• site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge

the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

You are here: Home / Printers / Epson P800 high-contrast resolution

Epson P800 high-contrast resolution

September 8, 2019 JimK 4 Comments

This is a continuation of testing that I’ve been doing on the Epson P800 printer. I’ve created a category called “Printers”, and put this post in that category. If you go to the Category List (on the right in the desktop formatting), find “Printers” and click on it, you’ll see all the posts in the series.

I’ve had some readers, in reaction to the printer resolution testing I’ve kind of fallen into in trying to figure out how useful is the resolution of 61 MP and 100 MP cameras, tell me that the Epson printers can resolve details right up to 720 ppi. That was not what I observed when I was testing the Epson 3800 and 3880 many years ago, but that was then and this is now, so I thought I’d take a look with my Epson P800, using Epson Premium Glossy Photo Paper, setting the marking engine resolution to 2880×1440 dpi, checking the “Finest Detail” box, creating 720 ppi images, printing them, and scanning them with an Epson V850 Pro scanner at 3200 ppi.

My chosen target was a simple checkerboard at 720, 360, 240, and 180 ppi, with the 1 pixel wide and tall at 720 ppi, 2 at 360 ppi, 3 at 240 ppi and 4 at 180 ppi. I did all the pre-printing resample using nearest neighbor to get the cleaned images posible. For comparison, I resampled those images to 3200 ppi using Matlab’s bicubic interpolation method.

Here’s the 180 row and column per inch (rcpi, for the purposes of this post) checkerboard:

 

180

 

And here’s the scanned image:

180

Now we’ll move up to 240 rcpi. First the bicubic-interpolated image:

240

And the printed one:

240

Next, 360 rcpi:

360

 

360

Contrast is diminished even further.

And finally at 720 rcpi:

720

 

720

I guess you can see some faint vestiges of the checkerboard, but the printer is nowhere near resolving it decently.

I didn’t do this particular test on the 3800 or the 3880, but this seems to be roughly the same level of performance I saw then.

 

 

Printers

← Fujifilm GFX 100 conclusions Dot gain in the Epson P800 →

Comments

  1. Brandon Dube says

    September 9, 2019 at 8:12 pm

    Hi Jim,

    Why not have it print a slanted edge and measure its MTF? Using the taking lens at a diffraction limited aperture you could remove the influence of that from the measurement with a simple division. Actually, at 1:1 720 ppi presents 28 dots per mm, or a cutoff of 56 lp/mm or so. Then the lens-sensor systems’ transfer function shouldn’t drop below .75 or so, and for the purposes of a somewhat casual test is “irrelevant” or could be simply compensated by a linear function of spatial frequency improving the estimate (but not rendering it totally accurate).

    Of course, the images offer their own level of convincing that MTF charts don’t provide to many people.

    Reply
    • JimK says

      September 11, 2019 at 1:07 pm

      Good idea. See this:

      https://blog.kasson.com/printers/epson-p800-720-ppi-mtf-curves/

      Reply
  2. Frank Adams says

    January 18, 2020 at 8:24 am

    Good afternoon, I think you are printing in BW. Did you switch off the High point shift in color controls. If not the printer loses contrast in the Dmin Regards Frank

    Reply
    • JimK says

      January 18, 2020 at 8:31 am

      I’m printing in color, with the color controls turned off.

      Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

May 2025
S M T W T F S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
« Apr    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
    • How to shoot slanted edge images for me
  • Lens screening testing
    • Equipment and Software
    • Examples
      • Bad and OK 200-600 at 600
      • Excellent 180-400 zoom
      • Fair 14-30mm zoom
      • Good 100-200 mm MF zoom
      • Good 100-400 zoom
      • Good 100mm lens on P1 P45+
      • Good 120mm MF lens
      • Good 18mm FF lens
      • Good 24-105 mm FF lens
      • Good 24-70 FF zoom
      • Good 35 mm FF lens
      • Good 35-70 MF lens
      • Good 60 mm lens on IQ3-100
      • Good 63 mm MF lens
      • Good 65 mm FF lens
      • Good 85 mm FF lens
      • Good and bad 25mm FF lenses
      • Good zoom at 24 mm
      • Marginal 18mm lens
      • Marginal 35mm FF lens
      • Mildly problematic 55 mm FF lens
      • OK 16-35mm zoom
      • OK 60mm lens on P1 P45+
      • OK Sony 600mm f/4
      • Pretty good 16-35 FF zoom
      • Pretty good 90mm FF lens
      • Problematic 400 mm FF lens
      • Tilted 20 mm f/1.8 FF lens
      • Tilted 30 mm MF lens
      • Tilted 50 mm FF lens
      • Two 15mm FF lenses
    • Found a problem – now what?
    • Goals for this test
    • Minimum target distances
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Printable Siemens Star targets
    • Target size on sensor
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Test instructions — postproduction
    • Test instructions — reading the images
    • Test instructions – capture
    • Theory of the test
    • What’s wrong with conventional lens screening?
  • Previsualization heresy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Recommended photographic web sites
  • Using in-camera histograms for ETTR
    • Acknowledgments
    • Why ETTR?
    • Normal in-camera histograms
    • Image processing for in-camera histograms
    • Making the in-camera histogram closely represent the raw histogram
    • Shortcuts to UniWB
    • Preparing for monitor-based UniWB
    • A one-step UniWB procedure
    • The math behind the one-step method
    • Iteration using Newton’s Method

Category List

Recent Comments

  • bob lozano on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • JimK on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • DC Wedding Photographer on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • Wedding Photographer in DC on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • JimK on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • Renjie Zhu on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • Ivo de Man on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF

Archives

Copyright © 2025 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.