Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Down

Author Topic: A new Printer/Media Resolution test target  (Read 31015 times)

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
Re: A new Printer/Media Resolution test target
« Reply #40 on: May 05, 2015, 12:40:51 pm »

Bart, do you have this file as a TIFF?  As I read it, the PNG (even PN-24) is an 8 bit and the TIFF is larger 16 bit.

Hi SG,

Yes, the original is a Photoshop (15-bit) multi-layer TIFF, and when flattened it may be larger than the PNG, depending on the level of backwards compatible compression (not all applications can read compressed TIFF files). The PNG version is 16-bit, but uses very efficient loss-less compression, and doesn't carry as much metadata in its header. I'm currently revising parts of the targets, 'bit' by 'bit', so once I'm done I'll upload a TIFF version, but I don't think it will make any difference to the data itself.

Quote
Perhaps the 8 bit math is doing something within the software resulting in the sundry software outcomes against a 16 bit file?  I don't know why the PNG > TIFF conversion seemed to work better in K7/QTR.  If QTR did PNG, no doubt it would be a different result than the converted to TIFF one.

Well, that's part of what the test is for. Some applications, e.g. Qimage, will convert to 8-b/ch data if 16-b/ch input is read in and it will dither the data to hide errors that may be caused by that conversion. If 8-b/ch data is input, nothing will be changed. So that is already a test, because e.g. Lightroom can send both, either 8-b/ch or 16-b/ch. Do they render the same?
 
That's the reason I made it a 16-b/ch test target, despite the fact that there are only a few 16-bit print pipelines available (e.g. Canon's XPS printer drivers on Windows). There may be RIPs that handle 16-bit data, so I wanted to have the capability to test that. One can always save an 8-bit/channel version of the target and then print both versions through the same driver configuration.

Cheers,
Bart
« Last Edit: May 05, 2015, 12:44:45 pm by BartvanderWolf »
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
Re: A new Printer/Media Resolution test target
« Reply #41 on: May 05, 2015, 01:03:06 pm »

Qimage has the smoothest tonality so it may handle the math better than the others.  I did have the Sharpness turned to "Off" since it uses about a dozen different sharpening methods in the menu.   The "Help" in it says "Vector Sharpening" may be the sharpest, but I didn't go that far.  It has other sharpening methods like Hybrid, Fusion, etc. as well and they all might produce a different look in the end.  I'll probably stay with it as it seems to work the best for me.  The others are very odd in the outcome with the 14.2 square as well as the diagonals in the 8 area on the right with some.  CS6 seemed to produce the finest line detail, but the 14.2 was too disturbing as well as the 8 diagonals.

Yes, you'll need to disable all resampling and output sharpening, and tell Qimage that the target should be printed as intended 130x130mm @ 600 or 720 PPI, depending on the version. The printer driver should also not attempt to print borderless, because that causes the printer driver to again resample the image to slightly larger than the paper and overspray the edge of the selected page size.

Quote
Interesting test though, but somewhat scary too since the software can really ruin an image as with the B&W squares in 14.2 from the heavy-editing softwares show.  What effect this has does during a normal printing is unknown.

Well, fortunately, normal images are much more forgiving. I did want to have the target point out any irregularities that the print pipeline may introduce, or the printer alignment may cause. From there on things should be relatively easy.

Quote
I'm sort of suspicious of the PNG format as it does some compression that may be playing into this when it uncompresses by the sundry software.  PNG may be an act of compromise and leading to the different outcomes?  Maybe an uncompressed TIFF would be better?  I know I had to save the PNG file as a TIFF in Gamma 2.2 for the K7/QTR image which appears better than the other editors images which were all PNG.

PNG should not make a difference, but we'll see when I'm a bit further with some edits.

Quote
I might take one to my pro lab and see what mess they generate.  They use a Mac with a RIP and I use Windows.  Don't know if the math is the same between them and the final outcome.

A lot depends on the equipment they use, and the settings that the operator/RIP uses. Allow me to tweak the target a bit more before you do, so everybody is using the same level of sophistication.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Some Guy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 729
Re: A new Printer/Media Resolution test target
« Reply #42 on: May 05, 2015, 01:23:56 pm »

Yes, you'll need to disable all resampling and output sharpening, and tell Qimage that the target should be printed as intended 130x130mm @ 600 or 720 PPI, depending on the version. The printer driver should also not attempt to print borderless, because that causes the printer driver to again resample the image to slightly larger than the paper and overspray the edge of the selected page size.

Well, fortunately, normal images are much more forgiving. I did want to have the target point out any irregularities that the print pipeline may introduce, or the printer alignment may cause. From there on things should be relatively easy.

PNG should not make a difference, but we'll see when I'm a bit further with some edits.

A lot depends on the equipment they use, and the settings that the operator/RIP uses. Allow me to tweak the target a bit more before you do, so everybody is using the same level of sophistication.

Cheers,
Bart
Okay.  I'll wait before I bug my local print shop.

I also noticed Qimage did not allow me to set up for anything more than 360 DPI in the right pane for the Epson (No ability to set 720 DPI I found?).  However, when I set the PNG image size in "Custom" to 5.118 x 5.118 inches, the info box overlaid on the image showed "720DPI Excellent."  Seems it is doing its own sharpening internally for the Epson prior to getting to the driver.

SG
Logged

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
Re: A new Printer/Media Resolution test target
« Reply #43 on: May 05, 2015, 01:55:11 pm »

Okay.  I'll wait before I bug my local print shop.

I also noticed Qimage did not allow me to set up for anything more than 360 DPI in the right pane for the Epson (No ability to set 720 DPI I found?).

The Epson printer driver needs to have the 'finest detail' option activated, otherwise it cannot process the 720 PPI data and it will resample to 360 PPI without warning (and use poor resampling quality to do so). Qimage will warn you about that.

Quote
However, when I set the PNG image size in "Custom" to 5.118 x 5.118 inches, the info box overlaid on the image showed "720DPI Excellent."  Seems it is doing its own sharpening internally for the Epson prior to getting to the driver.

Depends on where you see that.  A the top right there is a page layout preview which will also give feedback about the PPI that the printerdriver is expecting (usually 300x300/600x600 or 360x360/720x720). Make sure that you can use the highest resolution that the printer is capable of. When you hover the mousepointer over the preview you'll get some feedback for the particular image you are previewing. At the bottom of the page there is a status line with feedback about output size and PPI/profile/ etc.

Cheers,
Bart
« Last Edit: May 06, 2015, 05:20:21 am by BartvanderWolf »
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
Re: A new Printer/Media Resolution test target
« Reply #44 on: May 06, 2015, 05:32:20 am »

I found a comment about the 720 (or not) PPI tag as it gets corrupted in Photoshop on the ImageMagick page

It basically states:
Quote
Note that Photoshop stores and obtains image resolution from a proprietary embedded profile. If this profile is not stripped from the image, then Photoshop will continue to treat the image using its former resolution, ignoring the image resolution specified in the standard file header.

Next additional endeavor is to find out how to strip the proprietary Photoshop profile ...

Until then, when using Photoshop to print the target, it may be difficult to get exactly 720 PPI output, unless perhaps a printer driver is sensible enough to ignore the tag, and rely on output size and number of pixels.

Cheers,
Bart
« Last Edit: May 06, 2015, 05:42:45 am by BartvanderWolf »
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

kers

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4388
    • Pieter Kers
Re: A new Printer/Media Resolution test target
« Reply #45 on: May 06, 2015, 11:11:50 am »

I just printed the 600dpi target with photoshop 6 on my HPZ3100 and it looks OK- some small problems but nothing to worry about.
(When opened 'Image Size " in Photoshop it read 600dpi so i geuess that part worked well..)

Bart, thank you for providing the target!
Logged
Pieter Kers
www.beeld.nu/la

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
Re: A new Printer/Media Resolution test target
« Reply #46 on: May 06, 2015, 12:23:35 pm »

I just printed the 600dpi target with photoshop 6 on my HPZ3100 and it looks OK- some small problems but nothing to worry about.

Hi Pieter,

Good news, that's what we aim for, no problems ... But it is also nice to have that objectively confirmed.

Quote
(When opened 'Image Size " in Photoshop it read 600dpi so i guess that part worked well..)

Yes, the 600 PPI version seems to be no problem for Photoshop, it can figure it out correctly. On the other hand, 720 PPI remains an odd nuisance to solve. Also placing it on a larger canvas doesn't solve it, or I haven't found the preferred dimensions yet.

Quote
Bart, thank you for providing the target!

Graag gedaan.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

samueljohnchia

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 498
Re: A new Printer/Media Resolution test target
« Reply #47 on: May 06, 2015, 10:05:19 pm »

Bart, if the target was saved as a tiff, the ppi setting of either 600 or 720 remains sticky. Looks like you have discovered something weird about the way PNGs are tagged with the image resolution value. What a funny problem, but also a very serious one. The 600ppi PNG target still opens as 599.999 ppi instead of 600ppi in Photoshop CS6 for me. I'm not sure how kers and you got it to show up as 600ppi. I'm going to resave them as tiffs for now...

I think you have partially won me over to the use of sinusoids in your printer target. I agree they are useful, and uniform high contrast pixel lines cannot reveal the full story. I will pay close attention when you post examples from your printers and comment about them. I am curious to know what other issues these patterns can reveal. I just tried resampling the target in Photozoom Pro, it did not give a near perfect sinusoid rendering of the patterns but rather enlarged (obviously lol) and made the low frequency aliasing patterns a great deal more apparent. It is only these patterns that are irritating me at the moment - one needs to learn what patterns are representative of the actual data in the target, (just at a different size like you said) and what patterns indicate resampling, or misalignment or additional sharpening or dithering effects etc.

Can't even imagine the computational load these sinusoidal calculation require! May I say a big thank you for Above 5 cycles/mm frequency, it looks like the printer is unable to perfectly resolve the sinusoidal patterns, partly due to dot size, partly due to the density of the inks.

I am not sure how looking at the printed target could reveal that the printer pipeline is capable of 16 bits precision? Assuming no dither was applied in the process.

Quote
Allow me to tweak the target a bit more before you do, so everybody is using the same level of sophistication.

Excellent! I will wait patiently until then.
Logged

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
Re: A new Printer/Media Resolution test target
« Reply #48 on: May 07, 2015, 06:29:05 am »

Bart, if the target was saved as a tiff, the ppi setting of either 600 or 720 remains sticky.

Indeed Samuel, I also found that out this morning.

Quote
Looks like you have discovered something weird about the way PNGs are tagged with the image resolution value. What a funny problem, but also a very serious one. The 600ppi PNG target still opens as 599.999 ppi instead of 600ppi in Photoshop CS6 for me. I'm not sure how kers and you got it to show up as 600ppi. I'm going to resave them as tiffs for now...

I've uploaded two new (tweaked) versions, as TIFFs, and on my computer they open in Photoshop CS6 with the intended/correct PPI indication. The links in the original post have been adjusted to point to the new TIFF versions. While there is nothing wrong with losslessly compressed PNGs per se, apparently Photoshop uses some strange(?) logic that messes up the PPI tags in PNGs but not in TIFFs, at least at these specific sizes.

Here are the links to the updated/tweaked TIFF versions, I'll remove the PNGs to avoid confusion:
Test target for 600 PPI printers (e.g. Canon / HP)
Test target for 720 PPI printers (e.g. Epson)

I've used ZIP compressed TIFFs that may not be readable in software that uses non-standard or old TIFF libraries. If that poses any problems I will change that to much larger uncompressed versions, and put them in ZIPped archives.

The current tweaks are mostly about an even higher quality of the sinusoidal patterns with the 4 quadrants of uniform period. I also attempted to reduce the difference in average density of the horizontal/vertical and diagonal patches of the highest possible resolution, at the top left corner. The higher quality should reduce the chance of aliasing when everything else is perfect even further. Any printed misalignment should therefore still stick out as a sore thumb, and only be caused by that misalignment, or by resampling and sharpening.

The other patterns in the target will be reviewed and possibly adjusted/tweaked at a later stage, but for the sinusoidal based ones that would take an enormous amount of computation time because they are larger in size.

Quote
I think you have partially won me over to the use of sinusoids in your printer target. I agree they are useful, and uniform high contrast pixel lines cannot reveal the full story. I will pay close attention when you post examples from your printers and comment about them. I am curious to know what other issues these patterns can reveal.

The sensitivity of minute misalignments/distortions that manifest themselves as significant aliasing artifacts is used in other fields as well. It can be used in accurate angle measurements with mechanical inclinometers, or for measuring dimensional expansion or contraction. It is somewhat related to the higher accuracy one can achieve with using Vernier calipers for distance measurements, and the Vernier acuity which we can exploit by printing at 600 or 720 PPI instead of lower settings. While normal visual acuity is on average often limited to something like 300 to 360 PPI, we are able to see much higher resolution when Vernier acuity is taken into consideration.

We can use the properties of moiré patterns to search for the cause and magnitude of the misalignments. The simplest is the head alignment and paper travel alignment which should produce similar density in the horizontal/vertical sinusoids, but there may also be issues with paper that is not fed squarely but at a slight angle due to some slippage or uneven friction.

Quote
I just tried resampling the target in Photozoom Pro, it did not give a near perfect sinusoid rendering of the patterns but rather enlarged (obviously lol) and made the low frequency aliasing patterns a great deal more apparent. It is only these patterns that are irritating me at the moment - one needs to learn what patterns are representative of the actual data in the target, (just at a different size like you said) and what patterns indicate resampling, or misalignment or additional sharpening or dithering effects etc.

Yes, PhotoZoom Pro will accentuate high contrast edge detail by adding resolution where there was none before. When measured accurately, the resolution that is created, e.g. by upsampling to 600 or 720 PPI, exceeds that which was available in the original file. While that may show as a bit strange on the test target because that level of detail was not present in the original sinusoids, it works very well on natural images which are obviously much more random/organic (and noisy) than these mathematical constructions. Down-sampling in PhotoZoom is not very good, but for upsampling the results can hardly get better.

Quote
Can't even imagine the computational load these sinusoidal calculation require! May I say a big thank you for Above 5 cycles/mm frequency, it looks like the printer is unable to perfectly resolve the sinusoidal patterns, partly due to dot size, partly due to the density of the inks.

Well, the sinusoids are not the hardest part, but the way we point sample or area sample at the pixel level can be computation intensive. But that's what we have computers for. All we have to do is be patient while the calculations are running. I don't think printers or cameras will be able to get it 100% accuretely, unless we can use much higher resolutions. But that's not very practical given all the other variables like paper transportation and color dithering, and bandwidth limitations when sending the print-data.

Quote
I am not sure how looking at the printed target could reveal that the printer pipeline is capable of 16 bits precision? Assuming no dither was applied in the process.

Other than comparing the output of an 8-b/ch and a 16-b/ch version of the target, I'm not sure either. I may need to add another tricky pattern to the target to amplify those differences. There may be some utility in the two (1, 2, 3 line wide) patterns at the top right and bottom right of the neutral star background, and the steps in the gradient. Of course colour dithering is also something that can benefit from 16-bit print pipelines, and those tonalities are more vaguely related to resolution.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

kers

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4388
    • Pieter Kers
Re: A new Printer/Media Resolution test target
« Reply #49 on: May 07, 2015, 07:55:38 am »

Hi Bart,
Also the 720 ppi target seems to be OK - it reads in CS6 -image size - 720dpi as it should.
The only thing i see that is different in this target is that it is compressed 1:4 and the 600dpi is not.
Maybe the problem arises with decompression? in some cases...

Logged
Pieter Kers
www.beeld.nu/la

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
Re: A new Printer/Media Resolution test target
« Reply #50 on: May 07, 2015, 08:14:41 am »

Hi Bart,
Also the 720 ppi target seems to be OK - it reads in CS6 -image size - 720dpi as it should.
The only thing i see that is different in this target is that it is compressed 1:4 and the 600dpi is not.
Maybe the problem arises with decompression? in some cases...

Hi Pieter,

I think that the TIFF versions at least take a way the uncertainty of the PPI tag that's shown in the Resize dialog. We do not want any resampling influence that's interfering with the analysis of whatever the printer does. As long as the file is read as it was saved, we should be fine. Of course the 600PPI version has fewer pixels, and lower resolution, so it might compress better (depending on how Adobe implemented things...).

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Some Guy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 729
Re: A new Printer/Media Resolution test target
« Reply #51 on: May 07, 2015, 11:54:09 am »

Bart, I tried the new compressed 720 TIFF on the Epson.  I don't see any difference between my newly printed images (Page 2 here, Test_01.jpg) from the PS CS6 and Ultimate Image made prior.

I still see that odd banding around 8 and the white to black in the upper left corner box of the CS6 and not in the QU one.  QI is smoother overall (All sharpening set to OFF), but the PS CS6 version shows more distinct lines (sharper) overall.  CS6 does show the moire patterns, but QI does not.  QI does something different than CS6 prior to hitting the Epson print driver.

Aside, when I opened the file in PaintShop Pro X6 and zoomed in to the 8 area, I changed the colors to 2 just to see the B&W lines.  They are all of a different width:  Some two, some 4, some 3 and spacing is irregular too.  Seems very odd, but might explain why I seem to have issues in that area out of the 'Editing' softwares (i.e. PS CS6, PaintShop Pro, etc.)

Add:
I just tried a print using QI cranked up to full sharpness (20, and "Fusion") and 360 DPI (Which on the rollover in the right pane shows 720 DPI Excellent.).  I do see the moire and more lines, although they are splotchy and do seem uneven in widths as alluded to above.  It does not show the black & white square in the CS6 version in the upper left and is far more even than CS6.

Something about the unevenness of the line widths might be an issue.  Don't know if it is the software, computer OS (Windows 8.1 64x), computer math library, or where those issues come into play.

SG
« Last Edit: May 07, 2015, 12:26:00 pm by Some Guy »
Logged

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
Re: A new Printer/Media Resolution test target
« Reply #52 on: May 07, 2015, 01:27:08 pm »

Bart, I tried the new compressed 720 TIFF on the Epson.  I don't see any difference between my newly printed images (Page 2 here, Test_01.jpg) from the PS CS6 and Ultimate Image made prior.

Hi SG,

In a way that is good. If it had made a difference then that would mean that the target had generated the aliasing, in this case any aliasing is totally due to 'other' causes. I'm preparing (between other activities) a write-up about how to interpret aliasing as it may manifest itself on the different patches and the star. 

Quote
I still see that odd banding around 8 and the white to black in the upper left corner box of the CS6 and not in the QU one.  QI is smoother overall (All sharpening set to OFF), but the PS CS6 version shows more distinct lines (sharper) overall.  CS6 does show the moire patterns, but QI does not.  QI does something different than CS6 prior to hitting the Epson print driver.

Qimage does several things to avoid problems, and that is before and after any resampling or sharpening (which you have disabled as it should be for this target) is used. One thing is that it adds dithering when 16-bit/channel data files are read (it does nothing if 8-b/ch input is read). This will visually smoothen gradients because posterization due to rounding errors is broken up, as if the file has 8.5-b/ch data after conversion to 8-b/ch. It is slightly better able to follow the slope of a gradient, and that goes for the smoothly varying sinusoids as well. Busy areas already have so much detail that the dithering will not change anything significant. Then after potential resampling, profile colorspace conversion, and output sharpening, it optionally (check your settings) will do another round of dithering, to break up things that e.g. got posterized after profile conversion. It does all that at the 600 or 720 PPi level, so too small to ever become visible at normal viewing distances.

What Photoshop does is anybody's guess, but apparently it is not helping to cover up any print pipeline issues, and maybe adds some itself. The Adobe Color Management sytem e.g. adds a linear slope to shadows and thus modifies the tone curve. It may also do something to the document dimensions, in concert with the printer driver (and can thus be different between Mac and Windows operating systems). We saw what happened to the PPI tag in PNGs, I didn't know it did that, and who knows what else is going on.

Quote
Aside, when I opened the file in PaintShop Pro X6 and zoomed in to the 8 area, I changed the colors to 2 just to see the B&W lines.  They are all of a different width:  Some two, some 4, some 3 and spacing is irregular too.  Seems very odd, but might explain why I seem to have issues in that area out of the 'Editing' softwares (i.e. PS CS6, PaintShop Pro, etc.)

No, that's perfectly normal. It is not possible to render half or part of a pixel in a continuous tone image, so it rounds full pixels up or down when only 2 colors are available. Only the highest resolution patch at the top left has a bi-tonal horizontal/vertical cycle. When there is a minute resizing (alignment or physical file resizing) involved then that area will develop waves. If the issue is not symmetrical, then one will be darker than the other, or have a different wave distance/frequency.

Pure white or black in the top left hor/ver cycles, suggests exactly half resolution, by using a very poor downsampling algorithm. A good algorithm would produce medium gray (half white, half black), but e.g. nearest neighbor would pick every other line (black/black or white/white) and drop the other. Make sure you have the 'finest detail' option switched on in the Epson printer driver when printing from Photoshop. Qimage remembers earlier driver selections for specific media.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
Re: A new Printer/Media Resolution test target
« Reply #53 on: May 07, 2015, 01:35:47 pm »

Add:
I just tried a print using QI cranked up to full sharpness (20, and "Fusion") and 360 DPI (Which on the rollover in the right pane shows 720 DPI Excellent.).  I do see the moire and more lines, although they are splotchy and do seem uneven in widths as alluded to above.  It does not show the black & white square in the CS6 version in the upper left and is far more even than CS6.

Something about the unevenness of the line widths might be an issue.  Don't know if it is the software, computer OS (Windows 8.1 64x), computer math library, or where those issues come into play.

No, the target is 720 PPI. So when you print at 360 PPI, then line detail will need to be merged into single pixel/line detail. Qimage uses a much better downsampling method, with added anti-aliasing (amount is user selectable), and thus avoids resampling errors better.

The target for 720 PPI printers should be printed as 720 PPI. Any remaining aliasing will then be due to alignment issues. When the target is resampled then you'll get a combination of resampling and alignment issues.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Some Guy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 729
Re: A new Printer/Media Resolution test target
« Reply #54 on: May 07, 2015, 02:22:10 pm »

Redid this thing in CS6 using the following:

********************************************************************

PrintRes_130mm_720PPI.tif Image opened in CS6.

File > Print
(Opens PS Print Setting's pane)

Select printer (My case, Epson Stylus Pro 3880 as I have sundry printers Windows sees.).
"Main" tab shows:

Click on "Print Settings" which shows the Epson driver selection pane.

Media type:  Premium Photo Paper Glossy (What I have)
Color: Color
Print Quality: Select "Quality Options" > Quality Options pane opens.
Move Speed to #5
Print Quality: SuperPhoto - 2880x1440dpi

MicroWeave: On
Edge Smoothing unchecked.  (This may be checked on by default?)
Uncheck High Speed
Select only "Finest Detail" (and this is not activated by default?)

Select OK

Mode:

Select Custom > Off (No Color Adjustment)

Letter 8 1/2 x 11 in.

Borderless is unchecked.

Go to "Page Layout" tab in the Epson driver.
Uncheck "Optimize Enlargement" if it is checked.

OK

Back in CS6 "Photoshop Print Settings."
Color Handling: Printer Manages Colors.

Position and Size: > Check "Center"
Scaled Print Size:
Scale 100%  Height 5.118  Width 5.118
Scale to Fit Media: Unchecked
Print Selected Area is unchecked.

All other drop down arrows are unchecked (i.e. Printing Marks, Functions, PostScript Options Disabled.)

Press "PRINT" (and pray!...)

****************************************************************

Interesting that the banding that I saw in my first run around 8 now has moved up to 10 and not as bad.  Also, the black and white I see in the upper left in priors is now gone and a smoother gray like QI was doing!  It is sharper than QI now too, although QI still seems smoother overall.

The trick might be in the bolded area above? ("Finest Detail" which is not on by default in the Epson driver pane, or maybe the "Optimize Enlargement" which is checked by default?)

Interesting test though, if for nothing more than to learn your printing software better and also setting up the Epson printing driver which may not be optimum out of the box.

SG
« Last Edit: May 07, 2015, 03:20:37 pm by Some Guy »
Logged

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
Re: A new Printer/Media Resolution test target
« Reply #55 on: May 07, 2015, 03:14:46 pm »

Interesting that the banding that I saw in my first run around 8 now has moved up to 10 and not as bad.  Also, the black and white I see in the upper left in priors is now gone and a smoother gray like QI was doing!  It is sharper than QI now too, although QI still seems smoother overall.

The trick might be in the bolded area above? ("Finest Detail" which is not on by default in the Epson driver pane, or maybe the "Optimize Enlargement" which is checked by default?)

BINGO!

If 'Finest detail' is not checked, the Epson printer driver will cause a down-sample to 360 PPI, and use a very poor resampling algorithm (seems to be Nearest Neighbor, yuck!!).

Quote
Interesting test though, if for nothing more than to learn your printing software better and also setting up the Epson printing driver which may not be optimum out of the box.

Correct, and some residual aliasing is almost unavoidable, because we are really pushing for the limits with a super sensitive pattern. Nothing is perfect, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't attempt to get as close as feasible. Also double-check if Qimage knows that that option must be switched on in the Epson printer driver (it'll show (720x720) above the page preview, and (600x600) for Canon printers). It should remember it for the ink/paper medium you use.

Cheers,
Bart
« Last Edit: May 07, 2015, 03:20:52 pm by BartvanderWolf »
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
Re: A new Printer/Media Resolution test target
« Reply #56 on: May 10, 2015, 11:06:48 am »

Just to let you know that the targets were updated slightly. The right hand side 45 degrees rotated sweep, from 2 cycle/mm to 80% of maximum print resolution, was technically improved. Nothing was materially changed, I only improved its accuracy, which may look like it gets slightly darker (it's actually slightly lower contrast, less paper white) towards the highest spatial frequencies.

So, aliasing is even less likely caused by the target patterns, but more likely by alignment issues. The ability to resolve fine details is still a function of driver settings and paper/ink diffusion.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

samueljohnchia

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 498
Re: A new Printer/Media Resolution test target
« Reply #57 on: May 11, 2015, 10:42:46 am »

Thanks Bart! I have downloaded the targets and looked at them, the sinusodial patters look to be of much better quality on screen. I have not had the time to make any new tests yet. I'm glad you made them into Tiffs. I also note that ZIP compression for Tiffs is extremely efficient, way better than compression for PNG files. And no more ppi issues! Yay! This is going to be my reference target for all future tests, and also a quality control target before making new tests, and also printing profile targets. One thing that I have yet to test is the consistency across a 44 inch roll. Is the printer consistent enough across its entire width?

Most curious to see what you managed to pull off with your printers. What are you printing with?
Logged

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
Re: A new Printer/Media Resolution test target
« Reply #58 on: May 11, 2015, 04:31:11 pm »

Most curious to see what you managed to pull off with your printers. What are you printing with?

Still working on it, or planning to. I'm currently very busy with an assignment that involves shooting a lot of different products, and those images will need to be used on webpages, so no prints required for that. For quick limited size work I use desktop Canon printers (including a Pro-9500 II, I really like to use Canson Infinity Baryta Photographique on it), large format work is outsourced to some 4 different organizations, depending on requirements, and they use Durst Lambda's and/or Epson LF printers or Canon LF printers, and one uses a Roland printer for outdoor signage. So it's a little bit of everything, which is why I like to compare actual performance to keep them on their toes ...

One of these days I hope find some time to finish reprofiling one of my other printers which I have some issues with, so it'll be interesting to see what I can discover with the resolution target.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Some Guy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 729
Re: A new Printer/Media Resolution test target
« Reply #59 on: May 13, 2015, 11:22:30 am »

With the newest TIFFs my odd looking slanted bands moved up from 8 into the 10 area on the right page (In my images posted prior.).  Also, the pure white and black in the upper right is now smoother and gray tones (Not the stark B&W prior.).  So something changed in the new iteration.

I do seem to seem more lines going into the middle of the circular target as well.  Qimage still seems to be the best for even tonality over PS though.  PS CS6 seems slightly more contrasty which leads to an apparent sharpness increase.

My own printer seems to show a slight magenta offset in the head alignment under high magnification (Like some CA issue in a camera.).  I used the Auto setting in alignment, but maybe doing it Manually might be better (Although i get into self-doubts in Manual examination at times:  Is the other number better than this one?  Potshot.).

Interesting endeavor though and helps one learn how sharp - or not - their printer is.

Thanks Bart.

SG
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Up