If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
BETTER THAN THIS? *Some 100% crops*
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. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
BETTER THAN THIS? *Some 100% crops*
"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? |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
BETTER THAN THIS? *Some 100% crops*
"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 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
BETTER THAN THIS? *Some 100% crops*
On Jun 4, 1:40 am, "MarkČ" 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. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
BETTER THAN THIS? *Some 100% crops*
Annika1980 wrote:
On Jun 4, 1:40 am, "MarkČ" 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 MarkČ at: www.pbase.com/markuson |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
BETTER THAN THIS? *Some 100% crops*
Annika1980 wrote:
On Jun 4, 1:40 am, "MarkČ" 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 MarkČ at: www.pbase.com/markuson |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
BETTER THAN THIS? *Some 100% crops*
MarkČ 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. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
BETTER THAN THIS? *Some 100% crops*
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. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
BETTER THAN THIS? *Some 100% crops*
"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. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
BETTER THAN THIS? *Some 100% crops*
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|