Epson printers - 2400 vs. 4800 ??

Kennedy McEwen wrote:
In article UmFvf.8032$V.3630@fed1read04, Mark²
writes
Kennedy McEwen wrote:
In article n5mvf.7911$V.719@fed1read04, Mark²
writes
Kennedy McEwen wrote:
In article w9bvf.7874$V.6727@fed1read04, Mark²
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.

You didn't say anything about injet printers either! ;-)

What is the Canon in question

An Epson! (read the subject) ;-)

Yes... But the 9600dpi comment came from a Canon printer comment.
Threads change.
Here's the quote for ya:
Take a look at the Canon iP4200. It'll print at 9600x2400dpi.

Kennedy McEwen wrote:
In article vtFvf.8033$V.4113@fed1read04, Mark²
writes

No, I quite understand that each dot is not intended as an
individually perceived unit, but rather a basis through which ink is
combined to form perceived color. Still...can anyone point to the
realization of a visually-perceived benefit of 9600dpi over, say,
4800?
Reduces tonal noise at the visual acuity limit, which is all that a
finer dither matrix is intended to achieve.

Yes.
We know that.
But is the difference between 4800 (for example) and 9600 able to be
visually perceived without a loupe?

On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 20:46:32 -0800, "Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even
number wrote:

Kennedy McEwen wrote:
In article vtFvf.8033$V.4113@fed1read04, Mark²
writes

No, I quite understand that each dot is not intended as an
individually perceived unit, but rather a basis through which ink is
combined to form perceived color. Still...can anyone point to the
realization of a visually-perceived benefit of 9600dpi over, say,
4800?
Reduces tonal noise at the visual acuity limit, which is all that a
finer dither matrix is intended to achieve.

Yes.
We know that.
But is the difference between 4800 (for example) and 9600 able to be
visually perceived without a loupe?


That would depend on a lot of factors, such as
the relationship of the final ink-dot size (after
diffusion into the paper surface) and the dot pitch
and the number of colors used.

I think the main benefit at that point would be
improved tonality (bit-depth, in effect) rather
than detail.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

In article pHHvf.8103$V.4412@fed1read04, Mark²
writes
Kennedy McEwen wrote:
In article vtFvf.8033$V.4113@fed1read04, Mark²
writes

No, I quite understand that each dot is not intended as an
individually perceived unit, but rather a basis through which ink is
combined to form perceived color. Still...can anyone point to the
realization of a visually-perceived benefit of 9600dpi over, say,
4800?
Reduces tonal noise at the visual acuity limit, which is all that a
finer dither matrix is intended to achieve.

Yes.
We know that.
But is the difference between 4800 (for example) and 9600 able to be
visually perceived without a loupe?

Well since 4800 still results in visible noise below the eye resolution
limit, albeit made more obvious with a loupe, that is clearly due to
dither then even without seeing the results the answer must be a clear
"yes".
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

"Arthur Entlich" wrote

The real question about companies that claim 9600 dpi inkjet resolution
or what have you is can this be accomplished with the minimum dot size
they offer?

Well, 9600 dots/inch can be done with 1 inch dots [splats], allowing for
some overlap. Sounds dumb but it would be legitimate if the printer
was adding density with each splat.

Dot size / dot density / pixel density are all independent; excepting
the pathological case of dot size pixel size.

The relationship between dot density and pixel density sets the number
of shades that can be produced by the printer. And this has _nothing_
to do with gamma correction.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com
Fstop timer - http://www.nolindan.com/da/fstop/index.htm

Kennedy McEwen wrote:
In article pHHvf.8103$V.4412@fed1read04, Mark²
writes
Kennedy McEwen wrote:
In article vtFvf.8033$V.4113@fed1read04, Mark²
writes

No, I quite understand that each dot is not intended as an
individually perceived unit, but rather a basis through which ink
is combined to form perceived color. Still...can anyone point to
the realization of a visually-perceived benefit of 9600dpi over,
say, 4800?
Reduces tonal noise at the visual acuity limit, which is all that a
finer dither matrix is intended to achieve.

Yes.
We know that.
But is the difference between 4800 (for example) and 9600 able to be
visually perceived without a loupe?

Well since 4800 still results in visible noise below the eye
resolution limit, albeit made more obvious with a loupe, that is
clearly due to dither then even without seeing the results the answer
must be a clear "yes".

I'd love to see a real world comparison...

"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote

9600!
4800!
1200!
I'd love to see a real world comparison...

Go to the Epson dealer and see for one's self? Everybody
will have a different opinion: "I can't see it.", "Plain
as day.", "Costs too much", "A bargain." ....


--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com
Fstop timer - http://www.nolindan.com/da/fstop/index.htm

Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:
"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote

9600!
4800!
1200!
I'd love to see a real world comparison...

Go to the Epson dealer and see for one's self? Everybody
will have a different opinion: "I can't see it.", "Plain
as day.", "Costs too much", "A bargain." ....

Good idea...except Epson doesn't do 9600dpi.

Mark² wrote:
Kennedy McEwen wrote:

In article vtFvf.8033$V.4113@fed1read04, Mark?
writes

No, I quite understand that each dot is not intended as an
individually perceived unit, but rather a basis through which ink is
combined to form perceived color. Still...can anyone point to the
realization of a visually-perceived benefit of 9600dpi over, say,
4800?

Reduces tonal noise at the visual acuity limit, which is all that a
finer dither matrix is intended to achieve.


Yes.
We know that.
But is the difference between 4800 (for example) and 9600 able to be
visually perceived without a loupe?



Yes, not resolution, think tonality. The idea is that any inkjet
printer, or even commercial offset printing, is not continuous tone.
Chemically based images (photographs) are continuous tone. The idea
behind higher dpi, more accurate dot placements, or other developments,
is to get closer to that continuous tone appearance.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 07:43:42 -0800, "Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even
number wrote:

Arthur Entlich wrote:
There is a certain irony that this business model is so well
"designed" that by Epson offering perhaps $10-$20 actual cost worth
of ink, they can make a person justify spending an additional $1000 or
more on a
printer.

It is worth every bit of that extra $1000 if you want ultra chrome, larger
prints, serious longevity, and industrial-strength product build.


What it's "worth" has to be considered on
an individual basis.

Though the 4800 is "industrial strength," when
it's broken and out of warranty, you'll need
an industrial-strength wallet to get it fixed by
Epson, or you'll need to be very handy and
resourceful. Will you be ready to change out
dampers, heads, waste-ink pads or main-
boards when the time comes?

On the other hand, when my R1800 is busted
and out-of warranty (I give it 18-24 months, at
the outside) I have the option of just chucking
it in favor of whatever's the latest and greatest
at the moment. From Epson or anyone else.

So buying a 4800 is like getting married.
Buying the 2400 or 1800 is a bit more like
"living together".... a more tentative
relationship, you might say.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com