Epson 9900 Native Resolution

[vjbelle]

Does anyone know what the native resolution of the Epson 9900 is?  There has been good information regarding the 3800 but I would like to know if my 9900 also follows the same resolution path.  Is the standard resolution 360 PPI?  Does the resolution then jump to 720 PPI if 'Finest Detail' is check marked?  

Thanks for any response....

Victor

[Schewe]

Is the standard resolution 360 PPI?  Does the resolution then jump to 720 PPI if 'Finest Detail' is check marked?

The x900 series have 360 nozzles per inch which should not be confused with dots per inch as inkjet prints print droplets of a certain volume not dots of a certain size. By use of the stepper motors for paper transport, Epson can get an effective 2880 droplets per inch longways. As for the Finest Detail, yes, when that is turned on the drivers sends a signal to the OS that it is a 720 device. But note that Finest Detail is only useful for vector art and graphics not photos...

[vjbelle]

The x900 series have 360 nozzles per inch which should not be confused with dots per inch as inkjet prints print droplets of a certain volume not dots of a certain size. By use of the stepper motors for paper transport, Epson can get an effective 2880 droplets per inch longways. As for the Finest Detail, yes, when that is turned on the drivers sends a signal to the OS that it is a 720 device. But note that Finest Detail is only useful for vector art and graphics not photos...

Thank you for your reply.... I really appreciate it.  All of my images can, thankfully, stay at a manageable 360 PPI.  

Thanks again.....

Victor

[vjbelle]

The x900 series have 360 nozzles per inch which should not be confused with dots per inch as inkjet prints print droplets of a certain volume not dots of a certain size. By use of the stepper motors for paper transport, Epson can get an effective 2880 droplets per inch longways. As for the Finest Detail, yes, when that is turned on the drivers sends a signal to the OS that it is a 720 device. But note that Finest Detail is only useful for vector art and graphics not photos...

Jeff,

An additional comment...... Your reply told me exactly what I wanted to know - that the finest detail selection will, in fact, send data to the printer at 720 PPI.  I would like to point out that, at least to me, it is a misnomer in that the 'Finest Detail' setting is only useful for vector art and graphics.  It can easily be seen by the naked eye and most certainly with a loupe that photographic images when upsampled to 720 PPI and printed at 720 PPI show edges that are demonstrably sharper and more refined and image detail that is enhanced.  You can test and see this for yourself.  This is not to suggest that all prints should be sent to the printer at 720 PPI but an image with a lot of detail and a fair amount of pixels (21MP+) can greatly benefit from upsampling to 720 PPI, correctly sharpened and then printed at 720 PPI.  

Thanks again for verifying what I felt 'Finest Detail' meant.....

[Farmer]

Jeff,

An additional comment...... Your reply told me exactly what I wanted to know - that the finest detail selection will, in fact, send data to the printer at 720 PPI.  I would like to point out that, at least to me, it is a misnomer in that the 'Finest Detail' setting is only useful for vector art and graphics.  It can easily be seen by the naked eye and most certainly with a loupe that photographic images when upsampled to 720 PPI and printed at 720 PPI show edges that are demonstrably sharper and more refined and image detail that is enhanced.  You can test and see this for yourself.  This is not to suggest that all prints should be sent to the printer at 720 PPI but an image with a lot of detail and a fair amount of pixels (21MP+) can greatly benefit from upsampling to 720 PPI, correctly sharpened and then printed at 720 PPI.  

Thanks again for verifying what I felt 'Finest Detail' meant.....

If you're upsampling to 720 then you're creating data that never existed, so I'd question the benefit.  As to seeing the difference with the naked eye, well, only in very few circumstances.  Seeing the difference via a loupe means it has little or no real world benefit.

If you have an image that is natively 720 or more and want to print that, then by all means, but frankly you are otherwise wasting your time in most cases and if you're upsampling to achieve 720 then you're really wasting your time because you're creating detail that isn't really there and then being impressed by it being sharp.

[Wayne Fox]

.  I would like to point out that, at least to me, it is a misnomer in that the 'Finest Detail' setting is only useful for vector art and graphics.

Well, not really a misnomer ... to quote from the user manual

"Finest detail for sharper edges on vector-based data including text, graphics and line art.  (This setting does not affect photographs and is not recommended for large files)."

I"m not sure exactly what algorithms are used by Finest Detail, but it is sounds like there is an attempt to identify specific edges of vector graphics, and other than that the data is not modified.  Not sure what you are seeing. I also don't believe in up-rezzing to send the data at 720 dpi -  I tried that sometime back and felt there was an artificial "sharpness" for many prints ... they looked "digital" to me.

[Ernst Dinkla]

Well, not really a misnomer ... to quote from the user manual

"Finest detail for sharper edges on vector-based data including text, graphics and line art.  (This setting does not affect photographs and is not recommended for large files)."

I"m not sure exactly what algorithms are used by Finest Detail, but it is sounds like there is an attempt to identify specific edges of vector graphics, and other than that the data is not modified.  Not sure what you are seeing. I also don't believe in up-rezzing to send the data at 720 dpi -  I tried that sometime back and felt there was an artificial "sharpness" for many prints ... they looked "digital" to me.

In the past when I had to print small fonts on the Epson 9000 that only knew 360 PPI native resolution I rasterised the vector fonts + designs directly to 720 PPI in the applications (Xara or ArtWorks) or rasterised PDFs in Photoshop to that resolution. When printed it delivered a sharper quality than starting from 360PPI. I think it can be compared to subpixel anti-aliasing that is also used to improve the screen output of vector fonts etc. The Acorn Archimedes computers I used as my first systems 20 years ago already had a very sophisticated vector font system, printer and display drivers + GUI that all were compatible with that sub-pixel anti-aliasing, a feature improved in time till the company lost the battle in desktop computers ten years ago.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

New: Dinkla Canvas Wrap Actions for Photoshop
http://www.pigment-print.com/dinklacanvaswraps/index.html

[neil snape]

Well, not really a misnomer ... to quote from the user manual

"Finest detail for sharper edges on vector-based data including text, graphics and line art.  (This setting does not affect photographs and is not recommended for large files)."

I"m not sure exactly what algorithms are used by Finest Detail, but it is sounds like there is an attempt to identify specific edges of vector graphics, and other than that the data is not modified.  Not sure what you are seeing. I also don't believe in up-rezzing to send the data at 720 dpi -  I tried that sometime back and felt there was an artificial "sharpness" for many prints ... they looked "digital" to me.

Exactly.
When requested the Finest detail setting is applying a different screen masking which probably has more edge contrast applied. Now if you have very sharp straight lines in the photo they will be sharpened accordingly but from what I know about sharpening in screens, it would be spotty on image data compared to vector lines if the screening is ( and I'm sure Epson would only say this if they were using a screen for vector lines) mad for vector lines. It may even have a crunchy digital effect on image screening so might not be the best option compared to careful sharpening on the image itself.
You don't necessarily have to upres to send the spool file at Finest detail as that will be programmed in the driver to set the res from the input data to whatever it needs. I've only seen the slightest differences when the optical res is set to the nominal pre screen rasterize setting i.e.; 720 for a finest detail setting, but that input must be a very true optical res not a scaled res. For example scanning with a desktop flat bed is not going to give you a very true file even if you set it to 720 ppi when you scan. However if you down sample a high Mpx file you can effectively have a solid 720 ppi image to try.

[vjbelle]

Exactly.
When requested the Finest detail setting is applying a different screen masking which probably has more edge contrast applied. Now if you have very sharp straight lines in the photo they will be sharpened accordingly but from what I know about sharpening in screens, it would be spotty on image data compared to vector lines if the screening is ( and I'm sure Epson would only say this if they were using a screen for vector lines) mad for vector lines. It may even have a crunchy digital effect on image screening so might not be the best option compared to careful sharpening on the image itself.
You don't necessarily have to upres to send the spool file at Finest detail as that will be programmed in the driver to set the res from the input data to whatever it needs. I've only seen the slightest differences when the optical res is set to the nominal pre screen rasterize setting i.e.; 720 for a finest detail setting, but that input must be a very true optical res not a scaled res. For example scanning with a desktop flat bed is not going to give you a very true file even if you set it to 720 ppi when you scan. However if you down sample a high Mpx file you can effectively have a solid 720 ppi image to try.

Thanks all for your replies.  I would like to point out that the difference between 360 and 720 (same image) is subtle.  In fact, many may not even see the difference unless it is pointed out.  Once seen then your eye always goes there.  I never suggested that this printing method be adopted by anyone just that it may be something worth looking into.  Since this printer has the capability of printing at 720 PPI there may be some circumstances where this fine resolution can be advantageous.  

Thanks again for your comments.