Finest detail digital printer / paper

[Bill_1856]

http://dirckhalstead.org/issue0404/bentley.html

[bglick]

Kieth, yes, the dpi, ppi, do get intermingled, but they both equate to the same, of course, the ppi is most often referred to as the "dpi input to the printer".

Although I never tested this myself, I did read an interesting test study of such. The simplified response is, yes, sending more dpi to the printer does make a difference, up to about 720 dpi, after which, there is no measurable difference in the resolution of the print. And even then, this was done with the highest resolving glossy paper on a 1 picoliter Epson R1800 inkjet printer. The current generation x800 Epson printers are 3.5 picoliter. So the small desktop printers have potential for more resolution, but they suffer other issues, such as not being linearized. Also, when using fine art paper, the ability to hold this much detail is lost. From my experience, Han PR will not hold more then 300 dpi input max. and printed at 720 dpi. I was hoping to improve upon this.

Kirk, is the Crane Museuo Max as sharp as PR? Interesting comment on the Dmax....what printer did you use this with?

Bill, the link you referenced is almost 2 years old. HP printers have a bit less resolution then Epson printers, although the author was using the smaller desktop versions, which have been superceded now. I use the HP130 with Premium Plus papers, and by todays standards, I would consider these prints acceptable, but not as razor sharp as other options. The HP130 also has a 4 picoliter droplet size. I think the droplet size is much overlooked when it comes to print resolution.... I mean, who cares about 2880 dpi if the paper can't hold that much ink or the droplet size is too big to gain resolution? Some have termed this, "marketing dpi".

The only inkjets I am aware of with 1 picoliter droplet size is the Canon Pixma and i think the newer HP desktops.

[robc]

can someone explain how important this droplet size is. What does a 1 picolitre droplet size equate to? If its so small that its puts down dot that is too small to be resolved by the human eye then is there a threshold beyond which it is not necessary to go or are there some other advantages to it?

[Keith Laban]

I'd be very surprised if it's possible to see any difference between 720ppi and 360ppi files sent to any current printer when printed on any matte cotton rag paper unless you use a loupe. If you have to use a loupe to see the difference why bother?

However I can see the difference between 720dpi and 1440dpi prints on Photo Rag using my 2100/2200.

[John_4185]

Epson's desktop printers have drivers that support 720 pixels per inch

I have a car with a fuel pump that will support a 2,000hp engine, but nobody makes a consumer engine that can use it.

[bglick]

rob, the benefit of the smaller droplet size is, you can make sharper lines with smaller dots.... each tiny dot is not visible, but the summation of many dots are visible and although human vision can not resolve this amount of resolution on test targets, it's interesting, human vision can discern the differences in resolution, up to 30 lp/mm based on Cteins study of such. The sharpest inkjet printers at 1 picoliter, on the sharpest glosssy paper made, can resolve approx 10 lp/mm from one test I have read, which is quite impressive. With the bump in contrast through digital processing, this is how I beleive comments are made such as the poster above "sharper then my contact prints".

Keith, I too can see very small differences between 1440 and 720 on PR, but the differences are so small in most images, its not worth the 50% speed reduction to me. I am curious if the Crane is sharper then the han PR?

[paulr]

"Paul, can you really see the difference between 720ppi and 360ppi prints without the aid of a loupe?"

Yes, but only in some circumstances. certain kinds of detail are more clearly rendered at 720. and slightly off-vertical or off-horizontal lines can show some aliasing at 360, but none that i can see at 720. It's not something you'll see at a glance, or at all in some prints.

I have an epson 1280, using a piezography quadtone inkset. I print on photorag. I don't see significant differences in sharpness between this paper and other smooth art papers i've tried (entrada, premiere art, etc.). By the way, I think using quadtone inks with a good profile allows the printer to take much better advantage of 720 ppi files than it can with color inks. You just get more aparent resolution ... all of the dithering of the dots goes into tonal density; none of it is required for balancing color.

"I have a car with a fuel pump that will support a 2,000hp engine, but nobody makes a consumer engine that can use it."

you can always get a racing car engine.

[Kirk Gittings]

WG

"Kirk, is the Crane Museuo Max as sharp as PR? Interesting comment on the Dmax....what printer did you use this with?"

I am looking at my tests now with a loupe. Epson 4000, 2880 DPI, UC inks with Imageprint RIP. I would say that PR is ever so slightly sharper (8x loupe). The MM is very slightly warmer (no brighteners!). It is my paper of choice these days.

[Keith Laban]

I'll do some tests tomorrow using the Ultrachrome inks on Photo Rag at 720 and 360ppi. I'll also print at 2800 and 1440dpi. My gut feeling is that there will be no improvement over 360ppi at 1440dpi but having said that I'd love it if there was ;-)

WG, I'm sure the limiting factor here is the paper rather than the printer. Have you tried Epson UltraSmooth?

[bglick]

Kirk, OK, seems as if sharpness would not make one choose between PR and MM, so what makes you so high on MM vs. PR?

Keith, for sure the limiting factor is the always the paper, till you get into the high glossies. No, I have not used the ulra smooth Epson yet....have you? I heard its suppose to be Epsons version of PR?