the last word

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

  • site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge
You are here: Home / Technical / Does dot resolution influence smoothness?

Does dot resolution influence smoothness?

February 17, 2011 By JimK Leave a Comment

From the mailbag:

…I didn’t see anything mentioned about variable droplet sizes. With 2880 you’re always using the smallest size droplet…where as with 1440 you are getting a mixture of large, medium, and small droplets. So sometimes 1440 can look smoother because of the way these various sized droplets “fit” together.

Or that was the thinking a while back. I never did any real scientific testing.

That does seem to be conventional wisdom. However, I think the effects are so subtle to be a matter of taste.

Here’s a target I generated to test smoothness. It’s a simple vertical gradient, with a few black one-pixel lines across it so that I can find the same spot in different prints. It’s very small — just 150 pixels on a side. What you see here is four times the linear resolution (sixteen times the aerial resolution) upsampled using nearest neighbor.

smoothnesstarget

Here’s what you get when you print it out at 360 ppi on the Epson 3880 with Finest Detail cleared and the driver set to 2880/1440 dpi, which only allows the smallest drops:

smoothness2880

Here’s what you get when you print it out at 360 ppi on the Epson 3880 with Finest Detail cleared and the driver set to 1440/720 dpi, which allows all three drop sizes:

smoothness1440

I don’t find a lot to choose between these images. That’s also my impression when viewing the prints with the naked eye and under a loupe.

Let’s look at the microstructure. In the light tones, all the dots are small whatever resolution you pick. Here’s 2880/1440:

2880b

And at 1440/720, it looks like this:

1440b

In near the next darker line, here it looks like this at 2880/1440:

2880a

At 1440/720, maybe you can see a few larger dots, but the smoothness is similar:

1440a

Near the lower 3/4 line, the 2880/1440 print looks like this:

2880c

And the 1440/720 print looks like so:

1440c

They are not identical, but smoothness differences? I don’t know…

Note: In the interest of prserving subtle differences, none of the images in this post have been manipulated in any way, not even color corrected.

← More on Epson driver resampling iPhone 4 for Verizon OOBE →

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

March 2021
S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031  
« Feb    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
  • 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 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 Zeiss Batis 135 on Nikon Z7
  • Maurin on Zeiss Batis 135 on Nikon Z7
  • Scott Pilla on GFX Natural Live View and raw file histograms
  • Macro Guy on THoS: a NYT infinite loop
  • JimK on Sony 135 mm STF on GFX 50R
  • Alexander Häggström on Sony 135 mm STF on GFX 50R
  • Mike King on Metabones 1.26x Expander on GFX 100 with Otus 55
  • JimK on Diffraction and sensors
  • Barry Benowitz on Diffraction and sensors
  • Raymond on Fuji 45-100/4, 100-200/5.6 on GFX 100

Archives

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.