Yes.  That, and more.  Now supported are 16 bit/channel TGA, BMP, PNG, "per-channel" TIFF files from PhotoShop, and other previously not supported flavors of those and other formats.  No change to PSD since Adobe doesn't support that format any more.

Mike

http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage

v2010.204     03/07/10     

Priority: Low     

v2010.204 supports a much wider range of formatting options with regard to image formats like TIFF, PNG, TGA, BMP, etc.

Mike

That is correct ..... BUT ....
.... When Qimage "Printer icc" is set to OFF, the print is NOT colour managed and therefore the image profile is irrelevant.

"No Colour Adjustment" is the DRIVER setting, not Qimage. Setting from within Qimage just means that Qimage remembers it.

Printing a target is a special case where the driver has to be set to "No Colour Adjustment" and "Printer icc" is set to OFF in Qimage.

When printing an image and the printer profile activated in Qimage and "Printer icc" set to ON, it is important that the DRIVER is set exactly the same as the it was for the target print,  No Colour Adjustment, paper type and print quality etc.
"No Colour Adjustment" is required for colour managed printing so that the conversion process Qimage does is not corrupted by the driver. In other words, double profiling in some form is prevented.

BTW. your English is very good  Keep the questions coming if mine is not 
Terry.

I looked into those too... a year ago.  They are awful for photographs!  They only work for pixel art (games and graphics with predictable line boundaries).  In photos they produce pronounced artifacts because they try to make connections that don't exist in the more random world of photographs versus the predictable world of computer graphics.

Mike

That was my initial reaction.  I believe we've gone about as far as we can go with photographic interpolation algorithms.  Some are a little sharper than the "hybrid" method in Qimage, but generally when you try to shoot for very sharp edges in a "random" photograph like some of the sharper algorithms do, you end up with a photo that looks a little more like a charcoal drawing than a photo.  The reason is that you've broken the relationship between sharpness and image size because there simply isn't enough data in the original to determine whether or not those edges should really be that sharp.  It's a balance, really, but you can't get something for (from) nothing.  The super-sharp edge detection algorithms do work well for non-photographic images like computer graphics (pie charts, screen shots, geometric 3D renderings, etc.).

I also have to say that there's less need for the super-refined interpolation algorithms these days than in the past.  Most people have cameras that have enough pixels to do the job.  The emphasis now is on proper sizing for printing so that you get the most of the pixels you do have, regardless of how many.  Of course, that's what the smart sharpening in Qimage is designed to do.

Mike

Hello everyone,

This is my first post here, I'm using Qimage for a few months now, to prepare my Photobooks for printing (I make full page JPEG that I send to the photobook printing company).

I make for example 30 cm * 30 cm pages @ 300 dpi, with 1 or several photos on it, and use Print to File function.

On my last book I saw that some of my images were not perfectly aligned together, or in some cases the alignments are OK, but I have 3 photos on 1 page and there is more space between photo 1 & 2 than between photo 2 & 3.
(I saw this on the JPEGs before sending them)

On my pages in Qimage, all the photos are supposed to be aligned if I look at the "print location area".
The problem is that this information shows only precision to 1 mm, and with 300 dpi, 1 mm makes nearly 12 pixels...
So there can be 1-2 pixels misalignments without any ability to see them in Qimage.

All this would be much easier if there was a possibility to have more precise information than 1 mm.
Is this possible? If no, will it be possible in the future?

First of all, thanks to all who replied, and for all your suggestions. I've been ill the past two weeks & was unable to  reply further. Since I've been home, I tried all suggestions and finally  discovered that  the default color controls in the Epson driver simply don't provide enough tint to be noticeable on my printer, with my paper, and in my viewing conditions, I settled on Sepia, Dark, H=75 V=0. these give me a very, very subtle sepia tint, but at least now, it is noticeable, and I can tell the difference between Sepia & B/W prints side by side. If I need a darker tint, I'll do it in PS and print using the Epson Color Mode. Again, many thanks for your help.

Jack

Hey Ray and Mike,

Check this youtube video out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4Rrsfe__yU .

I have this in mind. Here they use an ink based printer.

Is it possible that we could change the orientation of a thermal printer and make it print like that.

Cheers,
Oj

I can't work out how to obtain print resolutions below the "LOW-300 PPI" setting without completely turning off interpolation. This is on a PC running Windows 7 and QImage v2010.111. I would like to be able to have QImage print at 200 or 150 PPI.

When I used to run QImage on Win XP, 300 PPI was the highest resolution setting and I could select lower settings such as 150 PPI. But under Win 7 300 PPI is the lowest resolution available.

I need to be able to print panoramas at lower resolution because my printer driver (HP B9180) can't handle large images at high resolution.

Thanks

Note that Photoshop (CS4) only performs devicelink conversion in the same colour space, i.e. RGB->RGB, but not RGB->CMYK

Thanks and best regards,
Auke

Dear all,

I would very much appreciate it if QImage would support device link ICC profiles (as CS4 does).

Any chance of implementing it?

Thanks and greetings,
Auke Nauta

two files are to be printed on one page and one file is srgb and the other is argb?