1D3: BETTER THAN THIS?

dennis@home wrote:
"frederick" wrote in message
news:1180949146.521038@ftpsrv1...
dennis@home wrote:
"frederick" wrote in message
news:1180946027.385140@ftpsrv1...

Do you know what "sublimation" means, and what the impact of that
process on resolution may be? Most dye subs are around 300dpi native
maximum.
http://www.crystalcanyons.net/pages/...00Printer.shtm
(and note that they didn't know to feed the R800 at divisors of 1440dpi
(ie for their test probably 720dpi), and that this was done in 2004.

Yes I do know what sublimation means.
Do you know the difference between a dot produced by a dyesub and a dot
produced by an inkjet printer?

Do you know how many dots it takes from an R800 printer to make 1 dot
that is equivalent to one of those dots on the dyesub printer?
Work it out and you will understand why 300 dpi on a dyesub is *far*
better than an R800.
You are either confusing dpi and ppi and/or not understanding that inkjets
use variable droplet size and placement.


No I am not confusing either, are you?.

Say the R800 uses 4 drop sizes.
So we have 4 levels of intensity from the drop size so we need another 64
levels of intensity per colour to match the dyesub.
So that is 64 dots x four (or is it seven as its a seven colour printer? No
we will say four as it shouldn't need more than four).

So that's 256 dots per dot on the dye sub.
So that's 16 times the number of dpi to be equivalent.

So an inkjet would have to have 4 drop sizes and do about 4800 x 4800 dpi to
give the same tonal range as a 300 dpi dyesub.

Is the R800 4800x4800 dpi?
No it isn't and this is the best case there are circumstances where it will
be much worse.


The R800 is 4800 x 1440 dpi. The droplets under a microscope are
oblong-shaped - not round. IIRC the variable droplet piezo head allows
9 droplet sizes not four, and the printer uses six colours, not 4 or 7.
You assume that droplet placement is adjacent - never overlapped.
There's no doubt whatsoever that 300 lines per inch vertical, a little
less than that horizontal, and around 250 lines per inch radial half
tones are resolved from sufficiently high resolution input. That isn't
possible with a 300dpi printer of any kind.
If you'd have bothered to look at the link I posted, there was a
microphotograph with the text "For reference, block 2-4 is 5.6 lpm".
5.6 lpmm is about 142 lines per inch. In theory a dye sub might be able
to achieve that, in practice probably not. They conclude from their
tests that around 10lpmm is achievable, somewhere around 500dpi
equivalent. That's similar to what I got.

"frederick" wrote in message
news:1180952308.400811@ftpsrv1...

The R800 is 4800 x 1440 dpi. The droplets under a microscope are
oblong-shaped - not round.

Are you saying it can put down drops in adjacent positions.. I don't believe
it can.

IIRC the variable droplet piezo head allows 9 droplet sizes not four, and
the printer uses six colours, not 4 or 7.

It uses 7 including black. the Eighth one is a gloss coating.

You assume that droplet placement is adjacent - never overlapped.

If you overlap them by much you get inferiour colours so I don't see why
they would overlap them unless they couldn't avoid it.

There's no doubt whatsoever that 300 lines per inch vertical, a little
less than that horizontal, and around 250 lines per inch radial half tones
are resolved from sufficiently high resolution input. That isn't possible
with a 300dpi printer of any kind.
If you'd have bothered to look at the link I posted, there was a
microphotograph with the text "For reference, block 2-4 is 5.6 lpm".
5.6 lpmm is about 142 lines per inch. In theory a dye sub might be able
to achieve that, in practice probably not. They conclude from their tests
that around 10lpmm is achievable, somewhere around 500dpi equivalent.
That's similar to what I got.

That test doesn't represent real life photographs BTW it lacks tones

BTW everything you have said so far backs up what I said about inkjets
averaging out the noise so it is less apparent.
Why do you think inkjets work better when they use error diffusion as their
dithering policy for photos?

"frederick" wrote in message
news:1180949146.521038@ftpsrv1...
dennis@home wrote:
"frederick" wrote in message
news:1180946027.385140@ftpsrv1...

Do you know what "sublimation" means, and what the impact of that
process on resolution may be? Most dye subs are around 300dpi native
maximum.
http://www.crystalcanyons.net/pages/...00Printer.shtm
(and note that they didn't know to feed the R800 at divisors of 1440dpi
(ie for their test probably 720dpi), and that this was done in 2004.


Yes I do know what sublimation means.
Do you know the difference between a dot produced by a dyesub and a dot
produced by an inkjet printer?

Do you know how many dots it takes from an R800 printer to make 1 dot
that is equivalent to one of those dots on the dyesub printer?
Work it out and you will understand why 300 dpi on a dyesub is *far*
better than an R800.
You are either confusing dpi and ppi and/or not understanding that inkjets
use variable droplet size and placement.


Most dye sublimation printers are continuous tone printers. Even a lot of
the cheap ones.
They don't produce an image by putting dots on a page.
You simply can't compare a dye sub image to a dot matrix or inkjet image
with any degree of fairness to either process. They are entirely different
processes.

The R800 Epson was probably the pinnacle of development of consumer grade
inkjet printers... When it was introduced nearly three years ago. Today it
is just another photo printer. 300 PPI from a continuous tone printer is
more value than 2400 DPI from an inkjet that by it's very nature bleeds from
the dots and needs to have overlapping dots in every direction to compensate
for that. The "native resolution" of Epson dot matrix printers is 360 or 720
DPI, depending on the model.

Epson's marketing jargon is verging on deception. Their description of DPI
is in itself a false representation of the matrix used to make a print. For
a dot matrix printer to print a line one dot high, it must overlap the dots
by 50%. This in itself might be printing at 720 DPI but the result is only
360 DPI when each one is only putting 50% of it's size on bare paper. Also
Epson's description is linear, not area. 4800 DPI x 2400 DPI is how they
represent it then claim the printer is a 4800 DPI printer only because it
must lay down 4800 dots to produce an unbroken horizontal line. The platen
moves and the resolution halves.
--
Douglas,
Those who can, just do it.
Those who can't become bullies.
http://www.bullyonline.org

On Jun 4, 1:40 am, "Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number
wrote:
Annika1980 wrote:
Here's an actual sized crop from a photo I took today:
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/79898815/original


I just posted four 100% crops...800...1600...3200...6400.

**NOTE: Each "original" size file is about 0.8MB...
800:http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/79933906/original
1600:http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/79933903/original
3200:http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/79933904/original
6400:http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/79933905/original

I appreciate the effort that went into this, but next time I think you
should use a background with some color and avoid the flash.
Anything will look noise-free with a flash-lit subject and a black
background. Now go take a flower pic or something that will truly show
off your new baby.

P.S. I hate you.

Annika1980 wrote:
On Jun 4, 1:40 am, "Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number
wrote:
Annika1980 wrote:
Here's an actual sized crop from a photo I took today:
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/79898815/original


I just posted four 100% crops...800...1600...3200...6400.

**NOTE: Each "original" size file is about 0.8MB...
800:http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/79933906/original
1600:http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/79933903/original
3200:http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/79933904/original
6400:http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/79933905/original

I appreciate the effort that went into this, but next time I think you
should use a background with some color and avoid the flash.
Anything will look noise-free with a flash-lit subject and a black
background. Now go take a flower pic or something that will truly show
off your new baby.

P.S. I hate you.

I didn't use flash on those.
-Wasn't even a flash mounted on the camera.
Look at the exposure times...

I agree that the black background doesn't offer the best subject for
judging... Have a look at the top, shadowed part of the ball and you'll see
some of the noise characteristics.

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

Annika1980 wrote:
On Jun 4, 1:40 am, "Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number
wrote:
Annika1980 wrote:
Here's an actual sized crop from a photo I took today:
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/79898815/original


I just posted four 100% crops...800...1600...3200...6400.

**NOTE: Each "original" size file is about 0.8MB...
800:http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/79933906/original
1600:http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/79933903/original
3200:http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/79933904/original
6400:http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/79933905/original

I appreciate the effort that went into this, but next time I think you
should use a background with some color and avoid the flash.
Anything will look noise-free with a flash-lit subject and a black
background. Now go take a flower pic or something that will truly show
off your new baby.

P.S. I hate you.

No flash.
The 800 ISO shot, for example, was a 1.6 second exposure.

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

Mark² lowest even number here wrote:
Annika1980 wrote:
Here's an actual sized crop from a photo I took today:
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/79898815/original

This was shot with my 20D at ISO 800.
This is a straight conversion from the RAW file with no other post-
processing done in Photoshop. To me, that looks like outstanding low-
noise performance from an ISO 800 shot. I want to see some samples
from the 1DMKIII at high ISO settings.
Preferably, something similar with a smooth OOF background where noise
would be obvious.

Get to it, PW!

BTW, I'd hate you less if you e-mailed me some RAW files shot with
your new cammy.

I just posted four 100% crops...800...1600...3200...6400.

There are jpegs, straight from the camera. I didn't use RAW conversion,
simply because that can introduce variables. Personally, I am very pleased
with the high ISO performance. -See what you think...

**There is a bit of texture to the felt...so I'll probably have to post
another set with a better subject.

Noise becomes obvious at 6400, but is amazingly restrained at all levels
(basically non-existent at 800).
See below:

**NOTE: Each "original" size file is about 0.8MB...
800:
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/79933906/original
1600:
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/79933903/original
3200:
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/79933904/original
6400:
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/79933905/original

There is noticeably progressive detail diminshment going up in ISO,
but the results are still astonishing.
6400 properly exposed (note dark area) is eminently usable.

dennis@home wrote:
"frederick" wrote in message
news:1180952308.400811@ftpsrv1...

The R800 is 4800 x 1440 dpi. The droplets under a microscope are
oblong-shaped - not round.

Are you saying it can put down drops in adjacent positions.. I don't believe
it can.

No - the individual droplets on the paper are not round.
IIRC the variable droplet piezo head allows 9 droplet sizes not four, and
the printer uses six colours, not 4 or 7.

It uses 7 including black. the Eighth one is a gloss coating.

No - it uses only six colours. There are two black cartridges, and only
one is used at any given time.
You assume that droplet placement is adjacent - never overlapped.

If you overlap them by much you get inferiour colours so I don't see why
they would overlap them unless they couldn't avoid it.

How large do you think these droplets are? You assume also that the
droplet is 100% opaque, which is not the case.

There's no doubt whatsoever that 300 lines per inch vertical, a little
less than that horizontal, and around 250 lines per inch radial half tones
are resolved from sufficiently high resolution input. That isn't possible
with a 300dpi printer of any kind.
If you'd have bothered to look at the link I posted, there was a
microphotograph with the text "For reference, block 2-4 is 5.6 lpm".
5.6 lpmm is about 142 lines per inch. In theory a dye sub might be able
to achieve that, in practice probably not. They conclude from their tests
that around 10lpmm is achievable, somewhere around 500dpi equivalent.
That's similar to what I got.

That test doesn't represent real life photographs BTW it lacks tones

It did in my test, and half tone 400dpi is resolved. It won't with any
dye sub. Actual resolution was affected by half tones and by line
orientation. Regardless of that, minimum practical achievable
resolution was (much) more than 300dpi.

"frederick" wrote in message
news:1180988957.681921@ftpsrv1...


How large do you think these droplets are? You assume also that the
droplet is 100% opaque, which is not the case.

Not pigment inks then?
I thought epson made a big thing about using pigment inks , which tend to be
opaque.

dennis@home wrote:
"frederick" wrote in message
news:1180988957.681921@ftpsrv1...


How large do you think these droplets are? You assume also that the
droplet is 100% opaque, which is not the case.

Not pigment inks then?
I thought epson made a big thing about using pigment inks , which tend to be
opaque.

Relatively opaque, compared to soluble dyes, but no - not opaque.