#Printer vs Screen Res.
26 messages in this thread
Ed,
I've noticed the same thing about smaller files printing equally as well as
larger ones. However, it just seems odd that a 1600×2400 file doesn't print
twice as nicely as an 800×1200 image even when the printer is capable of
resolutions as high as 720 dpi.
Thanks,
Don
Don,
How are you saving your files? TGA's are around 752×480. The limitation is the
printer. Anything larger than 720×720 won't make any difference to the printer.
I've got the Epson and a Primera Pro dye-sub. I've tried all kinds of
resolutions and ended up with just basic TGA files. The Primera produces
georgeous photorealistic prints from TGA files. Down to the hairs on her…
well you know…
The Epson is close but still you can see the dots. But its great for draft
work. What you don't get with the Epson is the blending of the dots like
dye-sub does.
Hope this helps. Drop me a note. Bye!
Mark,
After some experimentation, I've found that printing any 8.5×11 picture
(regardless of format [tga, jpg, gif]) works best when rendered at 1024×768
with and aspect ratio of 1. If you are using 752×480 because you have the PAR
card, your images will come out somewhat squashed since those images use an
aspect ratio of .851and are only suited for video on the PAR.
I plan on ordering Epson's special glossy paper which is supposed to have
fantastic quality. I'm sure it doesn't match dye sub though.
Don
Don;
You are right about the aspect ratio should be 1.0 for printing. However, if
you are rendering at only 1024×768 to print an 8"x10" image then you are not
printing to the printers full resolution. The Epson Stylus 720 like 240 dpi
for it's "720 DPI" color printing. Which means your final rendering should be
2400X1920. However I find that printing at 140 dpi does a great job with the
Epson at 1/4 the file size (1400×1120).
I have seen samples of the Epson Glossy Paper, and you are right, the images
look great. It is not the the print actually looks different (the pixelation
and dithering are the same) but on a glossy paper it just looks a lot better.
However, at $60.00 for 60 sheets it is very expensive. I decided to buy a
Laminator for around $100 plus 5 cents per sheet of lamination paper and get
very good results.
Hope this helped.
Zac (AZ-TECH)
Berkeley
-Zac Rymland (AZ-TECH)
Zac,
Thanks for the tip about the laminator. I've heard about people doing this but
never with the Epson. I tried it once using a printout from a Tectronix Phaser
III (it uses CMYK colored wax for ink) and just got a brown mess 🙁 The heat
from the rollers almost pressed the wax completely off the paper,past the
lamination and into the machine. And I thought I was going to get continuous
tone 🙂
>>However, at $60.00 for 60 sheets it is very expensive.<<
That would be a bargain. Last time I checked (today actually), Epson wanted
$65.00 for 30 sheets and that's before tax!
How did you come up with 240 dpi? I'm sure your right, but I haven't seen it
documented anywhere.
Thanks,
Don
Don;
Your right, I just can't believe they could charge that much, $60 for 30
sheets. I know Epson wants $65, but when I was shopping around I found MidWest
Computer Works (800/440-4056) has it for around $57. Still to much for my
blood.
As far as the resolution to use for the Epson printer it is explained in a
small supplemental book that came with the printer entitled COLOR PRINTING
TIPS. On the bottom of page 4 it states pretty clearly to use 120 dpi for 360
dpi printing and use 240 dpi for 720 dpi printing.
Thanks for reminding me that it is $60 for 30 sheets, now I am really happy
that I spent $100 for the Laminator, it definitely justifies the cost.
Hopefully the cost for the glossy paper will come down or some off brand will
come out with one that works.
Zac (AZ-TECH)
Berkeley
PS: The part number for the Paper at MidWest is: S041033
-Zac Rymland (AZ-TECH)
Zac,
Epson says they will be selling a 15 sheet pack (S041072) of the glossy stuff
in early October but I doubt if that means a lower price per page. I double
checked my Epson printer box and couldn't find that supplemental book you spoke
of but thanks for confirming the numbers for me.
Maybe I'll buy that glossy paper just once, only to get it out of my system.
After that, I'll use a laminator.
Thanks again for your help,
Don
Don;
If you do break down and buy the paper (even just once) let me know what you
think. The only output I have seen was an Epson demo, so I am sure it looked
it's best.
Good luck.
Zac (AZ-TECH)
Berkeley
-Zac Rymland (AZ-TECH)
Zac,
It might be a while before I pick up any Epson glossy paper. I laminated a
sheet printed at 720 dpi at work today and got very good results. I'm satisfied
for now 🙂
Thanks,
Don
Glad to hear that you are satisfied now <g>.
Zac (AZ-TECH)
Berkeley
-Zac Rymland (AZ-TECH)
Don,
You can get good results on the Tektronix III Pxi or 300i using Tek's
own laminator. It uses a lower heat setting then you might see with other
laminators.
Kevin Krell – Computer Support Associates
Kevin,
I no longer have access to the Tectronix III Pxi, but I am familiar with their
laminator. Oddly enough, after comparing the output of the two printers, for
the work I'm doing now, I actually prefer the Epson.
Thanks,
Don
Don,
Oh, I agree the Epson is pretty darn good when printing on the special
paper, certainly a great value for $. But try printing on sandpaper <g> – the
Tek will do it. Main reason for that printer is color matching (not as good a
proof as the dye-sub 480, but quite good) and flexibility in plain paper sizes
& weights. Oh, and of course the III PXi can be upgraded to the 300i –
tremendously better prints.
Kevin Krell – Computer Support Associates
Kevin,
You said it yourself. The Epson is a great value for the money, and I haven't
seen anything in it's price range that even comes close to the quality. I've
used the Tectronix III PXi for quite some time and can't justify the added
expense of this printer for the type of work I'm doing. I feel the Tec excels
in printing charts, graphs and text where the document is comprised mostly of
solid colors, but, when printing computer generated images or photographs, I
prefer the Epson. If I had to print a photograph on sand paper, then maybe I'd
consider the Tectronix <g>.
I would like to see someone come out with an affordable pro-sumer dye-sub
though. That would be interesting.
Don
Don,
The Fargo is probably the most affordable dye-sub (avail. in letter-size
& tabloid versions). Processing is done on the PC side, though – not in the
printer.
Kevin Krell – Computer Support Associates
Try the NEC 3000, 2 types of Thermal Wax and _Dye-Sub_ at 300×300 dpi on A4 for
approx L650 ( that should be under $1,000)…. similar to the Fargo but better
build quality and a more sensible resolution. Lets face it the Fargopro says
600×300 but most of the time you will image with square pixels !
About 20 minutes a print running on a 64Mb P5/66 from a dot-for-dot resolution
.tif file. Cost per print (materials) L1.80 (approx $2.5) but the print stock
is heavy and glossy, presentation quality so it feels worth it.
Grahame
$60.00 for 60 sheets? I got 200 sheets of Epson 720 dpi paper for 25.96 at
CompUSA.
Regarding resolution – I also swear that I saw that the "effective" resolution
of the Stylus Color II was around 280 dpi when in 720 dpi mode. I have no idea
where I saw it at though..
LAM
Larry,
The paper we were talking about is Epson's glossy paper. Epson wants $65
dollars for their glossy 720 dpi 30 sheet pack (#S041033). The paper you bought
from CompUSA was the regular 720 dpi 200 sheet pack (#S041029). According to
those who have tried the glossy stuff, the difference between printing on it vs
regular 720 dpi paper is almost equal to the difference in printing in 720 dpi
vs 360 dpi.
As far as resolution goes, I found that printing images at 1024×768 works best
for me. However, I believe that Epson recommends 240 dpi.
Don
Guys,
As far as the resolution question:
The Stylus Color can print at 720 dots-per-inch (dpi). However, these
dots can only be white (paper color), or 1 of the three ink colors plus black.
Now we are trying to represent something like 17 million
colors with just these 5 choices (i.e., a pixel on your screen can be
any one of 17 million colors). So if you have a pixel on your screen
for each dot printed by the printer, you obviously can't get there.
However, a cluster of dots can represent many different colors (some
math whiz can figure out that a 3 by 3 matrix of 5 colors can reproduce all 17
million possibilities). This basic unit or "dot cluster" that is needed to
reproduce all the needed colors is called
a "line". Therefore, the Stylus at 720 dots-per-inch (dpi) can
print 240 lines-per-inch (lpi). And each "line" is a cluster of dots
than can represent any of the 17 million colors. This difference
between dpi and lpi is critical.
Now, you want to print your screen, which has PIXELS, which can be
expressed as pixels-per-inch (ppi). Here is the logic:
1. Pixels can be any of 17 million colors
2. Dots can be only 1 of 5 colors
3. Not a match – therefore, you don't need a ppi equal to dpi to print
4. Lines can be any of 17 million colors –
5. BINGO – we have a match – you need to print to a lpi which is
the same as your ppi (or, of more interest, you need to make a
graphic of the same ppi as the lpi of your output printer, which
is 120 lpi for Stylus in 360 dpi mode, and 240 lpi for Stylus in
720 dpi mode)
6. BONUS – i have had good luck with still graphics by creating them
at 120 ppi and them converting them to 240 ppi in Photoshop 3 –
you might want to try it.
Hope this helps – I was very confused by all of this when I started so I know
it's confusing!
Dennis
Lurker's Addendum, Stardate 23756.8
Just to prove to you that I really was confused by all this at one
time (and still am) – I re-read my previous message after my second cup of
caffeine
and I realize I goofed – a 3 x 3 pixel "line" wouldn't accommodate
all 17 million colors – you need a bigger matrix – in fact the
matrix comes out to about 120 LINES-PER-INCH (lpi) on the Stylus
in 720 DOTS-PER-INCH (dpi) mode.
Most commercial printer types recommend that you have a
PIXEL-PER-INCH (ppi) of about twice the LPI of your output, hence
a ppi of about 240 is good for output to the Stylus
in 720 dpi (or 120 lpi) mode. As an point of interest, if you go
out to a commercial printer, he is likely to tell you what the lpi
of his press is (rather than the dpi), which tells you directly what
ppi you need (2X). It's just printers like the Stylus that force us to
convert from dpi to lpi to ppi.
Ditto for a ppi of 120 or so being good for a Stylus in 360 dpi
(~60 lpi) mode.
Dennis "Lurker" Conklin
Larry;
>>$60.00 for 60 sheets? I got 200 sheets of Epson 720 dpi paper for 25.96 at
CompUSA.<<
It's $60 for 30 sheets of the SPECIAL GLOSSY PAPER. I have also got the
standard Epson 720 paper for around $20.
Zac (AZ-TECH)
Berkeley
-Zac Rymland (AZ-TECH)
PMJI – but everyone here seems to be missing the point of what software is
being used to output the image to print is every bit as important as the
resolution of the image. An image printed with a good quality RIP package can
look like a photo print when compared to one output using a standard Windows
print driver. We print out images at 72 dpi, and they look marvelous! This
saves tons of processing time.
The key is the stochastic screening algorithms that the software/hardware
combinations use (and don't forget color balancing look up tables for your
particular scanner/monitor/media/ink combinations). Stochastic screening is the
manner in which the individual dots that make your image are arranged to obtain
a 'true color' effect, and eliminate banding or moire' patterns.
SuperPrint does OK. ImageEZ from Onyx is excellent.
Dennis,
I couldn't agree with you more. I was simply looking for a basic rule of thumb
regarding printing vs rendering resolution. The software and screening
algorithms can only make up for so much. For example, a scanner with an optical
resolution of 600 dpi will produce better scans than one which scans at 300 dpi
but simulates 600 dpi through interploation.
I would rather have the pixel information present in the image file rather than
have the software guess. But you're right, if image size and processing time is
an issue, the software can do wonders.
Don
Hi Dennis,
PMJI but do you guys have any recommendations for "the best" desktop PC and MAC
printer driver/software?? I'm really curious.
Carlton