HDR Printing soon?

[greyscale]

Wondering how many ink cartridges would be needed for a (yet to be developed )HDR capable printer??
Thoughts??

[thill1111]

Is any ink and paper capable of what we think of as a high dynamic range?  Maybe it would have to print on something other than paper?  The existing HDR "printers" seem to use use LCDs or LEDs...

[Tuco]

Just one more cart - algal bioluminescent pigment (the stuff that glows in the waves on the beach).  Not sure how you feed the algae in your print to keep them alive.  Might smell funny.

[digitaldog]

There is no (real) HDR printing, at least anything close to HDR camera capture.
The best existing output is maybe 350 or 400 to one contract ratio.
SDR displays are able to produce 1000:1 or more contrast ratio. Not even close to output (which is why the simulate ink/paper soft proofing makes the image look awful in comparison).
ACTUAL HDR capture, even wider by far.
Not going to happen.

[Ryan Mack]

You could do thin paper like kozo in front of a backlight that itself is either an HDR display or masked to highlight certain regions. Or you could shine light though a mask onto a normal print. But you gotta make the light variable somehow since the paper and ink itself can’t manage much DR.

[Czornyj]

It would need carbon nanotube black ink (something like Vantablack) and a lamp for each print. HDR needs at least 1000cd/m2, optimally 4000cd/m2 which is equivalent of 3141-12564lux - typical indoor ambient brightness doesn't statistically exceed 100lux, so you would need at least ~100W LED light in ~1m distance for each print

[Lessbones]

didn't Epson already use "HDR" in their marketing wank?  "Ultrachrome HDR"?

you could achieve contrast ratios that fit the bill with UV printed backlits-- since you can print thick enough to block pretty much any amount of light, your contrast ratio would only be limited by the output of your light source.

The way ETOFs for HDR specs are supposed to work are that general tonality for portions of an image lit by an offscreen light are relatively low contrast, then the CR ramps up extremely quickly for light sources that appear in the image (like the sun, for example).  So in theory you'd be seeing an image similarly to how you would perceive it in real life, including the discomfort and/or pupillary adjustments associated with staring directly into a light source.  Using carbon nanotubes etc. to make the blacks more black-hole like is the only way you're ever going to achieve this kind of thing on regular paper with reflected light, and going backlit it's technically been possible for ages with duratrans, although I can only imagine how quickly that would fade at the required brightness levels.

[digitaldog]

didn't Epson already use "HDR" in their marketing wank?  "Ultrachrome HDR"?

What marketing calls an ink and what HDR is are two different things.
When compared to newspaper printing, an Epson Ultrachrome print on glossy paper is HDR. It is not even close to an SDR display, let alone an HDR display.

[JCD]

Andrew is right,

Artwork on paper involves viewing light entering the surface of the paper/ ink layers then bouncing off the deepest surface of the coating ( whatever that may be ) , then going back through the paper/ ink layers to the eye of the viewer, like in the old analogue era.

Hdr , 4K ,8k , or whatever is really a case of back lighting illumination, where the light source is behind the image forming layer, not in front of it bouncing off media.

Now what they could do is improve the inkjet backlit transparency material gamut and resolution in the future somehow. Any improvement would be nice as it’s still not to the level of type c analogue Duratrans  material.
Although I haven’t tried it yet on the 9570.  I should try that out soon now  I think of it. Has anyone else?

John

What marketing calls an ink and what HDR is are two different things.
When compared to newspaper printing, an Epson Ultrachrome print on glossy paper is HDR. It is not even close to an SDR display, let alone an HDR display.