![]() ![]()
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MP AND XPS PRINTER DRIVERS PROAsus Transformer 3 Pro T303UA review – a beefed up alternative for the Microsoft Surface Pros. After that I found the UFRII_XPS_V200_Win_uk_EN_02 (an XPS Driver) v.600 and it works fine, now I can print in color. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MP AND XPS PRINTER DRIVERS DRIVERThe PXL or pcl6 driver can be used as alternative to PostScript if the printer has problems in PostScript mode, like interpreter bugs or low memory. It wasn't my intent to start a discussion of 16-bit vs. ![]() DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MP AND XPS PRINTER DRIVERS FULLThe question is though I would gain full 16-bit output, what features does the XPS driver omit that are present in the standard driver? DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MP AND XPS PRINTER DRIVERS DOWNLOADMy original post asked something a bit different: The XPS driver download is considerably smaller than the standard driver download. I completely agree with everything you've written. ![]() I note that even the " in camera" format is changing away from 8 bit jpeg. Interesting to see where this goes, as screens and graphics improve in price and HD monitors become the standard. I wonder how many folk have cards, interlinks and systems set up to see 16 bit ? PS also dithers 8 bit in its settings and on most systems is not running visually in high bit depth. and then wish they had not done it because version 2 requires a tweek. How many folk have to squash their images, discarding the high bit depth, to go out to print. I should say my testing back in the day would likely have been mainly using a 'mid-size' RGB working space like Adobe RGB as input.Īs I have repeatedly said, there is sufficient reason to be 16 bit in the print path, be it the direct output from PS and the ability to retain a layered 16 bit file and proof as this before a final. I would give it a go but like them would likely stick with the 16-bit driver if other things were equal. I assume that Canon did a good job of engineering the path in the 8-bit standard driver ensuring it used more than that in the processing. With today's resources I could see how a pure 16-bit path makes sense, but also perhaps why other replies - people with the actual printer unlike me! - report they didn't see big quality jumps. That brings back bad memories of 4GByte addressing limits in wide format with 32-bit drivers. So a 16-bit buffer could be problematic then, particularly with wide format. That was an age of 8-bit integer graphics and lower h/w resources of course. I seem to recall Graham Gill, the developer of Argyll, came to similar conclusions. Interestingly though 8-bit input was sufficient. Things like dot gain mean you need the extra precision. By processing I mean internal processing within a specific stage like multiple intensity processing. Greater than 8-bit processing is definitely required for optimal printing. Several years ago I did some investigations into 8 vs 16-bit printing at the various stages of the print pipeline. At least I hope it was a technical decision and not pure marketing. It is good to see someone doing that and even more impressively that Canon agreed it going into production. The XPS print model might have various advantages be it, high bit depth as they report for the driver, or something like better colour management tagging. I assume someone in Canon was creatively assessing the print models in Windows and seeing where improvements could be made. I have no specific experience with that particular driver and printer to share but in your position I would definitely try it. Other than the added bit depth, what features and capabilities do I gain - or lose - by moving to the XPS driver? What is the argument for using, or not using, the XPS driver? I've Googled around on this, but haven't found any info that I'd consider authoratative. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |