Digital BW, The Print

In a message dated 11/12/06 9:05:56 PM, stevekphoto@... writes:


> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley"
> <tyler@...> wrote:
> >
> > Here's what I AM talking about-
> > From a purely technical standpoint, writing complex and nuanced
> > monochrome data to paper, more grays and/or blacks than currently
> > available from OEM solutions (at least the Epson K3s) are still
> > better. Demonstrably and significantly.
> 
Indeed, and its that "better" thats the best lever to get more still out of 
the (now very competitive) printer companies in the next round! The degree of 
demonstrability and significance is what Steven is addressing below.
> 
> Allow me to toss out a curve ball, & some related questions running
> through my mind lately: It's quite obvious that getting 60-70 or
> even 80% of maximum available quality out of any system is
> relatively easy. It's always that last little bit at the top that
> takes a disproportionate amount of effort, and it seems we on this
> list are primarily concerned with that area. If we could
> somehow 'increase the headroom' we could perhaps improve our quality
> without quite so much difficulty.
> 
Fair enough, both for OEM based solutions, and for specialty RIPs and 
inksets.

> So how in our case does one raise the ceiling of available quality?
> Even if you use 6, 7, or 27 shades of gray, at some point it will do
> no further good, because we are ignoring the most basic and
> fundamental limit inherent to our system: 256 shades of gray. We are
> stuck with translating a almost infinite palette of grays into 256
> shades, and then somehow trying to reproduce that palette with
> equipment and software designed to print 256 shades. Remember, this
> system was set up many years ago by non imaging related techies who
> thought no one could (or more to the point NEEDED) to see more
> subtle gradation. OK, there were other reasons too, like processor
> and memory limits, etc. If there were software that could give us
> e.g., 512 shades of gray, and drivers that could exploit that, would
> that be a dramatic improvement? My feeling is that it would
> constitute the difference between medium format and 4x5 or even
> 8x10. I suppose more to the point, however: is this possible, or is
> it analogous to switching to hydrogen from fossil fuels?
> Does printing in 12 or 16 bit with drivers equipped for that come
> out to about the same thing, or not?
> 
> I was seriously enthused about the idea of 16 bit export, way back when it 
was still theory (and way back when we had little high bit stuff to feed to it). 
Once I had seen a couple versions of it I realized it was just one more tool. 
  So this year, when it hits the mainstream, and end users and reviewers are 
contacting me full of enthusiasm for testing the new 16 bit export modules for 
the latest printers, I always try to bring their hopes back into perspective. 
Well linearized output of well optimized images, both at 8 bit, have about as 
many levels as the eye can distinguish. High bit is wonderful to allow for 
adjustments, be it to capture, process, or output, but once things are optimal, 
it is, for the most part, overkill. So I see high bit more as a way to improve 
problem images or processing or printing than to further improve top notch 
stuff.

C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision Business Unit
Datacolor Inc.
CDTobie@...
www.colorvision.com



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]