• 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 / Technical / Inkjet printing on Epson, part 1

Inkjet printing on Epson, part 1

January 27, 2011 JimK Leave a Comment

I’ve had some e-mail correspondence that suggests something about the Epson inkjet hardware and software: That Epson has, in my words, dumbed down the traditional error diffusion dither algorithm so that it can’t represent detail finer than 720 pixels per inch at 2880 DPI resolution, or finer than 360 pixels per inch at 1440 DPI resolution. I don’t know why they would do this except to make the computation less complex. I also received a suggestion to use a scanner as a digital microscope to see what’s really going on with the printer.

In hopes of gaining more information about the printer and the driver, I took the scanner suggestion to heart and created the following test pattern, consisting of a white background with one pixel wide horizontal and vertical stripes in black and various shades of gray. The idea of the various shades of gray is to be able to look at lightly-inked areas in the image to be able to see what’s going on with individual ink droplets.

Here’s the overall test pattern; it looks blurry because of the JPEG compression:

Printer Test Grating

I sent the test pattern to an Epson 3880, using Epson Photo Paper Glossy, advanced black and white print controls, and 2880/1440 resolution. I scaled the pattern to 360, 720, and 1440 pixels per inch, which gave, respectively, one ad, 360, and 720, line pairs per inch. I scanned the resulting prints using an Epson V700 scanner at 12800 pixels per inch resolution (not real resolution, but interpolated).

Here’s the result at 360 ppi input.

360ff

That’s about what I’d expect. But the results at 720 ppi were a surprise (note that the magnification is double that of the 360 ppi image because the image is half the size):

720ff

There are two odd things. The first is that there is no evidence of the grating. The second is that the areas of lightly inked vertical stripes are way lighter than they should be.

In order to figure out what was going on, I looked at the printed patterns under a microscope.

Here is a section of the 360 ppi print.

Img00001

And here’s a section of the same print showing the vertical stripes:

Img00002

Almost all the dots are the smallest the printer can deliver because we’re looking at a light part of the pattern. The dots appear to be about one thousandth of an inch in diameter, or maybe a little smaller. The dots appear to have a minimum spacing of about 300 millionths of an inch in the vertical dimension, and about 600 millionths of an inch in the horizontal direction, although most of the time, the spacing is twice that or more.  In any case, the dots appear to be small enough and the printer resolution high enough to easily resolve a 720 ppi grating, but the printer turns that fine a pattern into a gray mush.

So, the email was right about Epson dumbing down the hardware/software combination over what is achievable using conventional error diffusion. The situation is even worse than the correspondent thought, since, even with the highest resolution of which the printer is capable, it can’t resolve a 720 ppi grating.

My first impulse is to blame the Epson driver. Unless I try a third-party RIP, I won’t really know.

Technical, The Last Word

← Focusing, part 1 Inkjet printing on Epson, part 2 →

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

  • 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
  • Ivo de Man 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.