[/quote]

So the "Learn by Example 6a" incorrectly states that Qimage will print posters (without the margin) on roll feed capable printers?

Thank you/
[/quote]

I wrote that reply because you mentioned an HP model in your second message and Fred wrote that any printer with a roll option is compatible.
I guess 95% of the printers with a roll option and a Windows driver will be compatible with Qimage's very nice Poster/Tiles feature but the HP Z models are not compatible. I have no knowledge whether that stretches to your HP printer but it could so I mentioned the Z model's handicap.

The Z models can print very long prints if they have the optional HPGL2 driver or belong to the -PS category, otherwise they stay below 109" print length.

Epsons + Canons with roll feed will be compatible.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/

There is no banner mode on the HP Z3100 or Z3200 with the PCL3 drivers. The drivers have roll mode and the printers use rolls. The roll mode is not compatible with Qimage's Poster/Tiles method as described in Learn by Example 6a. Between the tiles a double margin of 5 mm is placed = a white band of 10 mm give or take one mm.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/

For archiving and the source more than 8 bit I will store them at 16 bit.
Pity though that a compressed 16 bit Tiff file is larger than the uncompressed one.
In that sense PNG does a better job.
For some reason I never archive PSD files.
The scanned format is Tiff, off the camera it is RAW + a JPG.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/

Uncompressed Tiff 8 bit without layers is what I send to the print server with Qimage installed. They will be destroyed when no longer needed so compression isn't necessary, it would be wasting time. They load without problems. The Photoshop (virtual) size is recognised in Tiffs (and JPG) if needed. There's no risk that a lossy compression destroys information like can happen with JPG. I find it the most reliable format in most cases. PNG would have my preference if it was supported properly by more applications.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/

Terry,

What you describe is what used to be the case since the aspect ratio bug was removed. The crop would fill out to the length of the strip and cut on the other dimension. Like Auto cropping still does and in that sense not usable like I wrote before. Since 104 however it is only cut off on the shorter print page dimension and keeps the original image size on the other dimension as selected on loading. A crop 1:1 on the scale to the final print.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/

Mike, in one word: Perfect!

One or more patches from one image or more images. Forgot to add the crop movement possible. Fast and reliable. Less wasted paper in the world. Thank you.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/

Fred,

Isn't it a sign that noone else participated in this thread because it is a complex route to get your test strip crops done, especially if things are not falling in the sheets on a desktop machine category? Could it be that they just throw 4 smaller images on a sheet and consider that a proof because it is more of a hassle through that test print feature? Or just set a smaller size on the full width of the sheet and print half a crop and the next time the other half. Where I refer to that trinity thing it is in the sense that you are reassuring one another that it is good while I think that there are users that need Qimage for another kind of jobs than you are used to. For example depend more on the test strip function while it may not work well for them. So not holy but then the three high on a mountain.

The same goes for the Original Size subject. We have been there before.  I get all kinds of images from people. I could get a list of formats for every image that I have to print and apply the sizes in Qimage. It is just easier and delivers less faults when I get the files with the sizes they have to have in the print. And like I explained to Terry in the past you can add a size to an image in Photoshop without a resampling done. Nothing degrades that way, no flexibility in Qimage is lost. I even suggest that it would be a nice feature for Qimage to add that virtual size in inches or cm. It is nothing more than that. It is also easier for repeat jobs.  We have lost Qimage logs in the past when the default was still on the last 100 jobs. A Tiff that has the size attached at least tells me what size it probably has been. Then there is the educational aspect, a customer that has to fix the size in Photoshop is confronted with the aspect ratio. If he calls me that a 50x65 cm print must be printed at a size 110x90 cm I have to explain him that something has to be compromised. If he does it himself then he can take the time to think it over when that 110 side doesn't deliver a 90 cm side in rescaling. Next time I ask him to add 10 cm borders and he knows then that that changed the total aspect ratio. And I tell them not to resample.

I'm not a Photoshop advocate, I have some issues with its CM and never touch its printing side. I advocate Qimage on other lists. Do a search on my name and Qimage. That has been going on for at least 6 years. In this list however I ask how things have to be done and what I see as possible extentions and what doesn't work for me. Next to more general help I give from time to time. I'm not the guy to preach to the choir on Qimage's merits. I thank Mike for solutions made that help me too.

Terry's excercises in canvas wrap land could have happened three years ago. And I probably would have been supportive in defining them and trying them out. I asked for that feature then but it wasn't honored for yet unclear reasons. The reasons mentioned lost their value three weeks ago it seems. I wouldn't have made the Canvas Wrap Actions in PS then but I needed them so I made them. Been there so to speak. Have been using them for 3 years and more people use them, Qimage users among them. They do what is needed for canvas printing on wide formats.

I wasn't offended by your help but like the scout that helps the old lady to the other side of the street it helps to listen first where the other one wants to go and take that serious. The solutions you have may not work for the other person. I have respect for your efforts to help people and from time to time I learn something and use it. But not all your solutions are mine and I'm sure it is the same the other way around. A healthy situation that that is possible in Qimage.

I think when Mike calls what I have been struggling with a bug then there must have been something wrong in the tool provided. Maybe something I could define in this thread.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

Dinkla Gallery Canvas Wrap Actions for Photoshop
http://www.pigment-print.com/dinklacanvaswraps/index.html

Mike,

Yes, I think we are back on the subject. First time I see you write that it is considered a bug and may get solved. I have tried your temporary solution but I do not know what makes the difference between your system and mine. With original size and metric units it doesn't obey your rules. In that case I'll wait for the bug solution and use my temporary solution.

The straighten horizon feature looks alright to me, yesterday and today.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/

Mike,


Ever wondered why this topic activated you, Terry and Fred and nobody else at that side of the fence and only two at the other side?

Could it be that this feature is hardly used for some reason and not at all to the grade Fred had to search for in the manual?

I have not seen a list of requests that was promised a year or so ago. Maybe a poll on urgency of the requests and a poll on what users would like to see changed in existing features? It is entirely true that you are open for requests and discussions but at some point you find it very hard to recognise some logic in the arguments of others if it doesn't follow your predestined path.

That trinity thing you three have there may not be so healthy for Qimage after all. That is just a personal opinion of course.



met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/

Terry,

The thread started with an aspect ratio action whether it was a bug or a feature is another thing. That has been removed now. There still are issues with deformed previews though. And crops that stick to the filed image.

Whether you use Original Image or a Custom Size, if one of the print page dimensions is overlapped by the selected image size and the other one not you do not get a crop on the intended size but a fill to the print page size + a crop. In all the examples of how it has to be done by Mike, Terry and Fred that is ignored as the choices are presented as either having the two print page dimensions larger or smaller than the image size choice. Just ignoring that problem doesn't help. Calling it the wrong sequence doesn't help either. It delivers no deformation but it doesn't deliver what is needed either

If you want to print an image on a wide format you will fit the image for 99% of the jobs within the size of the roll. That's why you bought a wide format. If you need a proof and it is time consuming to unload the roll you will use a strip of the roll. 3 inches is a nice size, it can be 4 inches too. That is not the problem. But if you use a strip for just one proof then use the total area of it as much as possible while keeping the 1:1 scale relation to the intended print, not the aspect ratio. To keep it simple use the total width of that roll, easy to recall a setting like that. The image however will fall within the total of that roll, that is why you bought a wide format. The image will be larger than the proof crop in the roll length dimension, 3 or 4 inch isn't much. So it will be larger in one dimension and smaller in the other dimension. And you will get the fit to page + crop you don't want.  The people in the know have shown all kinds of methods to avoid that and I can think of other methods too along that line. It is all tedious: repeating crop size reductions, setting new print page dimensions, another step to get that crop from another area of the image etc. It doesn't offer the proofs from more images on one test strip in an easy way either. Or what happens in practice too: more patches from one image printed on one proof print.

I can not create all that with Qimage's Thumbnail Actions Filter either but it goes a long way. An inclined test crop is even possible with straighten horizon tool. Changes the 1:1 resolution but I think not the original size relation. Have to test that. That tool with a mm or inch addition is all we need for proofing on a wide format.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/

Fred,

You mean in the Thumbnail Actions filter menu? I have been there before I asked the question. It is a real wizard on aspect ratios but doesn't do what I want. I like to pull a crop as flexible as possible and get direct eye feedback where it crops and on top of that it would be nice to have the actual size in mm's or inches based on original size data in the info that pops up when the crop is pulled. Or if that reduces speed add it in the info bars at the right when the crop lines are not pulled.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/

Is it impossible to add the display of metric or imperial sizes of Tiffs and JPEGs in the Thumbnail Actions Filter when a crop is made ?  The size in pixels is displayed, the crop in pixels and the aspect ratio of the crop. As the original size is known of Tiffs and Jpegs most of the time it shouldn't be that difficult I guess. It would be handy in more cases than making proof crops. If there is no size recognised then a ? would be enough.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/

I have made a printing shortcut in the HP driver for a specific paper, roll width, print page size (the last with its own "test strip" name). I have made the corresponding settings for that test print strip in Qimage and saved them. When I recall the settings in Qimage the printer driver does what it should do. There has been a time it didn't but several software and firmware upgrades in the last years did wonders to the interaction of the Z models and Qimage.

I use the Thumbnail Action crop on one or more images and guesstimate the size that fits with Original Size set. Goes quite good but as written, feedback of the crop size in mm's would be nice. That should be possible with Tiffs an Jpegs. Print and take the filters off the images again when finished or shift the crop to another spot if needed for the next proof. After that enlarge the print page or do a recall on a similar job made before the proof.

I have no objection to longer strips for proof prints. It often is reproduction work and quite big. The original is here too and at the same size. Confidence grows if the strip is on the original and no nasty color or tone differences are visible along the strip. Call it a crosscut proof. Of course this can be varied in size and one selects the parts that matter.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/

Terry and Fred,

Thank you but it isn't a solution in my shop.

Terry, I don't think a wrong sequence should exist then.

If I follow Terry's path I can do one test strip print in the time I can do 5 crops with the Thumbnail Action Crop and I only have to change paper settings in the driver once + I can drop several test crops on that print page strip. More flexible, faster. less wasted paper and still a 1:1 crop.

Fred, replace yourself in what I need on a wide format with a roll loaded. I like it that you loaded the 9800 driver but the physical printer with a roll loaded is the reason that I went that path. It takes a lot of time to set a large print page in the driver for the sequence Terry gives, unload the roll on the Z3200, load a sheet, change the driver settings for that sheet and print and then return the roll physically + driver settings again to do the total print. The minimum size of a sheet on this machine is an 21 x 35 cm approx. The minimum size of a strip off a 44" roll is 112 x 7.6 cm. That is almost equal in size. Smaller rolls, less waste.

I'm quite happy with the Thumbnail Action crop now. Maybe nothing has to be changed on the Full Page Edit crop tools with you guys around for advice but for me it will become a white area on the map again. Taking too much time, too complex and bound for failure the way I work. I was simply on the wrong track. Sorry about disturbing the peace with the bug reports.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/

Fred,


There's no need to explain to me that I want a proof print at 1:1. It is exactly what I asked for.

We all arrived at the conclusion that it works in the Page Edit menu if both dimensions of the print page are smaller or larger than the image is. It doesn't work however when only one dimension is. And that is what I wanted with a strip of a wide roll on a wide printer as the destination of the proof crop. I get that right now with the Thumbnail Action crop. A very good feature that spares the image data in good old Qimage fashion. Could be improved to excellent with mm feedback from the image data on cropping time.

My advice is to grey out the crop functions in the Full Page Edit window if only one dimension of the print page is short. There's no need to weed out bugs for a non functional feature. Nobody ever reported the bugs as they probably realised that it didn't bring them what they sought either. That you, Fred, had to dig in the manual for its features is another indication. Any warning there to use it only with both dimensions in the same condition?
The cropping steps are nice if you work with a desktop model and put in what normally would be wasted paper. On wide formats that isn't so handy. Try the cropping steps in some conditions that are buggy: one dimension to short and original size. Look what happens.

Putting a saw on a dead branch can help the tree and prevent accidents.

Back to business again.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/