Cheapest RIP to make HUUUUUGE prints??

[chris jordan]

Hi guys, I want to make a 12-foot long print on my Epson 9800. The Epson drivers and OSX can't handle a file that big, but I've heard that RIP's can do it easily. Question is, which RIP would be cheapest for the job? Are there any free ones? Any help, suggestions, etc. would be much appreciated.

~cj

www.chrisjordan.com

[Wayne Crider]

Just about any service bureau would probably have some info, at least on the capabilites in the industry of other shops. You might also contact a billboard sign company and see what they use. Of course the quality is probably nowhere close to what you want, but I would suspect they would have to be working with pretty large files. You might also contact WCI and there's always the obligatory Google search.

[Ed Richards]

Qimage should be able to do it, but you would need use a PC or run a PC emulator on a mac. Of course you get 30 days to return Imageprint for a full refund.:-)

[Walter Calahan]

Yep the Epson Macintosh driver can go beyond 9 something feet. I've never tried my ColorBurst RIP to 10 feet so don't know if it can handle it.

Can the Epson Windows driver go beyond 9 something feet?

[Greg Lockrey]

Qimage will make 49' prints.

[Walter Calahan]

Whoops

That should have read:

"Yep the Epson Macintosh driver CAN'T go beyond 9 something feet."

I have an e-mail into a friend who found a solution, but haven't heard back yet.

[chris jordan]

Walter, please let me know what you find out-- it's a very interesting subject for me because I have a few images that are longer than the OS allows. Epson claims there is a way to make seamless multi-panel prints on a single long sheet of paper, basically tricking the OS by cutting the image in half and printing each half with no white paper inbetween, but I've tried it and the registration never comes out perfectly-- there is always a tiny white line between the two. So I look forward to hearing if there is a legit solution.

cheers,

~cj

[Jim collum]

i have a 14'x24" print made from qimage. works wonders (and probably the cheapest solution you'll find)

jim

[chris jordan]

Jim can you tell me if the same profiles work for the Qimage RIP, or will I need to re-profile all the papers I use? My system is totally dialed in right now with a bunch of nice custom profiles using the Epson drivers, so I'm concerned about upsetting the boat with a new driver.

[Jim collum]

i've used the same profiles, and ended up with identical results.. so no reprofiling is necessary (it still ends up going throught the epson print engine, Mike just figured out how get more info into it...)




Jim can you tell me if the same profiles work for the Qimage RIP, or will I need to re-profile all the papers I use? My system is totally dialed in right now with a bunch of nice custom profiles using the Epson drivers, so I'm concerned about upsetting the boat with a new driver.

[Walter Calahan]

Chris

Got an e-mail back. I stand corrected. The maximum length from the Epson driver, Mac and Windows, is 90.53 inches, not 9 feet. That's 7.544 feet.

A RIP is the only way to get beyond that limit my buddy said. Unfortunately he and I use the more expensive Colorburst RIP. The Colorburst RIP can make a print as long as the roll of paper.

If the Qimage RIP is less expensive and works on your computer, go for it.

Best,

Walt

http://www.walterpcalahan.com

[JohnnyV]

If you have Illustrator CS, it will print images longer than 90" with no RIP. Go to the below link and find the PDF "Tiling In Illustrator CS with OS X & Windows.pdf "

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/EpsonWideFormat/files/

[Greg Miller]

Ditto'ing Jim's comments - I have printed 8' prints with Qimage. Qimage has a free trial period so you can try it for yourself with no risk (other than paper & ink). I also used the same profiles. I don't care for the Qimage user interface much but it works and it is cheap.

[David Luttmann]

Qimage works fine for large prints. Just stay away from it's interpolation and sharpening engines as there are far superior options in that area elsewhere.

[Ed Richards]

I have also had good luck with their sharping and interpolation engines, but you have to plan for their use when you photoshop the image. Otherwise you get double sharpening and it is a mess.

[David Luttmann]

I have also had good luck with their sharping and interpolation engines, but you have to plan for their use when you photoshop the image. Otherwise you get double sharpening and it is a mess.

I did some sample comparisons for myself and some friends. We compared using Photoshop sharpening and both the interpolation routines at Digital outback and the SAR Back Projected Jensen Xin Li in comparison to QImage sharpening and interpolation. From digital sources, differences were plain to see at 16x20 & larger.....Qimage lost the quality comparison. Use the RIP, skip the sharpening and interpolation. Qimage is a quick and easy solution, and good for large prints. For the best quality interpolation and sharpening, you can do better elsewhere.

[chris jordan]

Hi guys, thanks for all of your thoughts. I'm going to try the virtual PC software with the Qimage RIP. I'll check back in with the results.

Cheers from Seattle,

~cj

[Ed Richards]

A couple of tips - when you are ready to run the big job, set it up to run over night. Qimage can look like it is locked up, but it is really thinking. I ran into this with a 5 foot job. Also make sure to change the spooling settings to raw files - big jobs. If you do not, you will have unexpected job dumps in the middle of big prints. Cost me several hours of aggravation and several big sheets of paper before I dug this out of the documentation.

[Don Miller]

Chris, it might be less trouble and less expense to buy a PC. Qimage tech support can give you an idea of the tech spec you would need. A couple of failed big prints will cost as much as a new dell. All you would need on the machine is Qimage.

[JohnnyV]

Chris,

Might be cheaper to have Tyler Boley print for you. He has the 9800 with Epson inks using Studioprint rip. Just don't let him talk you into printing with fine art matte paper...you might get hooked. 8->

[Ed Richards]

David,

What do you mean by from digital sources? Drum scans or a DSLR?

[David Luttmann]

Ed,

I've run a tremendous number of tests with Qimage. I've posted samples up at DPReview as there appears to be a large Qimage cult ever present there.....heaven help the soul who suggests any other interpolation routine could be better.

As to "digital" sources, my primary sources for interpolation have been from a Nikon D100, Nikon D2X, Canon D30, 10D, 1Ds, 1Ds Mk2, and Kodak SLR/C. The SAR software wins hands down against Qimage's Pyramid & Hybrid routines, regardless of presharpening settings, or post sharpening. Qimage does not do as good a job at maintaining microcontrast differences, detail, and accutance. While it is great at memory buffering large prints, anything under 60" can be done better with PS and a decent RIP.

The film tests I ran were primarily from MF Astia and NPS160 scanned on my Imacon and interpolated for large prints. Qimage still lost the quality battle. I've never bothered testing LF film with Qimage as when scanning at 3200 or 4000ppi, I can get prints between 66" & 83" wide with no interpolation. As my prints rarely go above 40", I've never needed Qimage for printing large prints. That said, with the tests I've run, I've yet to see sample prints that show any benefit when using Qimage....in fact, I find quality decreases when using Qimage's interpolation and smart sharpening.

For a quick print, it's handy. For the highest quality, best off using a RIP or straight from PS.

Best regards,

[Greg Lockrey]

I might ad that if you are asking "what is the cheapest RIP to make HUUUUUUGE prints??" on this forum, then Qimage is more than sharp and accute enough for you. ;)

[Kirk Gittings]

I might ad that if you are asking "what is the cheapest RIP to make HUUUUUUGE prints??" on this forum, then Qimage is more than sharp and accute enough for you.

I'm not exactly sure what this means exactly, but Chris is one of the most successful photographers on this forum (by any standard) and one of the finest technicians and digital printers I have ever seen. He has very very high standards.

[adrian tyler]

if you have already tried this then this may be a dumb-ass response chris, but the 44" wide prints i make here from 950mb files are exactly the same as the ones i make from the same file sized down to 190mb, and i mean exactly-the-same.

[Ed Richards]

David,

I use Qimage to downsample, not upsample, which is what you tested. I find that it does a good job when I am downsampling, and when I plan my sharpening in PS with Qimage in mind. If you sharpen fully in photoshop, then quimage oversharpens, and if you only sharpen in Qimage it does not do a great job. If you sharpen just enough in photoshop, with images that are big enough that you will be downsampling, then tune the sharpening in Qimage for the print size, it does a very good job for me. It has the advantage that I do not have to have different versions of the file sharpened for different print sizes.

[Greg Lockrey]

I'm not exactly sure what this means exactly, but Chris is one of the most successful photographers on this forum (by any standard) and one of the finest technicians and digital printers I have ever seen. He has very very high standards.

Simple, he wants both "cheap and huge" Qimage fits the bill. Design a RIP thats as good and cost less, I'll buy it from you. BTW I didn't mean to imply Chris wasn't a successful photographer. I deal with successful photographers all the time that don't have a clue about printing. I use Qimage and I do 85% of the wide format art printing in the Northwest Ohio/ Southeast Michigan area. Even high end artists that see the results are amazed that "only" a $50.00 program does such a fine job. Yes, there are better RIPs...however only slightly and much much more expensive...but are they really worth it? How many can really tell the difference without using a magifying glass?

[Ed Richards]

While I use and like Qimage, it is does not do anything for color management for black and white, as would a RIP like Imageprint. But then Imageprint does nothing for image management. Ideally I would use Qimage feeding Imageprint to get better black and white, but another $1100 is a little steep for the small improvement I would get.

[Greg Lockrey]

While I use and like Qimage, it is does not do anything for color management for black and white, as would a RIP like Imageprint. But then Imageprint does nothing for image management. Ideally I would use Qimage feeding Imageprint to get better black and white, but another $1100 is a little steep for the small improvement I would get.

You might want to try QTR (Quad Tone RIP) for your B&W. I use Qimage to get my size and do a "save as" then QTRgui to make it B&W. I don't recall if it cost anything, but if it did , it was very minimal. http://www.sbillard.org/Shareware/QTRgui.htm

[Kirk Gittings]

But then Imageprint does nothing for image management.ED

maybe I don't understand your point. What does this mean exactly? Imageprint is known for its image management.

[chris jordan]

Kirk, thank you for your kind words. Did you get down to see my prints at Paul's?

And Greg, I think maybe you misunderstand my intentions for the RIP. The image I want to make a 12-foot print of is all ready to go-- a 2GB file that is a digital composite constructed from 100,000 smaller images. The smaller images themselves are just a few pixels in size each, and they contain 1-pixel details. Thus this file will produce a tack-sharp grainless print even at 12-feet long. It doesn't need to be sharpened, managed, tweaked, ressed, or anything else; it just needs to be fed to the printer without the length limits that are built into Photoshop and the operating system. So I'm thinking Qimage may be just the thing I need. I do happen to have an old PC laptop with Windows XP, so maybe I'll try that before doing the virtual PC thing on my Mac.

~cj

www.chrisjordan.com

[Ed Richards]

Given that info, Qimage is certainly worth a try. As I suggested before you need to set the printing preferences to raw file for spooling. You also want to turn everything else off. I recommend pausing the printer so that it spools the entire file before it prints anything - that way if it blows up it it does not waste any paper. Make sure you have the most recent epson print driver installed on the PC. If you can get a cheap roll of 4 inch paper, you could use that print a 3in crop 12 feet long just to test the length so you are not buring up 11.5 feet of wide paper to find out that there is some bug that keeps it from getting to 12 feet.

[paulr]

are there really length limits built into the operating system? that seems so strange. i can understand the epson drivers having a cut off, even photoshop, but osx?

[robc]

I'm starting to get interested in this stuff and went to the Qimage site and read what they have to say. One thing I noticed straight away is that their quality comparisons are done against version 6 of photoshop which is pre CS (which I have) and I guess CS2 is version 9. I would have thought that they would have updated those comparisons to make them current.

Any thoughts on why that hasn't been done?

[David Luttmann]

I'm starting to get interested in this stuff and went to the Qimage site and read what they have to say. One thing I noticed straight away is that their quality comparisons are done against version 6 of photoshop which is pre CS (which I have) and I guess CS2 is version 9. I would have thought that they would have updated those comparisons to make them current.

Any thoughts on why that hasn't been done?

I'll leave it up to you to guess why. I've posted numerous samples at DPReview and Mike Chaney is quick to chime in that he has samples on his site. I mentioned to him that these are MANY years old and in fact newer routines have replaced them....he refuses to update the comparison images.

As well, when compared to the free action at the Digital Outback, and to the $25 SAR software package (which has the excellent Back-Projected Jensen Xin-Li routine) Qimage is mediocre at best for interpolation...at least uprezzing anyway.

[Kirk Gittings]

Chris,
I did get to see the prints, but could not make it to the opening as I had some smooozing I had to do that night. I was very impressed with your work and this portfolio in particular. You deserve all the exposure you are getting. Congrats also on getting this work turned around in such a timely manor. Though your workreally stands out, Katrina portfolios are everywhere right now, and the field is getting more crowded every minute. Getting your book out before the aniversary, with a real professional effort, gives you the spotlight.

[Ed Richards]

>at least uprezzing anyway

To paraphrase one of our members' tag line, if you need to uprezz, you need a bigger camera.:-)

[Greg Lockrey]

Kirk, thank you for your kind words. Did you get down to see my prints at Paul's?

And Greg, I think maybe you misunderstand my intentions for the RIP. The image I want to make a 12-foot print of is all ready to go-- a 2GB file that is a digital composite constructed from 100,000 smaller images.

www.chrisjordan.com

I didn't misunderstand anything, you wanted to make a 12' print....Qimage does this no problem since it will override PS and/or printer limitations. And it's cheap!

[Kirk Gittings]

To paraphrase one of our members' tag line, if you need to uprezz, you need a bigger camera

Wells said.

[Greg Lockrey]

I'm starting to get interested in this stuff and went to the Qimage site and read what they have to say. One thing I noticed straight away is that their quality comparisons are done against version 6 of photoshop which is pre CS (which I have) and I guess CS2 is version 9. I would have thought that they would have updated those comparisons to make them current.

Any thoughts on why that hasn't been done?

Mike Chaney is a very busy guy. He is constantly upgrading Qimage, at no charge to those who already own it. Is there really any difference in sharpening from PS 6 to 9? It's not just for upsizing either. Setting up multiple prints for packages is a great feature if you are into doing event photography. Making color-level-curve corrections that don't destroy the original is another nice feature, and it doesn't add to the file size, later it can be undone if you don't like the result or wish to change it. For about $50.00 it's has a lot of great features, and you can still try it out for FREE. As for the upsizing, Qimage doesn't take forever to load and start printing like the other methods that are out there. I once had an image that took about a 1/2 hour just to load from PS after I upsized it to 40x60" . Using Genuine Fractals, it took even longer. With Qimage, the print was already half completed in a half hour since it allows the printer to start while loading the file...time is money in this studio. ;) Most upsizing programs that I came across eat up memory and computer time. I'm not one to spend big money to find out that the latest rage program slows my workflow down and the promissed intentions aren't what was advertised.

[David Luttmann]

Mike Chaney is a very busy guy. He is constantly upgrading Qimage, at no charge to those who already own it. Is there really any difference in sharpening from PS 6 to 9? It's not just for upsizing either. Setting up multiple prints for packages is a great feature if you are into doing event photography. Making color-level-curve corrections that don't destroy the original is another nice feature, and it doesn't add to the file size, later it can be undone if you don't like the result or wish to change it. For about $50.00 it's has a lot of great features, and you can still try it out for FREE. As for the upsizing, Qimage doesn't take forever to load and start printing like the other methods that are out there. I once had an image that took about a 1/2 hour just to load from PS after I upsized it to 40x60" . Using Genuine Fractals, it took even longer. With Qimage, the print was already half completed in a half hour since it allows the printer to start while loading the file...time is money in this studio. ;) Most upsizing programs that I came across eat up memory and computer time. I'm not one to spend big money to find out that the latest rage program slows my workflow down and the promissed intentions aren't what was advertised.



It's not the sharpening so much as the interpolation methods. The digital outback method mentioned cannot be used with PS6, and as such, the only reason to continue posting old samples on the Qimage site is give Qimage an unfair advantage.

And yes, I guess I should get a bigger camera....but I'll need a bigger wallet first ;-)

[robc]

It's not the sharpening so much as the interpolation methods. The digital outback method mentioned cannot be used with PS6, and as such, the only reason to continue posting old samples on the Qimage site is give Qimage an unfair advantage.

And yes, I guess I should get a bigger camera....but I'll need a bigger wallet first ;-)


please could you give a link to the actual page this method is on because I've looked and can't find it.

thanks

[David Luttmann]

please could you give a link to the actual page this method is on because I've looked and can't find it.

thanks

Here's the article about the method. Downloadable plug-in is available at the end of the article.

http://www.outbackphoto.com/workflow/wf_60/essay.html

[Greg Lockrey]

It's not the sharpening so much as the interpolation methods. The digital outback method mentioned cannot be used with PS6, and as such, the only reason to continue posting old samples on the Qimage site is give Qimage an unfair advantage.

And yes, I guess I should get a bigger camera....but I'll need a bigger wallet first ;-)

Oh stop it.

I've used Uwe's method also, but it is slow. Takes up memory. Maybe it's just me and my clientel, we don't see that much difference on the final print.

Me too...but I don't know of any economical 10x12' cameras ;)

[David Luttmann]

Oh stop it.

I've used Uwe's method also, but it is slow. Takes up memory. Maybe it's just me and my clientel, we don't see that much difference on the final print.

Me too...but I don't know of any economical 10x12' cameras ;)

Slow? Takes up memory? What are you working with...a Vic 20? I've worked with images over 40" that take less than 30 seconds to interpolate in 16 bit....about 1/4 the time of Qimage and you think this is slow? File sizes that exceed 1GB during interpolation breeze through with this method. In fact, compared to Qimage, SAR, Photozoom, Genuine Fractals, and every other method I've seen....this routine is the most speedy out there. What are you comparing it to?

[robc]

Here's the article about the method. Downloadable plug-in is available at the end of the article.

http://www.outbackphoto.com/workflow/wf_60/essay.html

thanks

[Greg Lockrey]

Slow? Takes up memory? What are you working with...a Vic 20? I've worked with images over 40" that take less than 30 seconds to interpolate in 16 bit....about 1/4 the time of Qimage and you think this is slow? File sizes that exceed 1GB during interpolation breeze through with this method. In fact, compared to Qimage, SAR, Photozoom, Genuine Fractals, and every other method I've seen....this routine is the most speedy out there. What are you comparing it to?

We all can't be rich wedding photographers. I bet you own one of those $25K 1 mp Nikons that came out 15 years ago. Hey, I'm just a poor country boy from Michigan, I have a 3 year old Dell 512 mb with 40 G Ram Windows XP and PS CS which I need to upgrade. But I'll wait until the third generation of the new platform comes out so that most of the bugs will be taken care of first. All of those you mentioned above are much slower on my machine than Qimage when it comes to loading those large interpolated files. Genuine Fractals, unless they improved it, was the slowest. I'm not going to spend anymore on it because I was very disappointed with the results the first time. The other programs you mentioned don't have the features I like in the Qimage. I do like the Imageprint for it's features though, but the last time I looked it was about $1200.00. No snooner one spends big bucks for the latest and greatest, they come out with a new and improved version....you just have to buy it all over again. When I bought PS7 then CS came out two months later, then a month later CS2...which I have to upgrade to a larger computer in order to handle it. At least the Qimage updates are free.
I'm comparing the time it takes to spool the file before it starts printing. I suppose I could pass all of my experimental costs onto my clients, but I like to keep 'em happy with reasonably priced images. So my margins are pretty tight. The photographers I know look for best price. If I add a few cents to their print cost to cover testing each program that comes along that don't live up to expectations, it won't be long and they'll be looking for a cheaper print shop. Where, in this part of the country, there seems to be one on every corner. Fortunately for me, there are very few who specialize in fine art printing and scanning. Artists can be even cheaper than photographers.

[David Luttmann]

That's odd Greg....

I just did a 24x36 interpolation test in 16 bit from a Nikon D100. Test time with Qimage came in at 59 seconds, Digital Outback routine came in at 26 seconds. SAR was at 43 MINUTES, Genuine Fractals was 1 min 14 seconds, Photozoom was 8 minutes. I guess the main difference is with memory and how each program handles it. As my primary workstation is dual processor based, Photoshop appears to better handle the routine than Qimage can. For printing though, each would be similar.

As to buying a new RIP each time one comes out.....why? Did your old RIP stop working? This is a common digital excuse that doesn't hold water. You don't need the replacement RIP any more than you need a new 150mm lens just because the company released a new version.

If you're involved in fine art printing (I do plenty by the way), I'm not sure how you get by with large format scans and only 512mb of RAM. You must be a sucker for punishment ;-)

[Greg Lockrey]

They take awhile to be sure...I use an Epson 10000xl and stitch the large pieces together in PS. I had a millwright friend of mine make an indexing table so that I can scan very large pieces without losing square. BTW my scans compare very favorably to the Creo they have down at Bowling Green State U.(One of the FLAAR test facilities) and I don't need to charge $100.00 for them either. ;) (That's because they have that $55,000.00 bill to pay).
For my mural artist clients, I use a "poor man's scanner" a Canon 5D married to a Sinar P and can shot about 9 images to stitch in the PS. I don't have $30K for a Leaf, so I make do.
As for RIP....I always used to print with PS directly into my 9600 and when I learned about Qimage, Ive been using it ever since. I do all the special work in PS but print through Qimage. Some tweaking is done with the Qimage if I think I want to return to zero.
The main thing I notice with the Qimage is it not finished interpolating and the printing is already running. I don't see that with any other method....at least with my set up. Print speed depends on the printer settings from that point though.

[David Luttmann]

Greg,

I like the poor man's scanner idea.

[QT Luong]

I've used Uwe's method also, but it is slow. Takes up memory. Maybe it's just me and my clientel, we don't see that much difference on the final print.



The method should be credited to Jack (who participates here), since Uwe is the coder. I don't know about the print, but I used it on a native digital file and was pleasantly surprised at the quality of the uprezzed file.

[Greg Lockrey]

The method should be credited to Jack (who participates here), since Uwe is the coder. I don't know about the print, but I used it on a native digital file and was pleasantly surprised at the quality of the uprezzed file.

You are correct...it does belong to Jack. It does a good job. Just isn't in my workflow now.

[Greg Lockrey]

Greg,

I like the poor man's scanner idea.

Thanks Dave. I'm going to see how that HDR process could be put into play once I get a better handle on how it works. In theory it should aid in getting a more accurate color that is more like film's 9 stop range instead of digital's 5 stop. Just a theory...don't really know as of yet.