600DPI Dye Sub Printer?

[Plekto]

I pretty much have been convinced that I should be shooting slides and scanning my film manually, be it MF or 35mm.  Given the low used prices for good scanners like the Minoltas, it's kind of silly not to, and 100-200mb per scan is nothing anymore, what with 500GB hard drives barely costing more than $150.

The problem is the printing.  Great film, good data... ouch on the printing.

I need a dye-sublimation printer.  It has to look like a photograph or poster and not fade or have other issues, even in sunlight and so on.  Ie - I could hang it in a frame on the wall and forget about it, in theory.  I also like the continuous tones and way the dye-subs look.

But, 400DPI is never going to show medium format pictures well enough to tell the difference over 35mm, not unless I can get larger prints.  

According to my calculations, 11.5 inches or so at 400DPI is where MF starts to gain on 35mm, and then it goes up to silly numbers(~38 inches for a 6*9 with a Minolta scanner).  So a printer would have to be larger than about 9*12 to do better, and that's not likely to be affordable on a normal basis.

But at 600DPI, it would be closer to 7 inches wide, which is more what I had in mind.  I can then do cheaper 6*9s for albums and such and still show off the format's quality at least a little bit.

So I have two options as I see it:
1:Get a big, cheap 400DPI printer.  Something that does up to 24-26 inches wide, since I might at most be shooting 6*7( the 6cm being the limiting width, essentially, and 24 inches*28 or so for 6*7 is a nice size to frame, IMO - no need to get silly).

2:Get a smaller, higher quality 600DPI if it exists.  Obviously the advantage here is that 6*9 prints for albums and the like would be very easy to make for a reasonable cost.  Possibly using the same paper as the 400DPI consumer/desktop machines currently use.    And then send out to a major lab for the few jumbo ones that I want, and/or just fire up a projector.

I'm trying to keep this low cost, of course.  I'm not a pro and don't plan to open a studio any time soon.

Thanks for listening to my blather.  Heh.  Camera is down to 2-3 models, and the scanner is looking like a Minolta, so that leaves the printer.

EDIT/P.S. The main reason that I started this printer quest (heh) was that I have a print of my family at Venice Beach(CA) taken with good 35mm film by my mother-in-law (good SLR) that was scanned at a photo lab and printed at 8*12 at 300DPI.   It looks bad even from 5 feet away.   If you pick up the frame and look at it from a foot or so away, it's grainy, pixelated, and blurry.  It looks like a disaster.  

I then look at another older family photo taken about a decade ago of about the same size but printed and processed pre-digital and it's astounding in its clarity.  Now, I know technology is better, but the difference is stark.  300DPI looks like rubbish and yet everybody has gone digital for printing(much the same as digital vs film - sigh).

[vgogolak]

I use a Kodak 8660 dye sub at 300dpi and have had 20x30 from dale labs. All spectacular. The human eye can see only 240dpi, maybe a bit more.

300dpi in a contunuous tone print as dye sub is not comparable to 1200 or even 2400 in an ink jet  -it is better. The inkjet needs the high dpi because there are 8-12 dots for a color. In dye sub, the color is EVERYWHERE, 3 tone (CMY) and the dpi just refers to the resolution that the thermal heads have so defines the detail (It would take 3600 dpi of a 12 color injet just to match, and then there are still dots.)

I don't know what you have seen but I suggest looking at a profession dye sub (the 8660 only goes to 8.5x12.5) and cost new over $4,000. But it was worth it
for larger, you need a lab, or to spend over $10,000 for a fuji

VICtor

[Plekto]

I use a Kodak 8660 dye sub at 300DPI and have had 20x30 from dale labs. All spectacular. The human eye can see only 240dpi, maybe a bit more.

I don't remember the exact terminology for the science behind it, but the problem is that when you move to ink, you get errors and defects that are apparent because of how the ink bleeds together and dries and so on.

Ie - it doesn't look "clean" at even 300DPI.  I could plainly tell a 300DPI print from a 400DPI after having seen them side by side for a few minutes.  And almost all of the time I still can tell.  It looks slightly blurry and grainy at 300DPI.   Like a microscopic oil painting on the surface.    The data is all there, mind you - it just looks ever so slightly out of focus due to the way the inks react with the media.  I suspect that 500-600DPI would be required to smooth it out completely.   But I can't find any printers that go that high.

(the problem isn't apparently the resolution so much as the dot pitch/size)

Go look at a similar print printed with good optical equipment.  Side-by-side, it's clear which is cleaner.  And then it bugs you.  It's one of those things, like how you don't see it until someone points it out, and then it's all you can see.

[hubicka]

Human Eye can see more than 300DPI, as can be easily noticed from text and line art printing. However the photographic papers processed digitally or by classical procedures does not deliver more than 300DPI of true resolution, so people viewing photograph does not even expect more and does not notice difference.

Contact prints (ie mostly the 1900s photographs) do deliver more resolution, over 600DPI and if one gets used to them, one can see the difference easily. We run museum of historical photography and observing the visitors one can easily see people used to historical processes viewing the photographs curefuly from close distances.

However what you describe seems to be more some kind of resizing artifacts interfering with the scanned film grain, 300DPI print should not look more grainy.  The files to print can be prepared curefuly for given output device and its optimal resolution, with grain reduced by tools like noiseninja and details sharpened.  I think you would like to google for output sharpening and noise ninja or neat image.

Honza

[tomm101]

Most printer drivers throw out anything over 300ppi.
I can talk myself into thinking 600ppi files look slightly better. From the way you describe it, sounds like you have an ink load problem with ink jet.
I worked with dye sub for several years, also explored the archival nature of dye subs. Kodak seems to do the best with life expectancy equal to older generaly photo paper 25-30yrs, the only dyesubs tested by Wilhelm. I had a tektronix dye sub for a while and stopped using it when it was obvious the prints were fading in a few years, plus it was almost $12 for a 11x17 print. Archival just isn't there with dye sub, that plus you have to tell customers that they have to keep the prints away from PVCs, I used to give a note to anyone who bought a print explaining this.
While printing inkjet I think 2 1/4x2 3/4 and 4x5 do stand out, 2 1/4 square to a lesser extent. This is all printed at 300ppi.

Tom

[Panopeeper]

you have to tell customers that they have to keep the prints away from PVCs, I used to give a note to anyone who bought a print explaining this

Do you mind explaining this here as well?

[Plekto]

Actually, the 300DPI problem is with the Dye Sub printers.  They look fuzzy and blotchy due to the ink bleeding excessively.  THere's just no razor sharp definition like you used to get with non-digital(and non dye-sub) printing.

[tomm101]

Do you mind explaining this here as well?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185908\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

PVC materials will destroy a dyesub print even with lamination in a matter of weeks. Not sure of the chemistry but definitly a chemical reaction. I work in the ophthalmic photography field, many of the early digital systems used dyesub for printing. The page protectors MDs liked were extremely clear PVC, sticking a dyesub in one was certain death to the print, again even with lamination. Had a Sony dyesub (UP-70D) print to show an MD in a PVC notebook, one you write in, stayed there for 2 months or so and was so motteled it was unreadable. I have an image of it in a lecture I give on printers. Don't know if they have changed the dyes but this was just 4 years ago. The problem was noticed in the early 90's and in the 12 or so years between Kodak or Sony hadn't changed dyes yet.

Tom

[Panopeeper]

Thanks Tom, that's really interesting.

You mentioned above, that the maximum life expectancy of dye subs is 25-30 years. Does this depend on the substrate? I am thinking of *heat transfered* dye, on any polyester coated surface - do you know anything about the life expectancy of that?

Another question (I use the opportunity, when someone with practical knowledge is there): you mentioned, that the longest lasting dye is that from Kodak, Is that suitable for the transfer process as well? Does that dye require some particular printers, or is it good with any dye printer?

I found information related specifically for heat transfer, but I saw only dye brands which say nothing to me, like Sawgrass and Artainium.

[tomm101]

Talking about OEM dydesub papers for the letter or tabloid (A4, A3) machines produced by Kodak, Sony, Mitsubishi, Seiko, and an old machine by Tektronix, there could be others. I really don't know about dye transfer materials.
Wilhelm did a test on Kodak that came out at 25-30 years, in their archives, when I was researching Sony tech support said 10 years (so don't know their parameters) Zerox (Techtronix) said "we don't test for that, we have some print that have been in drawer for several years." The techtronix machine has been discontinued for several years. At the time I did the research Mitsubishi and Seiko didn't have machines working with the medical imaging devices I was reporting on.

Tom