#690 Add support SELPHY CP1200, Improving the overall impression for SELPHY USB.

[Thierry H]

hi,
I add the SELPHY CP1200. Change the contrast for the SELPHY CP820, SELPHY CP910 and SELPHY CP1200 to 1300. (add_selphy-cp1200_and_modify_contrast.patch)
unconventional fix for the photo is printed borderless for all SELPHY.(for_SELPHY_addapt_size.patch)
Automatic configuration OK. Ok USB printing. To print wifi, convert the image to JPG and pass the '-raw' on lp (eg :. lp -raw image.jpg)

[Roger]

I have tested your patches using Gentoo and the most recent gutenprint-5.2.11; using my local gutenprint-5.2.11.ebuild with your two patches included here.

1) The Gimp Gutenprint finds and uses the Canon Selphy CP1200. (Users first needs to configure CUPS as Gutenprint apparently passes the job to the lp spooler command line tool.)

2) The color contrast apparently looks really good with your adjustments. I have only made two prints using Linux with your two included patches here and will quickly switch to Windows for a third similar print for comparison.

3) Anybody know if ICC/ICM color profiles should be utilized? I'm guessing, just use a default RGB color profile. However for my purposes, the current default profile and with the above patches, looks really good.

[Roger]

Wew! Had more of a problem trying to install the Windows 7 Canon Selphy CP1200 driver, and then getting a good print out versus using Linux Gimp and my custom compiled build!

1) Apparently no automatic install of Windows 7 Drivers, and Canon's driver web page seems dysfunctional..
2) Windows The Gimp tended to incorrectly crop and zoom the image, versus being correctly printed the first time using Linux The Gimp.
3) I wasted three photos, and still resulted in less than adequate results due to improper cropping after printing using Windows default Photo viewer for printing.

Enough griping though, I have two prints from both operating systems.

The Windows 7 default image viewer print seems a little less sharp (but deactivated the software viewer's sharpening filter) and the print is slightly less bright than the Linux Gimp print.

Also, Linux Gimp's Gutenprint was more well cropped and centered than the MS Windows default viewer print. Albeit, I'm wondering if the Linux Gimp is stretching versus scaling to fit more image within the print, but I cannot easily distinguish this when viewing the two prints side by side.

Let me know if you want the images scanned and emailed, however, I doubt scanning and sending them via email is necessary as it's quite obvious to me your patches with Linux Gimp are apparently superior.

[Roger]

BTW, using a Canon PowerShot A1200 camera.

I tend to sway towards Canon products versus Epson/HP, as Canon hardware doesn't seem to require proprietary firmware to be used within Linux. (ie. Canon Canoscan 9000f scanners and this printer.) I've had significant problems performing basic tasks using basic HP/Brother printer/scanner products, and the Epson proprietary firmware releases didn't appear any better then HP/Brother proprietary firmwares releases either.

Found the difference on the WIndows vs. Linux prints, the Windows default viewer print did a true borderless print, or border to border print. The Linux Gimp Gutenprint still had an approximate 1/4" white border at the base of the image, but the remainder three sides (left, right, top) were fine.

[Roger]

Performing some further comparisons, along with performing side by side comparisons, put the photos next to my Dell U2713HM display and do find the Linux Gimp Gutenprints are slightly brighter. Areas where there's bright sunlight, are those areas are washed-out whereas the display and Windows default viewer prints still show some detail.

Color wise, the Linux Gutenprint Gimp prints appear more accurate or desirable. (ie. White drywall painted white, is white, where as the display and Windows display the white painted drywall as slightly grey.) However, the Window's default viewer prints are more accurate to what the computer display shows.

Bringing the photos back to the interior shed for side-by-side comparison, shows your contrast adjustment (although looks really nice), is slightly too bright. Although the white painted drywall is white, in the current light conditions to the nake eye, the dryway is slightly off-white and the boiler is a little more off-white then white.

I mean, your contrast adjust is far more desirable to look at, but in reality likely just a tad bit too much.

[Roger]

What is the default Gutenprint contrast level? I'm only seeing "1.3" and no other values removed by change within your attached patch.

It's very likely your 1.3 contrast level is probably more desirable, but wondering if I can slightly reduce the contrast value for the realistic value without any color loss. (Shrugs. Sort of a coin flip here as your patched 1.3 contrast level looks more eye pleasing with colors.)

[Roger]

(@#$@#$ sf.net comment interface, can't copy/paste, etc... anyways... and oh, no spelling error highlighting!)

Instead of editing the patches and and wondering if the change took without application restarts, and assuming the default contrast level is 1.0, I reduced the contrast 2.0 units within the Gutenprint adjust color contrast interface. At this point, I should be 1.0 unit above the default contrast level. Comparing the Canon PowerShot A1200 photo using a Dell U2713HM display alongside the Canon Selphy CP1200 print, the contrast levels look almost identical, but maybe very slightly brighter.

Bumping three units down, I'm wondering if the end result might be too dark.

Granted, setting contrast to 1.3 gives very desirable eye pleasing results with desirable colors, but for the sake of accuracy, is this proper? I'm wondering if the 1.3 contrast should be something for the Gutenprint Color Adjustment presets? Granted, I do really like seeing my freshly Sherwin Williams painted drywall appearing white, but it's not what my display is showing. I'll further try reducing to 1.0 (or in my case 0.7 with patches applied) and report what happens.

Could it be you (or I) have a color profile (ie. ICC/ICM) interferring? If I'm not mistaken, the photos I'm printing were transferred straight from the Canon camera without augmentation to the color profile. But Gimp might be tagging with my Dell U2713HM monitor color profile.

I'm not sure of your position, but might it be wise to submit a seperate patch with the contrast adjustment? (Can be easily done with just editing the patches manually.)

Sorry for the many comments, but it's all data and I think the prints are expensive. So better to have documentation versus no documentation!

UPDATED: Found no color profile being applied by default in Gimp, and the default for opening files was set to RGB. The display was set to another mode, besides Standard/RGB, but had little effect. Would appear reducing contrast is still showing the image still slightly brighter, and maybe I need to instead reduce the brightness slightly, keeping contrast at 1.3... shrugs.

UPDATED: I reduced brightness to 0.7 and appears I'm almost identical to the monitor/display brightness, but maybe just slightly brighter in the print. Contrast was only reduced to 0.9, and am now thinking your contrast value might be pretty good as is. The only thing missing for identical photos, I noticed the color was a little lacking in my print with these settings. So, guessing I'll keep your contrast, reduce brightness to 0.7, and increase saturation slightly for color? Shrugs. I'll take a break at printing for a few hours.

[Roger]

Can probably ignore all of my previous color (including brightness and contrast) related comments, as color can likely be easily resolved (if you're rich and can afford) a hardware color spectrocolormeter. I would presume the author has access to one of these devices.

So naked eye observation seems to indicate my prints are very slightly bright and very slightly under saturated. Contrast looks good. Overall, I say everything looks good.

One remaining issue with your patches, I'm seeing Gutenprint's scale window defaulting to "788.3" and prints photos with an image slightly small on postcard media having two slim borders on the wide margins, with one larger border on one narrow margin even though the Borderless option is tick marked. (This is likely good for printing photos being framed with a border.)

Manually sliding the Image Scale slider anywhere, and then re-maximizing the image size now shows "720.0" in the GUI box which prints photos with no border on either of the wide margins, and the usual small border on one narrow margin. Basically I understand now I'm manually toggling border versus "no border printing, regardless of the "borderless" option being tick marked.

So far I have printed about 20 prints using your patches and a Canon CP1220 Selphy. Again, looks good to me and will likely not resort to $500 color spectrocolormeter. But if users desire closer to perfect renditions, they'll likely need to invest in the hardware.

[Solomon Peachy]

On January 29th I added support to Gutenprit for the CP1000 and CP1200 printers.

Beyond that, this set of patches only change a couple of default parameters that aren't necessarily the right thing to do.

The newest CP models (CP910, CP920, CP1000, and CP1200) needs the data sent from the PC in a different colorspace than the older versions, it's possible I'm using the wrong coefficients for those. The older models also make use of a color correction curve that hasn't been recreated for the newer models.

[Roger]

So as I gather the facts, this is what I'm interpretting:

Gutenprint greater than 5.2.11 versions will have CP1000/CP1200 support.

Just beaware of incorrect color adjustments. Modifying or boosting the contrast levels per the attached patch may temporarily workaround the color issue. (Can be performed by using the advanced color/contrast savings and saving the settings for future print tasks.)

[Roger]

The Canon Selphy appears to be using sRGB colorspace, built in?

Performing multiple test prints now, using default settings with just the Canon Selphy 1200 support added (or minus the 1.3 contrast patched adjustment), shows a too bright and not enough contrast on the Canon Selphy 1200 prints.

Using a Dell U2713HM display/monitor, set to Multimedia Brightness 100% Contrasat 19%. The photo print is indirectly lit using a GE 43W (ie. 60W) bulb, against the display photo representation.

Brightness 0.6 and Contrast 1.2 seems almost right here.

I then noticed the green grass and yellow painted street posts and yellow street lights not exhibiting enough green and yellow. So I further bumped the color curves (ie. not gamma) for red and green very slightly upward in the middle using the simple one point adjustment tool widget. (ie. Adjust Output > Color curves third section from the top) There are four widget tools for adjusting the curve, and I used the bottom simple one-point adjustment widget tool to bump the center of the curve up about a 1/4 notch vertically.

After I printed using these settings, the resulting prints are almost identical with some bright and some not too bright areas, seemingly random according to brightness/contrast when comparing to other sections of the photograph.

I can package my prints including a CD with the Gimp XCF/TIFF and mail them to an address.

[Roger]

Recomparing a Brightness 0.7 and Contrast 1.5; and Brightness 0.6 and Contrast 1.2.... sure looks like the brightness and contrast settings are inbetween these two sets of values. And if the correct value is chosen, likely bumping the color curves might not be needed as much, or at all.

[Pretty Boy Floyd]

I am not sure if I am reading this forum correctly, I just got a Selphy CP1200 and I would like to use it with CUPS. Is the file you have attached above used to add the printer drive in cups to allow WIFI to work?

[Thierry H]

You must have the latest version of Gutenprint
It works natively. provide a "cups" a JPG file.
My first patch corrected the contrast and brightness. My second patch fixes the size.
enclosed my ppd

[Solomon Peachy]

FYI, I just added a dedicated backend for the newer SELPHY CP models (820/910/1000/1200) -- it maeks printing a lot more reliable by reading back the printer status, handlig errors, and implementing the necessary printer-specific flow control.

[Thierry H]

Hello,
I just tested the new backend with the Canon SELPHY CP910
- By Wifi: (lp -o raw image.jpg)
Good size and good contrast.
- USB printing is broken.

ordissimo@ordissimo:~$ lpstat -t
scheduler is running
system default destination: Printer
device for Printer: gutenprint52+usb://Canon/CP910?serial=Z815080800004323&backend=canonselphyneo
Printer accepting requests since mer. 14 déc. 2016 10:18:06 CET
printer Printer is idle. enabled since mer. 14 déc. 2016 10:18:06 CET
Unknown print size! (00, 16843008x16843009)

[Solomon Peachy]

That looks like the printer is being fed data for an older Selphy model. Please remove and re-create the CUPS printer queue. What Gutenprint version are you using? (compiling from git?)

[Thierry H]

This is the git version:

root@ordissimo-C17A:/home/ordissimo/scdrs/gimp-print-source# git log
commit 3945bc7465a37f36838d9253126deb3c26713228
Author: Solomon Peachy pizza@shaftnet.org
Date: Wed Nov 30 14:38:05 2016 -0500

dyesub:  Add support for Mitsubishi P95D MedSci printer.

commit ad660c890a80a0201ec46077ef41916fa1ba2064
Author: Solomon Peachy pizza@shaftnet.org
Date: Sun Dec 11 08:34:42 2016 -0500

dyesub:  Expose sharpening, matte intensity, and dust removal options
of the Kodak 8500, Kodak 9810, and Sinfonia S1245.

Also add the Kodak 8800, which is indentical to the Kodak 9810

commit be39a40018c3aeb0ae199ff92d0201cf76bcc993
Author: Solomon Peachy pizza@shaftnet.org
Date: Sat Dec 10 22:44:27 2016 -0500

dyesub: backend:  Add marker support to the selphyneo backend.

...

I reconfigured

ordissimo@ordissimo:~$ lpstat -t
scheduler is running
system default destination: Canon_CP910
device for Canon_CP910: gutenprint52+usb://Canon/CP910?serial=Z815080800004323&backend=canonselphyneo
Canon_CP910 accepting requests since mer. 14 déc. 2016 14:39:48 CET
printer Canon_CP910 is idle. enabled since mer. 14 déc. 2016 14:39:48 CET
Unknown print size! (00, 16843008x16843009)

[Solomon Peachy]

Okay, thanks. I will run this through again on my end to make sure I didn't miss something.

[Solomon Peachy]

I just recompiled gutenprint (latest git), added the printer via the CUPS interface, set the defaults to the right paper size, and told CUPS to print a test page... and it printed successfully.

[Thierry H]

Thanks for your test. I recompile and test again.

[Roger]

Any progress on the low contrast or poor color similarities to the Windows Selphy Canon CP1200 driver? (Upon checking some of the driver's compiled binaries, looks like the driver is just sending a toggle bit enabling sharpening at the printer's end.) Another poster had color problems with another unrelated Canon printer, unless he sent the image with a CMYK color profile.

All I'm doing here is, sending the image from Gimp, using Gimp's SRGB color profile, and black and white photos tend to look faded when compared to printing from Windows.

[Solomon Peachy]

No further progress has been made on color correction/etc -- access to proper calibration tools would likely yield far better results then anything I could attempt to come up with.
The printer expects the data sent over in YCbCr format. I'm using the jpeg coefficients for that conversion from RGB but that could easily be wrong.

I'm hoping there is a way to get the printer to accept "raw" YMC data instead. This will yield an improvement in quality due to one fewer colorspace conversion. Unfortunately this is well into the realm of conjecture and guesswork since I do not have any contacts within Canon.

There is another possibility that I'm also pursuing in parallel -- the old CP900 model accepts YMC data using a variation of the CPNP wifi protocol. If CP910/CP1200 retains that feature, that will be quite handy -- but it won't give any insight on how to do that via USB.

Oh, one question -- when you say "toggle a bit to enable sharpening" what do you mean? (Gutenprint's selphyneo support generates identical job headers as Windows; the only difference is in colorspace conversion and the color LUTs used)

[Roger]

There's a very small cny_cp1200_sharp.bin file within the Windows' driver files:

strings /mnt/windows-archives/canon/selphy_cp1200/cp1200-110-10l/CanonUPW_000/2_cab/INST/CP1200/64bit/DRIVER/cny_cp1200_sharp.bin

WCOMSHARP_01_00

I was screwing around tonight and decided to use wireshark to try to grab any out going data, but the printing froze via USB. Probably using WI-FI would be easier, but rarely use WI-FI.

[Roger]

Using "Canon SELPHY CP1200 - CUPS+Gutenprint v5.2.12"; anybody else notice, if switching the Gutenprint Color Correction setting to print "raw" rather than "default" within the "Output > Adjust Output" tab menu settings solve this non-color matching or brightness/contrast problem?

Ran across somebody posting to the Internet stating, he solved his color matching problem by configuring his application to print raw, and averting the application from modifying the image's color while in transit to the Canon Selphy printer. (Funny how photography application's like to impose their own color corrections at the oddest times, rather than just scanning the raw image or printing the vanilla image!)

It would appear the colors I'm now seeing, do match with what my U2713HM displays in SRGB color space. (The final print is very slightly brighter than what I'm seeing on the monitor, looking at the foreground bright whites. And the shadows in the background appear very slightly dimmer, but at 300x300 or 4x6, hardly noticeable unless side by side.)

Also, there's a setting within Cups Canon_SELPHY_CP1200 "Administration > set default options" for Color Precision" with "normal/best" options, so of course it is assumptive this should likely be set to "best" if printing photos. On the filp, not seeing much difference with the final print.