Epson printers - 2400 vs. 4800 ??
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: David Nebenzahl on 5 Jan 2006 17:46 rafe b spake thus: > "David Nebenzahl" <nobody(a)but.us.chickens> wrote in message > news:43bd8deb$0$6018$822641b3(a)news.adtechcomputers.com... > >> Right; seems to me the fibers in the paper are going to be *much* >> coarser than that claimed high resolution. Anyone know for sure? > > You're not printing on fibers. There are about a half-dozen > layers on top of the fiber, and you're printing on the topmost > of those. It's likely to be kaolin or microcrystalline, or maybe > a swellable polymer. But definitely not fibers. Well, OK; you're right. But even a kaolin (clay-coated) surface isn't going to be smooth enough to make 5670 dpi anything but an inverifiable marketing claim. I'd like to see something like a scanning electron microphoto of the surface. -- The only reason corrupt Republicans rule the roost in Washington is because the corrupt Democrats can't muster any viable opposition.
From: rafe b on 5 Jan 2006 18:14 "David Nebenzahl" <nobody(a)but.us.chickens> wrote in message news:43bda10e$0$24128$822641b3(a)news.adtechcomputers.com... > rafe b spake thus: >> You're not printing on fibers. There are about a half-dozen >> layers on top of the fiber, and you're printing on the topmost >> of those. It's likely to be kaolin or microcrystalline, or maybe >> a swellable polymer. But definitely not fibers. > > Well, OK; you're right. But even a kaolin (clay-coated) surface isn't > going to be smooth enough to make 5670 dpi anything but an inverifiable > marketing claim. > > I'd like to see something like a scanning electron microphoto of the > surface. I think most of us know that the contone resolution is far lower than the advertised resolution. That said, I received my Epson R1800 yesterday and am pretty impressed with how fine and well- placed the dots are, especially in "RPM" mode. (RPM is Epson's acronym for their super-hi-res photo mode.) I've got an LF (4x5) shot taken with a 90mm, printed at 8x10." With a loupe, you can clearly make out some fence posts about 1/4 mile away. The fence posts have a cross-section of around 1.5 inches -- you know, those stamped-metal posts used for barbed wire and drift fences. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com
From: Mark? on 5 Jan 2006 23:12 Kennedy McEwen wrote: > In article <w9bvf.7874$V.6727(a)fed1read04>, Mark? > <mjmorgan(a)cox.?.net.invalid> writes >> >> I contend that there isn't ANY media capable of showing a benefit of >> dpi that high. > > There are plenty of such media, they just aren't papers. :-) Who said anything about papers? I still challenge anyone to produce evidence that ANY media will show the useful exhibition of 9600dpi from an ink jet type printer.
From: David Nebenzahl on 5 Jan 2006 23:55 Kennedy McEwen spake thus: > In article <w9bvf.7874$V.6727(a)fed1read04>, Mark? > <mjmorgan(a)cox.?.net.invalid> writes > >> I contend that there isn't ANY media capable of showing a benefit of >> dpi that high. > > There are plenty of such media, they just aren't papers. :-) Like what--stainless steel? Precision-buffed to a high gloss? -- The only reason corrupt Republicans rule the roost in Washington is because the corrupt Democrats can't muster any viable opposition.
From: Stanislav Meduna on 6 Jan 2006 06:16
Mark? wrote: > I still challenge anyone to produce evidence that ANY media will show the > useful exhibition of 9600dpi from an ink jet type printer. The dpis aren't there because someone might actually see the resolution, they are there because the inkjet dot is not a '24-bit' dot. The printer has to dither - and the more dpi, the better it can do this. So you have to divide the stated dpi by the number of inks and then further by number of 'levels' you want to have from one ink (depending on whether the inkjet can modulate the size of the dot or not this really matters or not). A 5760x1440 dpi printer with 8 inks is in reality 720x1440 for one ink color. Divide the 720 by two and you get 360 lpi - something that is not far away from what one can see with bare eye. My previous printer was a several years old 1200x2400 3-ink dpi HP all-in-one. The photos from it were good enough for a 8 x 11 print that you don't look at closely, but were unacceptable for regular 4 x 6 in - the dithering was clearly visible when holding from a normal viewing distance. My current photo-printer is a 5760x1440 Epson R1800 and it is fantastic. I think one could construct an example that makes its limits visible, but for normal use it is amazingly good. -- Stano |