Only 720 dpi with Epson 1280?????

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Dr. Slick, Nov 20, 2003.

  1. Dr. Slick

    Dr. Slick Guest

    Ok,

    I'm considering the Epson 2200 and the Epson 1280.

    I'm aware that some people have had problems with clogging
    ink heads with the 1280. And some people don't like the archival
    inks on Premium glossy paper with the 2200.

    And i know that most things printed over 300 dpi don't really
    matter to the naked eye...so why does the 2200 go up to 1440 and the
    1280 only up to 720 dpi if it "doesn't matter"?

    Anyone with either of these printers is encouraged to add
    any comments.

    Slick
     
    Dr. Slick, Nov 20, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Dr. Slick

    SpringX Guest

    It matters. The 1280 does 2880 dpi.

    Dithering is the answer to your question. Inkjets are not true continuous
    tone devices. Each ink droplet is full intensity of one of 6 colors. The
    diffusion screen is 2880 dpi, allowing the printer to build up the color.
     
    SpringX, Nov 20, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Dr. Slick

    Jon Bell Guest

    Make that 300 *pixels* per inch.
    "Dots" do not equal "pixels." A pixel is the smallest unit of the image
    that comes from your camera. It can have any one of thousands or millions
    of colors. A dot is the smallest speck of ink that your printer can lay
    down. It can be one of four or six colors, or however many different ink
    colors your printer uses (count the number of tanks in your ink
    cartridges). It usually takes several/many printer dots to reproduce one
    image pixel in reasonably accurate color.
     
    Jon Bell, Nov 20, 2003
    #3
  4. Dr. Slick

    Birk Binnard Guest

    I've had a 1280 for about 2 years and love it. I print photos at 1440 DPI.
    I tried 2880DPI but could not see the difference, and 2880 prints much
    slower than 1440. I've read it also uses more ink, but i have no idea if
    this is true.

    The best thing I did for my 1280 was buy a continuous ink flow system (CFS)
    for it This eliminates worrying about running out of ink in the middle of a
    print (I do 12" x 36" panoramas o nroll paper), fussing with refilling
    cartridges (you'll learn to get real good at this) and it pays for itself
    in about a year.

    I did have to have the printhead replaced once due to clogged nozzels. Some
    people say this is a result of using 3rd party ink in my CFS system. I have
    no idea if this is true or not. Others have reported clogged nozzles with
    Epson cartridges.

    Whichever printer you get be sure to use only paper manufactured by the
    printer maker.
     
    Birk Binnard, Nov 20, 2003
    #4
  5. Dr. Slick

    Mark Herring Guest

    Someone already pointed out that PPI is the file size you send to the
    printer, whereas DPI relates to the actual dot pattern the printer
    lays down.

    When I first got my 1280, I ran a bunch of tests using a very high
    resolution file available from David Chien:

    http://www.silverace.com/dottyspotty/

    What I found:

    Printing beyond 300 PPI showed some improvement, but not enough to get
    excited about. Most of my real-world pictures are fine at 200-300.

    From 720 DPI to 1440, I saw a noticeable difference. Even so, I print
    most snaps at 720---saves time an ink

    At 2880, I did see a slight improvement in banding. If I am dong
    something really critical, I'll do a test to see if 2880 adds
    anything. Otherwise, 1440 is fine.

    No clogging issues so far
    **************************
    Mark Herring, Pasadena, Calif.
    Private e-mail: Just say no to "No".
     
    Mark Herring, Nov 20, 2003
    #5
  6. over 300 dpi DOES matter - not so much in sharpness and resolution, but
    there's a hell of a difference in color rendition. just make an experiment:
    print the same pic (preferably in mute pastel shades) at 300 and 1200 dpi,
    and you'll be amazed!
     
    Yehuda Paradise, Nov 20, 2003
    #6
  7. Dr. Slick

    LLutton Guest

    I've been reading the replies and I think all the answers are correct, but the
    original poster is confusing image ppi and print dpi. Images don't need to be
    more than 300 ppi. In fact, for a lot of printers, 200-250 may be all that is
    required. Prints that have more dpi, are sharper. Above 1440 dpi and the
    difference is starting to become hard to tell plus, you are using more ink, so
    I think 1440 dpi may be the most practical unless the prints will be displayed
    in a gallery.
    Lynn
     
    LLutton, Nov 20, 2003
    #7
  8. Dr. Slick

    Dr. Slick Guest


    Read this:

    http://reviews-zdnet.com.com/Epson_Stylus_Photo_1280/4507-3167_16-4775997.html

    At least in one direction, the limit is 720 dpi.


    Slick
     
    Dr. Slick, Nov 20, 2003
    #8
  9. Dr. Slick

    Dr. Slick Guest

    What do you mean by "Banding" exactly? Like the "blocks" i saw
    on
    a Canon i9000 printout?

    Read this:

    http://reviews-zdnet.com.com/Epson_Stylus_Photo_1280/4507-3167_16-4775997.html

    The limit is 720 dpi in one direction.

    So if you saw a "noticable difference" in the direction that can
    go to 2880, then the Epson 2200 should be noticably different from the
    1280.


    Slick
     
    Dr. Slick, Nov 20, 2003
    #9
  10. Dr. Slick

    mark herring Guest

    Banding is what you get from any inkjet if the nozzle patterns are not
    totally randomized. It will show up as periodic stripes across the image (in
    the same direction that the print head moves.) In the extreme, if one nozzle
    is clogged, there will be very obvious banding.
    In the example that I quoted banding was just BARELY visible in areas of
    smooth tone--like a face. At 2880, it was gone

    --
    ******************
    Mark Herring
    Pasadena, CA, USA
    private e-mail: just say no to "No"

    *
     
    mark herring, Nov 20, 2003
    #10
  11. Dr. Slick

    MikeWhy Guest

    Bottom line: the 1280 is a good printer. I've stopped looking for flaws
    through the 10x loupe. They're there to be found, and you don't have to look
    very hard. But even knowing what to look for, I can't find it with the naked
    eye, let alone find it objectionable.

    I don't have any experience with the 2200. I doubt either one would
    disappoint, unless you like dye ink on glossy. You won't like the
    ultrachromes then. I expect that it compensates with a wider gamut, or is it
    simply lightfastness?

    Any way, both are good. Shopping features and numbers can be confusing, even
    if exhilarating. The nice part is that doesn't have to end even after you
    buy. You can think about ink systems, papers, profilers...
     
    MikeWhy, Nov 21, 2003
    #11
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.