Lack of 16bit print

[hjulenissen]

...so, bottom line, if you are Windows, don't worry about it (since there's nothing you can do about it)

Does that mean that if I use my Canon 9000mk2 with its 16-bit XPS driver on my Windows 7 64 box and the latest version of Lightroom, my image files are still quantized to 8 bits somewhere?

-h

[hjulenissen]

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.

The "Dynamic Range" of the ink splatters is two, is it not? Either ink or no ink. By adding more ink channels (assuming that they are all neutral gray at various intensities) you get e.g. 8 levels. I am assuming that you cannot/should not place several dots of ink exactly on top of each other.

Now, the spatial resolution of the splatter pattern seems to be very high (is it 4800 dpi according to inkjet marketing departements?). This means that the lack of tonal resolution and the abundance of spatial resolution can be traded against each other. 32 dots (each selected among 8 different gray inks) might be sufficient to "encode" 256 different levels, aka 8 bits. You want to do gamma (i.e. nonlinear distribution) and choose a dithering pattern that does not introduce visible patterning. Perhaps you also want to let the low-level spatial details in the original file (if existant) slightly bias the pattern, so the factor probably is larger than 32 in practice and the selection of gray ink for optimal "encoding" may be nontrivial.

4800[dpi]/sqrt(32)[dpp] = 850[ppi]. I.e. that something like 850 unique source pixels can be placed along an inch of paper if you want to do 8 bits of tonal levels and have access to 8 wisely chosen gray inks in a 4800dpi printer. If we increase the number of encoded levels (8 bits -> 16 bits), then the reproducable ppi decreases.

(I have done many shortcuts in my speculations based on lazyness and lack of knowledge. I guess that any one of my steps might be off by a factor of two or more. If they are off by an order of magnitude, it means that I have a fundamental misunderstanding of things, and I'd like to know).

If your image patch contains a high spatial-frequency pattern with large contrast (like a fence), there may be perceptual reasons that 8 bits of levels is not needed. We probably cannot see the difference between the patterns [0 255 0 255 0 ...] and [0 254 0 254 0...]. Thus one does not need to spend as much area encoding those pixels, and a higher spatial resolution is possible. If the pattern is [0 1 2 3 ...], however, gradations are likely to be visible. But on this low-contrast signal, spatial resolution may not matter as much, and more area can be spent doing the best possible dithering.

-h

[Schewe]

Does that mean that if I use my Canon 9000mk2 with its 16-bit XPS driver on my Windows 7 64 box and the latest version of Lightroom, my image files are still quantized to 8 bits somewhere?

Sorry, not familiar enough with the Canon 9000mk2 and the XPS driver...but if it's going through Lightroom using LR Manages Color, I think Adobe ACE in LR would be dropping down to 8-bit at the print head–could be wrong, maybe somebody else famialr with the 9000 can answer.

[hjulenissen]

Sorry, not familiar enough with the Canon 9000mk2 and the XPS driver...but if it's going through Lightroom using LR Manages Color, I think Adobe ACE in LR would be dropping down to 8-bit at the print head–could be wrong, maybe somebody else famialr with the 9000 can answer.

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/printers_multifunction/professional_photo_inkjet_printers/pixma_pro9000_mark_ii#DriversAndSoftware

This file is a printer driver for Canon IJ printers. XPS printer drivers support 16-bpc printing, which enables more smooth gradation printing than the current drivers (8-bpc printing).

[TonyW]

Does that mean that if I use my Canon 9000mk2 with its 16-bit XPS driver on my Windows 7 64 box and the latest version of Lightroom, my image files are still quantized to 8 bits somewhere?

-h

I am pretty sure Mr Schewe is right.  Having considered several printers this one included my conclusion (and I could easily be way of the mark!) is that you must go through the optional XPS driver to print in 16 bpc and it seems that this option may be limited to using the Canon Easy Photo print application and letting the printer manage colour. 

If I understand correctly there are two drivers available for the Canon.  The first is the standard driver that must be installed for the printer to work and the second is the XPS driver which is optional and allows 16 bit printing via Windows.  My impression is that the XPS drivers work with Canon Easy Photo Print as 16 bit, but will not work alone as the main printer driver. 

Therefore unless you can actually select 16 bit printing in the main printer dialogue the XPS driver will not be used and instead LR or PS will use the standard 8 bpc driver

[Bryan Conner]

I am pretty sure Mr Schewe is right.  Having considered several printers this one included my conclusion (and I could easily be way of the mark!) is that you must go through the optional XPS driver to print in 16 bpc and it seems that this option may be limited to using the Canon Easy Photo print application and letting the printer manage colour.  

If I understand correctly there are two drivers available for the Canon.  The first is the standard driver that must be installed for the printer to work and the second is the XPS driver which is optional and allows 16 bit printing via Windows.  My impression is that the XPS drivers work with Canon Easy Photo Print as 16 bit, but will not work alone as the main printer driver.  

Therefore unless you can actually select 16 bit printing in the main printer dialogue the XPS driver will not be used and instead LR or PS will use the standard 8 bpc driver

My Canon printer will use the xps 16 bit printer when printing via Lightroom or Photoshop.  And, I can see a small difference in the detail under a loupe even on an A4 size print.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

My Canon printer will use the xps 16 bit printer when printing via Lightroom or Photoshop.

That's correct. It just requires installing the Print Studio Pro Plugin for Photoshop and/or Lightroom, all downloadable from the Canon drivers download site for the particular OS version and printer model.

Cheers,
Bart

[TonyW]

Well I was absolutely correct with the statement"I could easily be way off the mark!"  

Bryan and Bart pleased that you were able to confirm that 16bit available through the XPS driver and Print studio - looking through the Canon documentation I did not find reference to this.  

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Well I was absolutely correct with the statement"I could easily be way off the mark!"  

Bryan and Bart pleased that you were able to confirm that 16bit available through the XPS driver and Print studio - looking through the Canon documentation I did not find reference to this.

Hi Tony,

An individual cannot know everything, so that's why we share info and opinions.

I believe that the Print Studio Pro plugin was introduced with the new Pixma Pro 100/10/1 line, and also works with the earlier Pixma Pro 9000/9500 Mark II series desktop printers, and the imagePROGRAF iPF8300, iPF6350 and iPF6300 Printers.

Cheers,
Bart

[Bryan Conner]

Hi Tony,

An individual cannot know everything, so that's why we share info and opinions.

I believe that the Print Studio Pro plugin was introduced with the new Pixma Pro 100/10/1 line, and also works with the earlier Pixma Pro 9000/9500 Mark II series desktop printers, and the imagePROGRAF iPF8300, iPF6350 and iPF6300 Printers.

Cheers,
Bart

If a person using a Canon printer will do a google search for xps driver, it is a good chance that the driver is available for their printer.  Print Studio Pro is not needed...at least in my case....I do not have this plugin installed.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

If a person using a Canon printer will do a google search for xps driver, it is a good chance that the driver is available for their printer.  Print Studio Pro is not needed...at least in my case....I do not have this plugin installed.

Hi Bryan,

I'm not sure what the standard Photoshop/Lightroom print dialog feeds to the XPS driver (I think that was what Jeff was remembering, the standard print pipeline reverting to 8-bit/channel before data reaches the 16-bit XPS driver). The automation plugin should take care of that uncertainty.

Cheers,
Bart

[RachelleK]

Are the icc profiles specific to the XPS driver?  In other words, do I have to redo all of my profiles if I use this driver?

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Are the icc profiles specific to the XPS driver?  In other words, do I have to redo all of my profiles if I use this driver?

No, ICC v2 or ICC v4 profiles should work as usual.

Besides, the regular 8-bit print driver need to be already installed before the XPS driver can be installed, so you can always switch between the two driver versions.

Cheers,
Bart

[TonyW]

Hi Bart,
Thanks for the added information due to yours and Bryans posts and as I have a couple of cheap ink guzzling consumer Canon printers used for non critical colour printing I took the opportunity to check for new drivers and if XPS available for mine. 

Sadly the Print Studio Pro plugin is not compatible with my printers but the XPS driver is and after downloading and installing is available as an option.
 
When I have the time and a suitable image I will run a test or two to see what differences I can see 8 vs 16 bit, still not expecting a great difference due to limited inks and the fact that these are very cheap printers – costs nearly as much to buy ink refills (2 cartridges) as to buy a new printer!

Where I did see a difference was between two prints sent to me from an Epson 3880.  The subject a section of a flower running from red through orange to light yellow.  The 16 bit image displayed a smoother transition of colour throughout – slight but still observable without needing a loupe.  The 8 bit image lost these smooth transitions and appeared to have a granularity to it.   Could not really reach my own conclusion based on another’s testing and in fact when viewed at a normal distance for the final print size I could not differentiate which was which.

[RachelleK]

No, ICC v2 or ICC v4 profiles should work as usual.

Besides, the regular 8-bit print driver need to be already installed before the XPS driver can be installed, so you can always switch between the two driver versions.

Cheers,
Bart

Thanks.  I wasn't looking forward to redoing all of my profiles.  I did install the XPS driver and noticed that you can select which driver to use.  I also have the PrintFab driver installed and it does required different profiles from those produced from the Canon drivers.  The dithering patterns produced (and the colors used in the pattern) for the same printed color are quite different.

[hjulenissen]

That's correct. It just requires installing the Print Studio Pro Plugin for Photoshop and/or Lightroom, all downloadable from the Canon drivers download site for the particular OS version and printer model.

I see that other posts have touched this, but anyways...

The Canon XPS driver appears as a secondary printer, freely accessible from any application, even without installing that plugin.

Now, it might be that the data is converted to 8 bits then back to 16 bits, although that seems like a sort of strange situation (why would Canon expose a 16-bit printer driver to any application if their application is the only one who can make use of it?)

I am using only the XPS driver and Lightroom, without the new plugin, but I have never done the tests to see if I am getting >8 bits.

-h

[TonyW]

Having installed the XPS driver for the Canon printers and not yet trying an actual 16 bit print I had a look in LR Print module to see if a 16 bit checkbox had been revealed similar to that found in LR for Mac under Print Resolution and Print Sharpening.  

No 16 bit option found, so again an assumption on my part that LR has to be told that you are going to print in 16 bit by checking the box as per Mac versions.  No 16 bit checkbox therefore the XPS driver is not being recognised or the application does not support it within a Windows environment and is actually using 8 bit pipeline as already surmised?

Perhaps with the Pro printers and Print Studio Pro plugin the behaviour is different and I would guess tha the 16 bit checkbox would show in LR?

Maybe this sheds some light on the subject http://forums.adobe.com/message/5627047

[Bryan Conner]

Hi Bryan,

I'm not sure what the standard Photoshop/Lightroom print dialog feeds to the XPS driver (I think that was what Jeff was remembering, the standard print pipeline reverting to 8-bit/channel before data reaches the 16-bit XPS driver). The automation plugin should take care of that uncertainty.

Cheers,
Bart

Hi Bart,

Thanks, I learned something new.  I did a crude test by creating a 16 bit prophoto Granger Rainbow (thanks to Andrew Rodney's instructions I found online).  I printed this A4 image two times from Lightroom 5.3 using the Lightroom print module.  In Lightroom, on one image I selected the Canon XPS driver that should provide a 16 bit print pipeline.  Next I printed the same image in the same manner as the first except this time I chose the standard Canon (8 bit) driver in Lightroom.  I used the same print preset, so all other settings remained the same.  The third image was printed using Canon's Easy-PhotoPrint Pro with the XPS (16 bit) driver selected.  All prints were printed on Canon Photo Paper Pro Platinum on my Canon MG 6200 series printer.   Now, I am not claiming that this test is conclusive in any way technically, but there is a definite difference in the print from the Lightroom Plug in.  There are a few areas where the colors printed are different...actually the areas that are different have colors that are not present on the other prints.  The prints printed from Lightroom are identical regardless of which driver was selected.  The only thing that I am not sure of is if there could be a difference in the colors printed between 16 bit and 8 bit, or is this a difference brought on by the Canon plug in?

[Ernst Dinkla]

The "Dynamic Range" of the ink splatters is two, is it not? Either ink or no ink. By adding more ink channels (assuming that they are all neutral gray at various intensities) you get e.g. 8 levels. I am assuming that you cannot/should not place several dots of ink exactly on top of each other.

In the past I have done some computation on cell sizes that represent a pixel. I did not have that in mind but droplets can vary from 3 to 5 sizes, there are the diluted Light Cyan and Light Magenta and up to 3 monochrome inks can be used. That and the resolution make up the pixel cell size.

It was more the other end of the pipeline I had in mind. For color 24 bit goes at least into the printer if it has say 7 channels. If that printer is customised to grey ink only and the ink dilutions/partitioning is done well so every channel contributes, then a 16 bit greyscale image should not have to go through a bottleneck. Not in the application, not in Windows, not in the driver and not in the printer. I do not claim it will use the 24 bit optimally but I doubt it will fall back to 8 bit when the droplets hit the paper.

Even with 4 channel deskop models and black only printing the quality of B&W increases considerably when the 4 channels are loaded with black ink and printing is done in color mode. Photoshop curves to get an even distribution on all channels. Banding disappears compared to black only mode and one black head. True, more a hardware limitation controlled by using more nozzles but if 16 bit has to deliver both ends of the pipeline should be optimal. Paul Roark developed several choices of custom inksets for 4, 6 and more channel printers. A lot can be done with PS curves (and profiles made with them) and the driver color mode.

The quality difference in the print between 8 and 16 bit printing is probably more pronounced in B&W with printers sketched above than in color prints were the printer hardware is near the edge of its capacity.

--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

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

[Tony Hubcaps]

Hello -

I'm getting very confused!

So the upshot from this seems to be if you're using Windows, and you don't get
the "16 Bit" checkbox in the LR print module, then it's uncertain whether or not true
16 bit printing is taking place??

Is this right, or have I missed something in the thread?

I have Canon 9500ii and windows vista.  Up to now in Lightroom I have been choosing
the printer name with XPS suffix and assuming (doh!) that was sufficient to switch to
16 bit printing.  (Incidentally when I do this my hard drive begins to grunt and groan even
more when LR is preparing to print, suggesting something (?) is happening).

This for me raises the question whether I'm even printing in 16 bit from Photoshop, since,
again, no checkbox is visible in the print dialogs - even though most online tutorials seem
to indicate clearly that it needs ticking.

Can any kind soul help me out on this last bit??  What reasons might there be why I can't
see a "Send 16 bit data" checkbox in PS?  (Sorry, I have CS5).

I'm wondering if I should update the printer driver.  But I don't know how to do this, and I
can't find any true guidance online, or (more to the point) in Canon's own literature.
Again, any help much appreciated.

Confused, but also very, very frustrated, mainly with the level of instruction available from
Canon!  Should it really be this hard to achieve?  I know many will say that 16 bit is not necessarily
a big deal for prints, but that aside, it's not like this is a weird, obscure thing to want to do --
Canon are very happy to trumpet the possibility of 16 bit printing.

Thanks