This is popping up randomly while in 215.

Cannot open file: "C:\ProgramData\ddisoftware\Qimage\{q}work4.{q}".
The system cannot find the file specified.

 

Mack

Read the thing about pRGB as part of version 213.

In Photoshop, is that the same as "Printer RGB"?  I see no pRGB in PS CS6 as a choice (I did find it in the Qimage folder and hit Install), and I see it installed in the Windows>System32>Spool>Drivers>Colors as pRGB and another Printer RGB in there both.

If pRGB is the same as "Printer RGB," do I assign "Printer RGB" in PS since pRGB doesn't show there?

Tia.

Mack

Thanks Mike.

Found it under "Page Layout" in the Epson driver.  They buried in pretty well.

Epson sure screwed up on that addition.  I couldn't get the "Same as paper size" suggested at first as it is not in the pull downs.  Seems if I unchecked the default (?) "Reduce/Enlarge" and "Fit to page radio" button in the Epson Page Layout window, then it automatically puts "Same as paper size" in the Output Paper window.

I also noticed while fiddling in there and "Paper Size" showed "US B 11 x17" and I put "US B 11 x 17" in the "Output Paper" size box so both were the same, the left pop-out pane showed it reducing output down 98% even though both are the same size paper now?  Epson sure messed up that thing!

back to printing....

Mack

Cut 11x17 canvas (Okay 11.25" for trimming).  Set QU (ver. 2014.212) up to "Fit to Page."  Seemed okay on the right pane in QU.

However, the print came out maybe 6.5 x 8 on the canvas, even though "Fit to Page" was checked?

Screenshot (attached) shows the image and the size fitting (Page: 16.995 x 10.995 in.), but the output canvas (attached JPG) differed?

Ideas before I waste another sheet of canvas?


Mack

Mike, if I read your math right, the small "p" is off my 21 step chart.  Those are fixed whole numbers so Step 1 is p1, Step 2 is p2 etc. on the X-axis.

If I do the table I get this:

P0: p0                 = 0
P1: p1*0.75 + p2*0.25   = (0.75)+(0.50)  P1=1.25   i.e. (Step 1*0.75) + (Step 2*0.25) for a Qimage LOC # = 1.25     Can't input that into QU.  Rounds down to 1 only.
P2: p2*0.50 + p3*0.50   = (1.0)+(1.50)   P2=2.50    Drops down to LOC=2
P3: p3*0.25 + p4*0.75   = (0.75)+(3.00)  P3=3.75   Drops down to LOC=3
P4: p5         =    = P4 or LOC4 = Step 5
P5: p6*0.75 + p7*0.25   = (4.5)+(1.75)    P5=6.25

... etc.

Seems to be dependent on some other step than the single one I want to address, and also altering its neighbor, aside from the decimal part?

Somehow I can't see how 21 'whole numbers' off a step wedge reading can be fitted to 17 'whole number' LOC steps without some sort of decimal in the mix too?

Was trying to do this in a spreadsheet and got a math headache.  Ugh! 

______________________

Aside:

I'll attach a sample 21 step wedge (converted) JPG, but I need to reverse the Black to Zero and White to 21 for use in Qmage.  What usually happens with some cheap printers the blacks get bunched up around the 18-21 scale in the JPG.  I think my Canon 9000 II falls into the "cheap" category (Hence the need to do a quick bump off the left side of the Curve in QU as above), and the Epson 3880 addresses the issue a bit better with more balck shades of in.  Tuning the black shadows so they separate in the cheap Canon is a problem, and the i1 spectrometer tells me its blocked up too.  Just cannot refine it as well since the QU LOC range/scale is too compressed.

Don't know why 51 gray scale wedges is some big deal either, but those are out there.  Might be the 8-9 blacks in piezo inks may make the same "bunching up of black shadows" issue with a smaller 3 black inks 'color' printer; Somewhat like Canon 9000 II is to 3-black ink 3880 (Excluding the other Epson 3880 Photo Black or Matte Black since only one can be used at a time, along with the other Light Black and Medium Black.).

Keith Cooper's newest B&W Test Image has the 51 step wedge that is capable of being scanned with the i1 ColorPort software which might make it easier than reading all 51 steps individually.  Should be easier to dump the readings into a CRV file to read in the software or a spreadsheet that shows the linearization curve.  He also did a 21 step as well maybe for manual entry or the cheaper ColorMunki Photo.  Must be some standard since Kodak had 21 step wedge for decades, and Stouffer in the printer biz both.

Mack

Thanks Mike.  We're on the same page at least on the LOC numbers (0-16).

If there was an easy way to call in the 21 steps to the LOC to make it linear it would be great.  As it is, the spreadsheets that do this L*ab linearization stuff automatically take some step, like step 19 that goes off the straight line where all the others are dead on.  Then I have to try and figure out that gray scale step 19 (if it is towards the white end) a LOC 14 or 15 in Qimage's LOC's box?  It's really 14.48 if my math is right, but I cannot plug that in to the LOC as the scale is too small and fixed on whole numbers both.

If I could set say LOC=14.5 that would work, although takes me some math to get from that step tablet number of 19 into Qimage.  As it is, Qimage rounds down to 14 and it messes up that number which was correct based off the spectrometer's readings so that part of the curve now gets messed up when it was correct.  For piezo inks, it becomes a mess since it pulls in another gray ink tank out of 8-9 tanks.

Actually, even on a 51 step scale, if the linearization spreadsheet says step 49 is off, if I could plug in 15.4 into Qimage that would work even with the 0-16 current range in it now.  Problem with the 51 steps if a range of say 44-49 is off, then how to null it out without using a finer scale in the LOC axis range?

Some of these black inks are very finicky in the Qimage Curves I find as they also call in other colors to make them neutral.  That fading blot of Keith Cooper's newest B&W Test Image sure shows up banding if the tuning curve isn't spot on.

Aside, QuadToneRip (QTR) doesn't work well in newest Windows and Roy seems to have abandoned it to Apple/Mac as his Windows coder never updated his compilers for newer Window versions.  It allows for a lot of curve tuning in blacks and colors of ink, I think it did more than 51 steps and maybe more as it pulled in the spectrometer readings and adjusted the curve automatically.  Just it crashes a lot in Windows 8 and Roy cannot fix it so it is a very old version now.  Windows needs a new QTR B&W printer software of some sort (hint. hint.  ).

Anyway, food for thought.  0-16 with the ability to set 1.3 (example) would be better for fine tuning with these new 21 & 51 step tablets, just a bit more math work or a spreadsheet formula to correct for entry into Qimage LOC box.

Mack

Terry, I got that 0-16 LOC X-axis stuff.  However, it's too small of a range.

What I'd like to propose is at least 0-21 for that box so I can use the generic industry standard 21-step gray scales (Kodak & Stouffer) and now Keith's 21-step wedge to set the values read from those in Qimage.  I think even my i1Profiler uses a 21 step tablet in its Colorport section to read from.  With Qimage locked into such a small LOC value range of 0-16, I cannot do so.  As it is, blacks get bunched up and it's too hard to separate them with such a small 0-16 range to work within, so it needs a finer (or more available LOC numbers) range to work with.

I tried to do so by fooling it into a LOC=4.5 but it rounds down to 4 so I am stuck with 0-16 for any and all X-axis movements.  I need to apply more than 16 sets to the curve from these wedges to smooth out the tonality and make it linear.

I don't know what to make of the 51 step gray wedges, but they seem to be showing up more in digital land.  Especially in setting up the the 8 tanks of differing black and gray piezo inks.

Mack

 

In the LOC box (horizontal), I cannot enter 255, only goes up to 16?  Rounds down too for any whole number placed there too (e.g. 4.9 rounds down to 4, etc.).

The other boxes (Especially the OUT) I can which move the vertical part of the curve form 0-255 (Which makes that 0-16 LOC number on the curve darker or lighter in the print.).

***********************

Aside, I see today Keith Cooper released a new B&W Test Image with 51 steps of gray http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/bw_printing/bw-test-image-2.html, or another with 21 steps to set up linearization curves.  That's why I would like to see a LOC ability to set 21 steps instead of 16 since 21 seems to be some industry standard set by Kodak and Stouffer in the past.  51 is a bit much to put into Qimages Curves part manually - beside it not being able to do more than 16 in current state.

I also noted from the new test image above when I tried it today, the Epson printed and centered it fine in Qimage.  The Canon 9000 II shifted downwards a bit and the border was off at the end.  However, I think the Epson 3880 has a better sensor for the beginning of the paper feed so it might be a Canon engineering goof.  The Canon also didn't do well on the faded black spot near the A4 in the new K.C. test image either and produced some bad banding there where the Epson was smoother.  The Canon might go into the trashcan soon I I just replaced the head too and it still does it.  I suspect the Canon Pro-100 with the other two gray/black inks does better on B&W than the 9000 II which had a Green and Red ink and seems the Pro-100 is the same model, just they ditched the green and red for the two grays to make the gray step transition smoother (or do the "Curve kick" like I had to do above in Qimage.).


Mack

Terry, yes I "generally" enter the numbers via the keyboard: LOC, and the "Out" that moves the curve to where I want it after reading it into a linearity formula in a spreadsheet.  Either way, the LOC seems to change one entire number from 0-16 (17 numbers with zero included) with the mouse as well.

I tried to do something like 4.5 for a LOC which Qimage accepts, but it seems to round down to 4 doing that on the curve's line itself and wipes out my "Out" setting I used for LOC 4.  Even 4.9 rounds down to 4 on the curve too.  So I guess 0-16 is it and nothing else?

Most of the old Kodak and Stouffer calibration gray scale step-wedge targets use 21 steps of 5% each to set up print ink linearity.  The Qimage 16 step LOC seems odd, excluding zero is added making it 17 steps.  I'm not getting the tones to separate it that well in the dark areas with only 16 numbers.  Shadows, with the single black ink printers, seem to lose detail without fiddling with the 0-3 area of the LOC for me in Curve part of Qimage.

You can see in the screen capture above where the curve I used lifted the #2 out of darkness with the steep curve off the zero point (Made for the Canon printer.  Epson is fine, but it has more black inks too.).  Another LOC point down there would help.

Fwiw, "How to make and print a 21 step tablet in PS" is here: http://www.jnevins.com/stepwedge.htm  My Canon is showing me some odd colors in the middle too (yellow in some steps and magenta in others), but I could use the Curve and negate them in the RGB part individually I guess.  Epson is fine and seems to point to the need for more black inks too.

Mack

Terry, somewhere down the line ask Mike about adding at least 21 steps to the LOC window over 16 please.

I noticed with the Canon 9000 II printer that only has one black ink, I have to kick the black up at the dMax (black) end of the scale pretty quick in the Qimage Curve tool or else the black shadows get bunched up in there.  The Epson that has 3-4 blacks, I can get a smoother transition into the blacks (shadows) and leave the Curve alone once made with the i1 Profiler.

If I only use the Qimage default of 16 LOC steps, I cannot get a smooth black transition with one-black ink printers even using x-rite's i1 Profiler.  A 21-step gray tablet seems to be more helpful in getting the shadows back using the Curve tool, but it is finicky to do so with only 16 settings.

You can see a bit of the step tablet in my screenshot above where it goes from black (#1) to the next LOC step 2 using the odd Curve I made up for the Canon.  Without it, the tablet is black in steps 1-3 before showing a gray.


Mack

Ernst,  I've tried some of those online step gray scales for setting up linearity in the past on the Epson I have.  I must leave them in Adobe RGB 1998, or convert them to Adobe RGB 1998 which I have also done, else I get added (and often opposing) colors at the highlight and shadow ends of the scale, in even the B&W mode (ABW?) off the Epson driver sans Qimage.  The Epson driver has the capability of adding some sepia and other tones so it is adding some colors on its own - and even without using Qimage!

One time I lost a black due to a nozzle plug, and all I got was cyan or yellow even though it was a B&W image.  Thought it odd like a misplaced ink cart in the printer tray as it was a whole lot of color added for a B&W only like a bottle of yellow got spilled on white paper.  Printed enough B&W images one day to watch the color tanks go down a lot too.

So it's back to Adobe 1998 RGB (and convert it and save it to that color space if not), and no more B&W only as a space.  That's if I want a true neutral tone and color in a gray scale, and monitor be damned getting there on a print with the i1 PhotoPro 2 too.  If I can't control the color out of the tanks for B&W with the Epson driver alone, I might as well use them to my advantage, and only can do that with the color out of the Adobe 1998 RGB turned "On" in the image.

Look at all the issues with people who use QTR curves and colorations in their blacks if they don't do the full B&W ink swap out.  Printers are fickle machines! 

Mack

Fred,

Here is the screen snap.  Windows 8.1 64-bit if it matters.

Shows 96 clearly, then maybe 125 or 128, then 140 something (144?) in the pull-down.

Odd curve in the window is something I saved to pull up the shadow detail to make a step target more linear so I use that Curve part a lot.  Otherwise it goes to black too soon.  Would be nice if there were 21 spots (Instead of Loc. 16 across as it is now) for a generic 21-step calibration tablet too.  I made a 16 step especially for Qimage, but it's not as good for setting tonal linearity as I would like.  51 steps that is also out there is too much, imho.

Mack

In Editor (Tabs: Adjust, Levels, +Curves, Sel. Color) if I select "+Curves" check the "In" box with the up/down arrows.

I believe this box goes from blank, and 0 to 255, but the text of the numerals above 100 gets cut off making 255 look like 25 due to narrow column?


Mack

Thanks Terry.

I got it through Qimage via a down-rez out of CS6 to 30MB.  Person gave it to me on a DVD and it was a high DPI flatbed scanner TIFF image (2400 dpi I think it was?).  Never saw one that big before.

Could be CS6 was running in the background too when QU bongo-drummed prior to the error box going up.

Mack

Someone gave me a TIFF that is 1.4GB in size.  Biggest I've seen.

Qimage grunted, played some bongo drums, and threw up the error box about not being able to print it.  I could see the file in Windows Preview though.

I'm down-rezzing it now in CS6 which pulled it up, albeit slowly.

Tia.

Mack