High resolution printer (in PPI)

[FramedLives]

Hi everybody,
my name is Giovanni. I'm a Software Engineer with a big passion for photography.
I'm currently working on 3D photography based on lenticular technology.

I've joined this forum because I cannot find a proper answer to my "simple" question anywhere else and maybe I can find it here.

I have a Canon PIXMA 9500 Mark II which can print at 4800x2400 dpi with native resolution of 600 ppi. I already know that Epson has printers which can print at a native resolution of 720 ppi.

Because of the technology I'm using for 3D pictures I'm looking for a printer which can print at a higher resolution in ppi (e.g. 1200 ppi). Please note I'm stating ppi and not dpi.
I've heard there are some HP printers that can do it on special paper but I'm not sure.

Does anybody know if there exists a printer, any brand and any cost, that can print at high ppi resolution?

Thanks,

Giovanni

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Because of the technology I'm using for 3D pictures I'm looking for a printer which can print at a higher resolution in ppi (e.g. 1200 ppi). Please note I'm stating ppi and not dpi.
I've heard there are some HP printers that can do it on special paper but I'm not sure.

Does anybody know if there exists a printer, any brand and any cost, that can print at high ppi resolution?

Hi Giovanni,

I don't think there are any from the regular big brands in photography. The mentioned 600 or 720 PPI is the maximum for inkjet printers, as far as I know. There may be typesetters that are capable of higher resolution, but those are not image printers, just text.

So it looks like the 40 -60 LPI lenticular screens for short viewing distances are the limit of what can be achieved with current technology, and something in the order of 10 - 18 images per scene. I would also be interested in other possibilities, so I hope I'm wrong

The only thing that I know of that is a bit different are the spherical (not cylindrical) screens like from  Popims.

Cheers,
Bart

P.S. Also see this thread.

[FramedLives]

You sent me an interesting link Bart, thanks a lot. This spherical lenticules are quite intriguing. I'll send a mail to this company for additional info because I'm looking of an external lenticular printing service as well.

I'm current using Microlens.com 3D 60lpi lenses with 24 degrees viewing angle. With my Canon printer at 600ppi, this lens allows me a 20cm depth (-10cm behind the virtual window and +10cm in front) maintaining a "decent" clarity.
An Epson at 720ppi would allow me a 20% depth more. But a 1200ppi (if exists) would allow me (at least teoretically) a 40cm depth.

I'm printing on A3+ format and I fear that, moving to a 40lpi lens to increase the depth, would on the other side reduce the picture detail.

Thanks,

Giovanni

[a.lorge]

Hi,

With lenticular prints I think there are a lot of factors that influence the perceived depth of a print more than the resolution of the printer you are using.  The percieved depth of a print is highly dependent on the distance you are viewing it from.  For example, let's say you have a print with 20 views.  If you are right on top of it and your left eye is seeing view #1, and your right eye is seeing view #20, the perception of depth is much more intense than if you are standing 6 feet away from the print and you left eye is seeing view #12 and your right eye is seeing view #16.   Also there is a limit to the width of a line that a lens can magnify as a solid "pixel".  After a certain point, This is limited by the optics of the lens and not by the resolution of the printer.  In other words, sticking more lines under the lens isn't necessarily going to allow you to add more parallax.  The main advantage it would provide would be to smooth the transition between view points.  But, that's kind of useless because lenticular prints look crappy from close up not to mention hurt my eyes.    Right now I'm looking at a print I made using an HP z3100 and with 15 view points on a 40 lpi lens printed at 600 ppi to at the max detail printer setting (2400 x 1200 dpi, unidirectional) and I really don't start to see the frames start to seperate until I get to about 2 feet away.  (the print is about 20" x 24" with about 1.5" of parallax between the first and last views on the surface the print).  As another example here is a 360 degree portrait I made using a 15 lpi lens and 80 frames (printed at 1200 ppi) http://www.youtube.com/user/spacetimeprinting#p/a/u/2/e0NFIlWm4Uk I guess the point I am trying to make with that one is that the down sampling that occurs in the printer driver/RIP serves more or less that same smoothing purpose as printing more/thinner lines.  I Hope some of this makes sense.  It's all kind of like alchemy to me.  Don't ask me to prove any of this scientifically.  Also, I'd say if you want more depth, either use a thicker lens or just add more parallax to your existing images, and plan on viewing them from farther away.  Oh yeah and precise dot placement is more important that an extremely high DPI.

[FramedLives]

It all make sense yes but I'm still convinced that if I can print at a native resolution of 1200ppi (if possible) I can improve the depth.

I'm currenlty printing on A3+ format with 60lpi lens (60.13 pitch to be exact). The minimum viewing distance is roughly 1 meter and with a flickering of 2mm for the futhest and the closest objects (a measure that for me defines the clarity of the lenticular print) such lens with a viewing angle of 24 degrees allows me a depth from -10cm to +10cm.

I use several technique to overcome these limits.
1) I miniaturize the object e.g. instead of a 1:1 portrait, I make it smaller 1:2.
2) I squeeze the ortoscopic depth by 1/3rd and very few people notice the deformation. They actually perceive the picture with better clarity.
3) I'm also thinking of using some blur playing with the photographic depth of field, but I haven't tried it yet.

All these things are done following mathematical formulas that perfeclty match with the results once printed. I'm very pedantic in this :-p but I usually get the results that I predict.

For interlacing I use my own software with parallax correction and band removal and I send the interlaced picture to the printer using the native printing resolution so that no downscaling or upperscaling is done by the printing driver. In my case is 600ppi. The software processes roughly 100 pictures taken from -12 degree to 12 degree. I can reduce the depth and increase the clarity by removing a specific number of pictures from the leftmost and the rightmose sides.

I could increase the depth using a different lens, for example 40lpi or 30lpi, but I do not want to decrease the resolution of the print.

So my last option to increase the quality is finding a printer (if any exists, I do no know) that can print at a native resolution of 1200ppi. I think the actual limit is the paper and not the printer, but maybe using a very special paper or a different media this might be possible... I do not know yet and I'm searching for it.

Thanks for all the replies,

Giovanni

[FramedLives]

By the way, the print you showed me on YouTube is awesome!!! I would like to see it with my own eyes...

http://www.youtube.com/user/spacetimeprinting#p/a/u/2/e0NFIlWm4Uk

Giovanni

[Ernst Dinkla]

The Z3100-Z3200 drivers set at Best quality + Maximum detail will ask for 1200PPI input. Whether that actually delivers 1200 PPI output quality is another question that could in theory be resolved with MTF charts of print paper resolution tests.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst


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

[FramedLives]

Thanks a lot, I'll do some investigation in this direction then.

Giovanni

[Ernst Dinkla]

Thanks a lot, I'll do some investigation in this direction then.

Giovanni

This maximum Detail setting is actually meant for high resolution text etc like a similar setting does on the Epson drivers. I wonder what it will do with the 3D separations strokes, especially the boundaries, could be positive or negative.
On resolution and register I would expect that printing the lines parallel to the paper transport direction is better than parallel to the print head movement. The HP Z6200 etc with their paper transport measured optically on the paper texture could be an exception to that theory.

met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst


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

[JohnHeerema]

I believe that what you're looking for is:
a) a reduced picture element cell size, where a cell is traditionally made up of an integer number of dots in each direction
b) a nicely orthoganal cell matrix, so that you can get the lenticular lens lined up properly

Am I on the right track so far?
If so, you've got the usual tradeoff between the number of possible colours in each cell, and the spatial resolution - just as with any printer that uses discrete dots of ink (but not dye-sub printers, which are more continuous).

So, the Epson uses a stepper size of up to 2880 units/inch in one direction, and something like 720 in the other direction as the actual dot placement resolution, and you choose some (hopefully integer) multiple of that as your screening frequency. Nothing new so far.

But now I wonder about diffusion dot screening, which is what the current Epson and Canon printer drivers use by default. If I understand the way diffusion screening works, the cell size isn't constant - which is great for general inkjet prints, but potentially screws up the orthogonal and regular cell matrix you'd want for the lenticular lens. So I wonder if a RIP that uses the older fixed cell size method might be better suited to having a lenticular lens glued to the print? Maybe I'm wrong about that, since you seem to be getting decent results so far!

Going back to the spatial resolution, I wonder what your success would be if you opted for a larger lens size, but made up for it by using a larger print, and an increased viewing distance? That way the final dot resolution of the printer would be less critical, it might be easier to align the lenticular lens, you'd get better colour depth, and still get the perception of spatial resolution you're after? Of course, the downside is that going bigger makes everything in the process more expensive ...
 

[FramedLives]

As per my current knowledge, it seems that the maximum resolution I can achieve so far on paper is using the native resolution of 720ppi using an Epson printer. This in theory allows 12 pictures per lens using 60lpi lenses with an actual depth from -12cm to +12cm in relation to the stereoscopic window.
I'm using a Canon with a native resolution of 600ppi at the moment and the results are still acceptably good.

But why not trying to push a little bit more if possible ;-) Based on this I'm doing two things.

1) Searching for a RIP and, as you said, find a trade off between color gamut and resolution. Unfortunately I haven't found any at the moment :-(
I think finding a good RIP is mandatory because I also noticed a small defect on my prints: a very light Moiré effect that fully disappears if I print with the interlaced lines parallel to the Inkjet printer head. The reason is in the interference pattern between the printer dots grid and the lenses. Maybe a lenticular aware RIP with a good stochastic screening would solve it. I do not know yet.
Someone suggested to print or glue the picture at an angle to reduce this Moiré effect but I do not like the idea because I'm using a very narrow angle of view of 24 degrees.

2) Using a more traditional approach and reduce the number of lenses per inch (e.g. 40lpi). This would increase the depth, adding more frames per lens, but (as you said) would be better for bigger prints and would then increase the minimum viewing distance. So at the end of the day is just a magnification of my current pictures in x,y,z directions.

Cheers,

Giovanni

[csaundersaz]

The now discontinued HP Photosmart B9180, which is an A3+ desktop printer, has the highest native input resolution of any inkjet printer as far as I know.  In maximum resolution mode, the B9180's native input resolution is 1200 ppi because it utilizes a unique full 16-bit screening algorithm which is unprecedented in this level of printer.  Even HP's bigger and more expensive Z3100 and Z3200 printers have a maximum native input resolution of 600 ppi which is more than adequate for large-format photographic printing.  Since smaller photographs are normally viewed at much closer distances, they can benefit from greater native input resolution and screening algorithms, and that is why I believe the smaller desktop B9180 printer actually had better specifications in these areas than the larger and more expensive large-format Designjet series.

You might be able to find a used HP B9180 for sale, but while these are really great printers when they are working, many people have had various mechanical problems including carriage service stalls, paper photocell sensors dying, etc. so it might be hard to find a good one.  I have been using two B9180's successfully for several years alongside my HP Z3200 which I use for larger prints.

Good luck.
Chris

[Ernst Dinkla]

The B9180 had that very nice high resolution screening. But I always wondered how that in the end translated to the same heads the Z2100 (Z3100) used with their 4 and 6 picoliter droplet sizes. A3 printers from other manufacturers are able to squirt 2 picoliter or even smaller droplets. Therefore I can not imagine that the true optical resolution of a B9180 will be higher than for example an R2880 optical resolution. Did they drive those heads at lower voltages on the B9180 and by that with smaller droplets? I doubt that.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst

New: Spectral plots of +250 inkjet papers:

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm

[FramedLives]

Some info regarding this very old topic.

I've recently been in Drupa in Dusseldorf and I spoke with a lot of experts and technicians working for Canon, HP and Epson.

Following the results, all confirmed by my tests during the last year.

1) Canon has a native resolution of 600PPI. No matter if it is low consumer or high professional printers they all print at 600PPI.

2) Epson has a native resolution of 720PPI. Same as above this is valid for all Epson printers.

3) HP, even if they declare 1200PPI they all print at 600PPI.

It seems that all photographers using lenticular for 3D art, they all use Epson.

I'm now investigating some alternative printers on plastic, that seems to achieve higher resolution. Mimaki claims a resolution of 1200PPI.

Giovanni