Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

kevs · Jun 20, 2004, 11:08 PM

__ __ __ _ _ __ __
I now print on my 1280 and 2200 from OS 9.2.2 as i find Epson printer drivers--even most recent ones, for OsX to be still unstable. This has been a recent and good solution to lot of past grief.

But today, I noticed that the look of the images was lighter and softer and less saturated --booted directly in Os9 -- than the way they look in OS 10. Wondering if anyone knows why that is. thanks!

Rabid Duck · Jun 21, 2004, 02:43 AM

Originally posted by kevs:
But today, I noticed that the look of the images was lighter and softer and less saturated --booted directly in Os9 -- than the way they look in OS 10.

Do you mean the on-screen images or the printed images?

Also, have you tried gimp-print? I've found its epson drivers to be far superior than the "official" epson drivers.

kevs · Jun 21, 2004, 09:44 PM

I mean on screen right now. Did not have time to print, and for all I know, they may print out exactly same, but for now: why does an image look crisp and saturated in OS10, but then booted into OS9 look lighter and less saturated (same monitor)?

I think printing in OS is easier solution, but think I don't like about Gimp is there is no good help -- I threw a few posts on Gimp forum and get no replies.

I was thinking if I get G5, I may bite it and spend $500 on RIP.

Millennium · Jun 22, 2004, 07:25 AM

Don't bother with a RIP. An AirPort Base Station (particularly the AirPort Express, which sounds like it should be all you need if you're willing to wait a couple more weeks until July) is much cheaper and should get the job done more easily. What model of printer are you using?

As for the monitor issue, it sounds like a ColorSync thing. Did you calibrate the monitor on one OS but not the other?

kevs · Jun 22, 2004, 07:08 PM

I have epson 1280 and 2200.
what is airport base station? Never heard of that. thinking either gimp or rip is final solution to Epson worthless drivers in OS10.

I think I calibrated in OS9. have double check.

Is this normal that photo could look different in OS9 than is OS10? same photo same monitor?

What do you think of 3rd party calibration tools?

tooki · Jun 23, 2004, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by kevs:
I mean on screen right now. Did not have time to print, and for all I know, they may print out exactly same, but for now: why does an image look crisp and saturated in OS10, but then booted into OS9 look lighter and less saturated (same monitor)?

You are probably using different ColorSync display profiles in each OS.

tooki

SMacTech · Jun 23, 2004, 02:00 PM

Originally posted by kevs:
I mean on screen right now. Did not have time to print, and for all I know, they may print out exactly same, but for now: why does an image look crisp and saturated in OS10, but then booted into OS9 look lighter and less saturated (same monitor)?

Apple's answer is right here.

tooki · Jun 23, 2004, 05:17 PM

That has nothing to do with it. Not a single thing.

tooki

SMacTech · Jun 23, 2004, 05:34 PM

Originally posted by tooki:
That has nothing to do with it. Not a single thing.

tooki

So Quartz has nothing to do with how an image looks on the screen ?

Chuckit · Jun 23, 2004, 06:16 PM

Not really. Quartz is responsible for drawing images to the screen, but it shouldn't be arbitrarily messing with saturation and contrast. It isn't as though drawing to the screen is some radical new technique that Apple has yet to perfect.

Also, the page you linked to was Quartz Extreme, which is an Apple technology that uses the video card to composite your screen. That's a different matter altogether.

Millennium · Jun 23, 2004, 06:19 PM

Originally posted by kevs:
I have epson 1280 and 2200.
what is airport base station? Never heard of that. thinking either gimp or rip is final solution to Epson worthless drivers in OS10.

It's a device used to create wireless networks, but it also has a small print server built into it.

I think I calibrated in OS9. have double check.

Is this normal that photo could look different in OS9 than is OS10? same photo same monitor?

If you calibrated in one OS but not the other, then it's possible. OSX and OS9 don't share calibration profiles.

What do you think of 3rd party calibration tools?

There's a good one out there called SuperCal, but the default one from Panther will do a decent job by itself.

SMacTech · Jun 23, 2004, 07:13 PM

Originally posted by Chuckit:
Not really. Quartz is responsible for drawing images to the screen, but it shouldn't be arbitrarily messing with saturation and contrast. It isn't as though drawing to the screen is some radical new technique that Apple has yet to perfect.

Also, the page you linked to was Quartz Extreme, which is an Apple technology that uses the video card to composite your screen. That's a different matter altogether.

How can Quartz not be part of this whole process is beyond me. Yes, I know that page was for Quartz Extreme and Apple's first paragraph on that page discusses Quartz and they say this " Quartz delivers crisp graphics, anti-aliased fonts, and blends 2D, 3D and QuickTime content together with transparency and drop shadows. No other operating system delivers the high-quality graphics rendering of Quartz. "
I was pointing out how OS X provides a better rendering and crispness than OS 9 provides, that's all. On top of that, as previously pointed out, monitor calibration can have everything else to do with contrast and color output.
He did ask why it looked crisp in OS X and Apple mentions that right on that very page when mentioning Quartz. Plus there is a link to Quartz, yada yada.

Chuckit · Jun 23, 2004, 07:48 PM

Quartz does not apply some magical "crisping" algorithm to your screen. There is nothing inherent about Quartz that will make graphics look better than with other graphics libraries. It does have many advanced drawing features that make things look pretty (such as transparency and high-quality antialiasing), but it's not right to say that it generally "provides a better rendering and crispness than OS 9." If Quartz is making images in Photoshop look different with all other factors being the same, that's a problem, not a selling point. Quartz has more fancy features than OS 9 did, but it's not just magically better.

And just to clarify, I do think that it is a monitor calibration issue.

SMacTech · Jun 23, 2004, 07:59 PM

Originally posted by Chuckit:
but it's not right to say that it generally "provides a better rendering and crispness than OS 9."

Better tell Apple then, as that is exactly what they claim, but I digress.

Chuckit · Jun 23, 2004, 08:08 PM

No Apple claims that "[no] other operating system delivers the high-quality graphics rendering of Quartz." And it's true that there is no other operating system out right now that has all of the capabilities of Quartz. That doesn't mean that it makes graphics prettier. It draws text prettier, it composites transparency with ease, it can resize graphics smoothly. Those are all features of Quartz. You appear to be making a much grander claim that Quartz has some vague, mysterious power to make graphics better than they really are.

kevs · Jun 23, 2004, 08:55 PM

If I'm getting prints -- through Apples calibration tool --that more or less match the monitor (as I have since I started printing about 2 years ago), then what is the upside about getting a professional calibration system? They are only about $200-$300, so it's not such a big deal, but is it all hype?

Millennium · Jun 24, 2004, 07:23 AM

Originally posted by kevs:
If I'm getting prints -- through Apples calibration tool --that more or less match the monitor (as I have since I started printing about 2 years ago), then what is the upside about getting a professional calibration system? They are only about $200-$300, so it's not such a big deal, but is it all hype?

It's not quite all hype; professional calibration tools really are more accurate. Professional graphic designers will appreciate that; the added accuracy can make life a lot easier for them.

However, for most users the Appple calibration tools will get the job done quite well.