Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 15   Go Down

Author Topic: SureColor P9570  (Read 48892 times)

drmrking

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 21
Re: SureColor P9570
« Reply #120 on: April 22, 2020, 05:50:26 pm »

in the new 6.72 driver do you get the option for head alignment.
here in UK it seems to have disappeared from utility menu ! - see attachment
Or is there some setting(s) you need, to have it appear?
I tried quite a few options but it's gone ....
Any guidance gratefully received.

Many thanks,
Mike

« Last Edit: April 22, 2020, 06:03:27 pm by drmrking »
Logged

drmrking

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 21
Re: SureColor P9570
« Reply #121 on: April 22, 2020, 08:21:13 pm »

Ok so giving up on Epson EU info / manual - I found this on US site and indeed it applies to EU firmware LK11K3 as well.
So menu on printer allows head alignment, even if 6.72 driver utilities don't appear to provide support for it.

https://epson.com/faq/SPT_SCP7570SE~faq-0000a3c-scp7570_9570

Logged

JRSmit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 922
    • Jan R. Smit Fine Art Printing Specialist
Re: SureColor P9570
« Reply #122 on: April 23, 2020, 02:27:43 am »

Indeed , the Epson USA site documentation is more in line.
What learned is to use an A2 sheet, first paper feed, then head alignment bi-dir auto. You can use the A2 sheet twice. I also print my own testchart on the same A2 to evaluate the head alignment.
Logged
Fine art photography: janrsmit.com
Fine Art Printing Specialist: www.fineartprintingspecialist.nl


Jan R. Smit

drmrking

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 21
Re: SureColor P9570
« Reply #123 on: April 23, 2020, 03:57:49 pm »

Thanks Jan, are you willing to share head alignment test chart?
I was wondering how to know if it did a good job !

Also, do you know,

1) is the paper feed global or per paper?
2) If i create a new paper type from existing one does it carry across existing head alignment etc.?
3) does all this get wiped out by firmware update?

Appreciate you may not know this and I will figure out by trial and error - but anything you can share would be much appreciated - in the absence of this info from Epson.

Txs,
Mike

Logged

JRSmit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 922
    • Jan R. Smit Fine Art Printing Specialist
Re: SureColor P9570
« Reply #124 on: April 23, 2020, 04:05:38 pm »

Search forum for test chart by Bart van der wolf, it is the most cruel test
Logged
Fine art photography: janrsmit.com
Fine Art Printing Specialist: www.fineartprintingspecialist.nl


Jan R. Smit

drmrking

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 21
Re: SureColor P9570
« Reply #125 on: April 25, 2020, 08:00:48 am »

Ok so I see Bart has charts for Epson 720 ppi and also Canon 600 ppi.
However, reading the 7/95xx manual, I see that Epson is saying that with the new print head design they have adopted 300 dpi for these printers and indeed the printer quality option info reflects that.

Is 300 dpi for Epson something new or has this been the case for a while for some of the Large format?
It's 10 years since I bought a new Epson (my 7900 just left the building).

Also I see the new Epson 700 and 900 desktop printers are still @ 720 ....

Cheers,
Mike



Logged

Rand47

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1882
Re: SureColor P9570
« Reply #126 on: April 25, 2020, 08:57:22 am »

Earlier Epson large format printers print heads are 2880x1440.
The new larger heads of the SC P7570 and 9570 are 2400x1200.

Ergo, w/ my SC P7570 I’m using 300/600 as opposed to 360/720 for my SC P5000.

Also re the other questions above re head alignment (and other driver parameters) “missing” in the 75-95xx drivers, it is important to know that these printers use a different scheme for paper parameter settings.  With the exception of “color density” none of the parameters for individual paper settings are available in the driver. (Including launching the head alignment routine) E.g. thickness, platen gap, drying time per pass, suction, etc.  These are now required to be set “in the printer itself” via the LCD touch panel.  Each paper type’s name appears in the LCD and when you load and select that paper name, you can then set size, and “advanced settings” that contain all the above mentioned settings that used to be available in the driver.  And, they are “sticky.”. So, suppose I load a sheet (or roll) of Epson Legacy Platine in  my SC P7570.  In the LCD I select roll paper, load it, and when I feed the leading edge in and it “grabs it” and I hit “OK” and it starts to feed into the printer I get next on the menu a selection for what paper type it is.  I select Epson Legacy Platine by scrolling down the list of papers.  I then can select “Advanced Settings” for it, and make adjustments as desired to thickness, platen gap, suction, paper feed offset, drying time per pass, etc.  What ever I set at this point stays “sticky” whenever I use this same paper again - unless I change it.  And, the initial settings in Advanced Settings are (for Epson Papers) their recommended defaults.  The nice thing about this is that once any particular user-desired tweaks are made, it’s a once-and-done procedure “per paper type.”

Where this gets really interesting is its relationship to a new (to me at least) piece of utility software available for “launch” through the driver.  In fact if you look at the screen shot of the driver in the above post, you’ll see it!  It’s on the lower right, “Epson Media Installer.” (EMI)  This is an essential component in overall operation of these new printers.  In the EMi when launched is a laundry list of Epson papers, not all of which are currently “registered” in the printer itself’s menu via the control panel on the printer.  Here’s an example.  Lets say you want to use Epson Fine Art Velvet in your new 7570.  That “media type” isn’t in the driver selection for media type, nor is it in the printers menu as a selectable media type.  What to do?  You launch EMI find Fine Art Velvet in the laundry list.  You’ll see that the “registered” check box is “unchecked.”  You highlight Fine Art Velvet and hit “register to printer.”  It does its thing and then you see that it has been “successfully registered” and now the check box is checked.  When you exit EMI both the printer driver, and the printer’s LCD menu controls now show Fine Art Velvet - and in the Advanced Settings in the printer’s menu are all the Epson default settings re thickness, platen gap, etc. 

OK what’s “really interesting” about this begins when you start using 3rd party papers.  Here’s an example.  I wanted start using Canson Platine Fibre Rag in my SC P7570.   To create a “custom media type” you launch EMI, select an existing Epson paper type as the “starting place from which to build your custom media type.”  In this case I chose Epson Legacy Platine, there’s a tab in the EMI for creating new media types.   I select my Epson Legacy Platine and go through the create new media routine and am able to name this new media type anything I want to.  So I name it “it’s real name” i.e. Canson Platine.  When finished in EMI and I exit, there is now in the driver and in the printer’s menu a “media type” that is literally “Canson Platine” by name in the list!  Then for that paper type in the printer’s menu I can go to the advanced settings and tweak any of the default settings.  E.g. Canon’s Platine cut sheets tend to have a little more curl, so perhaps I’ll up the platen gap one notch for Canson’s Platine over the default values for Epson’s Legacy Platine.  This is a very cool thing once you get the hang of it.  No more remembering what the 3rd party paper manufacturer’s recommended media type is, etc., you just pick the paper “by it’s own name” in the driver and in the printer’s menu when loading it.

I know I’ve “gone on a bit” here with this description, but my experience getting dialed in on this new printer, and working through some of its teething problems with Epson Tech Support over the past two months, has given me insight into these things that is not very common “yet” amongst users, and certainly not potential buyers.  So I thought I’d share here in case any of this is helpful.

Rand


Ok so I see Bart has charts for Epson 720 ppi and also Canon 600 ppi.
However, reading the 7/95xx manual, I see that Epson is saying that with the new print head design they have adopted 300 dpi for these printers and indeed the printer quality option info reflects that.

Is 300 dpi for Epson something new or has this been the case for a while for some of the Large format?
It's 10 years since I bought a new Epson (my 7900 just left the building).

Also I see the new Epson 700 and 900 desktop printers are still @ 720 ....

Cheers,
Mike
« Last Edit: April 25, 2020, 10:18:46 am by Rand47 »
Logged
Rand Scott Adams

JRSmit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 922
    • Jan R. Smit Fine Art Printing Specialist
Re: SureColor P9570
« Reply #127 on: April 25, 2020, 11:39:00 am »

The PPI and DPI are different dimensions. Basically you input the image to the printer in PPI, where the printer expects what is set in the driver,  so 360PPI f.i.
It translates this to DPI , and being CMYK, this is 4 Times the PPI, so in this example 1440DPI.
The scp75xx/95xx is a 150/300/600 PPI device, thus maximum case is 2400DPI, which is also documented.
Soca bit less than f.i. the scp5000 - 9000 famoly, which has a max of 720PPI > 2880DPI
The Bart vd Wolf testchart for 600PPI is the right choice forcthe SCP75XX/95XX, and it will show the resolutipn of the printer in its different print quality level settings. A very clarifying excercise.


 
Ok so I see Bart has charts for Epson 720 ppi and also Canon 600 ppi.
However, reading the 7/95xx manual, I see that Epson is saying that with the new print head design they have adopted 300 dpi for these printers and indeed the printer quality option info reflects that.

Is 300 dpi for Epson something new or has this been the case for a while for some of the Large format?
It's 10 years since I bought a new Epson (my 7900 just left the building).

Also I see the new Epson 700 and 900 desktop printers are still @ 720 ....

Cheers,
Mike
Logged
Fine art photography: janrsmit.com
Fine Art Printing Specialist: www.fineartprintingspecialist.nl


Jan R. Smit

Rand47

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1882
Re: SureColor P9570
« Reply #128 on: April 25, 2020, 12:41:44 pm »

UPDATE

I’m in possession of and have installed driver version 6.73 for my SC P7570.   It has fixed the Print Preview display error, and seems to have also corrected the problem where use of the Epson Media Installer software would wipe clean any saved settings or user defined paper sizes in the driver.

This is great progress.  6.73 should show up soon for general download on Epson’s Support page and in the Epson Software Updater utility.

There’s another “issue” that has surfaced in my testing that is relevant in a very specific situation only.  And so far it looks as though it is a design limitation of the new print head as opposed to a bug somewhere in the software / firmware.  Here goes.

Use case:

  • Printing cut sheet paper
  • Printing using Enhanced Black Overcoat feature (EBO)
In these conditions, the “too much leading edge offset” happens that will displace your image toward the trailing edge, and cut off a portion of the trailing edge of the image when printed.  There is no mention of this in the User Guide except on page 102 where it talks about a check box labeled “Minimize Top Margin.” (MTM).   What is very disconcerting about this is that the print layout feature of Epson’s Print Layout software, Lightroom’s Print Module and Photoshop’s Print layout visual DO NOT GIVE ANY VISUAL INDICATION that this will happen.  So, if you lay an image out in these applications, and select EBO option, you won’t see the problem until the printer starts printing with a way too large leading edge margin, that then tells you that something is not going right with this print!  You can spell that: frustration, confusion, wasted paper, wasted ink.  Of course once you’ve finally figured this out, you can just NOT DO THAT with cut sheets.  OK, now is when it gets really interesting.  Turns out that if you do check EBO in this “cut sheet feed” use case, AND ALSO check the MTM box, the printer will, in fact move the printing starting point “back closer to the leading edge of the paper.”  When you check the MTM box, you get an alert message that says, “you may get smearing and/or lower image quality” using MTM.  Not encouraging.  But, when I used MTM in conjunction with EBO, I did not get lower image quality or smearing with cut sheets.  My surmise is that this warning is more for roll paper where the initial load-curl could cause this problem.  So, is this a compete fix for the “displaced image that doesn’t show up on the print layout and Print Preview in your application?”  I thought so.  But I was wrong.  While it does shift the starting place of the print head “back toward the leading edge of the paper,” there is no indication of “how much.”  And, if your image size as laid out in your application is still wider/taller than whatever the unknown limit is for “how much toward the leading edge” MTM moves the starting point, your image will still be cut off on the trailing edge to some unknown degree.  “Isn’t that nice?”  NOT.  When I first used EBO in combination with MTM, I though “Ah, that’s the cure.” (Mind you, none of this is documented in the User Guide except for the vague description of MTM in the EBO description on page 102.). But it is NOT the cure.  On closer inspection, I realized that a very small amount of the trailing edge of the image was still cut off.  So, what to do?  Well, unless Epson chooses to do something such as state what the “leading edge margin limitation is” in these conditions, AND has this displayed in the print layout views in the various applications (which I very much doubt they will do since this is a ‘single use case issue’) the only thing left to do, and which I’m in the process of doing is creating an image in photo shop that is an empty box with a stroke border in 3:2 aspect ratio (and others 4;3, etc.) and test printing them on cheap paper to find out what my minimum left and right margins “must be” on any given size cut sheet paper to avoid the problem.  That will lay this issue to rest for me and provide reliable parameters when printing on cut sheets using EBO and MTM.  Clear as mud, right?  LOL     I’d recommend to Epson three things – in case Epson is following this.  First, on Page 102 in the User Guide (and other places where EBO is mentioned) I would change the terminology for “Minimize Top Margin” to “Minimize LEADING EDGE Margin.”  “Top” is meaningless and in fact confusing.  “Top” in relationship to what?  Second, Epson should do their own calculations for the various standard cut sheet sizes and “publish” in the User Guide in this area what the minimum “leading edge margin” must be to avoid the potential for image displacement and trialing edge image cutoff.  A “best case” Epson action would be to change how the layout view operates when the EBO and MTM boxes are selected to visibly show these limitations.  This would be much like Lightroom’s “show edge bleed” function, and how margins cannot be set smaller than the minimum required by the printer.  I suspect that the latter suggestion would be a major PITA to implement, but the former two should be a piece of cake and avoid significant confusion for anyone trying to figure this whole issue out on their own with the current documentation.

OK, if you’re read this far and your eyes have not rolled back into your head, and if you’re interested, I could post my “minimum leading / trailing margin requirements to avoid this situation” when I’m finished testing this unique use case issue. Let me know.  I may be preaching to a choir of one, that would be, “Me.”

Oh, and for the record, this issue has been replicated by Epson in their lab based on my discovery of the situation.  And to their credit, they are responsible for letting me know two very important things.  First, this is not seen as a “bug” by Epson, but rather a “limitation” of the new head design when using EBO with cut sheets.  (Frankly I’m not sure what potential impacts there may be for roll paper use, I’ve not explored that yet.)   Second, I’m sensing that we’ll not see a change in either documentation in the User Guide, nor changes to print layout functionality to make this limitation “visible” i.e., that something has shifted the image toward the tailing edge of the paper.  I hope I’m wrong.  Don’t think I am.

Now, having described this issue, I don’t want anyone to think that I’m “dissing” this printer, Epson, or Epson’s Tech Support personnel.  To the contrary, I’m even more impressed with the printer overall.  It delivers wonderful output with great new features combined with very nice user ergonomics in terms of loading paper, operating the printer etc.  And, the Epson Tech Support team has been flat out amazing in working with me and deserving of much praise!  GREAT listeners, serious about getting issues resolved (as in the new driver release that did fix real bugs), and being appreciative of my help in this lock-down situation where I’ve provided feedback, screen shots, descriptions of behavior, and even screen capture videos and photos of resulting prints.  I’m actually very much enjoying working with them on these things.  And I’m loving the printer more and more as the real problems are ID’d and fixed, and as I get my head wrapped around new things like the Epson Media Installer (EMI) functionality and this “cut sheet EBO MTM issue.”

Rand

EPILOGUE

It is apparent to me, also, that perhaps a majority of folk who buy these printers will be printing principally on roll paper, perhaps especially 9570 owners.  And even when they do print on cut sheets, if they don’t need/want to use the EBO function, they may never even encounter this very limited use case issue.  I get that.  BUT, I’m guessing there may be a lot of people, especially those choosing the 7570 who have a clientele (or personal needs) that will see use of the printer “as much for cut sheets” (and perhaps more) as use of roll paper.  And certainly the EBO feature is really worthwhile for some image types!  I’m very impressed with it.  While my post here may appear like “nit picking fly specks out of the pepper,” or whatever, I thought it was worth presenting in some detail.
Logged
Rand Scott Adams

MichaelKoerner

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 179
    • www.medien-atelier.at
Re: SureColor P9570
« Reply #129 on: April 25, 2020, 05:08:46 pm »

UPDATE
Let me know.  I may be preaching to a choir of one, that would be, “Me.”

Please don't stop preaching. For me, cut sheet capabilities with EBO are important on deciding whether to buy this printer or not.

Thank you (and JRSmit) for your detailed reports so far!

Rand47

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1882
Re: SureColor P9570
« Reply #130 on: April 25, 2020, 05:19:49 pm »

Please don't stop preaching. For me, cut sheet capabilities with EBO are important on deciding whether to buy this printer or not.

Thank you (and JRSmit) for your detailed reports so far!

First, thank you for your comment.  Second, I have no hesitation heartily recommending this printer for use with cut sheets and capitalizing on the EBO feature.  It's merely a matter of finding those "leading edge" margin minimums to avoid the issue. "Finding and understanding" the issue was a big, frustrating, confusing deal (for me at least) but once found and understood, the adjustments necessary to avoid "ever" seeing this issue while printing will be VERY SIMPLE.  I'm working on it now.  The hardest part was designing an "image" in Photoshop that would show the boundary conditions I'd need to "see in print" w/ a minimum of ink expended in running the tests.  I've accomplished that today for 13x19" and 17x22" papers and will be testing in the morning.  It may even end up (actually "should") being merely understanding what "minimum left (leading edge) margin should be used in your printing layout application to avoid this situation.  I'm guessing somewhere in the range of .68 inches at the moment.  If so, I may just make my leading/trailing minimum .75".  If that pans out, I'm done and will never have to think about this issue again.

Rand
« Last Edit: April 25, 2020, 05:23:38 pm by Rand47 »
Logged
Rand Scott Adams

Jim Kasson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2370
    • The Last Word
Re: SureColor P9570
« Reply #131 on: April 25, 2020, 06:59:01 pm »

The PPI and DPI are different dimensions. Basically you input the image to the printer in PPI, where the printer expects what is set in the driver,  so 360PPI f.i.
It translates this to DPI , and being CMYK, this is 4 Times the PPI, so in this example 1440DPI.
The scp75xx/95xx is a 150/300/600 PPI device, thus maximum case is 2400DPI, which is also documented.
Soca bit less than f.i. the scp5000 - 9000 famoly, which has a max of 720PPI > 2880DPI
The Bart vd Wolf testchart for 600PPI is the right choice forcthe SCP75XX/95XX, and it will show the resolutipn of the printer in its different print quality level settings. A very clarifying excercise.

Not sure how it works in the new printers, but the "native ppi" in all the Epson printers I've used comes from the driver, not the marking engine (engineer-talk for the printer hardware). Before halftoning, the Epson driver resamples the input contone image, using nearest neighbor. You don't want that, so you figure out what the driver is going to resample the image to, and you send the image to the driver at that resolution, so that the driver won't damage the image when it resamples. In the older printers, that was either 360 or 720 ppi. The resolution of the marking engine was an interger multiplication away from that, which is probably why Epson picked those values. The new printer has different marking engine resolution, and therefore probably different contone resampling resolution, and that's probably 300/600 ppi. But I haven't tested the new drivers.

This resampling before halftoning is unnecessary, and is a pain for users to deal with. There are other Epson printer halftoners that don't resample before diffusion dither (plus blue noise) halftoning. ImagePrint is one of those. I'm guessing Epson does it to make the computations easier.

Jim

JRSmit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 922
    • Jan R. Smit Fine Art Printing Specialist
Re: SureColor P9570
« Reply #132 on: April 26, 2020, 02:03:48 am »

I use Bart van der Wolfs printer resolution image, and the scp9000 goes to 720PPI with driver set to print quality level=5 and fine details=on. ( Lightroom -> native Epson driver)
The scp9500 goes to 600PPI (almost) with the same settings.
I also use a black and white checkered pattern with varying size black blocks, smallest being 1by2 pixels, and also quite revealing in print-resolution.
I did also try Mirage 4 (Dinax) and in the resolution limit it behaved different from the Lightroom->Epson driver (native) chain. As if it placed a bit more black ink, sort if increase in dotgain. Mirage 4 is not using the native Epson driver, it’s ‘connection point’ looks like it is the printer firmware, using some Epson SDK.

Does ImagePrint also bypass the native print driver?

Logged
Fine art photography: janrsmit.com
Fine Art Printing Specialist: www.fineartprintingspecialist.nl


Jan R. Smit

JRSmit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 922
    • Jan R. Smit Fine Art Printing Specialist
Re: SureColor P9570
« Reply #133 on: April 26, 2020, 02:23:11 am »

Hmm ImagePrint does not support the new Epson printers.
Logged
Fine art photography: janrsmit.com
Fine Art Printing Specialist: www.fineartprintingspecialist.nl


Jan R. Smit

dchew

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1020
    • Dave Chew Photography
Re: SureColor P9570
« Reply #134 on: April 26, 2020, 10:11:11 am »

Hmm ImagePrint does not support the new Epson printers.

I reached out to John Ponnazzo a few weeks ago. He is still waiting on a printer for development. It is still his plan to support these as soon as possible.

At that time, the drivers were still in fix-it mode, as reported by you, Rand and others. Frankly that was a primary input to my recent decision to go with the Canon 4100 vs the 9570.

I can say that yes, ImagePrint Black bypasses the native driver. ImagePrint Red does not.

Dave
Logged

Jim Kasson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2370
    • The Last Word
Re: SureColor P9570
« Reply #135 on: April 26, 2020, 10:47:57 am »

I use Bart van der Wolfs printer resolution image, and the scp9000 goes to 720PPI with driver set to print quality level=5 and fine details=on. ( Lightroom -> native Epson driver)
The scp9500 goes to 600PPI (almost) with the same settings.
I also use a black and white checkered pattern with varying size black blocks, smallest being 1by2 pixels, and also quite revealing in print-resolution.
I did also try Mirage 4 (Dinax) and in the resolution limit it behaved different from the Lightroom->Epson driver (native) chain. As if it placed a bit more black ink, sort if increase in dotgain. Mirage 4 is not using the native Epson driver, it’s ‘connection point’ looks like it is the printer firmware, using some Epson SDK.

I'm not sure how what you said relates to driver resampling before halftoning. What do you mean by "goes to"? If you send the driver a 360 ppi image, for the scp9500, do you see aliasing in the output?

JRSmit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 922
    • Jan R. Smit Fine Art Printing Specialist
Re: SureColor P9570
« Reply #136 on: April 26, 2020, 11:14:17 am »

I meant to say the upper limit is 600PPI
So in Lightroom i set in the print panel the PPI setting 600, so it sends  the file to the driver rescaled(mostly uprezzed) to 600PPI.
For my SCP9000 this then is 720PPI

For both printers  with the appropriate test image i have aliasing patterns, visuallly a bit more pronounced with the SCP9500, perhaps because of its lower resolution, which in this usecase is
not insignificant.
The print sharpening setting in Lightroom also has a role in this of course.

Logged
Fine art photography: janrsmit.com
Fine Art Printing Specialist: www.fineartprintingspecialist.nl


Jan R. Smit

Jim Kasson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2370
    • The Last Word
Re: SureColor P9570
« Reply #137 on: April 26, 2020, 11:23:05 am »

I meant to say the upper limit is 600PPI
So in Lightroom i set in the print panel the PPI setting 600, so it sends  the file to the driver rescaled(mostly uprezzed) to 600PPI.
For my SCP9000 this then is 720PPI

For both printers  with the appropriate test image i have aliasing patterns, visuallly a bit more pronounced with the SCP9500, perhaps because of its lower resolution, which in this usecase is
not insignificant.
The print sharpening setting in Lightroom also has a role in this of course.

So I think you're saying that Lr thinks the driver is resampling to 600 ppi. Is that right? Have you looked at what the driver actually is doing?

If you send the printer an unaliased image at the driver's native contone resampling resolution, you should not see aliasing, since the driver won't be resampling.

Print sharpening in Lr won't affect whether the image is resampled in the driver or not, nor will it affect the resampled contone image resolution.

Jim

Rand47

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1882
Re: SureColor P9570
« Reply #138 on: April 26, 2020, 01:49:04 pm »

Please don't stop preaching. For me, cut sheet capabilities with EBO are important on deciding whether to buy this printer or not.

Thank you (and JRSmit) for your detailed reports so far!

Hello again . . .

Rather than try to duplicate my long-winded post on PhotoPXL, here's the link to my final testing re the Enhanced Black Overcoat issue:

https://photopxl.com/forums/topic/new-series-epson-printers/page/5/#post-19377

As it turns out, the new driver also fixes any "mystery" about the left (leading margin), so the bottom line is the fix is VERY SIMPLE. 

Rand
Logged
Rand Scott Adams

JRSmit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 922
    • Jan R. Smit Fine Art Printing Specialist
Re: SureColor P9570
« Reply #139 on: April 27, 2020, 05:45:50 am »

Interesting point you mentioned about aliasing, sharpening.

Well i use the images Bart van der Wolf published on LuLa forum in 2015:

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)

And those images do show aliasing when sharpened in Lightroom of Photoshop.

Also I printed in Lightroom at 600 PPI and printsharpening OFF, a set of 4 of the 600PPI test target, one at 130.0mm, one at 130.01mm, one at 129.9mm and one at 130.1mm
Very difficult to visually see differences, the 130.1 perhaps the one with the least aliasing effects.
Also printed to file, this shows none of the aliases I see in the print.
So to test, in Lightroom I applied sharpening to the test target, and at sharpening level of around 11
- 16, and playing with detail, radius, I get aliasing artefacts similar to that of the print.
Note: if I do nn resizing I get vertical Artefact in part 5 and 8 , which I do not see in the print, so there is no NN form of rescaling. In PSci tried different rescaling algoritms, but none would give a result similar to what I see on print.
So for now the conclusion is that the scp95xx does some sharpening in the Epson part of the pipeline.
Another negative point for me, I regret to say.

Would like to see others do test with this test target as well.

Will figure out how I can best digitize the print result, when successfull I will add these to the post.






So I think you're saying that Lr thinks the driver is resampling to 600 ppi. Is that right? Have you looked at what the driver actually is doing?

If you send the printer an unaliased image at the driver's native contone resampling resolution, you should not see aliasing, since the driver won't be resampling.

Print sharpening in Lr won't affect whether the image is resampled in the driver or not, nor will it affect the resampled contone image resolution.

Jim
Logged
Fine art photography: janrsmit.com
Fine Art Printing Specialist: www.fineartprintingspecialist.nl


Jan R. Smit
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 15   Go Up