IPP Mail Archive: RE: [printing-driver] RE: IPP> Print Quali

IPP Mail Archive: RE: [printing-driver] RE: IPP> Print Quali

RE: [printing-driver] RE: IPP> Print Quality Issue resolution

From: TAYLOR,BOB (HP-Vancouver,ex1) (bobt@hp.com)
Date: Tue Jul 15 2003 - 13:21:03 EDT

  • Next message: Harry Lewis: "RE: [printing-driver] RE: IPP> Print Quality Issue resolution"

    The trick here is that there are also implementations in the field that do
    the same thing with extensions to print quality - e.g.
    (Ultra|High|Normal|Draft|EconoFast) {insert any SpinalTap jokes about "my
    amp goes to 11" here ;)}. In other words, PrintQuality is already being
    used to provide optimization options between PQ/Saving/Speed. I don't have
    a fundamental issue with declaring *Saving - but the semantics to me are
    somewhat duplicative with how PrintQuality is actually used in many
    implementations. I'd also add that, as Harry noted, there are algorithm(s)
    "plural" that can save toner/ink/market, so *Saving is probably a
    vendor-extensible enumeration, not a boolean - which makes it look yet more
    like PrintQuality.
     
    bt

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl@us.ibm.com]
    Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 3:05 PM
    To: TAYLOR,BOB (HP-Vancouver,ex1)
    Cc: IPP Discussion List (IPP@pwg.org); printing-driver@freestandards.org;
    printing-jobticket@freestandards.org; Zehler, Peter
    Subject: RE: [printing-driver] RE: IPP> Print Quality Issue resolution

    >My main question with TonerSaving/InkSaving/MarkerSaving is how this is any
    different than PrintQuality(High|Normal|Draft)
    To answer this question, straightforward, there are implementations where
    you can select High|Normal|Draft independently from "Saver". Administrators
    may want to configure policy that "Saving" must always be on yet still allow
    the choice of High|Normal|Draft, within that context.

    >PrintQuality=High & MarkerSaving=False would seem to say "print in high
    quality, and waste toner/ink for no good reason
    I think people would expect:
     PQ=High|Saving=Off to result in the BEST possible quality.
     PQ=High|Saving=On to result in the best possible quality while still saving
    marker (toner, ink ...)
     PQ=Draft|Saving=Off to result in the FASTEST possible printing
     PQ=Draft|Saving=On to result in the fastest possible printing with
    legibility that may not stand up to close scrutiny because marker (toner,
    ink...) has been used sparingly.

    ----------------------------------------------
    Harry Lewis
    Chairman - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
    http://www.pwg.org
    IBM Printing Systems
    http://www.ibm.com/printers
    303-924-5337
    ----------------------------------------------

    "TAYLOR,BOB (HP-Vancouver,ex1)" <bobt@hp.com>
    Sent by: owner-ipp@pwg.org

    07/14/2003 02:36 PM

    To
    printing-driver@freestandards.org, "Zehler, Peter" <PZehler@crt.xerox.com>

    cc
    "IPP Discussion List (IPP@pwg.org)" <IPP@pwg.org>,
    printing-jobticket@freestandards.org

    Subject
    RE: [printing-driver] RE: IPP> Print Quality Issue resolution

            

    My main question with TonerSaving/InkSaving/MarkerSaving is how this is any
    different than PrintQuality(High|Normal|Draft). We as well have nifty
    algorithms for saving "marker" without impacting quality - but I don't know
    why we'd ever want to turn it "off" seperately from the notion of
    PQ/performance/economy tradeoff (which I maintain is what PrintQuality
    actually is). The semantics of this as a separate attribute seem somewhat
    odd to me - i.e., PrintQuality=High & MarkerSaving=False would seem to say
    "print in high quality, and waste toner/ink for no good reason", and
    PrintQuality=Draft & MarkerSaving=False would seem to say "print in poor
    quality, but waste tone/ink anyway". IMHO, a "separate" TonerSaving mode is
    really a vendor-specific extension of PrintQuality, which as Ira noted as
    already supported (though they are supposed to be IANA-registered, which I'm
    guessing most vendors have not bothered to do).
      
    thanks,
      
    bt
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl@us.ibm.com]
    Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 6:49 AM
    To: Zehler, Peter
    Cc: IPP Discussion List (IPP@pwg.org); printing-driver@freestandards.org;
    printing-jobticket@freestandards.org; Zehler, Peter
    Subject: [printing-driver] RE: IPP> Print Quality Issue resolution

    My concern is that "save toner" is probably the most concrete concept
    compared to "Good, Better, Best" or "Text, Image, Graphics". The later has
    efficient application only in special cases (some of which may be very
    significant, like printing photo's). Otherwise, people stare at their mixed
    object document and wonder. I feel "save toner" should be explicit.

    We went from a flat set of descriptors to a pairing.. perhaps we should
    really go to a matrix (although I don't like the perceived complexity)

    Good - Better - Best
    Text - Text+Graphics - Graphics - Image
    TonerSaving

    ----------------------------------------------
    Harry Lewis
    Chairman - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
    http://www.pwg.org
    IBM Printing Systems
    http://www.ibm.com/printers
    303-924-5337
    ----------------------------------------------

    "Zehler, Peter" <PZehler@crt.xerox.com>

    07/11/2003 04:54 AM

    To
    Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS, "Zehler, Peter" <PZehler@crt.xerox.com>

    cc
    "IPP Discussion List (IPP@pwg.org)" <IPP@pwg.org>,
    printing-driver@freestandards.org, printing-jobticket@freestandards.org

    Subject
    RE: IPP> Print Quality Issue resolution

            

    Harry,
    We felt that there are many different attributes involved in heuristics for
    saving toner and printing fast. Some of those are "resolution", "media" and
    aspects of the document content. We felt the requirements were met by
    keeping the existing "print-quality" values and augmenting them with hints
    on how to process the document content to achieve 'draft' 'normal' and
    'high'. The assumption is that draft is fastest and uses the least toner.
    Pete
      

    Peter Zehler
    XEROX
    Xerox Innovation Group
    Email: PZehler@crt.xerox.com
    Voice: (585) 265-8755
    FAX: (585) 422-7961
    US Mail: Peter Zehler

            Xerox Corp.
          800 Phillips Rd.
          M/S 128-25E
          Webster NY, 14580-9701
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl@us.ibm.com]
    Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 11:26 PM
    To: Zehler, Peter
    Cc: IPP Discussion List (IPP@pwg.org); printing-driver@freestandards.org;
    printing-jobticket@freestandards.org
    Subject: Re: IPP> Print Quality Issue resolution
     

    > We finally agreed that the two values 'save-toner' and 'speed' are implied
    by the "print-quality". Since they were not required, they were removed.

    I think this warrants further examination. I have known toner saving methods
    that do a very good job of preserving print quality.
    ----------------------------------------------
    Harry Lewis
    Chairman - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
    http://www.pwg.org
    IBM Printing Systems
    http://www.ibm.com/printers
    303-924-5337
    ----------------------------------------------

    "Zehler, Peter" <PZehler@crt.xerox.com>
    Sent by: owner-ipp@pwg.org

    07/10/2003 01:41 PM

    To
    "IPP Discussion List (IPP@pwg.org)" <IPP@pwg.org>,
    printing-jobticket@freestandards.org, printing-driver@freestandards.org

    cc
      

    Subject
    IPP> Print Quality Issue resolution

      

               

    All,

    During the PWG/FSG meeting in Portland we had a discussion about the IPP
    "print-quality" attribute and FSG's desire to add two new values, 'economy'
    and 'fine', where 'economy' is lower than 'draft' and 'fine' is higher than
    'high'. The FSG further proposed the addition of a new attribute, called
    "print-optimize", that would augment "print-quality" with values of 'image',
    'photo', 'text', 'text-and-image', 'save-toner' and 'speed'.

    With regard to 'economy' and 'fine', we agreed that 'economy' would map to
    "print-quality"='draft' and 'fine' to "print-quality"='high'. There may be
    end user visible features that map to multiple attributes. We leave it to
    specific print domains to model these higher level aggregate features. When
    appropriate we will add needed elements to the Semantic Model.

    There was a lot of push back on "print-optimize". The main concern was that
    "print-optimize" contained a mixed bag of items. The two main categories
    were content metadata and rendering hints. We finally agreed that the two
    values 'save-toner' and 'speed' are implied by the "print-quality". Since
    they were not required, they were removed. The remaining values are needed
    to direct the type of optimization/processing that will be performed on the
    content. It does not necessarily mean the value describes the content. To
    clarify this we changed the attribute name to "print-content-optimize".
    Finally the value 'image' seemed the same as 'photo'. The name for this was
    changed to 'graphic'.

    As a result the following attribute will be added to the JobX specification
    in it next revision.

       print-content-optimize (type2 keyword)

          This attribute refines the value specified by the print-quality

          attribute.

          The standard keyword values are:

             'graphic': optimize for graphic clarity

             'photo': optimize for photo clarity

             'text': optimize for text clarity

             'text-and-graphic': optimize for both text and graphic clarity

    Peter Zehler

    XEROX

    Xerox Innovation Group

    Email: PZehler@crt.xerox.com

    Voice: (585) 265-8755

    FAX: (585) 422-7961

    US Mail: Peter Zehler

            Xerox Corp.

            800 Phillips Rd.

            M/S 128-25E

            Webster NY, 14580-9701



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 15 2003 - 13:21:52 EDT