Re: Hi-Fi inksets
Re: Hi-Fi inksets
- Subject: Re: Hi-Fi inksets
- From: "Cris Daniels" <email@hidden>
- Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2004 00:35:56 -0500
Robert,
"The drop size is just as important as the light ink"
The fact is that you may not see this kind of smaller droplet size on the
large format printers any time soon ,so it may work ok on small printers,
but extrapolating that to mean it makes sense to do with LF printers isn't
proven. The variable droplet heads on the 7600/9600 are something like 4, 9
, and 21 picoliter. I don't remember the exact figure but it sure isn't
close to 1.5pl. 21 picoliter is Epson 3000 league droplet sizes, not
exactly subtle. The 4000 with its smaller droplet was supposed to be much
faster than the 7600/9600 due to the increased nozzle count, it isn't.
"I would actually expect a better grayscale from the R800, due to the
simpler ink configuration"
I wouldn't. The black ink alone is not neutral as we all know. Having the
light black plus two diluted inks has proven to be the key that programs
like ImagePrint uses to extract its phenomenal grayscale performance from
the Ultrachromes. Epson sure hasn't figured it out. I would expect wacky
native grayscales if the printer holds true to their other consumer
products. This is an inexpensive consumer printer designed to print
snapshots or use those wicked 4" rolls. Only an insane person would print on
the Epson 4" "archival curl" rolls. A steamroller couldn't flatten this
paper.
"However, this only applies if you can actually use the smallest drops
(Epson recommends using them only at 1440x1440 and 2880x1440). If you can't
use such small drops, you're obviously going to do better with the light
inks. At 720 DPI, the 2200 is able to use its smallest drops, while the
R800 uses the largest non-economy drops (I don't remember offhand what those
are, but the smallest drop size in this set is probably on the order of 6
pl)."
Epson can do whatever they want, 2880 turns the large format printers into
money losers. You MUST be able to run these printers at 1440 or 720
(sometimes) and still get excellent results. Nobody (that runs a business)
wants or can afford a large format printer that churns out 1sf an hour.
Maybe Epson can add a 44" 5760dpi LF printer with a 1 picoliter static
droplet size and no light black, light cyan, or light magenta to please the
people that must have this new inkset. At 5760dpi I can probably set up a
40"x50" image to print, click print, go to Vegas now (arrive 10 days early
for PMA), hang out for PMA, fly home, and probably catch the print as it
comes off the printer. It will look great under a loupe though, and I will
have achieved my 2% increase in gamut that nobody will notice when its
hanging on a wall.
"The 2200 has an excellent gamut as it is. I've been able to get very vivid
blues and reds from it already"
This is kind of my point, with the right media and profile the gamut is
already excellent. Even with the Epson archival inks on when I had a
10000CF, using Kodak Instant Dry Glossy paper, ImagePrint 4, and Compass
Profile 2.5.6, I still have a few prints here that have screaming reds from
this combo. So much of it is about the media and profile. The only thing I
personally want from Epson is the printers to get faster. My 2 cents.
Cris Daniels
_______________________________________________
colorsync-users mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/colorsync-users
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.