As challenged by Michael's 'review' of the PMA, here are so thoughts and questions about printing. What are yours?...

1) Speed of evolution

Printing is a medium speed industry: somewhere between cameras and game consoles. It is rare to have more than one significant innovation per year. This will continue; so what will it be in 2008?...

2) Absolute performance

We must be getting near the point where some paper/ink combinations are approaching 'full gamut'. I do not have technical knowledge to argue that is possible or likely but it looks like the next frontier. A Printer that would do even 'only' true sRGB would revolutionise both home printing and print-booth processing.

3) Migration from pro to prosumer to consumer

I was somewhat disappointed that HP's 'Dreamcolor' technology (i.e. closed loop calibration) did not make it down the food chain more quickly but then it is understandable: it is largely a mechanical system, so more prone to going wrong and harder to compress in terms of costs.

The wholly grail for consumer printing is to do away with two major headaches that consumers are basically not interested in: colour calibration and print sharpening. So which solution will get us there? Obviously, self-downloading of ICC profiles for web connected printers is a cheap and easy solution. It could be done at the same time as regular printer driver checks for example. I am not sure about sharpening (I am not sure I understand what can be standardised either).

So here are my predictions for 2008...

- Yet another generation of inks
- Printers that systematically 'talk to the web'
- First claims of '100% gamut coverage'

I'm betting on better paper from cheaper sources.

I may be wrong on this, but I believe that current inkjets already handily exceed the gamut of sRGB in most directions, and a few can actually reach beyond some edges of Adobe RGB. The difference in perceived gamut between reflective paper and transmissive monitor is a separate issue.

This touches on something I've been thinking about recently. Seems like there's a need for a "reverse" gamut warning in PS. When there's a discrepancy between print and monitor, it would be nice to know if the print didn't match the monitor or the monitor didn't match the print, so to speak.

I'm not sure that printers themselves need to evolve very quickly to satisfy the "fine art" market niche that most here represent. Canon, HP and Epson all provide printers quite capable of producing work that can hang in any gallery today. Will we see refinements? Sure. Epson has to eventually respond to ink swapping and clogging or lose business. The 11880 represents some of this.

Those who print for a living will probably be clamoring for more speed and better sheet feeders.

I think the real valuable evolution will come from making color management ubiquitous and easy. That requires Apple and MS to address it at the OS level to some degree and applications like Photoshop and Lightroom to make it more intuitive. Lightroom may lead the way at some point in offering a softproofing facility that won't be referred to as "make my photo look like crap".

Those of us who don't print for a living and have only one large format printer will continue to find value in printers like the HP Z with the built-in spectro that's easy to use.

We'll probably see more papers with coatings optimized for specific inksets. Either that or we'll accept compromises in papers so they'll print on every inkset (less likely). I think we'll see more papers from the printer manufacturers optimized for their inkset. HP and Epson are already thinking and delivering that way I believe. That may put pressure on the smaller paper brands.

I think that Ernst Dinkla made a very interesting comment in another thread that we may see printers evolve into a platform. The platform can then evolve and upgrade or add features without buying a whole new printer every couple of years. This would be very welcome from my perspective.

A significant for Epson will be the re-engineered heads for the other large format machines that we see on the 11880. The auto k switching will have to be part of the package too or people will completely give up on Epson altogether in these smaller formats. The other big improvement of the 11880 inks is the neutralized black and gray inks that are not brown. To me this is huge. This means much more practical black and white output without having to add so much color ink to the mix that can end up in the wrong places of the tonal scale. As to clogging and perpetual ink waste, who knows what the score will be on that.

I think we are already seeing improvement in the Z3100 with firmware updates that support more 3rd party media and the new roller/starwheel assembly that is on its way to us shortly. I look for them to continue refining this first generation of the Z without buying a completely new printer as is always the case with Epson. We'll see about that.


John

Here's my wish list:

1. Papers and/or inksets that eliminate gloss differential and bronzing all the way from dMax black to blank paper (just like silver based prints).
2. Bright stocks that don't use excessive brighteners to get there and have excellent archival qualities (whatever that means).
3. A matte coated paper that a) doesn't shed fibers and b) gets great blacks and c) is nice and white (as above) and d) is nice and sharp with smooth tonalities.
4. A truely FB type of surface on a glossy paper (not too glossy, not too lumpy...but juuuust right).

They aren't there yet, but they are a lot closer than they were even a year ago.

Aloha,
Aaron

I would appreciate it if, every time a print was finished printing, Shakira would would come into the room and hit a large gong.

After all the money I've spent on color management and printing gear I'd hate to see them simplify things.

At this point I'd be thrilled with the once and for all elmination of gloss differential and the spilling of brake fluid on my control panel.

I can not recall that I wrote that but I think John Dean did write something like that.

I wish that a concept like that is used (to a degree) but I doubt that it will be a reality, not in hardware and not by more printer manufacturers. Epson very much had a mass market approach where a product is made in a batch or some batches and any new development means a new printer and no upgrade on an existing range but some bug removals when it is still for sale. If one considers that even drivers are not updated to new OS systems in some cases, it looks more like their intention is to wipe out competition of their older systems in the market (often their only competition). This could change with the new competition though, if you can still sell inks to the old systems around and your competitor not, then it may be better to update those older systems than making the old system obsolete as your customer then has a choice for a new printer from two other manufacturers too. Service, parts, inks and media are bringing in more money than selling the hardware. A customer will accept that his printer gets too slow or is behind in image quality to newer models but will find it hard to accept that his printer isn't updated on driver support with every OS upgrade. To him it looks like little work for the manufacturer and he only thinks that it is an arbitrary decision by the company to make his printer obsolete. The launch dates of new printers and new OS systems do not correlate and the user expects fast action nevertheless.

HP so far has a slightly different approach but I do not think it will sustain that in length of days. Some developments can not be applied to old hardware like wider heads to increase speed of printing which is the thing that will get most attention in the future. As I have written before thermohead nozzles are way cheaper than piëzohead nozzles and the two manufacturers that use thermoheads already challenged Epson on speed. Anyway the competition in the wide format water based inkjet art repro and photography market is changed in the last 18 months and other marketing schemes apply now. The (deliberate slow) evolution path Epson could dictate to the market is gone now, they will have to add anything they can get from R&D into any next model if they want to survive. One may question whether this specific market is even big enough to allow three companies on it. Wonder what companies like Roland will do with their water based inkjet printers, that may tell something about the market.

For 2008 Photokina I do not expect much more than Epson announcing the 44" 24" 17" equivalents of the 11880. HP closing the model range with a 17" model ? I hope an affordable 10 channel hybrid between the B9180 and a Z3100 that will make dual sided sheet printing easier, calibration aboard but no profiling. Direct competition with the Canon iPF5100 and better than the Epson 3800. I think HP could surprise us with a Z6100 at 60" with 10 or 12 channels as the top end model on speed, color, gloss and matte printing. Canon is harder to predict with the upgrade to the iPFx100 models so recently. Maybe a first sign of an even faster 60" model.

After 2008 I expect more diversification in models as the trend next to speed increase. Niches of the market explored like bookprinting. There must be a market between inkjet and Indigo printers with lower investment and speed but a another, higher quality than Indigo delivers. Static page wide inkjet heads appearing on fast smaller pro models like already will be seen on the Drupa in real production machines. More internet applications to speed up the customer's original to print cycle. Slower progress in ink and paper coating technology than what we have seen in the last ten years but printing speed will ask for some improvements in drying time. Some gamut increase while the fade properties remain the same, the last must be sufficient for most tasks with HP Vivera. Maybe extra coatings on top of the print but integrated in the printer will be a good step. I think Epson needs faster evolution steps in piëzohead technology like the last one to compete with the simple multiplying of nozzles the other companies can rely on. The minimum droplet size in wide format is reached already I think, 3-4 Picoliter is sufficient for all cases down to A3 size. The new algorithms to lay them down + head and ink characteristics allow that and it looks like the variable droplet size already lost its importance in relation to the speed / image quality compromise if one checks the enlarged print samples of recent piëzo models. So speed while keeping quality at the same level is number one.

All IMHO.

P.S. A bit off topic. Never thought the local university had such interesting inkjet R&D for everyone to read. I knew they were busy with it though.

http://www.schubert-group.de/PDF/IJWorkshop/IJ_Wijshoff.pdf


Ernst Dinkla

try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/

In the Future I want a big printer with little tank treads that will roll itself up the stairs to my studio. I also want the main printer body to have Jet Assisted Takeoff Rockets so it can lift itself up onto the stand completely without the use of my back.

I also want it to have a built in sprayer to perfectly apply protective coatings, and a highly effective suction system to exhaust fumes out the window via a hose.

Thanks Mr. t. for opening this up...

In the future I want a printer that takes any ink, including sparkly glow-in-the-dark ink, not limited to 12 at a time, that I plug in (sort of like artists choosing tubes of paint) and goes through an automated profiling process to graph the color gamut and preview in Photoshop my image with selected inks. I then want the printer rip to select the proper inks and micro-mix them for each pixel before application to the paper--in other words, no color dots except what the pixel calls for. I want the printer to be one with the paper, to know when not to apply, when to apply how much. I want an ungodly amount of resolution. Virtually continuous tone. I don't want to have to read a user's manual--I want a printer that learns, adjusts on-the-fly, and makes better prints that the next guy. I want B&W, color, alt, everything. Everything.

Must be open mike night at the comedy zone.

Very insightful Ernst. Thank you.

Now amateurs like me need a reading at the other end: when will things really go down the food chain? I assume I am not unusual among home users with restricted space. A4 seems to be my natural print size, although I would enjoy printing the odd panorama. I have been looking for a printer with the following characteristics:

- Reasonable gamut coverage (8 ink?)
- Roll feed in 21cm width approx
- Self-profiling a la 9180
- Card reader (for those times when you are doing a friend a quick favour and want to spit out 4x6s without any intervention)

At present this does not exist. Not even in A3+ (I don't think the HP takes rolls). My 'beef' is that manufacturers seem to think that 'serious' printers are only for those using A3 and above. Among pros it is certainly true; among the rest of us...

So who, if anyone will go down the food chain?

Might be a bit away

Use of white ink and print onto black substrate to increase dynamic range
Or when the substrate is coloured.

The printer will lay down white under the colour inks first and use the backing as the 'black ink'.
Increases dynamic range.

Its definitely being looked at for printing onto packaging ie cardboard, coloured plastics etc.
Once the colour separation algorithms and gamut mapping are sorted!

Ok, I'll give it a try:
1. True standard color management. That is:
An easy and accurate way to profile your paper/printer/ink/ combo.
As using Atkinson/ProfileMaker/EyeOne solution.
The HP Z APS is the right way to go, but, a to "weak" solution.

2. OS Print Drivers!
They really sucks compared to thirdparty RIP's when coming to
production. I tried today to print a 110x400 cm banner on my brand new Ep11880, with Ep Driver+ MacOSX, and everything just died. Moved the whole package to my old 9600 with ImagePrint,
and it just came out smooth an nice as usual. The drivers + OS work always with your RAM, but
an external RIP "just" send a text-file together with your stored disk-file in small packages to your printer, without using a room full of RAM.

3. Historically I saw that papers where better than the printers. Now I see the opposite.

/Sven

Sven,
Thanks. Your practical experience is appreciated.
Re the problem with the banner print- is this a 11880 driver problem?
I'm currently using a 9800 and have printed 7m long. The only limitation is in Photoshop (30,000pxs), so this can be avoided by using a RIP or software other than photoshop.
What length is the 11880 limited to and why?
If it's in the driver , it needs to be solved quickly. For that sort of money I want to wrap prints around buildings.
It would be great if the Epson technical people (and Canon and HP when appropriate) would come in on these forums
Brian
www.pharoseditions.com.au

I think the future of printing will be replaced partially by video display. For the price of framing a 30x40 print, one will be able to get a 40" hi-def video monitor. The image is different but equally compelling. I would love to just sell digital images (not prints). Of course, protecting your copyright will be another issue to deal with.
- Doug

Sorry, been out of the studio for a while.
I really don't know where the problem is. The file was 535 Mb and about 13K pixels long.
And I think PS CS3 allow for up to 100K pixels. The file "drops" nicely from PS, but never shows up in the PrintQueue. So it must be a driver RAM mess. Sometimes with other huge files, I have to restart my computer to empty all buffer that PS always builds. And I have 4.5 Gb RAM in my Mac G5 Dual 2x2.5 Ghz.
But maybe this an issue for another topic?

/Sven

Doug,

The current high def monitor standard is 1920 x 1080 pixels (2 MP). If this is the way things are going we can throw away our current crop of DSLRs and go back to point & shoots.

Obviously we're not there yet in the digital display world but I think it will happen before I quit taking pictures.

There's digital paper that becomes available as well. There's the low bit B&W type from more companies that should replace books etc but larger ones with CMYK are tried for for signs some years already. There will be larger backlit and reflective displays based on cheaper technology (and the screens made with industrial inkjets) that will fit in between LCD and digital paper. At the end of the year I will add 50% to my bookshelves though. One day retired and with no space for so many books I might get one of the digital devices with a roll-up display, the characters enlarged for easy reading. Sometimes reading a new McEwan or just returning to what I had on the shelves. Maybe the best defense to new technology is in content.

Television screens didn't replace paintings, art prints or photographs on the wall. The new displays may have an impact on digital printing one day but I would be more worried about the "recession" and especially the house prices, building industry decline etc that must have an influence on how many walls get new decoration. Next stage is energy prices, any display with electronics inside will use energy, how little it may be.


Ernst Dinkla

try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/

User-friendly color management seems the main area for improvement... but it's rather a software problem, not a hardware one - LR is already half on the way, and many people hope to see softproofing in the 2.0 version.
The printers could help if they all have a built-in spectro (or a cheaper colorimeter at the very least)... That means you'll buy 2 spectros when you buy 2 printers - it's very interesting for the manufacturers, so it's very probable we'll see that soon .

Another comparable area would be to have the output sharpening dealt in the same way, with output sharpening profiles that are relatively transparent to the user.

Can't that be made with simple gloss varnishes, as in the R800/R1800/R1900?

There is probably a reason for Epson not to use that in the pro printers, but which?

Both your comments suggest that you did not get much HP Z3100 information to read so far. It's all included, Spectrometer, gloss enhancer and more.


Ernst Dinkla

try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/

You might want to look at Qimage. It handles output sharpening and uprezzing remarkably well.

I already looked at it, given it can handle long panos that the #@§! crimped epson driver can't (with its arbitrary 110cm long limitation).
I managed to do a single pano print with Qimage but felt a bit too intimidated at the UI to dive into the advanced options and all that army of tiny buttons... I still should have time left to try it, so I hope I'll have the courage to explore that soon. Your suggestion adds a bit to that motivation, thanks!


What I was thinking with "output sharpening profiles" was to print a target (could be something very simple, like the ImaTest MTF target maybe?), scan it with enough resolution to go far enough beyond what the eye can see, and analyze its blurring (actually its MTF in a few directions) to find the "correct" amont of sharpening, to give back an "acceptable" (or maybe rather optimal) amount of MTF on the print.
Of course, a fair number of assumptions are needed to deal with the former words "correct" and "acceptable" , but aren't such assumptions already in use (not without success) in the color management area?

Then, given a printer and a set of print settings, you'd just select a sharpening profile for these, instead of tinker with a few sliders and print a few proofs. There's still plenty of room left for "creative" sharpening in the workflow, of course.
The output sharpening, as far as I understand, is really much more device-dependent than image-dependent, hence my idea of profiling it - or am I wrong?

Photokit has had "output sharpening profiles" for a few years now.

Ok, it seems like I tried to invent warm water...

Though, it would be nice to create a new sharpening profile at home for a new paper or a new printer, simply with a scanner, wouldn't it?
But you convinced me : after I explore the depths of Qimage, I'll also take a tour of PKS.

They're pretty generic though, and hardly perfect. I could see the benefit of a sharpening profile specific to a printer/paper/ink combination. For instance prints on the new Harman fiber-gloss paper seem to be sharper than other fiber-gloss papes I've tried, so there's defnitely a place for paper-specific sharpening.

Add extrapolation ratio specific print sharpening (I think Qimage goes a bit that way) and content specific sharpening and suddenly the human brain + taste isn't doing a bad job either.


Ernst Dinkla

try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/

I'm very much tempted to see "content specific sharpening" as "creative sharpening", the only step that SHALL be under 100% user control - am I wrong?

Sorry to ask a newbie question, but what do you mean with "extrapolation ratio specific print sharpening"?

And generally speaking, I'm glad to see JeffKohn on my side : there are sharpness differences from one paper to another, and it could be nice NOT to have to evaluate this at the user level.

Creative sharpening should be a wider territory than content specific sharpening and happens in the editing stage, areas can be selected etc.. As this thread is about the future of printing I had print sharpening in mind and at printing time I could see a choice of print sharpening routines that suit the content better, landscape versus cityscape versus portrait.

Extrapolation artifacts usually form a bad combination with print sharpening. The less data and the larger the print you better pull that print sharpening slider to its lowest settings as the artifacts get only more pronounced.

I use Qimage for printing and it has a smart print sharpening feature that will check some printer/print parameters before it does its work (on luminosity so good for B&W and color). A good paper coating allows a higher DPI print resolution and if that's selected the driver then will ask for a higher PPI native input resolution which Qimage will serve to the driver with Q's best resampling routines, up or down (with anti-aliasing) so the driver will not do it itself with possibly worse routines. Qimage knows the resampling ratio, the selected resampling routine, the native PPI number and the print resolution in DPI and could in theory use all that information to give the best print sharpening. The user then still has a choice to select the amount of sharpening. This all works nice in most printing but for real blow-ups you better make a cropped proof to check all the extrapolation and sharpening effects. Print sharpening in general looks as overdone sharpening on a screen but is usually alright in a print. Add to that the image origins like scanned film with grain or not versus digital from compacts to scan backs and you can get a wide variety of noise types at pixel and/or grain levels.

I think you will need a lot of print sharpening profiles to suit all conditions or a very complex piece of software to get that incorporated. Qimage already has some smart pieces of that and allows user overruling.


Ernst Dinkla

try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/