd number like 173.55 ...should i even that out with up- or down-sizing, or just leave it alone assuming the printer will take care of it?

[michael]

I had the opportunity to discuss this at some length recently with a senior technical representative from HP, specifically with regard to the Z3100.

He said that their scientists are of the opinion that if a file is under 200 PPI or so, use Photoshop Bicubic Smoother to res it up to 300. If the file is anything over 200 let the printer's driver res it up to what it needs as you print, as it will likely do a better job.

He also added that their research showed that setting the file to some even multiple of 300 or 360 was at worst an urban myth and at best a waste of time.

This pretty much corroberates what i have found with a range of printers from Epson, Canon and HP over the years.

If you find otherwise – fine, but I'm satisfied with my own tests which seem to match what the designers of the HP Z3100 believe.

Michael

[marty m]

He said that their scientists are of the opinion that if a file is under 200 PPI or so, use Photoshop Bicubic Smoother to res it up to 300. If the file is anything over 200 let the printer's driver res it up to what it needs as you print, as it will likely do a better job.
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111221\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I apologize for a dumb question, but I just want to make sure I understand.  So if the file is anywhere in the range of 200 to 300, just leave it alone and go ahead and print.  (Since there is no setting in the printer driver to change resolution, we are just letting the print driver do its thing automatically.)  If, for example, it is at 200 or 225, just hit print, don't try to change the resolution, and let the HP print driver take care of the rest.

We should only go to the trouble of uprezzing using bicupic smoother if the resolution is 200 or less.  

Correct?  If I understand you correctly, I welcome that.  It certainly simplifies printing.  I've always been concerned if a file was less than 300, but didn't know if it would make any difference to increase the resolution in Photoshop.

Thanks for the info Michael, and thanks in advance for your response.

[Ernst Dinkla]

I apologize for a dumb question, but I just want to make sure I understand.  So if the file is anywhere in the range of 200 to 300, just leave it alone and go ahead and print.  (Since there is no setting in the printer driver to change resolution, we are just letting the print driver do its thing automatically.)  If, for example, it is at 200 or 225, just hit print, don't try to change the resolution, and let the HP print driver take care of the rest.

We should only go to the trouble of uprezzing using bicupic smoother if the resolution is 200 or less. 

Correct?  If I understand you correctly, I welcome that.  It certainly simplifies printing.  I've always been concerned if a file was less than 300, but didn't know if it would make any difference to increase the resolution in Photoshop.

Thanks for the info Michael, and thanks in advance for your response.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The most convenient solution is Qimage in my opinion. You keep the files as you got them, select the print size, select the print resolution suitable for the paper,  then the PPI is either too low or too high in resolution for the native resolution resulting from your selections and in both cases Qimage does a perfect job in extrapolation. Plus print sharpening if needed, low (or none) for (heavy) upsampling, default or high for 1:1 or downsampling.

Ernst Dinkla

try:  [a href=\"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/[/url]

[Min]

I havent had a chance to try out Qimage or any of the other uprezing plugins, but i did run some tests following the advice from the HP guy. I got much better print quality if I uprez a file above 200 to 300 in photoshop using bicubic smoother, than if I do if I let the HP software do it.

[Ernst Dinkla]

I havent had a chance to try out Qimage or any of the other uprezing plugins, but i did run some tests following the advice from the HP guy. I got much better print quality if I uprez a file above 200 to 300 in photoshop using bicubic smoother, than if I do if I let the HP software do it.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I have not tested the HP Z3100 driver on that aspect as I have used Qimage like I did with my Epsons but there are some extra settings available in the Z3100 driver that could influence the result. Wonder if one of the choices shifts the process to better extrapolation routines. This is the luxury problem with Qimage, one doesn't check what may be equal in quality.

Ernst Dinkla

try: [a href=\"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/[/url]

[ternst]

And Qimage is available for Macs?

[Ernst Dinkla]

And Qimage is available for Macs?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Macs get more hybrid than ever these days so in a way: yes.

How to do it is better described at the Qimage mailing list + Qimage's pages.

[a href=\"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qimage/]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qimage/[/url]

www.ddisoftware.com



Ernst Dinkla

try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/

[ternst]

Actually I'm quite happy with the uprez built into PS that works just fine with Macs the way they are! I sure don't want to put any microsoft junk on my computer, even though it is nice that Macs can do that now...