Actually, we need even more resolution.

[Jim Kasson]

You are aware than one can use the smaller paper rolls in the larger printers, right?

Yes. That's what the remark about putting 44" rolls in the 60" printer most of the time was all about.

Additionally: you are aware that for this kind of printers, ink costs are watched by the customers so that ink is considerably cheaper per liter than for your typical desktop printer?

Of course. But we were comparing 44" with 60" printers, weren't we? At least, that's what I was doing. Since, within a printer family, the 44" printers and the 60" printers usually take the same carts, ink cost is the same between the two.

This seems so elementary that I am concerned that I'm missing something. If so, please help me out.

Jim

[jerome_m]

Apparently, one of us is missing something because I still fail to understand the advantage of buying a 60" printer for double the price if one is always going to print on 44" rolls, so please you help me out.

[BJL]

Apparently, one of us is missing something because I still fail to understand the advantage of buying a 60" printer for double the price if one is always going to print on 44" rolls, so please you help me out.

No one said always printing on 44" rolls:
- I referred to users with a mix of some jobs needing the 60" roll printer and other jobs than can be done on either fit or a smaller printer, and using the single bigger printer  to avoid needing a second slightly less big printer
- Jim said 'even if you'll put 44" rolls in it most of the time.'


Yet another debate where by overlooking the qualifications in a statement, or changing the wording, an opponent's argument is morphed into a more easily refuted straw man.

[Jim Kasson]

Apparently, one of us is missing something because I still fail to understand the advantage of buying a 60" printer for double the price if one is always going to print on 44" rolls, so please you help me out.

I didn't say "always print on 44" rolls". I said "So the added cost of a 60" printer over a 44" one is a drop in the bucket, and a wise investment if you've got the room, even if you'll put 44" rolls in it most of the time."  Bold added.

Let's say only 10% of your jobs need the 60" paper, but that's business you'd have to turn away if you bought only a 44" printer. You don't want your customers getting used to going to a competitor, but even setting that aside, if you buy $100,000 worth of ink over the life of the printer, the total cost to you is $104,200 for the 44" printer and $108,000 for the 60" printer. If you sell your prints for 5 times the ink and amortized printer cost, by spending an extra $3800 for an 11880 over a 9880, you'll make about $50,000 more in sales over the life of the printer, and say once labor and paper are taken into account, say, $25,000 more gross profit.  This all assumes that buying a larger printer and two widths of paper doesn't affect your overhaed much.

All the numbers above, except for the printer prices, are just SWAGs, but you get the idea, I hope.

Jim

[jerome_m]

No one said always printing on 44" rolls:
- I referred to users with a mix of some jobs needing the 60" roll printer and other jobs than can be done on either fit or a smaller printer, and using the single bigger printer  to avoid needing a second slightly less big printer- Jim said 'even if you'll put 44" rolls in it most of the time.'

I see. BJL and Jim's argument is that the 60" printer is mainly for someone who needs 44" prints in "300 dpi" resolution and 60" prints some of the time, presumably in less than "300 dpi" resolution. Because, "straw man" argument aside, if someone needs 60" prints in "300 dpi" resolution, one needs the data and that is the object of this thread.

Yet another debate where by overlooking the qualifications in a statement, or changing the wording, an opponent's argument is morphed into a more easily refuted straw man.

Am I the one who changes the arguments here? I doubt it. I am the one who posted about visits to galleries and museums presenting photographic prints which are 60" (150cm) on their short side. You are the ones presenting plenty of reasons why the owners of 60" printers would do something else than printing extra-large photographs.

[Jim Kasson]

BJL and Jim's argument is that the 60" printer is mainly for someone who needs 44" prints in "300 dpi" resolution and 60" prints some of the time, presumably in less than "300 dpi" resolution.

My contention is not that the 60" printer is always purchased with the idea that it will infrequently be used with 60" paper. My contention is that some people will buy the 60" printer with the idea that it will infrequently be used with 60" paper.

I don't think you mean "dpi" in this context. Usually, dpi stands for dots per inch, and is a measure of the closest spacing of the halftoned image sent to the print heads. Perhaps you mean "ppi", which stands for pixels per inch, and is a measure of the spacing of the 8 or more bits per color plane image that is sent to the printer driver for halftone processing. 300 ppi is a Canon standard, and 360 ppi is an Epson one.

Jim

 

[BJL]

Am I the one who changes the arguments here? I doubt it.

You inserted the word "always" in your words "when one is always going to print on 44" rolls" in "Reply #101" in this thread, which clearly contradicts what either of us had said.

I am not totally rejecting your conjecture that some people both
(a) need 60" high, 300PPI prints
and also
(b) need to get the files for these prints in a single shot rather than by stitching badly enough that they will bear the extra costs of a 400MP sensor,
but your evidence so far does not prove that claim.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

As we have seen in the discussion, it is very hard to utilize 60" wide paper at 360 PPI fully, with high transferred modulation at the 1/360" pixel level. So quite obviously, the prints normally don't fully utilize the resolution of the printer.

The most reasonable way of achieving extreme resolutions are probably either 8x10" film using very good lenses at medium apertures and scanned at high resolution or stitching multiple images.

In both cases DoF will be a problem.

The reason that wide printers have high resolution is probably that the technology is there and also that most prints will be smaller, and need higher resolution.

As a small remark, when I print larger than A2, my printing service recommends 200 ppi on Durst Lambda, while they recommend 400 PPI for A3 size or smaller.

Best regards
Erik

My contention is not that the 60" printer is always purchased with the idea that it will infrequently be used with 60" paper. My contention is that some people will buy the 60" printer with the idea that it will infrequently be used with 60" paper.

I don't think you mean "dpi" in this context. Usually, dpi stands for dots per inch, and is a measure of the closest spacing of the halftoned image sent to the print heads. Perhaps you mean "ppi", which stands for pixels per inch, and is a measure of the spacing of the 8 or more bits per color plane image that is sent to the printer driver for halftone processing. 300 ppi is a Canon standard, and 360 ppi is an Epson one.

Jim

 

[Theodoros]

My contention is not that the 60" printer is always purchased with the idea that it will infrequently be used with 60" paper. My contention is that some people will buy the 60" printer with the idea that it will infrequently be used with 60" paper.

I don't think you mean "dpi" in this context. Usually, dpi stands for dots per inch, and is a measure of the closest spacing of the halftoned image sent to the print heads. Perhaps you mean "ppi", which stands for pixels per inch, and is a measure of the spacing of the 8 or more bits per color plane image that is sent to the printer driver for halftone processing. 300 ppi is a Canon standard, and 360 ppi is an Epson one.

Jim

 

The 300 vs. 360ppi argument is very interesting discussion... I use Epson 9900 although I sometimes need larger than 44" just because Epson never made an 11900... but I did choose Epson than Canon, simply because of the 360 standard and the much better compatibility with 72 multiples and all of the modern monitors.

[Theodoros]

Hi,

As we have seen in the discussion, it is very hard to utilize 60" wide paper at 360 PPI fully, with high transferred modulation at the 1/360" pixel level. So quite obviously, the prints normally don't fully utilize the resolution of the printer.

The most reasonable way of achieving extreme resolutions are probably either 8x10" film using very good lenses at medium apertures and scanned at high resolution or stitching multiple images.

In both cases DoF will be a problem.

The reason that wide printers have high resolution is probably that the technology is there and also that most prints will be smaller, and need higher resolution.

As a small remark, when I print larger than A2, my printing service recommends 200 ppi on Durst Lambda, while they recommend 400 PPI for A3 size or smaller.

Best regards
Erik

The printers print at much higher dpi than the ppi input they receive..., on an Epson, the input is sampled up to 360ppi and then it is printed at either 720 or 1440 or 2880dpi without more sampling, it simply uses 2 or 4 or 8 dpi for each one of the 360ppi that are input... On a Canon, the input is sampled up to 300ppi and then there are 300dpi multiples that are used (by choice of the user) from the printer to print...

Actually the above is one of the reasons I never understood why we need more camera pixels than much better image quality (and absence of artefacts during capturing)... A perfect capture, will print superbly at 72ppi (on an Epson - 75 on a Canon), while a bad capture will print poorly on anything... Thus, 24mp is enough to print perfectly well on a 60" Epson using the full 60" for the smaller image side... Now, sampling or not (up to 300ppi for a Canon or 360ppi for an Epson) to print is another extremely interesting conversation...

EDIT: One thing is for sure... with todays offered sensor resolution, having better pixels should be much more preferable than having more of them...

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I would rather put the limit at 180PPI for an excellent print, that can be viewed reasonably close. The OP suggests that 360 PPI is needed to fully utilise the printing process, and he previously made the point that he has extremely good vision. Better vision than 20/20 is not uncommon.

On the other hand I would possible argue 20/20 vision, which is about 1' of arc, applies to high contrast edges but vision is dominated by lower frequency detail, so having good edge contrast at say 90 PPI may be more important than resolving detail at 360 PPI.

Best regards
Erik

The printers print at much higher dpi than the ppi input they receive..., on an Epson, the input is sampled up to 360ppi and then it is printed at either 720 or 1440 or 2880dpi without more sampling, it simply uses 2 or 4 or 8 dpi for each one of the 360ppi that are input... On a Canon, the input is sampled up to 300ppi and then there are 300dpi multiples that are used (by choice of the user) from the printer to print...

Actually the above is one of the reasons I never understood why we need more camera pixels than much better image quality (and absence of artefacts during capturing)... A perfect capture, will print superbly at 72ppi (on an Epson - 75 on a Canon), while a bad capture will print poorly on anything... Thus, 24mp is enough to print perfectly well on a 60" Epson using the full 60" for the smaller image side... Now, sampling or not (up to 300ppi for a Canon or 360ppi for an Epson) to print is another extremely interesting conversation...

EDIT: One thing is for sure... with todays offered sensor resolution, having better pixels should be much more preferable than having more of them...

[Theodoros]

Hi,

I would rather put the limit at 180PPI for an excellent print, that can be viewed reasonably close. The OP suggests that 360 PPI is needed to fully utilise the printing process, and he previously made the point that he has extremely good vision. Better vision than 20/20 is not uncommon.

On the other hand I would possible argue 20/20 vision, which is about 1' of arc, applies to high contrast edges but vision is dominated by lower frequency detail, so having good edge contrast at say 90 PPI may be more important than resolving detail at 360 PPI.

Best regards
Erik

Obviously Erik you are talking having Epson in mind... Of course the limits one puts for what he considers as minimum ppi is personal, but OTOH, nobody can argue that a picture is created and printed to be viewed as a whole... I never thought of looking close on parts of a print to judge the quality of a picture... I do that sometimes only for study purposes, but never include it in my criterion to judge a print... I wouldn't print scanned film (on an Epson) at less than 144ppi, that's for sure! But speaking about "edge contrast", that cannot be achieved if sensors out resolve the lenses, can it? At least not without "heavy" sharpening... Another thing to consider is (of course) the subject... I don't see why one should insist on 180, or 144, or 120, or even 90ppi on a distant landscape... I see why one may insist on 180 or 240 or 360 ...or even 720(!) with some rare small pieces of art though... It all depends on the subject and the quality of the capture IMO... Printing skills is another extremely important part of the process...

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I used the 180 PPI figure for two reasons:

- It is often mentioned in litterature as the resolution needed for a very good print, like in the Bruce Fraser/Jeff Schewe book on sharpening. I am pretty sure that Norman Koren also mentioned that figure.
- It corresponds to the resolution of the human eye at 50 cm viewing distance.

Best regards
Erik

Obviously Erik you are talking having Epson in mind... Of course the limits one puts for what he considers as minimum ppi is personal, but OTOH, nobody can argue that a picture is created and printed to be viewed as a whole... I never thought of looking close on parts of a print to judge the quality of a picture... I do that sometimes only for study purposes, but never include it in my criterion to judge a print... I wouldn't print scanned film (on an Epson) at less than 144ppi, that's for sure! But speaking about "edge contrast", that cannot be achieved if sensors out resolve the lenses, can it? At least not without "heavy" sharpening... Another thing to consider is (of course) the subject... I don't see why one should insist on 180, or 144, or 120, or even 90ppi on a distant landscape... I see why one may insist on 180 or 240 or 360 ...or even 720(!) with some rare small pieces of art though... It all depends on the subject and the quality of the capture IMO... Printing skills is another extremely important part of the process...

[EricWHiss]

Moving away from printers for the moment….

There's pixels and then there are quality pixels. Just have lots of pixels doesn't mean very much to me. 

Do you see the next plateau in high resolution imaging having sensors with very fine pitch, or with significantly larger sensors than we have now?]

Discus

[Ken R]

One does not always needs lot's of pixels but when one does, it's better to have them available...

In my type of photography I have noticed that I would love to have around 120 MP (high quality pixels with 14 stops DR) available in a single shot. For a lot of things 40 MP would be enough and for others around 20 MP. So I would love a digital back with 120 MP full res raw mode but the option of recording smaller raw files (using pixel binning?) of 40 MP and 20 MP. So three options. RAW, sRAW, sRAW2. That would be very very cool.

[Jim Kasson]

Do you see the next plateau in high resolution imaging having sensors with very fine pitch, or with significantly larger sensors than we have now?]

Eric, I'm thinking finer pitch. My reasons:

We can get lots of pixels that way more cheaply, by riding on the coat tails of CMOS processes developed for other, higher-volume purposes.

We are nowhere near using all the available performance of the best lenses, at least, if my simulation results are right.

There's a lot of small pixel work being done for cellphone cameras.

Much bigger sensors means much bigger cameras and lenses, with cost and portablility issues.

Of course, I've been wrong before...

Jim

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

My take on the issue is: both.

The way I see it:

• For correct rendition it is essential that the sensor out resolves the lens.
• A larger format collects more photons and is less demanding of the lens

So, ideal is a large sensor with small pixels.

Now, optimal pixel size depends on the process, as we want a decent ratio between sensel area and wiring area. So with narrower design rules optimal pixel size will go down. My guess is that we are approaching 3 microns in next generation.

There is also an issue with DoF and diffraction, larger sensors will need smaller apertures for a given DoF. If DoF is no issue, larger is better.

A limitation is that the camera needs to have a processing capability to handle large files, but I also feel that processing capability and storage capacity increases fast as technology scales.

Best regards
Erik

Eric, I'm thinking finer pitch. My reasons:

We can get lots of pixels that way more cheaply, by riding on the coat tails of CMOS processes developed for other, higher-volume purposes.

We are nowhere near using all the available performance of the best lenses, at least, if my simulation results are right.

There's a lot of small pixel work being done for cellphone cameras.

Much bigger sensors means much bigger cameras and lenses, with cost and portablility issues.

Of course, I've been wrong before...

Jim

[Theodoros]

Hi,

I used the 180 PPI figure for two reasons:

- It is often mentioned in litterature as the resolution needed for a very good print, like in the Bruce Fraser/Jeff Schewe book on sharpening. I am pretty sure that Norman Koren also mentioned that figure.
- It corresponds to the resolution of the human eye at 50 cm viewing distance.

Best regards
Erik

Now you are coming in my (and others) position Erik... why one would look at a (say) 2m^2 (more than 12 sq.ft) print from a 50cm distance? ...can he see the picture from there? ...a picture is printed to be viewed as whole Erik, it's photography we are talking about, not testing one's vision ability. OTOH, in some rare product photography, or some pieces of art reproduction where the recipient often orders the print to study the item because he doesn't have direct access to the original, even higher than 360ppi may be required.

[Theodoros]

Moving away from printers for the moment….

There's pixels and then there are quality pixels. Just have lots of pixels doesn't mean very much to me. 

Do you see the next plateau in high resolution imaging having sensors with very fine pitch, or with significantly larger sensors than we have now?]

Discus

A common sense point... which leads (again) into the superiority of MS capturing conversation!  ...love it! 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

This paper is a good read: http://www-isl.stanford.edu/~abbas/group/papers_and_pub/pixelsize.pdf

The impression I have is that the papers says that 4-5 microns is optimal with 0.18 micron technology, but I also feel that the pixel model in the paper is a bit dated. Modern pixel designs use shared transistors and utilise the pixel area better than older designs.

Best regards
Erik

A common sense point... which leads (again) into the superiority of MS capturing conversation!   ...love it!