Windows 8.1 8-bit and 16-bit drivers?

[Some Guy]

In the Windows 8.1 folder, there is the "Program Files" which are for the 64 bit software, and another called "Program Files (x86)" which is the older 32 bit bit software.

I noticed my Canon XPS printer drivers are located in the 64 bit side, and the Epson is in the older 32 bit side.  So does that mean that the 64/4=16 bit color (CMYK) and 32/4 (CMYK) is the 8 bit drivers?  Epson still using older 8 bit drivers over say Canon at 16 bit?

Bigger question is ProPhoto colorspace, which is best at 16 bit - so the web says.  So if one uses Qimage (that is located in the older 32 bit software too, and still maybe only 8 bit color?) does that mean that one takes a Prophoto 16 bit image, downgrades it to 8 bit through Qimage, and then if it goes to a Canon XPS driver it gets rezzed back up to 16 bit to the printer?  Seems like something will get screwed up doing that.  Going out to the Epson may be no difference if they are still using a 8 bit driver.

SG

[Geraldo Garcia]

No, absolutely not.
You are mixing completely different things: 32 or 64 bit programs (memory addressing) has nothing to do with with the bits per channel on the images.
 

[TonyW]

As Geraldo said I would not worry about 32 bit applications vs 64 bit as the main difference is that 64 bit allows the OS to address memory over the 4GB limit imposed by a 32 bit system.  Windows 7 Pro and up 32 bit the physical memory limit is 4GB, the 64 bit version limit being 192GB.  Windows 8 still has the same limitation for 32 bit but I believe is able to address more memory in a 64 bit system.

Windows has had a 16 bit print capability since the introduction of the XPS print path in Vista.  From what I understand the problem in using a 16 bit print path is twofold. First the printer manufacturer needs to provide the 16 bit drivers and second the application needs to be able to output the print data as 16 bit.  Canon is one manufacturer that has produced 16 bit XPS drivers, AFAIK Epson have not.

[Some Guy]

....

Windows has had a 16 bit print capability since the introduction of the XPS print path in Vista.  From what I understand the problem in using a 16 bit print path is twofold. First the printer manufacturer needs to provide the 16 bit drivers and second the application needs to be able to output the print data as 16 bit.  Canon is one manufacturer that has produced 16 bit XPS drivers, AFAIK Epson have not.

Thanks Tony.

So does that mean, at least with Windows computers since Vista, that Canon with their XPS drivers could produce a broader gamut than Epson, and smoother tonality (less banding) too?

And what happens with Qimage Ultimate if it is still older 8 bit software feeding into a XPS 16 bit Canon driver?  Might be reason Qimage isn't ported to Apple since they have been using 16 bit, although unsure if Epson has bothered to upgrade their drivers to 16 bit for that OS.

SG

[digitaldog]

So does that mean, at least with Windows computers since Vista, that Canon with their XPS drivers could produce a broader gamut than Epson, and smoother tonality (less banding) too

This has nothing to do with gamut.
Further, sending 16-bit data to a printer with an app and OS that accepts it doesn't show much if any difference than not sending the high bit. You need a very powerful loupe to see the difference. Been discussed here recently too, search the threads. The idea of high bit data is that you can edit and then send the best 24 bits of color to the output device without degrading the data to the point it would be visually noticed.

[TonyW]

Hi SG,
Not sure I can answer your specific questions with any degree of accuracy due to not having the practical experience of 16 bit pipeline being a Windows user myself.  But I have some opinion FWIW which I suggest you should take with a pinch of salt until such time as you are able to prove yourself

...So does that mean, at least with Windows computers since Vista, that Canon with their XPS drivers could produce a broader gamut than Epson, and smoother tonality (less banding) too?

AFAIK the Canon XPS drivers have to be used in conjunction with the Canon applications Canon Print Studio Pro plugin or Canon Easy-PhotoPrint Pro to use a 16 bit print pipeline.  Although I do have the XPS drivers and a couple of the cheapest Canon inkjets the Canon software is not available for either to allow 16 bit.  I can print via the XPS driver and although slight difference in the results to the standard driver I do not believe that this is 16 bit and the difference can be explained by just the fact that the driver is different.

I do not think that you would be able to produce a wider colour gamut in 16 bit v 8 bit that would be the limit of the printer inks and paper combination. In theory it should be possible to see a smoother gradation between tonality changes with 16 bit. I have only ever seen one example that might have demonstrated this but it was very subtle and unoticeable at 'normal' viewing distances plus the test condition unclear therefore I would not want to draw any conclusions

And what happens with Qimage Ultimate if it is still older 8 bit software feeding into a XPS 16 bit Canon driver?  Might be reason Qimage isn't ported to Apple since they have been using 16 bit, although unsure if Epson has bothered to upgrade their drivers to 16 bit for that OS.

Again I have no real world experience of Qimage but from memory the author did not support 16 bit due to lack of support in Windows and I suspect that he would have had to actually write the 16 bit drivers. Plus again as I understand it was felt that 16 bit printing brought nothing to the table.  Might be worthwhile contacting Qimage to see if anything has changed?

My impression so far is that Windows users should not be unduly concerned about not having a 16 bit print pipeline readily available as nearly all the expert comments I have seen state that it is unlikely to bring very much to the table in terms of image quality for photographic work