Mike Chaney's Tech Corner
August 08, 2020, 12:18:44 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Feb 2013: Qimage Ultimate Challenges... have fun and explore features!
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  

Professional ICC Profiling Software for Windows
Create custom ICC profiles with
Profile Prism for accurate color!
Pages: 1 2 [3]
  Print  
Author Topic: v2017.115 issues/comments  (Read 13573 times)
MelW
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 283


View Profile Email
« Reply #30 on: January 25, 2017, 02:47:39 PM »


It appears that you have borderless printing set with that expanded resolution. 720ppi is the normal "native resolution" for Epson printers. The higher quality values in the driver are printer ink dots per inch, not the same as pixels.
Terry


Of course on both counts! Not sure where my brain was on that.  Thanks for refreshing.
Logged
ColinS
Newbie
*
Posts: 4


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: February 02, 2017, 10:09:52 PM »

Since upgrading to 2017.115, It always starts with Print to file as the default. instead of my actual system default - Epson 7900. I cannot locate the way to change this. The upgrade also lost all of my old settings. I had to set it up again. Any help here please?
Logged
Fred A
Forum Superhero
*****
Posts: 5303



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #32 on: February 03, 2017, 10:07:25 AM »

Quote
Since upgrading to 2017.115, It always starts with Print to file as the default. instead of my actual system default - Epson 7900. I cannot locate the way to change this. The upgrade also lost all of my old settings. I had to set it up again. Any help here please?

Hi Colin,
You didn't say what you upgraded from what to what, but as a rule QU never changes driver settings. As a matter of fact, for many years, it was the only software that remembered them.

OK, Colin this is very easy to set as you want Qimage Ultimate  to open, but not easy by typing, so bear with me.
Feel free to ask for clarification anytime.

1) Open QU and reset anything to any condition that you wish to have present when you open Qimage from now on.

This includes the Print to Printer as well as which printer, paper, size paper, profile, default print size, etc.

2) See screen snap attached       Click on the gear wheel icon up top left, and get rid of the yellow padlock.  Snap 048

3) Recheck that all is in order, snap 050

4) Click that same icon again and a box will open asking you to choose current settings or previous.  See snap 049 and 051

5) Choose CURRENT  settings and the padlock will return, signifying that you new setup is the locked in default.

Best I can do on first try

Fred

Logged
Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 394


View Profile Email
« Reply #33 on: June 01, 2017, 10:56:39 AM »

I don't think you are going to see a difference on matte paper because the surface is too rough and absorbent for fine dot placement.  The new overdrive feature is good for lenticular printing, photo telescope keychains, high res line diagrams, pano (stitched) photos at relatively small sizes (one sheet), and other types of printing that require magnification or high precision.  Once you get to 600 or 720 PPI, you're not likely to notice an increase in print detail going to 1200 or 1440 (overdrive) just by casual side-by-side observation.  Close examination of sharp edges or details like tree bark though, even with the unaided eye, will reveal some differences with sharper edges and more detail on the OD prints... provided you have an image with enough pixels to begin with.

If you want to test out the new overdrive printing, keep this in mind.  You need enough pixels in the original image to render actual detail at or near the overdrive resolution.  Let's say you have a Canon or HP that uses 600 PPI as its native resolution.  And let's say you have an 18 megapixel dSLR (pretty good for today's mid level dSLR cameras), so your camera produces images around 5000 x 3500 pixels.  At that resolution, any print larger than about 6x8 inches means you have less than 600 PPI of original image information to work with.  Even printing a 6x8 inch print where you have about 600 PPI "worth of" image pixels to work with, you won't see much difference printing that at 1200 PPI because bumping the resolution that high means that 75% of the data in that 1200 PPI print is going to be interpolated.

So if you want to see a difference with overdrive, print small... not large.  Take a typical 16-18 megapixel photo that has a lot of sharp detail such as fine grass, tree bark, concrete texture, high contrast fenceposts with black/white detail like shadows, etc. and print it at 4x6 or (at most) 5x7.  Or maybe download a B/W resolution test chart (and again, print it small).  Then you should be able to see a difference under close examination of details.

Finally, unless you have millenial eyes, your eyes are likely to give out before 600 PPI so use some mild magnifiers (reading glasses) to see the difference.  The new feature is not so much about "blow you away" side-by-side comparisons but rather more geared toward making sure you get 100% out of your printer because, well... why not: produce the best prints possible and then you don't need to worry about how closely they'll be scrutinized later.  Smiley

Regards,
Mike

Hello Mike,

The grass etc images you mention with several resolution levels, texture, branches, trees, so to speak. Suppose you have one of them, a 700/800 PPI image at 1:1 print size, and use the Overdrive 1200 PPI mode to print on the best gloss paper, printer heads aligned on a sheet of the paper as a first step. Which extrapolation mode and print sharpening should make the best of that Overdrive setting? I guess this should aim at the sharpening of specific cycles/mm resolutions like textures can have, lower contrasts, the method used pulling with the lower frequency ones up as well.

I have my reservations on what is so special in Ming Thein's "Ultraprint" that can not be done carefully with Qimage Ultimate and possibly some additional software. "The why not" aiming at a perfect print is what interests me and how different gloss papers behave at that level. If there is a 'mythical"depth added to the print I would not complain either.

Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots
Logged
admin
Administrator
Forum Superhero
*****
Posts: 3110



View Profile Email
« Reply #34 on: June 01, 2017, 01:46:10 PM »

I've never heard of Ultraprint but in looking at the web page, I don't see that it is doing anything that Qimage doesn't do.  In fact, I don't know if Ultraprint uses a sharpening as sophisticated as DFS to avoid artifacts or if it automatically adjusts that sharpening based on original image resolution versus print size, and so on.  In Qimage, you only need to leave it set to "Fusion" interpolation and leave the print sharpening set at whatever level you normally use (I always use the default 5) and Qimage takes care of the rest.

Resolution is already limited by hardware and media and with today's printers, it comes down to the paper surface more than anything.  On the Ultraprint site, there appear to be scans of sections a little larger than 1 inch x 1 inch showing print detail.  I'm confident Qimage can do as good or better at those levels and it wouldn't require doing anything "carefully": just print.

I don't know if you've seen my own scans comparing normal 600 PPI printing versus overdrive where I show scans zoomed more than 4x more than those on the Ultraprint website (my scans are about 6mm across compared to the Ultraprint examples which are 28+mm across):

http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage-u/tech-prt.htm

As a point of calibration, if you hold those normal/overdrive prints as close as you can focus with the unaided eye, you can only discern a difference if you are told where to look and what to look for and then, just barely.  The difference only becomes obvious when you examine the print with a 10x loupe.  So for normal photo prints, Qimage already goes beyond what the eye can see.  The Overdrive option was more for people doing specialized printing like lenticular prints that require precise line patterns and prints that are viewed under magnification.

Mike
Logged
Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 394


View Profile Email
« Reply #35 on: June 01, 2017, 04:38:42 PM »

I've never heard of Ultraprint but in looking at the web page, I don't see that it is doing anything that Qimage doesn't do.  In fact, I don't know if Ultraprint uses a sharpening as sophisticated as DFS to avoid artifacts or if it automatically adjusts that sharpening based on original image resolution versus print size, and so on.  In Qimage, you only need to leave it set to "Fusion" interpolation and leave the print sharpening set at whatever level you normally use (I always use the default 5) and Qimage takes care of the rest.

Resolution is already limited by hardware and media and with today's printers, it comes down to the paper surface more than anything.  On the Ultraprint site, there appear to be scans of sections a little larger than 1 inch x 1 inch showing print detail.  I'm confident Qimage can do as good or better at those levels and it wouldn't require doing anything "carefully": just print.

I don't know if you've seen my own scans comparing normal 600 PPI printing versus overdrive where I show scans zoomed more than 4x more than those on the Ultraprint website (my scans are about 6mm across compared to the Ultraprint examples which are 28+mm across):

http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage-u/tech-prt.htm

As a point of calibration, if you hold those normal/overdrive prints as close as you can focus with the unaided eye, you can only discern a difference if you are told where to look and what to look for and then, just barely.  The difference only becomes obvious when you examine the print with a 10x loupe.  So for normal photo prints, Qimage already goes beyond what the eye can see.  The Overdrive option was more for people doing specialized printing like lenticular prints that require precise line patterns and prints that are viewed under magnification.

Mike

Thank you Mike,

I have seen your scans several times. Paper surfaces is what I expect will make the difference + properly aligned printers. My bare eyes will not notice much improvement but nevertheless. The Ultraprint link is there as on another forum, another thread, a claim was uttered that Ultraprint "resolved" 720 PPI on the paper. Seemed to me that someone takes the Epson driver specs as the reference, my estimation is that 450 PPI is closer to what actually appears on good glossy papers, already beyond the 300 PPI needed at a foot viewing distance. With the few target tests I did with Overdrive compared to the 600 PPI HP Z3200 mode I see some interesting things, positive mainly but I have to examine them more.

et vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots
Logged
admin
Administrator
Forum Superhero
*****
Posts: 3110



View Profile Email
« Reply #36 on: June 01, 2017, 05:43:08 PM »

Sounds about right.  In my own testing, I've found that the best papers can resolve somewhere between 700 and 900 PPI.  Any program (even PhotoShop if you take the time to upres to exactly the optimal resolution and you apply careful sharpening) can do that.  But remember that it's a bit of a battle with the hardware.  The Z3200 is 2400x1200 native DPI which means that even at 600 PPI, the printer can only lay down 8 dots for each pixel in that 600 PPI.  Each of those 8 dots can be one of maybe a few dozen colors at most so you won't be able to get full color even at 600 PPI.

When most people talk in terms of "resolve", they test with black and white alternating line pairs.  In that instance, the printer either lays down a black dot or it doesn't.  In simple cases like that (B/W res charts) you can push the resolving power of the printer because it really only takes one printer dot to produce black and you don't have to clump many together in order to emulate a certain subtle shade.

Mike
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!