Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Printers > Photo Inkjet

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 5, 2004, 10:20 AM   #11
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 7
Default

pdxbrian, most definately I'm always using Large and Superfine compression. I'm all about trying to get the best out of what I've got. I intend to print almost exclusively 4x6's since I know that's what I'm lilkely limited to using my S200. And then there's always getting a new camera...

KuoH, HP's printers in looking at their website all state "up to 4800 x 1200-optimized dpi color when printing from a computer and 1200-input dpi). This has me understanding that printing directly from my flashcard will result in quality that will be less than if I used a computer with HP's drivers.

http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en...251-64340.html

I haven't actually done a direct print from my camera to a Canon printer yet to compare to the photo printed on the HP 7760, I certainly intend to do so. Again I was disappointed in the photo printed on the 7760 (by the HP guy at Best Buy); the picture of my dog wrapped in a blanket resulted in great color for the blanket but the fur was quite pixelated and the photo was printed only at around 2x3, with the image being 1200x1600, superfine compression.

In general, I will always be looking to print with a computer as I want to be able to use Photoshop to touch things up, crop images, etc. The direct printing is really something my wife will want to do as she wants the convenience, but I don't want to sacrifice much, if any, quality in doing so. I'll need to look at Epsons as well, but I doubt they will support my camera as it doesn't do PictBridge (as you noted Juice_22) only BubbleJet direct.

Thanks to all for all your input!
thickosaurus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 5, 2004, 1:40 PM   #12
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 66
Default

What I'm getting at is that 2mp is around 1600x1200 and 4mp is around 2300x1700, so unless you're planning to print at 1x1 or 2x2, the source isn't necessarily approaching the limits of the printer.

Something else to consider is that the 7960 is capable of layering 32 droplets in a single dot to create colors rather than dithering several dots to create a color. You might want to check [/url]http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/HP%207960/page_15.htmhere for a very comprehensive review of the 7960.

I wouldn't necessarily make the same assumption as you regarding the direct printing resolution, but given the PhotoRet Pro capabilities of this printer, I wouldn't dismiss it based solely on that factor.

EDIT: Oops I just realized that you were looking at the 7760, not the 7960. Scratch what I said unless the 7960 is also within your budget.


KuoH
KuoH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2004, 1:13 PM   #13
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 97
Default

Quote:
Something else to consider is that the 7960 is capable of layering 32 droplets in a single dot to create colors rather than dithering several dots to create a color.
So why is it then, even on their 7960, every picture I have ever seen with a skintone has noticable dithering in it? Even look at the HP samples at a retail store and you can notice little black or brown specles in a caucasian person's skin. They are small as with all printers, but thats still dithering. The ink drop layering is some HP marketing magic as just about every printer ever made layers or mixes color. I can't remember seeing a printer with a "green" or "purple" cartridge...but maybe that is just me...

Compare that to a Canon or even some Epsons and you will almost NEVER see that skin tone dithering. I'm not sure how the Epsons do it since they use large drop sizes, but with Canon's its nearly impossible for the i860, i960 and i900D to have noticable dithering because the print head lays ink down in a manner than plays on limitations on the human eye (1pl = human eye cannot differentiate between dots. Canon printers = 2pl dots, with 6 colors they can emulate .6pl drops depending on the shading).

Never realized this until recently, but the technology that these printers use is just incredible..
pdxbrian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2004, 3:27 PM   #14
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 66
Default

I can't speak for the pictures you saw, but I certainly don't notice any of the defects you seemed to have seen. Did you print these samples yourself directly from a known source on comparable paper or was this just something that happened to be laying around the printer at a store?

Also, there is a difference between layering and matrixing. As far as I know most printers, don't know for sure on Canons, matrix the colors, which upon close inspection reveals distinct subpixels for each pixel to create the desired color effect, much like a monitor. Layering on the other hand, creates single pixels, or as close as possible not accounting for bleed, that have uniform color characteristics. These would be noticeably sharper under close inspection. Obviously, you could create even better matrixed prints if you use small enough subpixels, but then you start to have problems with consistency due to ink clogs and other factors.

I'm not saying that Canon's aren't good, I have an S820 and S530D myself and am very satisfied with their outputs given the price I paid. But if you're looking at best quality for the money in the moderate price range, I wouldn't discount the HP 7960 so quickly, especially if you haven't seen it in action in person.

KuoH

Quote:
Originally Posted by pdxbrian
So why is it then, even on their 7960, every picture I have ever seen with a skintone has noticable dithering in it? Even look at the HP samples at a retail store and you can notice little black or brown specles in a caucasian person's skin. They are small as with all printers, but thats still dithering. The ink drop layering is some HP marketing magic as just about every printer ever made layers or mixes color. I can't remember seeing a printer with a "green" or "purple" cartridge...but maybe that is just me...
KuoH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 9, 2004, 10:06 AM   #15
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 7
Default

Hmm, turns out I have another consideration I didn't realize in looking beyond direct printing. In visiting Best Buy last night, my wife finds the Canon 860 very unpleasing from an aesthetic standpoint compared to the HP lines. In fact the Canon's were downright hideous looking to her compared to the HP's.

We still need to do the direct printing tests from card/camera with the different brands and bring the Kodak paper which we obtained in super bulk from someone for free, so it would be best to find out which one looks the best using the specific paper.

It's just funny that with all the info I'm trying to learn, it may come down to form over function.
thickosaurus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 9, 2004, 11:25 PM   #16
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 97
Default

The Canons are kind of high-tech looking. The HPs look like bread boxes/toasters.

BTW, I would not use the Kodak paper. Buy a small pack of HP ($9)and a small pack of Canon ($8 ). The Kodak paper works OK out of the box with HP but the Canon won't. The Kodak paper takes drivers and a lot of effort to work well on Canon. If I remember correctly, its not resin coated paper, which is what Canon and Epson's alcohol-based inks like.

Also, no offense to your wife, as many more including myself are in the same boat, but tell your wife to base her decision on cost of ownership and quality. If she refuses, buy it behind her back (hehe I had to but after 2 months of hating the way the printer looks, I can't pry her off of it now) We've got the i900D. She hated how it looks with all the other black and silver computer stuff we have in the office but she overlooks that now.
pdxbrian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2004, 8:30 AM   #17
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 7
Default

The Kodak photo paper my wife got free (and I guess can continue to get free) from someone who works with Kodak. Evidentally, it's photo paper that didn't perhaps pass their quality control standards and is reject for sale. Don't know if that means they're all like that or they rejected one sheet thus the entire package is rejected...it's hard to walk away from a lot of free stuff. Visual inspection seems to show they look fine.

If Canon/Epson don't print well on Kodak, then it probably would be best to go with HP just because we can get the paper for free.

Buying behind the wife's back, plus after she knows she doesn't like the appearance? That's not an option for me, at least not without consequences, most likely of which I won't know the consequences until some point in the future too, when I long forgot about the original "offence".

Even if she never saw the 860 to despise it, a long time ago I agreed to the general concept that we don't buy any one item costing more than $100 without letting the other know first. The key is "any one item". Hardly any one electronic device I'm into costs less than $100, while no pair of woman shoes ever cost her $100, but I've come home to multiple pairs of shoes and clothes whereupon the total far exceeds $100. Oh well, I'm figuring out that stuff too.
thickosaurus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 12, 2004, 3:17 PM   #18
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 35
Default

I'm using the Epson R300 with Kodak Premium Glossy Paper with excellent results. I use Epson Glossy Photo Paper as well .. but with slightly warmer results.
el-diablo666 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 5:23 AM.