Lack of 16bit print

[alifatemi]

in LR for Mac, you can choose 16bit output in Print module, in Windows, you can't; what is the drawback for Windows users?

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

in LR for Mac, you can choose 16bit output in Print module, in Windows, you can't; what is the drawback for Windows users?

Hi,

Is that with the same printer driver? Most printer drivers only offer an 8-bit/channel pipeline.

Cheers,
Bart

[hjulenissen]

I have Windows XPS drivers for my Canon printer that are supposedly 16 bits. This appears as a device of its own.

I have no idea if Lightroom makes any benefit from this, though.

-h

[alifatemi]

Sorry I had to mention my printer which is Epson11880.

[TonyW]

An interesting question as there seems to be many opinions about what 16 bit printing brings to the table, many ‘experts’ seem to be of the opinion that advantages are minimal if at all apparent.  

As a Windows user all printers I have tried only support an 8 bit pipeline therefore I cannot comment on what I may be losing - if anything.  I have seen one example from an Epson 3880 (Mac OS) comparing the same image 16 bit printing enabled and 8 bit.  The 16 bit did display a slightly better transition of colour in certain areas, but I had to look very hard and closely to see these differences.  

I do not think that the problem lies with Windows not supporting 16 bit print pipeline but rather the printer manufacturers not providing 16 bit print drivers for other than a Mac environment.  Windows has had 16 bit  print support since Vista and Windows server 2008 and I understand that it was also possible to ‘update’ the previous OS XP and Server 2003 to get that support.

If I understand correctly LR talks to the OS which passes to the print driver and if the print driver supports 16 bit which seems to be the case for many Epson printers  (Mac OS only) then you are good to go.  The problem seems to be that the printer manufacturers have not bothered to enable 16 bit in their drivers for Windows therefore no choice in LR.

[alifatemi]

I bring  this up because Jeff Schewe in Digital Print recommends to select 16bit in Mac, so it should be some reasons although he did not give any hint.

[digitaldog]

On Mac, select it, don't, you will not see any difference on the print, I can't with the two Epson's I have that support that data. In the future? That's a different possibility. DO edit high bit data! Sending the best 8-bits per color is today sufficient.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

On Mac, select it, don't, you will not see any difference on the print, I can't with the two Epson's I have that support that data.

Hi Andrew,

There might be a small difference between 8 or 16 b/ch when comparing output that was resampled at native 360 PPI and 720 PPI output resolution. When the resampling is left to the printer driver, then all bets are off anyway. Have you tested that as well? It's probably very hard to see either way, unless compared side by side and with a loupe.

Cheers,
Bart

[Some Guy]

I know Canon came out with the 16-bit XPS drivers for Windows which has had 16-bit available since Windows Vista.  Canon acknowledged better color doing so.  Why Epson hasn't began to use the XPS is the question, other than Canon may have more development cash to do so.  Canon does make a boatload of printers though for CAD and graphics arts too so that might be why they jumped on the XPS platform so quick.

Here's an interesting article from 2012 on it:  http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/16-bit-printing.html

I just wish Canon printers didn't consume so much real estate and weight ("You listening Canon?").  Epson won with the 3880, but the 17" Canon is a monster in size and some are quite deep for any counter-only operation.  I can stack three 3880's on a strong wall mount, put one into some former desktop computer wall alcove, but cannot do the same for Canon without ripping out the shelf bracket hardware (No room to go sideways either.).  However, if Canon ink is outlasting Epson, probably a better gamut (?), and clogging is less problematic, a new Canon of some sort may appear here and the Epson to become a B&W piezo printer only, or have to go in the trash if I cannot find room for the big Canon.

SG

[digitaldog]

Thanks Bart, good suggestion. Perfect timing too as my 4900 is actually able to make prints with all nozzle’s firing. I'll let you know by running a few Roman 16's through.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Thanks Bart, good suggestion. Perfect timing too as my 4900 is actually able to make prints with all nozzle’s firing. I'll let you know by running a few Roman 16's through.

Thanks, appreciated, it will be interesting. I don't have an Epson, otherwise I would have done it myself.

At 360 PPI there is more color dithering possible, and at 720 PPI the 'finest detail' has fewer colors available for dithering intermediate inkcolors for the finest micro-detail. It might produce a difference between 8/16-bit input, it's hard to predict without actually testing (it depends on the driver's dithering implementation).

Cheers,
Bart

[digitaldog]

The Roman 16 Colorful was set for 360 and output to the 4900 both 16-bit then 8-bit (newest Maverick 4900 driver, 16-bit on). To the naked eye, no difference. Under a loupe, the 16-bit is a bit sharper and shows some tiny details not see in 8-bit mostly on edges. Insignificant but different and interesting.

[alifatemi]

Thanks friends. by the way, hello Jeff, are you around!?

[Ernst Dinkla]

It gets interesting if you have a greyscale image partitioned on 6-7-8 ink channels which are loaded with 6-7-8 grey inks. If you count the bits per channel and count the total then an 8 bit greyscale image looks a bit small in definition to the pipeline it enters.


--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
January 2014, 600+ inkjet media white spectral plots.

[Schewe]

Thanks friends. by the way, hello Jeff, are you around!?

Yes...I'm around. I pretty much said what I needed to in the book :~)

The key is if you are printing from Photoshop or Lightroom. The Adobe ACE CMM uses 20-bit/channel precision when doing color transforms from 16 -bit image>8-bit/channel for the print driver. As long as you are using the ACE pipeline, the odds of getting anything significant in the Mac/Epson 16-bit pipeline vs. the Windows 8-bit/channel pipeline.

Having said that, there are a couple of cases where the Mac/Epson 16-bit pipeline can offer some benefits–most notable would be synthetic long toed gradations (which includes both Photoshop grads as well as ACR/LR grads).

I know how to setup an image in 16-bit to show the benefits of a 16-bit print pipeline but it's it's not easy nor straight forward.

However, if you are talking about getting the maximum IQ on prints, and you are on Mac printing 16-bit images, you would foolish not to go ahead and take advantage of the 16-bit Mac/Epson print pipeline. The ony downside to printing in 16-bit is slightly longer print spooling times due to 2x the data. So, it a pure production workflow, that might be a factor supporting an 8-bit workflow.

That help?

[alifatemi]

Yes...I'm around. I pretty much said what I needed to in the book :~)

The key is if you are printing from Photoshop or Lightroom. The Adobe ACE CMM uses 20-bit/channel precision when doing color transforms from 16 -bit image>8-bit/channel for the print driver. As long as you are using the ACE pipeline, the odds of getting anything significant in the Mac/Epson 16-bit pipeline vs. the Windows 8-bit/channel pipeline.

Having said that, there are a couple of cases where the Mac/Epson 16-bit pipeline can offer some benefits–most notable would be synthetic long toed gradations (which includes both Photoshop grads as well as ACR/LR grads).

I know how to setup an image in 16-bit to show the benefits of a 16-bit print pipeline but it's it's not easy nor straight forward.

However, if you are talking about getting the maximum IQ on prints, and you are on Mac printing 16-bit images, you would foolish not to go ahead and take advantage of the 16-bit Mac/Epson print pipeline. The ony downside to printing in 16-bit is slightly longer print spooling times due to 2x the data. So, it a pure production workflow, that might be a factor supporting an 8-bit workflow.

That help?

Thnks Jeff but I just can't understand your word here:

" the odds of getting anything significant in the Mac/Epson 16-bit pipeline vs. the Windows 8-bit/channel pipeline"

Does that mean the print quality is the same in both Windows and Mac as far as I use ACE CMM in Lightroom?

[jrsforums]

Yes...I'm around. I pretty much said what I needed to in the book :~)

The key is if you are printing from Photoshop or Lightroom. The Adobe ACE CMM uses 20-bit/channel precision when doing color transforms from 16 -bit image>8-bit/channel for the print driver. As long as you are using the ACE pipeline, the odds of getting anything significant in the Mac/Epson 16-bit pipeline vs. the Windows 8-bit/channel pipeline.

Having said that, there are a couple of cases where the Mac/Epson 16-bit pipeline can offer some benefits–most notable would be synthetic long toed gradations (which includes both Photoshop grads as well as ACR/LR grads).

I know how to setup an image in 16-bit to show the benefits of a 16-bit print pipeline but it's it's not easy nor straight forward.

However, if you are talking about getting the maximum IQ on prints, and you are on Mac printing 16-bit images, you would foolish not to go ahead and take advantage of the 16-bit Mac/Epson print pipeline. The ony downside to printing in 16-bit is slightly longer print spooling times due to 2x the data. So, it a pure production workflow, that might be a factor supporting an 8-bit workflow.

That help?

Is that an answer or obfuscation? 

[Schewe]

Thnks Jeff but I just can't understand your word here:

" the odds of getting anything significant in the Mac/Epson 16-bit pipeline vs. the Windows 8-bit/channel pipeline"

Does that mean the print quality is the same in both Windows and Mac as far as I use ACE CMM in Lightroom?

You get very similar (but not exactly the same) printing on Mac and/or Windows as long as you are starting with 16-bit images and use Photoshop or Lightroom to print (and use the Adobe ACE CMM). There are a few fringe edge cases where 16-bit on Mac with Epson printers have a very slight advantage-primarily when printing long toed synthetic gradations (it actually shows up with printing from Illustrator with IL created grads).

In the grand scheme of things, it ain't no big deal–if you are using Adobe ACE on Mac/Windows...so, bottom line, if you are Windows, don't worry about it (since there's nothing you can do about it) if you are on Mac, go ahead and use the 16-bit option if you are printing 16-bit images.

That clear?

[alifatemi]

Its clear now Jeff but does it worth it to shift to Mac to gain that little more quality if you are a perfectionist? I shift to Mac sooner or latter anyhow 

[Schewe]

Its clear now Jeff but does it worth it to shift to Mac to gain that little more quality if you are a perfectionist? I shift to Mac sooner or latter anyhow 

No, there's no compelling reason to switch from Windows to Mac for printing (in fact, I can think of a couple of reasons why printing on Mac is a pain in the ass :~)

Just be sure to start from 16-bit images and use Adobe ACE CMM in Photoshop or Lightroom (I don't think you can change the CMM in Lightroom–correct me if I'm wrong).