Visual comparison of Epson 740,1160,900,EX,1200,1270,HP970 Output
David Chien
So you can see at last what's the real difference between the best photo
output from these printers, esp. the best photo inkjet printers in
the world, the Epson 870/875/1270, vs. the rest.
--
I would appreciate full letter sized, photo paper prints of the
free Photodisc test target from Canon 8200 & HP 930/970/1100 users
to include for a fairer comparison if said owners are willing to
send me a print.
--
As of now, the Epson 870/875/1270 are the world's best photo inkjet
printers for the home, behind the ALps 1300/5000/5500 in aboslute
quality and lack of dots. The Epson 750/1200 are next.
All other printers mentioned in the subject line are of poorer quality.
Assume the Canon 8200 to be somewhere between the Epson EX and 870
in output quality, more likely between the 1200 and 870.
david =)
..whew! hate running out of memory doing 2400dpi scans... oh, well,
a good two hours spent watching Ally McBeal...
Rene Lamontagne
unscientific.
Rene
David Chien <chi...@uci.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.4.05.100042...@e4e.oac.uci.edu...
Nicholas Newell
of the printers. By narrowing the crop to one area of an image, we
can really focus on the differences in the one area, rather than
scanning our eye around the image, and the differences are dramatic.
And I don't see what the problem is with choosing
unsharp on the scan - all of the printers have to deal with the same
picture, he just made it a bit sharper. This is perhaps the best Epson
comparison I've seen.
Nai-Chi Lee
Rene Lamontagne <rlam...@home.ca> wrote:
>Poorest set of tests I have run into lately, Unsharp! different images! Very
>unscientific.
Sound like somebody's printer didn't do too well? No, don't tell me
which one. I can alread tell.
>David Chien <chi...@uci.edu> wrote in message
>news:Pine.SOL.4.05.100042...@e4e.oac.uci.edu...
>> http://www.silverace.com/dottyspotty/issue9.html
>>
>> So you can see at last what's the real difference between the best photo
>> output from these printers, esp. the best photo inkjet printers in
>> the world, the Epson 870/875/1270, vs. the rest.
David,
The comparison scan for six differnet Epson printers' quality is good.
Unfortunately the image was so heavily compressed (from 3.3MB raw down
to 74KB jpeg) that compression artifacts were clearly visible, and a lot
of details were lost. You should upload another version with lighter
compression.
--
Nai-Chi
Come see my Epson 700 print quality and fade test results at:
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=14403
(Latest: Using the new Epson Premium Glossy Photo Paper on the Epson 700)
Rene Lamontagne
tested? Wouldn't this give us a better Idea of the differences? Yes the
epson tests side by side were good. Why sharpen them? why not a raw
untouched Image? Don't get me wrong, I am sure that the epson 870/1170
printers are putting out the best pic's, this seems obvious, But let's see
true unbiased tests with any other printer so people can use this as a true
base to buy a new printer.
Rene
Nai-Chi Lee <n...@philabs.research.philips.com> wrote in message
news:8e4afl$9qc$1...@news.philabs.research.philips.com...
pegleg
critical to most humans. Second, on this planet, most text is 12
point, not 2000 point. But I'll remember that when visiting your
homeworld (planet Epson is it?).
Pegleg
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Dennis
I know your feeling got hurt but where did you read he sharpened the Epson
prints? You must have missed the line so here it is from his oridginal post.
>>Unsharp was selected in the Epson Twain driver.
David Chien
> tested? Wouldn't this give us a better Idea of the differences? Yes the
While unsharp in the Epson Twain driver does alter the output image, the
difference between the softer unaltered scans and the unsharpened scans
are noticable in that the unsharpened scans more closely reflect what
you might see under a loupe and closeup examination of prints.
The primary point of this comparison is to provide a basis for comparing
the various Epson inkjets, assuming that you have an older Epson and
wanted to see the differences vs. the latest models.
eg. if you have an Epson 740, you'd see that the quality difference in
my scans are comprable to the jump in quality you'd see in real-life
comparisions of these scans.
Additionally, the unsharping highlights hard-to-see defects that would
be difficult to see in the original, softer image, esp. in the Epson 870
print sample. You must realize that the ~600dpi maximum capability of
the Epson 1200S scanner is not quite enough to capture the inkjet dots
on the Epson 870 as clearly as a higher resolution scanner would, and so
a little 'help' is needed to bring the images in line with what you'd
see in reality.
(ala these scans made on a 3048dpi Umax Powerlook 3000 scanner at:
http://www.tssphoto.com/sp/dg/news/dot_comp.html
which compare the Epson 800, 900, EX, and 1200 series)
I do wish I had free access to such a high-res. scanner, but until then,
I'm left to deal with the crappy Epson 1200S, and as such, feel that the
unsharped version more closely reflects what you'd actually see.
The best way to view my scans is to step back a bit and look at the
overall differences in feel and dottiness you detect across the series
from left-to-right (ordered in increasing quality). W/O an actual print
and multiple sample scans, it's the same thing you must do with
tssphoto.com's scans. Even better would be to have a print from one of
the printers I've scanned so you can see how the onscreen scan looks
like in reality.
Unfortunately, I don't own every single printer, and as such, I relied
on help from owners to print out the test samples and send them to me.
Naturally, differing color managments resulted in the different color
casts, and slightly different margins (eg. 1/4" vs. 1/2" top and bottom)
means slightly different printed scale. However, the scanned area
themselves were identical (ie. the ruler scan applies to each and every
image w/o adjustment).
Just disregard those differences, and look at the highlights for each
picture, then the subtle shading of the pastels in each image to see the
differences clearly and accurately.
> true unbiased tests with any other printer so people can use this as a true
> base to buy a new printer.
Unfortunately, w/o a higher resolution scanner, I can't provide more
'unbiased' scans at the level where each inkjet dot is clearly defined
and visible.
However, this is not to say that these scans are useless or do not
reflect that actual jump in quality you'd see for yourself. They do,
given the limiting resolution of my scanner, reflect those quality
differences accurately and provide viewers a high level of accuracy for
comparison (esp. when used with the tssphoto.com site and the HP 970
scan).
d =)
David Chien
> critical to most humans.
for a coffee break or about 5-10 minutes per large sized photo.
200x280 mm print from Photoshop 5.0J as reported in a Japanese computer
magazine test of these are:
PM-800C (same as US 870)
720x720 4:06
1440x720 8:07
PM-770C (same as US 750)
720x720 5:35
1440x720 11:04
BJ-850 (same as US 8200)
1200x1200 6:34
HP 970
1200x600 6:49
2400x1200 10:58
> Second, on this planet, most text is 12 point, not 2000 point.
So what is that refering to? The black text in each sample scan
was added after the scan for labeling and identification purposes.
The black text was not part of the original sample prints, something
I would have assumed people would realize immediately.
d =)
Rene Lamontagne
at the level where each inkjet dot is clearly defined
> and visible.
>
> However, this is not to say that these scans are useless or do not
> differences accurately and provide viewers a high level of accuracy for
> comparison (esp. when used with the tssphoto.com site and the HP 970
>
> d =)
Thanks For the kind explanation David, that really helps put a different
light on things and puts things back in perspective. Yes I can see that the
870 surpasses all the other models by quite a bit and would seem to be worth
buying for its quality. Any more news on this glossy paper fading thing?
No Dennis, my feeling were not hurt i was merely trying to gather printer
info.
Rene
bob dolson
Nicholas Newell <acnn...@ne.mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:3905AA9E...@ne.mediaone.net...
> I disagree. His main test has the same image, side-by-side, for most
> of the printers. By narrowing the crop to one area of an image, we
But then why didn't he use the very same image for the HP970?? And what was
the purpose of that 1/100th inch ruler picture?
--
Sincerely,
Bob Dolson
Retired since Oct. 1, 1999!
check out our web pages when you get a chance.
Now including some QTVR pans from the Casio 2000UX at:
http://home.sprynet.com/~bdolson
Also check out our PhotoPoint web albums.
Also including some 2000UX samples at:
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=49802
bob dolson
And what was the purpose of that 1/100th inch ruler photo??
skid00
To see why a) scanners are pretty useless for viewing ink drops,
and b) jpg lies, please point your favorite browser to my
humble web site. I'm in the process of uploading scans and
microscope captures that show what goes on behind the
scenes.
P.S., you won't find any aardvarks on my pages, but there
are several really cute treefrogs...
skid00
Daniel H Lauring
skid00 <ladlueck...@vbe.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:12d34c34...@usw-ex0105-034.remarq.com...
> Unfortunately, David's scans DO NOT reflect reality.
>
> To see why a) scanners are pretty useless for viewing ink drops,
> and b) jpg lies, please point your favorite browser to my
> humble web site. I'm in the process of uploading scans and
> microscope captures that show what goes on behind the
> scenes.
>
> P.S., you won't find any aardvarks on my pages, but there
> are several really cute treefrogs...
>
Bob
skid00 <ladlueck...@vbe.com.invalid> wrote:
> Unfortunately, David's scans DO NOT reflect reality.
>
> To see why a) scanners are pretty useless for viewing ink drops,
> and b) jpg lies, please point your favorite browser to my
> humble web site. I'm in the process of uploading scans and
> microscope captures that show what goes on behind the
> scenes.
Umm, I don't think David ever claimed the scans were perfect representations
of reality. But given that each image was given the same process, they do
show the relative differences between the printers. As for you
photomicrograph, so what? First, the degree of enlargement is so great it
bears no resemblance to what people see when they look at a picture. Second,
you don't show any comparisons using the microscope image, so it really
doesn't give me any useful way to compare printers.
Yes, David's scans are flawed. But they're more useful than yours.
--
Bob M.
Step outside. The graphics are AMAZING!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Bob
"bob dolson" <bdo...@sprynet.com> wrote:
> Why didn't you use the same image for the HP970 as you did for the Epsons?
Geez, re-read the original post. David is asking for someone who owns a 970
to please send him a print of the photoscan test chart. Does that maybe
imply that David doesn't own an HP printer, so he can't print a comparison
print?
Dennis
The entire context of the post has been distorted by offended HP owners like
skid00. David posted a comparison of droplet sizes of various Epson printers for
anyone to see what 3, 4 or 6 picoliter droplets look like. He asked for any
prints from anyone with a 970
>>I would appreciate full letter sized, photo paper prints of the
>>free Photodisc test target from Canon 8200 & HP 930/970/1100 users
>>to include for a fairer comparison if said owners are willing to
>>send me a print.
but no all he will get is slammed by narrow minded people who own one printer
and think the world revolves around it. If skid00 wants to to useful he can
"WORK WITH" David as he has requested prints from 970 owners then together the
results will be available to all. But he won't put a 970 print next to a
870/1270 because the results would offend him. The 1270/870 Photo Epson is
vastly superior to the 970 in printing photos, I have laid prints of the P1100
PhotoSmart HP side by side a 1270 Epson Photo and at two feet away you can still
see the difference.
I agree that the treefrog site doesn't show any more a actual comparison and see
little use at looking at Spark plugs, and his favorite photos taken with his new
camera, the site is of no value for comparisons or answering questions, it lacks
any information of settings used by both the printer and scanner. What are we
looking at with which values?
David Chien
I've asked again and again, but nobody with a 970 has yet offered to
print the free Photodisc test target for me. Only the Epson guys have
done this, so that's why I'm missing the 93x/97x/11xx matching print.
(also, those Canon 8200 owners are slacking as well ;)-
> And what was the purpose of that 1/100th inch ruler photo??
For scale and reference in case anybody wanted to sit really far back
and guage what the prints would look like at actual scale in real life.
David Chien
> http://www.vbe.com/~ladlueck to see why...
My scans my not reflect exactly what you'd see under a higher power
microscope. (same thing's been done before:
http://lioncity.s-one.net.sg/~printer/reviews/dave2/Extreme2.html
http://skyscraper.fortunecity.com/skully/129/reviews/daveburk1/review.html)
But my scans do reflect what an average viewer would see upon closer
examination of prints (as well as what they may look like farther away
if he sits farther from the monitor) better.
Kinda pointless to be looking at 60x microscope magnifications of the
dots themselves when it doesn't help most average people understand and
see what the actual visual differences are with the unaided eye, does
it?
--
But certainly go ahead and put up some more, crisper examples if you
can. I only had use of a poor 30x pocket microscope for my wall chart
of ~50 magnified dots samples from a variety of printers at:
http://www.silverace.com/dottyspotty/issue3.html
specifically:
http://www.silverace.com/dottyspotty/issue3.jpg
I certainly wish I had access to a better microscope like the one used
for the two Extreme Mangification articles, but that's life - you do the
best you can with what you've got....
d =)
skid00
>> of reality. But given that each image was given the same
process, they do
>> show the relative differences between the printers.
[Ahhh, yes...Dennis, who's never posted help on any subject,
but always takes time out to slam...
DC's jpg's don't show what's happening, because the jpg
compression COMPLETELY wipes out the original ink drop
boundaries. I thought that was obvious from my screen
capture, but with you, one never knows...]
As for you
>> photomicrograph, so what? First, the degree of enlargement
is so great it
>> bears no resemblance to what people see when they look at a
picture.
[Which is why I've got a page showing HP 970 prints, taken
in macro mode, with the digicam... DC's constant mantra
has been "dotty, spotty", yet you've never seen a post by
an HP owner, saying "hey, when I view my prints held one
inch from my eyes, I see ink drops", "hey, when I hold a print
up to the sun, and look THRU the paper, I see that the
process black isn't 100% black". That's what DC's been
saying. So are you now refuting everything HE's been saying
for the last 6 months?!]
Second,
>> you don't show any comparisons using the microscope image, so
it really
>> doesn't give me any useful way to compare printers.
>>
>> Yes, David's scans are flawed. But they're more useful than
yours.
[DUH! Why do you think I've been trying to get hold of epson
prints for the last 6 months?! Why am I STILL asking for
samples, on the very page you are criticising?]
>The entire context of the post has been distorted by offended
HP owners like
>skid00.
[No, it hasn't. DC's scans don't show reality... They SEEM
to show ink drops, when viewed at 100%, but zooming in with
a photo editor clearly shows the jpg compression blocks...]
David posted a comparison of droplet sizes of various Epson
printers for
>anyone to see what 3, 4 or 6 picoliter droplets look like.
[That's my whole point! You ARE NOT seeing the ink drops.
You are seeing whatever the JPG compression scheme decided
to show you.]
He asked for any
>prints from anyone with a 970
>
>>>I would appreciate full letter sized, photo paper prints of
the
>>>free Photodisc test target from Canon 8200 & HP 930/970/1100
users
>>>to include for a fairer comparison if said owners are willing
to
>>>send me a print.
>but no all he will get is slammed by narrow minded people who
own one printer
>and think the world revolves around it.
[I AM EITHER THE -VERY FIRST-, OR ONE OF ONLY A FEW FIRST PEOPLE
TO
SEND DC PRINTOUTS FROM THE 970. I DID IT 6 MONTHS AGO. DC
TOLD ME HE WOULD 'REPORT BACK TO (THE NG?) WHEN HE RECIEVED
MY PRINTS. INSTEAD, HE POSTED THE DOTTY SPOTTY ARTICLE THAT
PANNED THE 970, AND HE DID IT -BEFORE- HE RECIEVED MY PRINTS.
IF HE HAD SOME PRINTS FROM SOMEONE ELSE, THEY MOST CERTAINLY
WEREN'T OF LARGE, MULTI-MEGABYTE IMAGES, THAT WE NOW KNOW
THRU DC'S CRUSADING OF THE PHOTODISC IMAGE, IS ESSENTIAL FOR
EVALUATING THESE PRINTERS.
It's no wonder no other 970 owners are willing to spend big
bucks to print out photos and send to him. And I'll make
myself very clear, here. -I- don't believe DC is unbiased.
I thought he was just an interested printer-geek, like
myself. But for 6 months, he's gone on a very obvious
'sell the new epsons' trip. He even proclaimed, in no
uncertain terms, that the new epsons were the 'best ever',
BEFORE -ANYONE- HAD SEEN ANY OUTPUT. That's just plain
stupid...
Oh, BTW, I've also sent pics to Nai-Chi, who has also been
evaluating printers. -HE- was honest enough to change his
web site, to show that the original prints he had from
another 970 were 'failed' prints. That's why I don't
contradict his posts - I BELEIVE HIM!]
If skid00 wants to to useful he can
>"WORK WITH" David as he has requested prints from 970 owners
then together the
>results will be available to all.
[I'll be more than happy to accept from David Chien correctly
printed, and optimal 870/1270 prints. I'll gladly scope
capture, and then we REALLY WILL have some useful unequivical
information about these new epsons. I'll even go one further-if
these
prints are anywhere NEAR as good as some have been claiming,
I'll go out and buy one myself! (Altho I won't be happy
to pay three or more times the price per print.)]
But he won't put a 970 print next to a
>870/1270 because the results would offend him. The 1270/870
Photo Epson is
[Talk is cheap Dennis! Send me some. Actually do something
useful for a change.]
>vastly superior to the 970 in printing photos, I have laid
prints of the P1100
>PhotoSmart HP side by side a 1270 Epson Photo and at two feet
away you can still
>see the difference.
>
>I agree that the treefrog site doesn't show any more a actual
comparison and see
>little use at looking at Spark plugs, and his favorite photos
taken with his new
>camera, the site is of no value for comparisons or answering
questions, it lacks
>any information of settings used by both the printer and
scanner. What are we
>looking at with which values?
[You can certainly criticise ONE PAGE, that I set up in haste...
But did you bother to notice that the WHOLE SITE contains
information to HELP OTHERS?
-970- settings, paper review, etc,
-digital camera- evaluation of night photos, etc,
-spark plugs- (yes, I'm not just a computer nerd, I'll
even help anyone who uses an internal combustion engine.
-and the obligatory photo page- where I hope to show visitors
some of the 'outside...amazing graphics' that I've been
fortunate to see.
Now, if anyone out there has the balls to look at what I posted,
and think about what jpg did to the scanner scans, and then
have a discussion about what we can do to fairly compare
inkjet printers, and figure out a way to ensure that our
biases don't factor in, post!
Dennis
Don't hold your breath on skid00 sending you any 970 prints to compare with, the
results would end the issue and then they couldn't argue to death this subject.
bb
"skid00" <ladlueck...@vbe.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:12d34c34...@usw-ex0105-034.remarq.com...
>
> To see why a) scanners are pretty useless for viewing ink drops,
> and b) jpg lies, please point your favorite browser to my
> humble web site. I'm in the process of uploading scans and
> microscope captures that show what goes on behind the
> scenes.
I particularly liked the "ditch in front of your house". Very nice photo.
What JPG compression did you use on your sample image on the "DC's flawed
whatever" section?
Also, do you have similar 60x scope captures of the flower stalk using an
Epson 870/1270 ? Without a comparison it doesn't tell anything. Except
that inkjets look pretty bad compared to the chemical print. Continuous
tone it isn't !! Anyway, both DC and Epson claim more continuous tone with
less obvious dots...so we really need a sample from the 870/1270 to compare
I think.
Cheers,
Byron
-
-
http://photoscope.homestead.com/files/photography.htm
Photo Resolution tests
Epson 1200U Tests, Examples and Homemade Transparency Adapter
The Truth About Scanner Resolution Specs
Canon FS2710 Film Scanner Examples
Rene Lamontagne
printer, I am Trying to compare as I like good Quality and would like Davids
Honest opinion Using Just common 20/20 Eyeballs. Hope to hear from him soon.
Myself, I like the prints very much but am not biased and would like to see
any others that match or do better, we are always looking to improve our
prints.
Regards Rene
Dennis <dev...@Xnemonet.com> wrote in message
news:3907B210...@Xnemonet.com...
Rene Lamontagne
CA. in a few days, we are a couple thousand miles apart as I live in
Winnipeg, MB.
Regards Rene
Rene Lamontagne <rlam...@home.ca> wrote in message
news:k6ZN4.8835$95.7...@news1.rdc1.mb.home.com...
Nai-Chi Lee
Rene Lamontagne <rlam...@home.ca> wrote:
>Rene Lamontagne has just mailed David 8 X 10 prints from my HP P 1100
>printer,
Nai-Chi Lee has just updated his Print Quality Test album at:
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=14403&a=1271109
Nai-Chi Lee has now included prints from his new Epson 1270 to compare
against the identical image printed from HP 970, Epson 750, and Alps
MD-5000 dye-sub. He welcomes all of you to take a look and give him
your honest opinions/comments.
By the way, Nai-Chi Lee thinks he may have been exposed to a strange
virus thrugh the internet this morning...
--
Nai-Chi
David Chien
I'm very interested myself in seeing the Canon sample -- it maybe a very
solid alternative to the Epsons, esp. for the individual ink tanks and
the swappable scan head feature.
d =)
David Chien
> compression COMPLETELY wipes out the original ink drop
> boundaries. I thought that was obvious from my screen
Let me clarify - the dots are not cleanly defined, but you
do see what's happening. In my 100% scale captures, you can
see the dots more clearly. But most people aren't gonna
sit and wait for a hundreds KB image, and thus the reduction
by 50% as I mentioned in my article for size and convenience
of on-screen viewing.
When I saved to JPEG format, I adjusted from minimum compression
downwards until noticable JPEG artifacts were noticable and
adjusted a bit upwards from there for the final JPEG file.
In direct comparisons on screen betweeen the JPEG and original
image, I would say that they look identical unless you go in
pixel by pixel and compare. Visually, what you see on screen
with my JPEG scans are identical (for the most part, and for
the purposes of comparison) to what I see on screen with the
original scans.
The blurry inkjet boundaries are due, not to JPEG compression,
but due to the low 600dpi resolution of my scanner (80-90%) and the 50%
reduction in size (10-20%). The JPEG compression has very little
affect on the image, maybe 5% at the very most and well under that
visually, due to the low compression setting used.
That aside, the visual representation on screen is pretty accurate
to what you'd see in real life, given the slightly blurrier results.
In this case, the accuracy of representing the individual dots aren't as
important as the accuracy of representing the visual closeness of the
prints to what you'd see in real life..
> an HP owner, saying "hey, when I view my prints held one
> inch from my eyes, I see ink drops", "hey, when I hold a print
> up to the sun, and look THRU the paper, I see that the
> process black isn't 100% black". That's what DC's been
> saying. So are you now refuting everything HE's been saying
> for the last 6 months?!]
Most owners do not have another point of reference to compare to.
Thus, what they have looks pretty darn good -- until, they see something
better, that is.
This is not to say the HP are bad, just not as good as the other
top-of-line inkjet printers available.
This is based on several things:
1) www.wilhelm-research.com states the HP Photo papers are not very
good at all in humidity fastness, worse than the Epsons.
2) the HPs only use 3-colors in photo mode vs. 6-colors by the Epsons
(and Canon 8200). As a result, color gradiants are far smoother in the
6-color inkjet printers in direct side-by-side comparions vs. the
3-color inkjets.
3) the HP 970 is more expensive than the than the Epson 870. (they do
have the cheaper 932 they just released with fewer included features)
4) many people have had trouble using the printer over a standard
parallel port, something other inkjet printers users have not noted.
www.deja.com/usenet/ The fix seems to be to move to USB, which also is
not completely trouble free.
Thus, while the printout quality of the HP and Canon and Epsons =are
all at or better than the print quality you see on high-gloss,
high-quality magazine covers=, the major detractions of the HPs noted
above are the reasons I do not suggest to others wanting to buy a photo
inkjet printer the HPs.
I've also said that for the majority of viewers, they'll look at
prints from any of the above and say "Photo!".
However, I figure, if you are spending your money, why by the HP with
the problems listed above when a comprably priced printer has better
photo output with smoother skin and color tones, longer archival
lifespans, and fewer hookup problems?
> [No, it hasn't. DC's scans don't show reality... They SEEM
> to show ink drops, when viewed at 100%, but zooming in with
> a photo editor clearly shows the jpg compression blocks...]
They're main purpose is not to show inkjet dots cleanly and crisply.
The purpose is to give the viewer an overall idea as to how the
various prints look like in real life if they viewed the various
samples themselves. Yes, they'd all look sharper than the fuzzy
ones created by my scanner, but other than that, they provide a
good relative comparison between the various printers. They do
not provide a good 'absolute' reference point, but that's easily
fixed if the viewer has any one of the test targets printed
on one of the Epson pritners listed in front of him for fixing
that relative point in mind.
> David posted a comparison of droplet sizes of various Epson
> printers for
> >anyone to see what 3, 4 or 6 picoliter droplets look like.
>
> [That's my whole point! You ARE NOT seeing the ink drops.
> You are seeing whatever the JPG compression scheme decided
> to show you.]
That's right, you are not seeing the ink drops. That's not
the point. You are to see the overall impression that's you'd
see in real life viewing the various prints at various dot sizes.
The highly magnified dot thing has been done before, but that
doesn't make them very useful for the majority of average users
that want to compare printers.
an analogy. it is not the point to look at the individual dots
in an Impressionist painting; it is the overall feeling you see
when you step back and see the painting as a whole that is the
point. Same with inkjet dots vs. the overall impression of
quality you see between the various samples I've posted.
> MY PRINTS. INSTEAD, HE POSTED THE DOTTY SPOTTY ARTICLE THAT
> PANNED THE 970, AND HE DID IT -BEFORE- HE RECIEVED MY PRINTS.
Because I had HP printed Premium Photo Print samples at hand,
their best examples of the maximum quality from the 970s. Thus,
there was no need to wait for additional samples, which only
confirmed the same quality.
> myself very clear, here. -I- don't believe DC is unbiased.
Never said I was unbiased. I'm definitely biased in many areas,
with stong opinions.
> I thought he was just an interested printer-geek, like
> myself. But for 6 months, he's gone on a very obvious
> 'sell the new epsons' trip. He even proclaimed, in no
I am an interested printer geek. I've got a folder, several
inches thick, with printer output samples from the major color
inkjet printers for the past 10+ years, all the way back to my
first HP Paintjet (which I thought was way better than the color
Epson JX-80 at that time). I've used HPs, Canons, Epsons, Lexmarks,
etc. over the years, and my preferences vary depending on the
year. Early on, the HPs were very nice to me - quiet, dependable
color and B/W output, cheap to buy. But they failed to keep up
with the competition, to the point today where even the
dog-on-the-bottom-rung Canon can say that their Canon 8200 provides
better output
than the HPs.
(Yep, all those magnified dot samples in my Dotty Spotty #3
article were from print samples from my collection)
I'm not selling anything. Just putting out my opinion as
to what is the best photo inkjet printers to buy, as well as
good choices to pick from if you're in the market.
If you read carefully, you'll note that I still put the
Alps 1300/5000/5500 dye-subs as superior printers to the Epsons
in output in my rankings of all <$500 home photo printers.
All of my postings that included printers other than inkjets
(sometimes the discussion is limited to "What's the best
inkjet printer to buy?" where I don't mention the Alps) place
the Alps at a higher level than the Epson. (www.deja.com/usenet/
and go through a couple hundred posts)
If I see another printer that is better, I'll be tooting that
instead. I really don't care for the Epsons having their nozzle heads
unreplaceable for the most part at all or the long nozzle clearing
startups; I like the HP/Canon idea where the nozzle head can be tossed
out at any time. And they are whiny in operation. And they do have the
top feed where dust and debris can accidentally fall into.
But again, if someone asked, what's the best photo inkjet printer
available for the home user, I'd still say the 870/1270 for now because
the photo output from these printers are the best looking, IMO, with
superior smoothness, color graidants, dotless appearence, long archival
lifespans, etc.
> uncertain terms, that the new epsons were the 'best ever',
> BEFORE -ANYONE- HAD SEEN ANY OUTPUT. That's just plain
> stupid...
Let's see. If the Epson 750/1200 is already very, very good,
and the new Epsons are bound to be better than the 750/1200s,
which are already better than the other inkjet printers, and
3 Japanese magazine reviews of all available inkjet printers at
the end of 1999 all said the new Epson 870/1270s were better than
all the other inkjet printers out there, what do you think I based
my opinion on?
Simple inference of the facts already out there.
here's an analogy. It's like saying,
if the old Lexus LS 400 was excellent, and the latest generation is
excellent, and they say they've improved the next generation, what
do you think we can assume about the next generation. (oh, and on
top of that, three other reviews have already test driven the next
generation and said they were excellent). I think saying that
the next generation is excellent is by no means far from the truth,
with or without testing the next generation firsthand.
> Oh, BTW, I've also sent pics to Nai-Chi, who has also been
> evaluating printers. -HE- was honest enough to change his
> web site, to show that the original prints he had from
> another 970 were 'failed' prints. That's why I don't
> contradict his posts - I BELEIVE HIM!]
That's fine with me. The more people that examine and compare prints
from the various printers, the better. After all, my eyes may be
playing
tricks on me, my mind may be frail, and my reports may be biased, so
it's
always better if many people chirp in and add their reports.
> [I'll be more than happy to accept from David Chien correctly
> printed, and optimal 870/1270 prints. I'll gladly scope
Unfortunately, I only had access to a borrowed 870 for a couple days,
as noted in my article. Whatever prints I have now are primarily from
that period, so I can't make more.
(Would someone who owns a 870/1270 send one to him?)
Nor in the forseeable future as I've bought a 750 instead for $116 at
www.onsale.com. (figure the print quality is close to the 870, see the
Subject site for the visual comparisons, and that for my 4x6" purpose,
the
quality is good enough that I don't mind -- and I can use the $150
difference
between a 870 for paper and inks)
As picky as I am in reviewing and comparing the printers, I know that
there is a diminishing return at some point. In this case, inkjet
printers will simply never match film prints for the next couple years,
so why strive for that if a great bargin comes around? And the Alps
will still have better output that are 100% dotfree.
I've posted on this as well -- that if the quality difference between
the 750 and 870 isn't an absolute importance, the <$126 750 and the
<$149 EX bargins available today are a great buy.
> But he won't put a 970 print next to a
> >870/1270 because the results would offend him. The 1270/870
> Photo Epson is
I didn't put the HP 970 print next to the Epson prints because
they weren't the same image. Also, if you browse my site with
a web browser, with my two seperate images, you can open up the
Epson image in one window, and the HP image in another window,
and move the HP window back and forth until you feel it matches
the equivalent Epson output underneath for reference comparison.
That way, people coming to the site will hopefully do what I did
and move it back and forth until they say, well, the highlights
are certainly better on the HP than the Epson EX, but not as
good as the 870. Same thing with the rest of the image, and thus
the HP must be somewhere between the Epson EX and 870 in output
quality (but note: still not better than the Epson 870).
See, I think ahead and try to guage what's useful to visitors,
and arrange my pictures that way to help them. Putting the HP
picture at the ends of the Epson strip certainly is not as handy
as a moveable HP image that can be moved left and right until the
viewer decides for himself where it lies vs. the Epsons.
I've done magnified dots before, and found that it was of little
help to me in knowing the visual differences you'd see w/o
magnification. Yes, you do understand where defects and artifacts
arise from (eg. the more horizontal dot arrangement of the HP photosmart
leading to visible horizontal artifacts), but it is pointless for
viewers that have never seen dots under magnification and have
no point of reference. That's why these scans are more useful to new
and old buyers.
----
In the end, why don't you focus on collecting more samples like I've
done and post your results for us to read?
Rather than focusing on finding the best photo printer out there, you've
mangaged to focus on silly points like 'HP users never look at prints at
one inch afar, nor with backlighting, so the HPs can't be crappy!', all
to boast and flag your standpoint w/o adaquate support.
Even this long reply to points made in your loud noise-making reply is a
waste of time to a large part because it introduces little that is new.
(Although many will get the benefit on thinking things thru on both
sides of the fence when reading posts online, becoming better thinkers
and buyers.)
----
But in the end, the things that have been mentioned are the sort of
things I'm trying to avoid having everyone think about because one of
the main points of my posts is to simplfy the decision, not obscure it
with details galore.
(however, I will go in depth as needed)
Few actually will care about JPEG compression artifacts, scanner
blurriness, etc, and just want to go home today with the best photo
inkjet printer for their digital images of friends and family.
I've spent the time for them to examine, collect, and compare various
inkjet print samples, and when I say, briefly, that one printer or the
other are their best picks, I've saved them hours of comparison shopping
time by pointing them straight to the top.
It's much like saying if you want to go to a top college, just go to an
ivy league college will take care of the majority of people asking.
Those that have specific requirements in quality, output, speed, etc.,
can use my opinions as a starting point for further research and
comparisons.
But it is not to say I'm the only one to go to. I'm biased towards
quality of output, so if you want a printer best in other areas
(quietness, paper handling, etc.), better find that out from someone
else.
d =)
skid00
I particularly liked the "ditch in front of your house". Very
nice photo.
What JPG compression did you use on your sample image on
the "DC's flawed whatever" section?
[ I don't know what the scanner software does...it's not
selectable.
The ditch pic was just an unplanned snap...funny how the
best pics seem to turn up that way! ]
bb
"skid00" <ladlueck...@vbe.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:0f93b390...@usw-ex0104-031.remarq.com...
>
> > What JPG compression did you use on your sample image on
> > the "DC's flawed whatever" section?
>
> [ I don't know what the scanner software does...it's not
> selectable.
OK, I was curious about the extensive artifacts you example showed. I tried
scanning my Epson 700 output and saving it to the file formats you
mentioned. They all looked the basically the same to me. I couldn't
duplicate your results.
The closest I got was if I saved the file with extreme JPG compression and
even then I had to resize with "nearest neighbor" resampling and then zoom
by 800%. At that point, things were such a mess I couldn't remember why I
was doing it !!!
Since your pages have some good info on it, you might want to relook at that
section. You examples have three major things that I don't see in David's
examples:
1) "nearest neighbor resampling",
2) high zoom, and
3) heavy JPG compression.
So your point doesn't quite make it. I'd suggest using a moderate to light
JPG compression to duplicate DC's images (perhaps he can tell us what level
he used).
Also, I realize your point needs zoom to get the pixel view but I'd suggest
using Bicubic instead of "nearest neighbor". "Nearest neighbor" is a poor
resampling algorithm that introduces a lot of artifacts of its own.
Finally, I'd suggest saving the *zoomed* file in the various formats.
Zooming as the last operation artificially amplifies any artifacts and since
DC's examples have no zooming at all it is misleading.
Anyway, not to criticize your efforts. You and DC both have good stuff on
your sites. Having done some of my own I can appreciate the effort
involved.
Cheers,
Byron
David Chien
scan of Photodisc target.