Reading mode: Light Dark

S820 prints pixelated?

Go to last post
Frank Mueller

Frank Mueller

Well-known member
Messages
174
Reaction score
0
Location
Greensboro, NC, US
I've upgraded from an HP Deskjet 970cxi to the Canon S820 and for the most part, am satisfied with my decision. However, the prints from the S820 are more pixelated (not as smooth or soft) than I like. IE, they aren't much better than the HP. Is this the general concensus regarding the Canon S820/S900/S9000 printers? I'm printing shots from my EOS D30 and EOS 1D and no matter how soft I make the shots, upon close inspection, the prints I'm getting are just not as good as I had hoped regarding resolution. This applies to prints as small as 4x6. In fact, it seems that it doesn't matter what size print up to 8x10, the grain is the same. Colors and speed of prints are stunning.

I'm using OD PPP and Super Heavyweight PPP with the same results on both papers. Here's the pertinent information:

Qimage Pro 2.01

-Images from EOS D30 and 1D (I have shots that look great on screen and still don't print as good as anticipated)

-I've used all of the photo paper settings in the driver with pretty much the same results

-I've tried images with USM applied and images that were softened to make sure they weren't full of noise

What type of results are others out there getting? I was under the impression that prints from this series of printers would rival silver halide. Was I misinformed?

I would love to see some shots from others here. If anyone is in the central NC area (or would be willing to mail me a sample) I would be most grateful.

Regards,
Frank Mueller
[email protected]

--

Frank Mueller
 
What print settings are you using (specifically paper settings, I recommend trying the photo film setting)? Did you have the same problems with the sample paper that came with the printer? Some Office Depot paper is better than others, depending on where it's made. OD paper isn't very consistant in quality.
 
Frank, you should be getting results on the OD paper that look as good as typical mechanical photo lab shots. I do on my s800. A professional hand developing lab can give you a better print. Using the Canon Photo Paper Pro closes the gap some but not all. That is really the state of the art in inkjets. The new Epson 2100 looks like it will bump up quality a notch but its not out yet.

You should not be getting "pixelization" if you have QImage set for "max" lanczos interpolation. That will send the printer driver 600 pixels per inch which is far finer than the human eye can perceive. Do you mean that you can see individual printer dots as opposed to a continuous tone?

You know that inkjets don't print pixels, they use dots of the inks available (six in your case) and the white of the paper to create the same (as well as they can) visual impression. The printer driver decides how many dots of what color at what spacing will look like the color really in the image. Some colors are harder than others. I find that skin tones going from light to dark as in a shadow are hard for my s800. In cases like that you can frequently see individual printer dots if you examine the image very closely. Paper has a big effect here. A paper engineered for the ink allows the dots to spread out and mix. The driver knows this and uses it to give a more continuous tone. Thats why the Canon paper is a little better than the OD.

If you really can see individual rectangular pixels you have a software problem of some kind. If you see individual printer dots that is normal in very small and acceptable amounts, about equivalent to the grain in mech lab prints. If it's much worse than that you need to experiment with papers and settings or you may even have a bad or misaligned printhead.

Regards, Ed
 
E. J. Shockley wrote:
If you see individual printer dots
E. J. Shockley said:
that is normal in very small and acceptable amounts, about
equivalent to the grain in mech lab prints. If it's much worse
than that you need to experiment with papers and settings or you
may even have a bad or misaligned printhead.
Click to expand...
The only way I can see individual printer dots is with a 10X loupe.

I stepped up from a HP PSC-950 all-in-one printer with photo printing in mind when it was designed to the Canon S9000. The HP PSC-950 made excellent images that exhibited no pixilation or printer dot phenomenon as was described.

The printer output of the Canon S9000 is "Stunning" and rivals silver halide prints. People noticably blanch when I tell them that the 11" X 17" image they're looking at was a totally digital process from camera to printing that wasn't res'd up for the final DPI print configuration.

I think that there's a problem as you suggested with the software/settings or there's a problem with the printer. Now I'm not familar with the 820 but I would suggest a call to Canon is in order.

I don't know about OD paper but OD isn't the best of papers and paper choice will make a huge difference in the quality of the final output as there's a difference in how papers absorb and allow the printer inks to spread out.

It is quite possible that Franks's print (DPI) settings are too low and this will cause a very grainy look. Example; if you tell a program to print a 4X6 image at 360 dpi then there's zero chance of seeing the dots/grain with the unaided eye but if you tell the printer to give you a 4X6 image and it prints using the monitor resolution of 72 dpi then "Oh you betcha" you're going to see the dots/grain.

I think there's more here then just a bad choice of paper.
 
I am having the exact same problem with my s820, except I use Canon PPP and the PhotoRecord printing program that came with the printer. The strange thing is that I did not notice the problem on the first 3 prints I made, but after I waited a week and printed three more prints they are slightly more grainy. I used the same settings on the software (at least I THINK I did).

As far as setting the DPI for prints, I am setting the resolution to HIGH, the print type to PHOTO, and paper to PPP 4x6 borderless. Is there another way to set DPI?

Thanks.
 
ljkugler said:
I am having the exact same problem with my s820, except I use Canon
PPP and the PhotoRecord printing program that came with the
printer. The strange thing is that I did not notice the problem on
the first 3 prints I made, but after I waited a week and printed
three more prints they are slightly more grainy. I used the same
settings on the software (at least I THINK I did).

As far as setting the DPI for prints, I am setting the resolution
to HIGH, the print type to PHOTO, and paper to PPP 4x6 borderless.
Is there another way to set DPI?
Click to expand...
For me and my situation, the DPI is set in the print processing program that I use, Corel's Photo-Paint 9.

I get the 4X6 size by dividing the number of pixels the D30 produces by 360. If I divide the number of pixels by 180 I end up with an image 8X12. How your print processing program goes about getting to the 4X6 print size will determin the final DPI print quality.

You might check the head alignment as if it's off just a hair, this can cause all sorts of output problems.

Hope this helps.
 
I had a very similar problem with my s900 showing lots of grain in shadowy skin tones. In the transition of light to dark (under chins on neck for example) there was noticible grain on my 8x10s when viewed up close. At arms length or further they were beautiful. Something that improved this situation tremendously was to use the shadow noise filter in Qimage. Apparently shadow noise is common on CCDs above 2 megapixel. Using this filter and softening the image slightly made the problem all but go away.
Frank Mueller said:
I've upgraded from an HP Deskjet 970cxi to the Canon S820 and for
the most part, am satisfied with my decision. However, the prints
from the S820 are more pixelated (not as smooth or soft) than I
like. IE, they aren't much better than the HP. Is this the general
concensus regarding the Canon S820/S900/S9000 printers? I'm
printing shots from my EOS D30 and EOS 1D and no matter how soft I
make the shots, upon close inspection, the prints I'm getting are
just not as good as I had hoped regarding resolution. This applies
to prints as small as 4x6. In fact, it seems that it doesn't matter
what size print up to 8x10, the grain is the same. Colors and speed
of prints are stunning.

I'm using OD PPP and Super Heavyweight PPP with the same results on
both papers. Here's the pertinent information:

Qimage Pro 2.01
-Images from EOS D30 and 1D (I have shots that look great on screen
and still don't print as good as anticipated)
-I've used all of the photo paper settings in the driver with
pretty much the same results
-I've tried images with USM applied and images that were softened
to make sure they weren't full of noise

What type of results are others out there getting? I was under the
impression that prints from this series of printers would rival
silver halide. Was I misinformed?

I would love to see some shots from others here. If anyone is in
the central NC area (or would be willing to mail me a sample) I
would be most grateful.

Regards,
Frank Mueller
[email protected]

--

Frank Mueller
Click to expand...
 
Thomas Gardner said:
The only way I can see individual printer dots is with a 10X loupe.
Click to expand...
No offense to you, but statements like these always amaze and confuse me. Granted, I've got an S820, not the top of the line S9000, but they use the same (or close enough) print head technology AFAIK. I think it just goes to show that people definately see things differently. Under good lighting, I can tell at half an arm's length a silver halide print from an inkjet print. There's no way an inkjet print will ever be continuous tone, it's different technology. If I put my nose the printout, I can see the dither pattern (i.e., individual dots) without any extra magnification. In fact, I can even see the vertical screen pattern. At first I thought there was something wrong with the printer, but after getting it exchanged for a totally new printer that does the same thing, I know now it's just a "quality" of the unit.

I'll be the first to admit I'm pretty anal about these things. No one else, not even the techs, saw any problems with my printouts. But I'm not a newbie to this stuff. I've been photo printing since the Epson 750 hit the streets, and at the time, I thought it was the greatest thing in the world. Now I look at the 750 output and can see plenty of flaws. I guess you just learn what to look for. (OT: The 750 gave better continuous tone than the S820).

Are Canon's S-series printers nice machines? You betcha, I still have my S820 because it's good enough for most things. Are they comparable to silver halide? Depends who you ask, I suppose. For the general public -- probably so. For the critical enthusiast -- no way, no how. I'd love to see a sample printout from someone who thinks otherwise. I'll gladly eat my words and buy the exact same printer! =)

Oh, one thing I have noticed, though, is that matte paper helps to hide the screening and pixelation from the printer. Comparing glossy to matte is apples to oranges. My opinions above relate to glossy paper.

Details, for those that need them:
Printer: Canon S820 (2 different units, 3 different printheads)
Ink: Canon OEM
Paper: Canon PPP, OD PPP, Epson PGPPP, Epson semigloss
App: Photoshop 6.5, source always > 300dpi
Imager: Canon G2 at RAW
 
wLim said:
wLim said:
The only way I can see individual printer dots is with a 10X loupe.
Click to expand...
No offense to you, but statements like these always amaze and
confuse me. Granted, I've got an S820, not the top of the line
S9000, but they use the same (or close enough) print head
technology AFAIK. I think it just goes to show that people
definately see things differently. Under good lighting, I can tell
at half an arm's length a silver halide print from an inkjet print.
There's no way an inkjet print will ever be continuous tone, it's
different technology.
Click to expand...
I've shown my S9000 to many, many individuals and not one person thought they wern't silver halide images. That's why they've blanched when I imformed them they were all digital.
wLim said:
If I put my nose the printout, I can see the
dither pattern (i.e., individual dots) without any extra
magnification.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying that you're not seeing what you say your seeing but there's no evidence, even under an OTT-LITE, of banding, what-so-ever.
wLim said:
I'll be the first to admit I'm pretty anal about these things. No
one else, not even the techs, saw any problems with my printouts.
Click to expand...
Anal's good. That's what challenges us to go to the next level. If you're not being anal then you're being too easy on yourself.
wLim said:
Are Canon's S-series printers nice machines? You betcha, I still
have my S820 because it's good enough for most things. Are they
comparable to silver halide? Depends who you ask, I suppose. For
the general public -- probably so. For the critical enthusiast --
no way, no how. I'd love to see a sample printout from someone who
thinks otherwise. I'll gladly eat my words and buy the exact same
printer! =)
Click to expand...
Do you have a S9000 printer? What paper do you use as the paper does make a difference in the final output. Everything makes a difference in the final output. Starting with the CMOS of the D30 Vs the CCD of the 1D, the "L" lenses that focuses the image on the CMOS to the person capturing the images and how they process the image before sending it to the printer. Now the inks and papers come to play in the equation.

Me I'm anal also. It shows in the quality of the final prints.

Camera body, the D30. Lenses of choice; the 28-70mm f/2.8L and the 100mm f/2.8 macro. Post processing program, I have all the popular, Corel's Photo-Paint 9, Printer; Canon's S9000, currently using OEM inks. Paper of choice for 11" X 17" prints; PictoRico, Photo Gallery, Glossy. For 8" x 10" prints, I use JetPrintPhoto PPP, Superior Gloss Finish. As to source, always

When it comes to the 11" X 17" images, the smoothness of color is to die for as you feel you can reach out and touch the texture of the image. No banding or dot matrixing.
wLim said:
Details, for those that need them:
Printer: Canon S820 (2 different units, 3 different printheads)
Ink: Canon OEM
Paper: Canon PPP, OD PPP, Epson PGPPP, Epson semigloss
App: Photoshop 6.5, source always > 300dpi
Imager: Canon G2 at RAW
Click to expand...
Not to slam the G2 but have you tried a D30? There's a huge difference in the final image quality and based upon what you posted, I see both the CCD of the G2 and the optics of the G2 to be a serious limiter to your image quality.

I bought the D30 based upon seeing one portfolio worth of images. After seeing the images the D30's CMOS was capable of, I looked at many, many more images and I was struck by the difference in the image quality. There's nothing that I've seen that can compare, film or otherwise. You might get a bit more detail in SOME film situations but there's no comparison to the saturation of color the D30 CMOS is capable of.

I can't say get yourself a D30, an "L" lens and a fresh 128meg Compact Flash memory card and you'll immediately see the difference as it takes many hours of learning how to post process the image to the subtleties of the D30. But no one has said they could tell the 11" X 17" images were excellent digitals but they weren't silver halide. I can suggest you borrow, if you can, a D30/D60, place an "L" lens of the two I mentioned in front of the CMOS and crank out twenty images or so in JPEG large mode, print using the printer and paper I use and see what your anal results are:-) Me I'm convinced as those that are looking at my images are either lying or telling the truth:-)

Now if I can only find a solution to the poor archival characteristics of the dye based inks.
 
Seth Ehrlich said:
I had a very similar problem with my s900 showing lots of grain in
shadowy skin tones. In the transition of light to dark (under
chins on neck for example) there was noticible grain on my 8x10s
when viewed up close. At arms length or further they were
beautiful. Something that improved this situation tremendously was
to use the shadow noise filter in Qimage. Apparently shadow noise
is common on CCDs above 2 megapixel. Using this filter and
softening the image slightly made the problem all but go away.
Click to expand...
Seth, thanks for the advice, I'll try it on the next applicable print.

Regards, Ed
 
Thomas Gardner said:
I can't say get yourself a D30, an "L" lens and a fresh 128meg
Compact Flash memory card and you'll immediately see the difference
as it takes many hours of learning how to post process the image to
the subtleties of the D30. But no one has said they could tell the
11" X 17" images were excellent digitals but they weren't silver
halide. I can suggest you borrow, if you can, a D30/D60, place an
"L" lens of the two I mentioned in front of the CMOS and crank out
twenty images or so in JPEG large mode, print using the printer and
paper I use and see what your anal results are:-) Me I'm convinced
as those that are looking at my images are either lying or telling
the truth:-)
Click to expand...
Sounds like a challenge! Haha... ;) I know the G2 is limited in it's ability to capture some things, and there's no way I'm about to compare it's smoothness to a good D30 shot. However, I've also printed vector graphics which are resolution independent, and see the same screening pattern. It's definately a printer thing and not a camera thing. It could be that the S820 differs from the S900/S9000 in more ways than Canon claims. I'd really like to see one of your printouts, even a 4x6, because the patterns I notice are independant of output size, source resolution, any of that.
 
wLim said:
Sounds like a challenge! Haha... ;)
Click to expand...
Not throwning out a challenge as that would be rude.
wLim said:
However, I've also
printed vector graphics which are resolution independent, and see
the same screening pattern. It's definately a printer thing and
not a camera thing.
Click to expand...
Well, ya got me on that one Pilgrim. Not doing any "vector graphics", I'll have to take your word on it.
wLim said:
It could be that the S820 differs from the
S900/S9000 in more ways than Canon claims. I'd really like to see
one of your printouts, even a 4x6, because the patterns I notice
are independant of output size, source resolution, any of that.
Click to expand...
What I base my comments on are the comments that I hear from other people. There's a clear difference between a silver halide image and the output of a S9000, when under a 10X loupe. The digital image has a very, very fine dot pattern Vs the finer yet grain pattern of the silver halide image but the shadow detail is much better in the D30 print.

Here some review comments of the D30 Vs Provia film.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/iso100-400.htm

Here are the comments of the D60 Vs other film formats from the same noted authority.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/d60.htm

This same person has taken the time to review the S9000 for the rest of us to read.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/s9000.htm

You might consider the type of paper you're using. Why? There's a huge difference in the way the inks are absorbed (clumping/wicking) and the final image pattern that's created.

In the case of the HP paper, there's a lot of clumping, like cracked mud, in the final image under a 10X loupe made by a S9000. In the case of JetPrintPhoto, PPP, Superior Gloss Finish, there's a very, very fine dot pattern and there's no clumping of the ink, only a bunch of very fine dots. The dot pattern is much like the grain of B&W, ASA 400 film. It's just that the grain is much smaller.

Do you have access to a S9000? Your results will be the telling story.
 
I figured out what was going on. Print quality setting defaults to 2 for the paper types I was using. When I manually set the quality to it's highest and saved the profiles, things got much better.

I'm duly impressed with this printer! Thanks everyone for your pointers and suggestions and to those who offered to send me samples.
Frank Mueller said:
I've upgraded from an HP Deskjet 970cxi to the Canon S820 and for
the most part, am satisfied with my decision. However, the prints
from the S820 are more pixelated (not as smooth or soft) than I
like. IE, they aren't much better than the HP. Is this the general
concensus regarding the Canon S820/S900/S9000 printers? I'm
printing shots from my EOS D30 and EOS 1D and no matter how soft I
make the shots, upon close inspection, the prints I'm getting are
just not as good as I had hoped regarding resolution. This applies
to prints as small as 4x6. In fact, it seems that it doesn't matter
what size print up to 8x10, the grain is the same. Colors and speed
of prints are stunning.

I'm using OD PPP and Super Heavyweight PPP with the same results on
both papers. Here's the pertinent information:

Qimage Pro 2.01
-Images from EOS D30 and 1D (I have shots that look great on screen
and still don't print as good as anticipated)
-I've used all of the photo paper settings in the driver with
pretty much the same results
-I've tried images with USM applied and images that were softened
to make sure they weren't full of noise

What type of results are others out there getting? I was under the
impression that prints from this series of printers would rival
silver halide. Was I misinformed?

I would love to see some shots from others here. If anyone is in
the central NC area (or would be willing to mail me a sample) I
would be most grateful.

Regards,
Frank Mueller
[email protected]

--

Frank Mueller
Click to expand...
--

Frank Mueller
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top