Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: henrikolsen on April 26, 2017, 05:34:02 am
-
Hi Mark
Big thanks for sharing the Observations on Chroma Optimizer (“CO”) Usage Canon Pro-1000 Printer (https://luminous-landscape.com/observations-chroma-optimizer-co-usage-canon-pro-1000-printer/). Interesting with the firmware update differences.
I have a note regarding
As we’ll see below, the firmware update lowered the total CO usage for all the jobs but the two remaining issues are why the CO share should vary inversely with paper size, and why there should be any CO usage for matte media.
I put these questions to Canon and received a rather straightforward explanation that clears up these mysteries quite fully. It turns out that for the Pro-1000 model only, because users cannot wipe the platen manually as possible for the other Pro series models, CO is also used for automatic maintenance of the platen after every print regardless of whether the paper being put through the printer is luster/gloss or matte, but the amounts used for maintenance are not proportionate to the size of sheets being printed – i.e. the maintenance volume varies less than proportionately to the size of the sheet being printed, hence the ratio of CO to total ink will be larger on smaller sheets than on larger ones.
Just curious, having done some own observations/measurements, and following others. I understand you used the Canon Accounting Manager for data collection. I was under the impression that CAM didn't include ink used for maintenance operations. Is that not the case, or is the CO maintenance a specific exception? If maintenance ink isn't accounting for in CAM (which I think it isn't), is data supporting Canons maintenance operation found by other means, like precision measurements of CO ink cartridge and/or maintenance cartridge?
--
Regarding the, sometimes big amount of, ink passed to maintenance cartridge for the Pro-1000, I'd like to refer LULA users to these interesting threads, including much appreciated measurements by the user 'sabin'. I have some own comments on these in the getdpi thread as well. Haven't seen those data sets here on LULA, but could have missed them.
http://forum.adv-bulgaria.com/forum/main-forum/фото-видео-и-оптика/4299-canon-imageprograf-pro-1000-maintenance-ink-wastage
https://www.getdpi.com/forum/printing-and-output/58920-canon-pro-1000-waste-tank-contains-188-ink-thats-25-waste-post725248.html#post725248
Regards
Henrik
-
Hi Henrik,
Yes, the reporting of CO usage is exceptional insofar as it includes CO usage for the non-printing function mentioned in the article. I only used the Accounting Manager software for making these measurements.
-
Hi Mark,
Thanks for an interesting article. A quick question: My understanding is that the maintenance cycle on the Canon large format printers is for the heads, not the platen. Am I missing something?
-
The use of CO for platen maintenance is restricted to the Pro-1000. On the Pro-2000/4000 etc. larger printers users can wipe the platen in a way that is not possible in the Pro-1000, hence the in-built routine for the Pro-1000.
-
Find it really odd that they would use costly CO for cleaning purposes. I am assuming that it is not 100% solvent (there must be some polymer there to change the "chroma" of the print.) Wouldn't that leave something behind? Why didn't engineers think about just using plain water/alcohol mixture that is an order of magnitude cheaper. May be they have some other reasons....
Another question: Does the platen get contaminated after every print?
-
Find it really odd that they would use costly CO for cleaning purposes. I am assuming that it is not 100% solvent (there must be some polymer there to change the "chroma" of the print.) Wouldn't that leave something behind? Why didn't engineers think about just using plain water/alcohol mixture that is an order of magnitude cheaper. May be they have some other reasons....
Another question: Does the platen get contaminated every print?
If they were to use anything else a separate mechanism and fluid (that evaporates quickly) would need to have been engineered and built-in to the printer, so perhaps not worthwhile, but that would be a design question you could put to Canon if you were so inclined. Likewise for your second question - I have no idea.
-
Thanks, Mark. For all the articles on printers as well. I am in the market for a printer upgrade so trying to do as much homework as possible on the choices out there.
Another question, if I may: Does the Canon Pro-1000 also do a head maintenance routine after every print big or small? I read it somewhere but I am not sure.
Thanks again!
:Niranjan.
-
Hi Niranjan,
All I know about this is what I said in my review of the Pro-1000 under "Clog Management".
-
Another question, if I may: Does the Canon Pro-1000 also do a head maintenance routine after every print big or small? I read it somewhere but I am not sure.
You can get rather detailed information about maintenance routines (ink usage/waste) in the post by 'sabin' linked in the first post in this thread.
-
You can get rather detailed information about maintenance routines (ink usage/waste) in the post by 'sabin' linked in the first post in this thread.
Got it, thanks.
-
I'm waiting 10 more days to power on the printer and measure how much ink will be wasted after 45 days resting. Will report after the test.
-
I'm really astounded by a claim that you can use ink to maintain a platen.
My CO usage has not been unreasonable.... but the heavy use of colour inks for maintenance while I'm printing 95% B&W is extremely disappointing.
-
I'm really astounded by a claim that you can use ink to maintain a platen.
My CO usage has not been unreasonable.... but the heavy use of colour inks for maintenance while I'm printing 95% B&W is extremely disappointing.
May be because you are not using the colour inks much, it thinks it needs to do more frequent cleanings of those particular heads.
-
I'm really astounded by a claim that you can use ink to maintain a platen.
My CO usage has not been unreasonable.... but the heavy use of colour inks for maintenance while I'm printing 95% B&W is extremely disappointing.
How do you know it is using colour inks for maintenance? The Accounting Manager application does not report ink used for maintenance except in the case of CO. It could be using colour inks for B&W printing. Are you using the Accounting Manager? How much colour ink is being used for what size B&W on what paper? And are they toned B&W or neutral-gray B&W?
-
Ok guys, good news. After 48 days of not touching the printer (it was left off) I started it and it wasted the usual 3 grams of ink on power on and 3 more grams on the first print. Someone suggested it uses 50 grams or so after 45 days without printing, but maybe this was the case with older firmware.
-
Thanks very much for that insight. Most helpful.
-
How do you know it is using colour inks for maintenance?
I weighed the cartridges. I use the "print as B&W" option, so any toning is implicit to that mode.
-
I weighed the cartridges. I use the "print as B&W" option, so any toning is implicit to that mode.
I don't understand what the expression "implicit to that mode" means. If you simply mean that when you make toned B&W prints, CMYRB inks are used to do the toning, that is correct. But that isn't maintenance, it's printing.
From your weighing of the cartridges I have a question: (1) how many grams ink in aggregate did you see being sacrificed to what probable strength of cleaning? By probable strength of cleaning, it could be lighter or heavier depending on the circumstances in which it was triggered, such as volume of work done before the next maintenance and time between printing sessions. We don't know for sure because all that is controlled under the hood by algorithms and sensors, so this is unfortunately judgmental to us users, but the number of grams ink used is more discernible as you've done. Did you do this exercise once, or did you repeat it several times and if yes, were the results consistent?
-
Bad news.
With firmware 2.050 I started a print today and was asked to change the maintenance cart (MC) after that there was about 6 min different noises and I got 58grams in the MC.
Men that hurts!!
I also experienced power loss for several hours as the power grid went off two days ago for the whole night and my USP run out of battery.
So the questions are: Do we get this cleaning activated on every new MC? Do we get this cleaning after power loss, because of reset of internal timers? Will this cleaning happen if we change the MC before requested by the printer?
Next things to test:
1. is to unplug the printer from the wall socket for one night and see if it will get the 58 grams and if not maybe we can add 58g ink price to the price of the MC.
2. Change MC before it is full.
So after all maybe it's not about days off...
-
............
So after all maybe it's not about days off...
Time off is one variable amongst others that determine maintenance activity. You're asking good questions, but it isn't clear to me whether we can get authoritative answers to exactly how all this works.
-
Bad news.
With firmware 2.050 I started a print today and was asked to change the maintenance cart (MC) after that there was about 6 min different noises and I got 58grams in the MC.
Men that hurts!!
I also experienced power loss for several hours as the power grid went off two days ago for the whole night and my USP run out of battery.
So the questions are: Do we get this cleaning activated on every new MC? Do we get this cleaning after power loss, because of reset of internal timers? Will this cleaning happen if we change the MC before requested by the printer?
Next things to test:
1. is to unplug the printer from the wall socket for one night and see if it will get the 58 grams and if not maybe we can add 58g ink price to the price of the MC.
2. Change MC before it is full.
So after all maybe it's not about days off...
I just posted the following comments in reply to a similar thread over on DPReview:
I don't think the Pro-1000 gets any cue from the maintainance tank to start a cleaning cycle. It only tracks whether the tank is empty enough to accommodate the amount of ink it plans to dump once it starts a new cleaning cycle. Your printer did what mine did. It began to initiate a print, then decided on a cleaning, then found the maintanence tank was full, then asked you to replace the tank (and in my case a few ink cartridges as well), then completed its already initiated cleaning cycle. And you got 58 grams dumped into the new tank on that round just like I did, but I'm pretty sure that same 58 grams would have gone into the old tank if it had had enough capacity to take it. The printer might even be able to split a large purge cycle across an old and new tank since a fresh maintainence tank appears to have about a 230gm capacity for waste ink.
The Pro-1000 maintenance function which calls for ink consumption before and perhaps after each print (see the recent LULA thread on Chroma optimizer consumption even for matte prints) is probably not super sophisticated, but it does have a number of iterative steps based among other things on how long it has been since last print, how much image area has been printed (i.e., the amount of ink consumed over the given time period), and probably a system reset of this maintenance function whenever the printer plug gets pulled or a power failure occurs). The "off" state of this printer is probably like many other modern appliances, ie., there is still a very small amount of electricity needed to keep certain parts like the clock chip energized.
Lastly, I think it's challenging to totally reverse engineer the Canon printer maintenance cycle in order to figure out what big cycles might be avoidable, and I finally concluded it's better just to track the complete amortization schedule of the printer if one truly wants to arrive at a valid cost per print. That is what I'm doing. More on that in a moment:-) Weighing the maintenance tank when new and then when full will indeed allow one to derive the amount and cost of the waste tank ink. However, that value is only truly worth knowing if you also know how many prints you actually made during that period of time. Hence, an amortization schedule is the key.
From my amortization study of the Pro-1000: My Pro-1000 has now been online for 340 days, and during that time, I have made only 70 8x10 "equivalent-size borderless prints" meaning I'm dividing my total square inches of printed image area by 80 sq. inches, i.e., the equivalent of having made seventy 8x10 inch borderless prints even though I rarely actually use borderless printing, and numerous prints were at bigger sizes. During this time I replaced the first maintenance tank which held 229 grams of waste ink after 308 days of the printer coming online, and my new tank is now at 80 grams of waste ink, so a total of 309grams ink that never hit the print surface since the day I fired up this printer for the first time. One gram is approximately equal to 1ml, therefore, in my low use condition with my Pro-1000 309 ml per 340 days total run time = .9 ml per day of "cleaning" or 309/70 8x10 prints = 4.4ml per 8x10 equivalent print not including the ink that formed the actual image. For users printing more total image area on a more regular basis, I doubt the .9ml "daily" consumption value would rise (it might even go down), so It's pretty obvious that making more prints more frequently will really drive the final cost per print down. The Pro-1000 is a printer that begs to be used!!!
kind regards,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
I got a Pro-1000 a few months ago. I contacted Mike Chaney, who has both the 1000 and 4000.
His advice was, "Some of the new Canon printers do a mini cleaning cycle if they have not been used for
some period (usually 2-3 days). That does work to keep nozzles clog free but it is better to
let Qimage Ultimate print an unclog pattern every 2 days. That prevents the mini cleaning
cycles that can waste a lot more ink than just printing a small half page unclog pattern every
2 days."
-
I got a Pro-1000 a few months ago. I contacted Mike Chaney, who has both the 1000 and 4000.
His advice was, "Some of the new Canon printers do a mini cleaning cycle if they have not been used for
some period (usually 2-3 days). That does work to keep nozzles clog free but it is better to
let Qimage Ultimate print an unclog pattern every 2 days. That prevents the mini cleaning
cycles that can waste a lot more ink than just printing a small half page unclog pattern every
2 days."
The Canon Pro-1000, 2000, 4000 models don't auto initiate that 2-3 day cycle. They initiate increasingly aggressive mini clean cycles only if they haven't been used for x number of days and the user then starts to print. In contrast, the Hp Z3200 also does something exactly like the Qimage scheduled nozzle check cycle every day, a daily nozzle "refresh" if you will, i.e it wakes up from a "sleep/off" mode and sends a little ink every day through the nozzles, so little that the HP Z3200 doesn't even require a maintenance tank. Very frugal on ink and reliably ready to print at all times. This begs the question: if the Qimage scheduled unclog pattern does the trick, and HP uses a similar trick but without having to load any paper, why is Canon so much more conservative and dumping so much more ink in a non preemptive manner yet still on a sequenced timer clock basis? Curious minds would like to know.
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
What is the price of the HP Z3200 printer?
Pro-1000 is much cheaper printer, but it is not cheaper technology if not more expensive.
We pay the difference in ink with time.
I do not regret getting it and my research is only to optimize the waste.
I really have no need to print every day/week.
-
What is the price of the HP Z3200 printer?
Pro-1000 is much cheaper printer, but it is not cheaper technology if not more expensive.
We pay the difference in ink with time.
The Z3200 comes in 24 and 44 inch versions only, as such, should be compared on initial price only to the Canon Pro-2000 and 4000 models or the Epson P6000, P7000, P8000, and P9000 models. The Pro-1000 is a 17 inch desktop model and is priced accordingly. What's interesting if one reads this entire thread is that the Pro-1000's maintenance routine, specifically the use of the Chroma Optimizer for cleaning purposes, varies somewhat from its bigger siblings, the PRO-2000 and 4000. I only have the Pro-1000 in house along with a 44 inch Z3200PS, a 44" Canon iPF8300 and a few other desktop photo printer models. Therefore, I can't speak to the operational costs of the PRO-2000 and PRO-2000, and it seems we should not extrapolate our findings for the PRO-1000 to head maintenance cycle on those two bigger Canon models even though the inks and the print heads are identical.
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
The Z3200 comes in 24 and 44 inch versions only, as such, should be compared only to the Canon Pro-2000 and 4000 models. The Pro-1000 is a 17 inch desktop model and is priced accordingly. What's interesting if one reads this entire thread is that the Pro-1000's maintenance routine, specifically the use of the Chroma Optimizer for cleaning purposes, varies somewhat from it's bigger siblings, the PRO-2000 and 4000. I only have the Pro-1000 in house along with a 44 inch Z3200PS, a 44" Canon iPF8300 and a few other desktop photo printer models. Therefore, I can't speak to the operational costs of the PRO-2000 and PRO-2000, and it seems we should not extrapolate our findings for the PRO-1000 to head maintenance cycle on those two bigger Canon models even though the inks and the print heads are identical.
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
This is correct Mark - as Canon explained it to me - one main relevant difference between the 24/44 models and the Pro-1000 is that with the two very wide format models the platen is user-reachable for cleaning whereas for the Pro-1000 it is not (I suppose most likely a design constraint), and that is why they developed this internal mechanism for keeping it clean. While the inks and the print heads are identical other things are not, for example there are differences in the transport speed and ink laydown technicalities between the larger ones and the Pro-1000, in the interest of maintaining adequate throughput speed of the large models, which is one reason why they issued separate profiles for the 24/44 versus the Pro-1000. And indeed I found in my testing that profiles made for the Pro-1000 weren't great performers with the Pro-2000. Devils always in details. :-)
-
This is correct Mark - as Canon explained it to me - one main relevant difference between the 24/44 models and the Pro-1000 is that with the two very wide format models the platen is user-reachable for cleaning whereas for the Pro-1000 it is not (I suppose most likely a design constraint), and that is why they developed this internal mechanism for keeping it clean. While the inks and the print heads are identical other things are not, for example there are differences in the transport speed and ink laydown technicalities between the larger ones and the Pro-1000, in the interest of maintaining adequate throughput speed of the large models, which is one reason why they issued separate profiles for the 24/44 versus the Pro-1000. And indeed I found in my testing that profiles made for the Pro-1000 weren't great performers with the Pro-2000. Devils always in details. :-)
Right. So, the Chroma Optimizer issue on the Pro-1000 is part of a larger and much more obscure Canon head maintenance algorithm if we compare Canon's approach to head maintenance on the Pro-1000 to the only directly competing printer model, the Epson SC P800. Both the Epson SC P600 and 800 models are proving to be fairly clog-free printers. They can sit for over a month and more often than not still pass a nozzle check with no further need to induce a cleaning cycle. That leaves the much maligned Epson PK/MK ink switching issue as the most easily known and quantifiable source of ink wastage (i.e ink not ending up in a real print) on the P800. Based on both Sabin's and my own experience with the Pro-1000, I have to say, it's far easier for the end user to avoid ink wasting on the P800 because one can easily manage this very knowable PK/MK switching frequency and the costs associated with it. The Pro-1000 is much more mysterious. It's incredibly challenging to reverse-engineer where the Pro-1000 invokes its biggest gulps of ink to maintain itself (not that Sabin and I aren't trying to figure it out!). That said, my copious records indicate to date that for low frequency users, plan on at least a dollar a day for the convenience of having a Pro-1000 in your home or studio. This begs the next question: "Are any active photographers high frequency users, i.e., daily or every-other-day users of a Pro-1000?". If you print daily, perhaps even weekly, I would argue that you are a printmaker first, and a photographer second. If you print once a week, or only once a month, I'd argue you are likely a photographer first and printmaker second :)
My own read on all of this comes down to a simple recommendation. If you print primarily on glossy/luster media and will spare no expense to get the very best image quality including freedom from bronzing and differential gloss without having to resort to post coating sprays, the Pro-1000 is a wise choice in this 17 inch printer class. On the other hand, if you print primarily on fine art matte papers where bronzing and differential gloss are not an issue, then the Epson P800 is your best bet both in terms of excellent image quality and lower ongoing costs of ownership.
For Pro-1000 owners like Sabin and myself, I think we still have some experiments to run in order to figure out how and under what conditions we can best manage the Pro-1000 ink consumption issues under low use conditions. It's not nearly as easy as figuring out how to best avoid ink wastage on an Epson SC P800. Canon could help its Pro-1000 customers out big time by publishing more facts about the Pro-1000 maintenance cycles, but my guess is hell will freezer over first :) Please don't misunderstand. I think the Pro-1000 is a fantastic printer, and Canon tech support is also impressive. It's just that a better handle on the Pro-1000 maintenance cycles would be highly useful to all of us Pro-1000 owners in order to better manage our ongoing costs of operation.
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
Right. So, the Chroma Optimizer issue on the Pro-1000 is part of a larger and much more obscure Canon head maintenance algorithm if we compare Canon's approach to head maintenance on the Pro-1000 to the only directly competing printer model, the Epson SC P800. Both the Epson SC P600 and 800 models are proving to be fairly clog-free printers. They can sit for over a month and more often than not still pass a nozzle check with no further need to induce a cleaning cycle. That leaves the much maligned Epson PK/MK ink switching issue as the most easily known and quantifiable source of ink wastage (i.e ink not ending up in a real print) on the P800. Based on both Sabin's and my own experience with the Pro-1000, I have to say, it's far easier for the end user to avoid ink wasting on the P800 because one can easily manage this very knowable PK/MK switching frequency and the costs associated with it. The Pro-1000 is much more mysterious. It's incredibly challenging to reverse-engineer where the Pro-1000 invokes its biggest gulps of ink to maintain itself (not that Sabin and I aren't trying to figure it out!). That said, my copious records indicate to date that for low frequency users, plan on at least a dollar a day for the convenience of having a Pro-1000 in your home or studio. This begs the next question: "Are any active photographers high frequency users, i.e., daily or every-other-day users of a Pro-1000?". If you print daily, perhaps even weekly, I would argue that you are a printmaker first, and a photographer second. If you print once a week, or only once a month, I'd argue you are likely a photographer first and printmaker second :)
My own read on all of this comes down to a simple recommendation. If you print primarily on glossy/luster media and will spare no expense to get the very best image quality including freedom from bronzing and differential gloss without having to resort to post coating sprays, the Pro-1000 is a wise choice in this 17 inch printer class. On the other hand, if you print primarily on fine art matte papers where bronzing and differential gloss are not an issue, then the Epson P800 is your best bet both in terms of excellent image quality and lower ongoing costs of ownership.
For Pro-1000 owners like Sabin and myself, I think we still have some experiments to run in order to figure out how and under what conditions we can best manage the Pro-1000 ink consumption issues under low use conditions. It's not nearly as easy as figuring out how to best avoid ink wastage on an Epson SC P800. Canon could help its Pro-1000 customers out big time by publishing more facts about the Pro-1000 maintenance cycles, but my guess is hell will freezer over first :) Please don't misunderstand. I think the Pro-1000 is a fantastic printer. It's just that a better handle on the Pro-1000 maintenance cycles would be highly useful to all of us Pro-1000 owners in order to better manage our ongoing costs of operation.
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
I have a very clear, reliable impression that we will NOT be learning more from Canon about ink use for maintenance with the Pro-1000 - even if hell doesn't freeze over :-) So whatever you and Sabin can come up with - reliably - on this matter will be a contribution to knowledge. I agree with you - it would be helpful to people for production planning.
My experience with the Epson P800 is that if it goes for more than 8 days unused, it will need a cleaning cycle to clear all the nozzles. Other people have reported longer intervals, but this is clearly sensitive to environmental conditions. My office/studio humidity is in the range of 22%-35% depending. I keep my office/studio unheated - i.e. the only "heater" is the MacPro.
Looking at the prints correctly, I don't think bronzing or gloss differential are an issue with either printer for all the PK papers I've tested, but I know this is a controversial issue - different people look at prints differently and see different things - that's fine.
According to Keith Cooper, ink switching round-trip on the P800 uses about 6.2 ml of ink. In the US in USD that would be about $4 and change round-trip. Not clear this is a huge-big deal for a commercial enterprise, but would add-up depending on how often. The biggest nuisance about it is the time it consumes - about 6 minutes; this could be concerning for a high-pressure, high-volume enterprise, but this printer wasn't intended or built for that kind of usage.
One gets this question very frequently - what's preferable to buy - a P800 or a Pro-1000. I've thought long and hard about it, working with both printers, making quite a large number and variety of prints from each and lots of paper testing; in the final analysis I think it boils down to cost and features. Cost is difficult because it's a function of up-front investment and long-term usage. Epson won't provide data on ink usage for prints - there is nothing in the firmware or software allowing this. Canon does provide the Accounting Manager tool for ink laid on paper, so at least we have that insight. So cost comparison is very difficult. Features is easier - if you need a roll holder and a flat pass through for thick, stiff media you buy a P800. Otherwise, either will make superb prints. The colour gamuts are pretty close - the Pro-1000 a tad larger depending on the paper, but except for very limited areas of the spectrum relevant to some photos, based on the blind tastings I've conducted with seasoned print people, the outcomes are pretty much awash.
-
Looking at the prints correctly, I don't think bronzing or gloss differential are an issue with either printer for all the PK papers I've tested, but I know this is a controversial issue - different people look at prints differently and see different things - that's fine.
If by "looking at the prints correctly" you mean viewing at near normal (i.e. perpendicular) axis to the print surface with illumination either very diffuse or coming in from track lights at 45 degree angles, I agree with you. However, off-axis viewing under less than optimal lighting is a very real part of print viewing as well, IMHO, even in museums and galleries that take great pains to give the viewer an optimal viewing experience. So, yes, I'm one of many discriminating printmakers who takes bronzing and differential gloss under consideration in my overall assessment of image quality, but I also agree with you that some experienced print makers believe bronzing and differential gloss are now reasonably well controlled with all of the most recent OEM ink sets.
That said, just last week I helped the mother of a close friend of mine set up a new Epson P600 in her office. She's 81 years old, an avid photographer with traditional darkroom printing experience, and wanted to set up a new "digital darkroom". I brought some traditional color chromogenic and B&W prints plus numerous inkjet media sample swatch books along with me, and we had a nice conversation about the tactile and visual differences between traditional silver gelatin prints and modern microporous inkjet media. In the very first prints made from some of her digital files onto a semi-gloss RC inkjet photo paper, she immediately observed the bronzing and gloss differential issues. I then offered her a can of Premier Print Shield, and said to her "if these aspects of your modern pigmented ink jet prints bother you, then here's the fix"! We sprayed a few prints, so that she could master the spraying technique. She got the message. Just sayin...
Best,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
That's remarkable!
I suppose much depends on viewing angle, illumination angle and the media. I think very smooth reflective surfaces would be more susceptible for this kind of effect to show compared with the moderately textured ones (such as the luster look-alikes) that I normally use.
-
Today we with Canon engineer have found out one interesting issue of CO usage:
replacing the paper from one type (satin) to the other (matt) without any changes in driver (Extra Heavyweight Fine Art Paper, print quality Highest) dramatically change CO usage. The same test image was printed on A3 paper.
CO usage for satin paper was 0.023ml.
CO usage for matt paper was 0.46m.
Difference is 20 times.
Looks like the printer detects the actual type of inserted paper an changes CO consumption.
-
Today we with Canon engineer have found out one interesting issue of CO usage:
replacing the paper from one type (satin) to the other (matt) without any changes in driver (Extra Heavyweight Fine Art Paper, print quality Highest) dramatically change CO usage. The same test image was printed on A3 paper.
CO usage for satin paper was 0.023ml.
CO usage for matt paper was 0.46m.
Difference is 20 times.
Looks like the printer detects the actual type of inserted paper an changes CO consumption.
If you did just one print on each paper I would credit this difference to a random auto maintenance before printing (the printer does that sometimes). Now, if you repeated the test and got similar results... then it is a solid piece of info.
-
Geraldo, I think you're right. The appearance of CO for matte is explained in my article about CO usage on this website. In Alexander's case, it had to be coincidental with maintenance usage, otherwise something is really working incorrectly with his printer.
Alexander: the printer knows what kind of paper is being used because of the settings YOU give it in the printer driver and on the LCD. It does not use CO for matte paper unless it is also performing a maintenance. The amount used for maintenance does not vary with paper type or size.
-
Is it possible that the printer "observes" how ink looks at the paper and decides to use CO dynamically after "seeing" something it do not like? We know that there is some optical elements that the printer uses for colour calibration.
Also, when did the printer started to show maintenance ink usage in the account manager? I'm I mistaken that this information is not included?
Geraldo, what is the firmware of your printer? Firmwares before 2.040 had problems with excessive use of CO.
-
Is it possible that the printer "observes" how ink looks at the paper and decides to use CO dynamically after "seeing" something it do not like? We know that there is some optical elements that the printer uses for colour calibration.
Also, when did the printer started to show maintenance ink usage in the account manager? I'm I mistaken that this information is not included?
Geraldo, what is the firmware of your printer? Firmwares before 2.040 had problems with excessive use of CO.
The CO treatment in a Canon Pro-1000 depends on three things: (1) the kind of paper the user specifies as the Media Type, (2) whether the user specifies that the coverage should be Full Sheet or "Auto", and (3) CO required for maintenance of the platen (see my article). CO does not coat matte paper. If the CO setting is Full Sheet, the whole page is covered; if CO setting is "Auto", CO covers those areas where there is ink laydown.
The Accounting Manager application does not show maintenance usage of CO apart from total usage of CO.
You are correct that only the most recent firmware should be used in order for the printer to manage CO appropriately.
-
You are correct that only the most recent firmware should be used in order for the printer to manage CO appropriately.
So has anyone else been able to download v2.050? I've looked on both the French and US sites and 2.040 still appears to be current for manual download.
-
As long as it dates from late February it should be OK.
-
So has anyone else been able to download v2.050? I've looked on both the French and US sites and 2.040 still appears to be current for manual download.
Connect the printer to internet using the RJ45 connector (lan connector) and then in the menu there is an option to check for firmware update. It downloads and installs automatically the latest 2.050 firmware.
-
Here are some new findings.
In the menu of the printer there are tree setting regarding auto cleaning.
1. Auto nozzle check, which checks the nozzle after every print and performs a little clean whenever it wants without any visible problem with the nozzles. I have not confirmed wasted quantity, but judging from the different time to clean it must be variable from 0.05 to almost a gram...guessing. I have disabled mine and printed hundreds of prints without problems with nozzles clogging ... so far.
2. System cleaning frequency: cannot be disabled, I set mine on standard.
3. Ink maintenance. This setting is responsible for time related maintenances! After disabling it the printer does not perform the time related ink waste that I described in my previous posts!! I'm using this mode from 27th of may without any problems with biggest pause between prints 2 weeks. After this two weeks on first print the printer wasted only 2.5 grams and did agitation of the inks. After several days inactivity I'll repeat this conditions to see if it is time related or just print volume related.
There were some posts that the printer uses small amount of ink on regular bases if left ON, but I cannot find any evidence of that and I seriously doubt it. In fact every time the printer performs some cleaning it make specific sounds, but I have never heard the printer do even a slightest move on it's own while staying on all the time.
So, with 1 and 3 maintenance settings off, the printing waste looks something like this.
Small prints 10x15cm about 0.07g per print fixed. This includes small maintenance on every 4-5 prints. Without this maintenance with firmware 2.050 the amount dropped from 0.05 to 0.03 grams.
A3+ size wastes about 0.12 grams on every sheet.
There is one more waste that is not included in the above numbers as I have not found out when it appears. It is about 4.8 grams on every 80-100 10x15cm prints. I have not found out on other media sizes yet, but I'm watching for the next waste to try to find something to relate it.
And finally some of us has suffered the system clean of about 58grams that happens at least once per ink set. So calculating this huge waste I will not be surprised of 0.3 grams (as suggested by other knowledgeable fellas) per print is even less than the reality...
All this testing unfortunately require time and having something to print :)
I will report when I have new info...
-
That said, just last week I helped the mother of a close friend of mine set up a new Epson P600 in her office. She's 81 years old, an avid photographer with traditional darkroom printing experience, and wanted to set up a new "digital darkroom".
How that warms my heart and soul :). How absolutely wonderful to hear, amidst the otherwise annoying technicalities of ink waste (also with you there on my own Pro-1000). Printing at 81 isn't waste, that's for sure! I hope I'm also still rockin' the darkroom by then.
-
The CO treatment in a Canon Pro-1000 depends on three things: (1) the kind of paper the user specifies as the Media Type, (2) whether the user specifies that the coverage should be Full Sheet or "Auto", and (3) CO required for maintenance of the platen (see my article). CO does not coat matte paper. If the CO setting is Full Sheet, the whole page is covered; if CO setting is "Auto", CO covers those areas where there is ink laydown.
Be aware that CO set to full (not auto), unfortunately does not necessarily cover the whole page, even though that might be intended by Canon and what many else think(?). Testing with Canon OEM SG-201 satin paper, I noticed that "CO set to full" didn't cover all (highlights not covered). So full, isn't always really full.
Normally CO control includes: Change CO curve in High/Highest quality with CO Auto by choosing Lustre Pro/Platinum Pro (CO is applied from lights to blacks) or Semi-glossy/glossy paper (CO is applied from darks to blacks).
So on my tests, choosing media type as the semi-gloss/satin Canon paper, even setting CO to full won't cover all. Using a lustre pro/platinum or custom media profile will cover highlights though. This specific paper, and others, IMHO benefit a lot by having highlights covered by CO - so just a heads up to anyone else feeling CO isn't quite cutting it.
Also note if using custom media types, that the named quality scale is shifted compared to OEM media types. 'Highest' maps to quality level 2 for OEM, but to 3 for custom media. Does confuse testing until you realise it. Weird, looks like a bug. Anyone at Canon listening in?
-
And finally some of us has suffered the system clean of about 58grams that happens at least once per ink set.
Hi Sabin,
I also had one episode of the printer evacuating 58gms in a long cleaning operation as Mark McCormack-Goodhart I believe also described. This happened after about three weeks of non-usage. I called Canon tech support for a discussion and the advice I received was that if I leave the printer turned ON, this will not happen, and leaving the printer on consumes very, very little electricity. That was quite some weeks ago. I have used the printer at various intervals since then and so far there has been no repeat of this massive maintenance evacuation.
-
I also had one episode of the printer evacuating 58gms in a long cleaning operation as Mark McCormack-Goodhart I believe also described. This happened after about three weeks of non-usage. I called Canon tech support for a discussion and the advice I received was that if I leave the printer turned ON, this will not happen, and leaving the printer on consumes very, very little electricity. That was quite some weeks ago. I have used the printer at various intervals since then and so far there has been no repeat of this massive maintenance evacuation.
I had this big maintenance dump reported as well. Mark S, was your 50+g dump also at or around a full maintenance cartridge? Trying to establish if it goes together with that happening, as I think Sabin and I, perhaps also Mark M, saw this happen somewhat close or at maintenance cartridge replacement.
Regarding the advice on leaving the printer turned on. Does that include turning off the automatic sleep/off mode (think it's often like 4 hours or so)? I had previously understood this auto turn-off actually turned it off to a state similar to manually hitting the off-switch (though possibly not the same as actually pulling or turning off the actually supply to it, timers/counters and so on).
@Sabin. Did you experiment having it always on while observing the 50+g dump? If so, Canons advice doesn't seem to apply, at least as only change. Are you currently, with the latest observations, keeping it on all the time (forced by inactivating auto-off)?
-
I had this big maintenance dump reported as well. Mark S, was your 50+g dump also at or around a full maintenance cartridge? Trying to establish if it goes together with that happening, as I think Sabin and I, perhaps also Mark M, saw this happen somewhat close or at maintenance cartridge replacement.
Regarding the advice on leaving the printer turned on. Does that include turning off the automatic sleep/off mode (think it's often like 4 hours or so)? I had previously understood this auto turn-off actually turned it off to a state similar to manually hitting the off-switch (though possibly not the same as actually pulling or turning off the actually supply to it, timers/counters and so on).
@Sabin. Did you experiment having it always on while observing the 50+g dump? If so, Canons advice doesn't seem to apply, at least as only change. Are you currently, with the latest observations, keeping it on all the time (forced by inactivating auto-off)?
As I said, it happened after several weeks of non-usage. To be clear - nothing to do with the maintenance tank. And yes, keeping it on means turning off automated shut-down. I have no idea what is alive or sleeping under the hood in this state. I hear no noise from the printer and the LCD is not illuminated unless I open the tray to start a print job. That's all I know about it.
-
And the plot thickens. A couple of weeks ago I decided to rearrange my office and to refinish the sturdy old work table my Pro-1000 sits on. It took me about 10 days to complete the refinishing project and then get the Pro-1000 up and running again. I had to pull the plug on the printer to remove the table from underneath it, so the printer was literally unplugged and I just left it that way for about 10 days. I figured this would be a good opportunity to see how much ink would go to the waste tank after complet and relatively long full power off interval. I weighed the cart before startup, then again right after the printer did its thing and was ready to print. Much to my surprise the waste tank only registered 6.3 grams more weight!. I was expecting the mother of all ink dumps, but it didn't happen. Prior to shutting the printer down, I had also not printed for a couple of weeks, and my last nozzle check occurred about a week before I shut it down with full power/unplugged off condition. So, about three weeks of total non use and totally unplugged for about 10 days, but no huge ink consumption occurred.
The next thing that happened is also worth mentioning. After the printer was ready, I tried to run a plain paper nozzle check. The sheet was 20 bond paper and relatively flat. Never had any trouble with it feeding before, but in this instance, the print head must have caught the lead corner and started to jam yet the printer was still soldiering on trying to print on an increasingly crumbled piece of paper. So, I did the only thing I could think of in the heat of the moment which was to immediately press the power off switch to force an immediate shutdown. I then carefully retrieved the crumpled sheet of paper, then powered the printer back up. I next decided to forego the nozzle check and just print a real image on a sheet of RC photo paper. What happened next was totally confusing. I was getting severe banding in the vertical direction of the print feed but in just one location on the print. This made no sense because a damaged or clogged head should show banding in the direction of the head pass, not vertical to it.
So, I then called Canon Support. The Canon guy knew his stuff. He told me to inspect the encoder strip for dirt or junk and to wipe it clean with a soft tissue. I saw a spot on the encoder strip that looked like clear grease rather than paper debris and right in the location where the banding was occurring on the print. I suspect it was probably some CO that had managed to gunk up at that location when the paper crumpled. The encoder strip is a about a 1/4 inch wide strip of mylar sitting just in front of the drive belt. I had never really noticed this very delicate part that runs the full width of the carriage path. Anyway, gently wiping the mylar strip did the trick. The printer is now printing perfectly. Moral of the story. If you see banding running perpendicular to the print head direction, the Pro-1000 encoder is probably dirty ;)
kind regards
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
Helpful insights Mark, thanks.
-
I had this big maintenance dump reported as well. Mark S, was your 50+g dump also at or around a full maintenance cartridge? Trying to establish if it goes together with that happening, as I think Sabin and I, perhaps also Mark M, saw this happen somewhat close or at maintenance cartridge replacement.
Regarding the advice on leaving the printer turned on. Does that include turning off the automatic sleep/off mode (think it's often like 4 hours or so)? I had previously understood this auto turn-off actually turned it off to a state similar to manually hitting the off-switch (though possibly not the same as actually pulling or turning off the actually supply to it, timers/counters and so on).
@Sabin. Did you experiment having it always on while observing the 50+g dump? If so, Canons advice doesn't seem to apply, at least as only change. Are you currently, with the latest observations, keeping it on all the time (forced by inactivating auto-off)?
No. At that time I powered off the printer when not in use.
-
No. At that time I powered off the printer when not in use.
And now you keep it on all the time, disabling the auto-power-off? Any downsides to this (except minimal power usage)? I recall you early on attempted keeping it on, but got some clogs... I might recall that wrong.
-
I've had the Pro-1000 on for the past several weeks with periodic usage and there has not been a repeat of this massive wastage of ink for maintenance.
-
And now you keep it on all the time, disabling the auto-power-off? Any downsides to this (except minimal power usage)? I recall you early on attempted keeping it on, but got some clogs... I might recall that wrong.
Yes, you recall correctly. However after that I have left the printer for weeks without clogs.
It's been two weeks now and soon I will find time to print something and see how it goes. I will report back.
-
Man I feel bad for you guys going through a 58ml ink dump. I have a 6400, and I wonder if you would find this helpful, although I'm not even sure if its applicable.
Is there way to enter the service mode on the Pro-1000? I imagine that since its based on the 2000 and 4000, there should be a way. What I do on my 6400 when I haven't printed in a few days is enter the service mode, and do a nozzle check from the service menu that shows me all the nozzles. This way, I'm seeing the actual status of every nozzle, but I'm also having the printer print something. I have seen that this must now reset the clock for how long its been since a print has been made. Then, when I reboot in regular mode, it will no longer do a clean cycle.
I noticed that on the 6400, after 3 days or non use, it would do a clean cycle which used 14ml of ink. What a waste this is because this prints roughly 14 square feet which is quite a bit when you consider an 8x10 isn't even one square foot. But if I do the nozzle check in the service mode, it no longer will do a clean cycle. Even if I saw a few clogged nozzles, I would still just do regular prints because I feel that one or two clogged nozzles will not affect the print, and after its been printing a bit, those nozzles might in fact come back to life. You can certainly test this if you then do a nozzle 1 pattern from the service menu again.
Now this is a lot of trouble to go through, so I usually just make sure to print every 2 days, even if its just a pattern I have which prints roughly every color channel on a plain piece of copy paper. It uses 0.3ml of ink, which is nothing in the whole grand scheme of things, but keeps the ink flowing.
I have left my printer off for 7 days, come back, booted up in service mode, did a nozzle 1 check from the service mode, looked fine, turned off and back on in regular mode, and then did a normal print with no trouble, and more importantly, no clean cycle.
-
When this happens with the Pro-1000, my experience was that it occurs on start-up and is involuntary. You don't get to control anything until it completes.
-
When this happens with the Pro-1000, my experience was that it occurs on start-up and is involuntary. You don't get to control anything until it completes.
Yet no one yet seems to know precisely the precursors that cause it. As noted in my earlier post, a full unplugged power off situation for over one week was not enough to cause it on my Pro-1000 running on latest firmware, but I have had it happen on two separate occasions prior without fully being able to retrace the steps that caused it to happen. So, what exactly does cause it? It would be nice to figure out what possible steps can be taken to avoid it. How about the Canon support guys giving us a real answer not just misinformation which later turns out to be incorrect?
Don't get me wrong. If this maintenance step is truly vital and not just conservative CYA tactics on Canon's part for the well-being of the printer, then it's necessary. No hard feelings about the Pro-1000, but owners of this printer could certainly benefit from Canon being a bit more forthcoming about these behind-the-scenes ink consumption-for-maintenance cycles when the printer doesn't appear to have any immediate clogging issues needing to be addressed either manually or automatically.
I'm admittedly a low print volume user of this printer as are many other photographers and amateur printmakers who purchase it, but it's exacting an approximately $30 per month "service-fee" for the privilege of ongoing ownership. How many reviews of this printer picked up on that issue? How does this service fee compare to costs of ownership for other printers in its class like the Epson P800?
best,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
Yet no one yet seems to know precisely the precursors that cause it. As noted in my earlier post, a full unplugged power off situation for over one week was not enough to cause it on my Pro-1000 running on latest firmware, but I have had it happen on two separate occasions prior without fully being able to retrace the steps that caused it to happen. So, what exactly does cause it? It would be nice to figure out what possible steps can be taken to avoid it. How about the Canon support guys giving us a real answer not just misinformation which later turns out to be incorrect?
Don't get me wrong. If this maintenance step is truly vital and not just conservative CYA tactics on Canon's part for the well-being of the printer, then it's necessary. No hard feelings about the Pro-1000, but owners of this printer could certainly benefit from Canon being a bit more forthcoming about these behind-the-scenes ink consumption-for-maintenance cycles when the printer doesn't appear to have any immediate clogging issues needing to be addressed either manually or automatically.
best,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
Mark, this is in good measure a chicken-egg business. The printer doesn't look as if it needs to be cleaned because it is being cleaned under the hood. I've never had a clogged nozzle pattern out of that printer, and I know it is consuming a fair bit of ink to maintain that status. So just because it doesn't LOOK as if the cleanings aren't needed, it doesn't mean they aren't needed, but the devil is in the detail of course. Does that make generic sense? Somehow I think it does, but there's lots of details missing. Now is a 50ml cleaning cycle needed? Only its hairdresser knows.......seriously, don't expect Canon to provide further clarity about this stuff. When I approached them about the 50ml cleaning dump, they told me to leave the printer turned on and it won't happen. I did that several weeks ago, and so far so good - it hasn't happened. Will it happen regardless one of these days? I have no idea. Stay tuned - if it does I'll report it. Yes, I am one for transparency and I think both Canon and Epson should be a lot more forthcoming on the specific conditions in which various kinds of cleaning cycles are triggered and how much ink they consume, but I can tell you for fact - it's a commercially and technically sensitive subject. Don't expect much.
-
...The printer doesn't look as if it needs to be cleaned because it is being cleaned under the hood. I've never had a clogged nozzle pattern out of that printer, and I know it is consuming a fair bit of ink to maintain that status. So just because it doesn't LOOK as if the cleanings aren't needed, it doesn't mean they aren't needed, but the devil is in the detail of course.
Being cleaned because the head actually needs it and being cleaned preemptively whether the head needs it or not are two different things. Yet in either case, $30 per month (what I'm seeing in my ongoing records tracking all costs) for head maintenance is not an insignificant amount. My 44 inch HPZ3200 doesn't consume anywhere near that amount to keep itself printing reliably, and I suspect a more comparably compared Epson SureColor P800 wouldn't either unless one is doing excessive swapping between MK and PK on the P800. Just sayin... $30 per month is worth taking a closer look at the situation. It's even enough to justify owning a second Epson P800 over an approximately three year time frame to completely eliminate the Epson PK/MK ink switching dilemma.
-
Being cleaned because the head actually needs it and being cleaned preemptively whether the head needs it or not are two different things. Yet in either case, $30 per month (what I'm seeing in my ongoing records tracking all costs) for head maintenance is not an insignificant amount. My 44 inch HPZ3200 doesn't consume anywhere near that amount to keep itself printing reliably, and I suspect a more comparably compared Epson SureColor P800 wouldn't either unless one is doing excessive swapping between MK and PK on the P800. Just sayin... $30 per month is worth taking a closer look at the situation. It's even enough to justify owning a second Epson P800 over an approximately three year time frame to completely eliminate the Epson PK/MK ink switching dilemma.
It's possible that preemptive cleaning is being done to prevent the need for what you call "actually needs cleaning". We don't know. The approach with the P800 is completely different. You do a nozzle check. If it's clean, no cleaning, if it isn't, then cleaning, all user=decided, manual. I think it will end-up using less ink for maintenance, but I haven't been able to assess that yet. I can only start measuring it with the next maintenance tank.
-
A data point: I finally emptied my CO cartridge this morning. It was the third to go, after GY and PBK. I print 90% BW, 100% on RC paper. All the other cartridges have been at their lowest displayable level for some time.
-
When this happens with the Pro-1000, my experience was that it occurs on start-up and is involuntary. You don't get to control anything until it completes.
My case was different. I changed the maintenance cartage as requested by the printer, printed one nozzle check, then I sent a print job to the printer and it then started system cleaning.
If you turn off "Auto nozzle check" and "Ink maintenance" you will reduce the ongoing ink waste. System cleaning cannot be disabled but at least can be set to standard (not short).
Update on testing with "Auto nozzle check" and "Ink maintenance" turned off:
For 16 days and 15 hours the maintenance cartage has lost weight from 397.12 grams to 392.88. This is 4.23 grams evaporated on 25C temp. If some cleaning is happening when printer is on, it is so small that it definitely is not reaching the maintenance cartridge.
1.with the printer ON, I turned it off to see what will happen when I turn it on again: 0.03g. after off, 3.24g after on again and also we got ink agitation.
2. 2nd off/on to check if it will perform that again: yes it did but without the agitating ink routine.
3. Print Nozzle check: Perfect test page (after two off/on cleanings), but the printer performed cleaning of 3.28g before printing. If I have not been testing on/off, that was going to be the only waste.
4. After nz. check print I was asked to change the CO cartridge. Agitating inks after change and no waste was measured after the printer was ready.
So it seams that even with the "Ink maintenance" turned off, the printer is performing some mandatory ink maintenance on long pauses without printing. Now I have to find out how long is the pause, so that I can print something before the timer kicks in and I think this will be the end of my tests for least maintenance waste owning this printer.
-
Very interesting Sabin.
My question on reading this is whether there is a bigger price to pay down the road for turning off as much of this maintenance stuff as possible. I suppose we won't get to know that unless or till something unwanted happens. Or put another way, there has to be some logic behind the default settings and some logic behind the options to tune them way down, but none of that logic is anywhere explained, so we are a bit in the dark on all this, taking the long-term perspective on it.
-
Update on testing with "Auto nozzle check" and "Ink maintenance" turned off:
For 16 days and 15 hours the maintenance cartage has lost weight from 397.12 grams to 392.88. This is 4.23 grams evaporated on 25C temp. If some cleaning is happening when printer is on, it is so small that it definitely is not reaching the maintenance cartridge.
Very cool!
Further, by logging the weight right before/after cleaning one should be able to make an estimate of ink used cleaning. There are two processes, an aqueous component, and a less volatile glycol like component with a much longer evaporation rate. I'm going to use this idea on my 9800. Especially on new ink cartridge loads and MK/PK swaps.
Thanks for a great idea.
-
Very interesting Sabin.
My question on reading this is whether there is a bigger price to pay down the road for turning off as much of this maintenance stuff as possible. I suppose we won't get to know that unless or till something unwanted happens. Or put another way, there has to be some logic behind the default settings and some logic behind the options to tune them way down, but none of that logic is anywhere explained, so we are a bit in the dark on all this, taking the long-term perspective on it.
Thats a good question. Time will tell I guess.
I read somewhere that the dryer the air, the more the chance to get clogged nozzles. I guess that hot and dry is the worst scenario. If one get clogs from time to time, it's better not to disable the extra maintenances. In my case with only one case of very faint clogged nozzles I have decided to risk it. No because it's too expensive, but because I'm curious what will happen. BTW today searching for something in the canon documentation I found a text in the printers manual regarding ink maintenance. It states that some ink is used to clear air bubbles from the system. So in theory the negative may not be only clogged nozzles, but decreased printing quality as in fact Canon warns in the manual about disabling this functions.
-
That Ink Maintenance is only about letting the printer agitate the cartridges periodically. It isn't about cleaning cycles.
-
That Ink Maintenance is only about letting the printer agitate the cartridges periodically. It isn't about cleaning cycles.
It must be about something else because I set mine to off and it stills agitates the cartridges.
-
It must be about something else because I set mine to off and it stills agitates the cartridges.
Strange, because I consulted the manual (at least the version I have) and what I reported is what it appears to say about that setting. I use the world "appears" because the use of the English language and editorial structure in that manual leaves a lot to be desired, but I thought this was reasonably understandable, so I mentioned it.
-
It must be about something else because I set mine to off and it stills agitates the cartridges.
I confirm that, mine also with IM off agitates the inks.
-
Strange, because I consulted the manual (at least the version I have) and what I reported is what it appears to say about that setting. I use the world "appears" because the use of the English language and editorial structure in that manual leaves a lot to be desired, but I thought this was reasonably understandable, so I mentioned it.
You are right about what the manual states. I checked it and it's clear. But I just printed two and it agitated the inks as usual despite the "Ink Maintenance" is set to "OFF". So what the manual states is at least strange not to say inaccurate :).
-
You are right about what the manual states. I checked it and it's clear. But I just printed two and it agitated the inks as usual despite the "Ink Maintenance" is set to "OFF". So what the manual states is at least strange not to say inaccurate :).
Not the first time. Perhaps useful in the final analysis to ask Canon directly what they mean by this, because in light of reported experience it may well be less clear than it seems!
-
I have the same behavior with my Pro 1000 as well and I think this is an essential feature to prevent the pigment particles from settling, thus affecting the output quality or even worse clogging the printhead if an excessive amount is passed through the nozzles. This is MUCH better than having the remove the 12 cartridges manually and shaking the tanks. Epson users can only dream of the features and technology found in the Pro 1000 :)
-
If you turn off "Auto nozzle check" and "Ink maintenance" you will reduce the ongoing ink waste. System cleaning cannot be disabled but at least can be set to standard (not short).
Update on testing with "Auto nozzle check" and "Ink maintenance" turned off:
For 16 days and 15 hours... but the printer performed cleaning of 3.28g before printing. If I have not been testing on/off, that was going to be the only waste.
he "Ink maintenance" turned off, the printer is performing some mandatory ink maintenance on long pauses without printing. Now I have to find out how long is the pause, so that I can print something before the timer kicks in and I think this will be the end of my tests for least maintenance waste owning this printer.
Any new observations on the timer/cleaning procedures, or how to avoid/minimize? Has it been behaving since, leaving it always on and disabling auto nozzle check and ink maintenance?
-
I've done nothing special with regrd to the cleaning schedule, but since installing the latest firmware upgrade many months back, behaviour seems to have improved:
- The CO usage was never out of line and continues to run down at about the same rate as the LGY/GY/PBK carts
-The 2nd maintenance tank is about 60% full but hasn't made any recent sudden leaps
-After the initial shock of seeing all the carts drop to about the 10% level despite my printing 95% B&W, the colour and MBK carts don't appear to have dropped further, although I'm now about 50% through the PBK/GY/LGY/CO quartet. LGY is the lowest.
Of course it doesn't mean that it won't go nuts the next time I start it up. On average I turn it on once a week and make 3-4 A3+ prints.
-
My pro-1000 ink consumption after 9 months (I calculated this right after the second maintenance tank was full).
The printer is used 2-3 times a week. In one occasion was left unused for 16 days and in another 9 days.
The printer stays always on almost from the beginning and the ink maintenance setting is to OFF the last 3 months.
Total surface printed 45,413 square meters (488,821 square feet), pages 290 (mostly A3+ to A2). 50/50 matt/photo, 70/30 color/bw.
Total ink on paper 516,579ml. Total ink in the maintenance tanks (both of them) 470ml. Ratio 52/48.
The most used inks from more to less:
- Chroma Optimizer
- Gray
- Yellow
- Matte Black
- Photo Gray
- Photo Black
- Cyan
- Blue
- Red
- Photo Magenta
- Photo Cyan
- Magenta
I will recalculate this when I will replace the third maintenance tank.
-
The printer stays always on almost from the beginning and the ink maintenance setting is to OFF the last 3 months.
Interesting if you can spot a change in ink waste after turning on the maintenance setting.
Total ink on paper 516,579ml. Total ink in the maintenance tanks (both of them) 470ml. Ratio 52/48.
Thanks for the data. The ratio seems absurd to me, and I would still think it should be noted more in reviews and sales material. Or better, be improved. I have seen several examples of print cost calculations and they certainly don't include a 1:1 print:waste ratio. Quite significant. If in the <25% waste range I wouldn't bark, but 1:1... I wonder if anyone with a Pro-x000 roll model could compare with these data. I have a feeling they don't have around a 1:1 print:waste ratio, but are significantly better. But I don't trust that feeling until I see some data :).
Do we know if anyone with enough insight at Canon thinks this is as expected? Will anyone dare to say so, or just say "it varies...".
-
............ The ratio seems absurd to me, .............
I find it quite strange. The last calculation I did (details not on hand just now), the ratio was more like 1.46 for Total Ink/Ink on paper, i.e. for every ml of ink used for printing, 0.46 ml ink used in maintenance; but this included one of those massive cleaning cycles from having turned off the printer and not used it for a while. With the printer left on indefinitely and used more often, the ratio should improve quite dramatically. I was hoping to measure this, but the project got shut-down by a power failure in Toronto which shut the machine down.
-
Interesting if you can spot a change in ink waste after turning on the maintenance setting.
I can't unfortunately. I forgot to take note when exactly I turn off the setting. The only difference is that the first maintenance tank was 566gr. full and the second was 519gr. This translates in a difference of 47g. which is 43ml. (a ratio of 1.1 between 1ml and 1g. because the difference between a full and an empty cartridge is 88g). I will update my data when I will replace the third tank.
Thanks for the data. The ratio seems absurd to me, and I would still think it should be noted more in reviews and sales material. Or better, be improved. I have seen several examples of print cost calculations and they certainly don't include a 1:1 print:waste ratio. Quite significant. If in the <25% waste range I wouldn't bark, but 1:1... I wonder if anyone with a Pro-x000 roll model could compare with these data. I have a feeling they don't have around a 1:1 print:waste ratio, but are significantly better. But I don't trust that feeling until I see some data :).
Do we know if anyone with enough insight at Canon thinks this is as expected? Will anyone dare to say so, or just say "it varies...".
I am confident on this. I keep notes in a custom xls every time I change a cartridge or a maintenance tank. Of course I assume that the Accounting Manager software gives reliable data and that the ink in the maintenance tank stays always in liquid form! If it's not then the consumption is worse :(
There are two interesting post here from user Czornyj which reports a very low ink wastage 6.5% on a PRO-4000. Also this post is the first reference I saw on the PF-10 printhead lifetime, 8-10lt of ink on average:
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=120755.0 (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=120755.0)
-
I am confident on this. I keep notes in a custom xls every time I change a cartridge or a maintenance tank. Of course I assume that the Accounting Manager software gives reliable data and that the ink in the maintenance tank stays always in liquid form! If it's not then the consumption is worse :(
Just to be clear. I trust your observations. I have seen worse waste than this on the Pro-1000. But even a 1:1 I find absurd.
There are two interesting post here from user Czornyj which reports a very low ink wastage 6.5% on a PRO-4000. Also this post is the first reference I saw on the PF-10 printhead lifetime, 8-10lt of ink on average:
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=120755.0 (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=120755.0)
Yes, this is why I find the 1:1 ratio really absurd on the Pro-1000. This observation on the Pro-4000 seem more normal, but likely also with more usage. But you have still used your Pro-1000 fairly regularly, and I still wonder if wasting this much ink compared to what lands on paper is really expected behaviour, or the Pro-1000 simply has some design fault, be it firmware or hardware.
It does share the same inkset and head, and although other things likely differ somewhat, keeping the same head type and ink ready for action, I would except takes roughly the same amount of maintenance - not suddenly exploding on the smallest model. Even if you printed more (volume and higher frequency), there is a _long_ way down to hit around the same maintenance usage as the reported Pro-4000. Just wandering... Canon, are you listening? Could your thorough data collection be submitted to Canon for a comment?
If it doesn't change, a Pro-2000 might be a better buy (assuming it behaves as a Pro-4000), if it can fit in - unless someone reports the same heavy maintenance here as seen on the Pro-1000.
-
Could your thorough data collection be submitted to Canon for a comment?
I really don't want to try contact again the Canon Greece staff. They don't respond. When I set up the printer software somewhere I check an option to send information to Canon and periodically I see a pop up about "sending usage information to Canon" so I assume someone somewhere is looking at my data.
-
To add to the absurdity, mine emptied its first colour cartridge a few minutes ago (after a total of about 25 A3+ prints). Can you guess which?
Blue. Which along with red, should not have been used at all given the printing I do.
Maybe it was the fault of the initial firmware... things seem far saner since 2.040 went in.
None the less, it means Canon sold the printer with firmware that pissed over 400€ of ink away, or about 60% of total usage according to rough counting on fingers.
That really, deeply sucks. A classic case of "fuck you, we can't be arsed testing our products" corporate arrogance.
-
That was fast Graham, really fast. I feel your pain. The waste is enormous. And I'm yet to be convinced the troubles are over with latest firmware (improved on some areas, sure). But of course I hope the best.
I wonder if it's possible to update the firmware, before you initialize the printer. I'm going to set up a another Pro-1000 soon that has been standing uninitialised for half a year or more. Would be nice to prime it with newest firmware. Anyone knows? I'm guessing the menus aren't available until initial forceful setup has been done, priming head and ink lines... Unless there's some service mode I don't know about access to on the Pro-1000. I'm sure it's there somehow, at least for Canon repair staff.
-
The old uninitialized Pro-1000 has firmware 1.110 the firmware updater says. Tried connecting it, but it won't do firmware update ("could no t update" it says) - likely as long as printer's built-in init sequence has been done (priming).
I was curious to test if newer firmware would waste less ink on priming compared to the old. I know the lines and head/buffer has to be filled, but still a lot goes in the maintenance cartridge to start with (meaning past the head). At least the transport fluids in the new head gets a very very thorough ejection/cleaning with all the expensive ink flowing through it and down the maintenance drain on init.
-
If Canon uses similar shipping procedures to Epson (and I don't know whether they do), it is likely that much of what drains into the maintenance tank on initial start-up is not ink, but shipping fluid, mixed with a bit of ink as the initiation process nears completion.
-
I think there are some basic "laws of physics" that apply to all the Canon printer models using this new slngle and rather large print head which can easily account for what appears to be much higher ink waste on the Pro-1000 compared to its bigger siblings, Pro-2000, 4000. First, given that some regular use of ink goes to maintanence on all of these models, the longer you go between print jobs, the more ink ends up never being used to print an image. The boundary condition would be to leave any of these printers idle all the time and never make a print. In that scenario, all the ink consumed accrues to maintenance, so the ratio of ink to tank versus ink to image goes to 100% maintenance:0% image at this extreme lack of usage boundary. In contrast, printing all day every day and never letting up would push the ratio much closer to 0% waste, 100% accruing to actual images. However, it has been determined that even during printing, these printers use a little ink for maintenance, so ultimately the high usage boundary condition might end up, for example, at 3% maintenance, 97% image when run in a high production environment. This would apply approximately to the little Pro-1000 model as well, but note what follows in the second paragraph. A 50:50 ratio thus happens somewhere between these two extreme boundary conditions, and in my own rather low volume of printing, I've also determined 50:50 is a very real world result for my Pro-1000. Seems crazy, but it's real when you only print once or twice a month and the number of prints you make is relatively small.
Now for the second part of the puzzle: Image size! People with Pro-1000s typically print 8x10s, 11x14s etc, and perhaps a few 16x20s. A single print thus typically requires only enough ink to cover, say, one square foot of image surface area. Yet folks with Pro-2000s, and 4000s, routinely print much larger image sizes, so one print on a Pro-4000, for example, can routinely consume enough ink to cover several square feet image area. Thus, the same print head design with same basic maintenance requirement but mounted on a much bigger printer carriage is bound to produce 5x-10x or more printed image area than the baby brother Pro-1000 when all other low volume enduser usage factors are equal. Hence, low frequency usage penalizes a PRO-1000 compared to it's bigger siblings simply due to the typical image size being printed. Larger image sizes act much like higher volume printer usage as far as the print head is concerned. Large images tip ink consumption decidedly in favor of ink to image rather than ink wasted down the tank.
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
Interesting Mark also has a 1:1 (or 50:50) ratio, from low usage though, possibly lower than reported by others.
I can relate to Mark's thoughts on the increased usage with a bigger printer, especially surface area. I have wondered about this before - how working with a roll printer makes me print differently than on a sheet printer - by quite a lot. It's interesting. I have earlier thought it could be the feeling of the "endless" ressources a roll printer seem to make available to you. The speed is much higher (the Pro-1000 is a snail compared to the roll models), you might shift cartridges less often (often much bigger) and the paper is just there in the length you ask for, feeling endless. It somehow just begs to be used, and swiftly spits out anything you ask for, whether big or small - and why not go big then :). It's a totally different feeling, and I much prefer the way it seems to liberate me. Might be strange I know, but I can certainly confirm a more loose "trigger button" than when using a sheet model - both in quantity and area size. But a roll model cannot fit everywhere I'd like to.
It would be encouraging if someone had a high usage of a Pro-1000, and could confirm a much improved print-to-waste ratio, but I haven't seen it. If it was a fact, it might change the usage pattern significantly, possibly towards the roll printer feeling I have - although the snail printing and sheet feeding (reminding constantly of the cost in a different way than rolls, to me) makes it less obvious.
Also haven't heard of roll printer Pro-x000 models with very bad print-to-waste ratio, and although less likely than for the Pro-1000, I'm sure at least some don't get used that much. Perhaps they really have the same ratio, usage being the same.
-
Mark M-G's first paragraph is a neat, credible explanation of what's going on, but re the second paragraph, I really don't think print size has anything to do with the waste ratio. It doesn't take much printing to keep the head moist, and as long as the printer is left on, the heavy auto-maintenance routine is off. IOW, whether one churns out one 16*20 or four 8*10s in a session, I wouldn't expect the impact on maintenance to differ much if any. The number and spacing of such sessions over a given time period would be the key determinant moving that ratio up or down. The data I posted several days ago reflects a period of intermittent usage every several days, and not making a great many prints per day.
I think a fair bit of this discussion reflects the interest in parts of the community in more fulsome disclosure of ink used for maintenance by both Canon and Epson. They both use lots of ink for maintenance and personally I think it appropriate that owners of these machines should have reliable access to such basic performance data, as it could help improve the efficiency of printing habits in terms of materials conservation. I think we must accept the fact that with current technology the ink serves two purposes: printing and maintenance. Once we accept this, the volumes consumed for each should not be State Secrets and reporting them should be technically feasible.
-
.. I really don't think print size has anything to do with the waste ratio.
How could it not affect this ratio? Let's take the same digital image file. You print it today on a Pro-1000 at 16x 20 size. I print it today on a Pro-4000 at 32x40 size. I just put four times the amount of ink onto print paper as you did which in turn promotes significantly better ink usage with regard to ink hitting paper versus ink arriving at the waste tank. All other print head maintenance factors being comparable (since, after all, our printers have the same print head technology), we can now keep our printers identically turned off or in sleep state for any specific amount of time where upon starting to print again a very similar print head maintenance routine most likely happens. Now rinse and repeat with the same image. You have now printed two copies. I've printed two copies, but again, mine are four times bigger. Comparable ink for maintenance yet much more ink reached paper with the bigger printer.
It's not unreasonable to expect that folks with large format printers routinely print at larger images sizes than people with desktop printers. Hence, all other considerations being roughly equal, the bigger printer model will waste less ink on maintenance under any given frequency of use scenario... once a day, once a week, once a month, etc. As for total number of image files and/or print copies being made; a small printer is probably going to have trouble keeping up with a big printer on that score as well in typical real world usage scenarios, so once again, the ink efficiency advantage accrues to the bigger printer model based solely on simple economies of scale. No mysterious manufacturer firmware/software differences required :)
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
OK, your second para in the previous post could be interpreted differently. If you are just talking about the arithmetic of making larger rather than smaller prints for the same routine, the RATIO of print ink to waste ink is bound to behave the way you suggest. I thought you were trying to argue that there would be absolutely less wasted ink as a function of print size. Clear now. Thanks.
-
Interesting data showing up at DPR regarding waste. Regular usage (daily) is seeing around 80-100 ml of waste per month. That's a full ink set per year. I still see that as odd. I know there's a cost of ownership and all that, that's not my point or surprise. It's the apparently excessive amount of waste that's getting my eyebrow to raise.
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4102045?page=3#forum-post-60205277
-
63 days without printing with the printer on. No clogging, perfect nozzles check and 3.14gr of ink went to the waste tank as expected.
Then I printed 24 pages A4 borderless using 16.61gr ink, according to Account manager, and 9.32gr ink went to the waste tank.
Ink maintenance and auto head nozzle check are on, which usually wastes about 1-2 grams more, which is fine by me. I say usually because if the printer decides that the print head is dirty the numbers may go higher. When printing 10x15cm for example, my printer cleans the head every 2nd or 3rd print, but wasting different amount of ink. The cleaning occurs after the chatter sound that is usual 15-20 seconds(if there is no cleaning) before feeding the next sheet. If IM(ink maintenance) and NC (nozzle check) are off, on every 5th or 6th print there is a longer pause, 56-58 sec with cleaning. With NC on the pattern is broken, and cleans are more often (on my printer), but with less ink waste and shorter time. On about 200 sheet a 5 min cleaning will occur even with IM and NC off. So after all my tests I concluded that the maintenance is not so straight forward as I expected. The printer monitors a lot of parameters and sensors and I do not believe that there is a formula that can reflect exact maintenance cost as you cannot predict the printer sensors data. I decided to turn on ink maintenance and auto head nozzle check to maximize print head life as I'm fine with the ink waste when the printer is always on.
Regarding the above discussion my observation is that the bigger the sheets of paper you print on the better the waste ratio. My not very scientific observations are that from borderless 10x15cm to A4 you get about 15-20% less waste per same area and borders. Printing with border reduces very much the ink waste. Printing A3+ with border wasted average of 0.118 gr. of ink per page and A4 borderless wasted average of 0.093 gr per sheet. This is almost the same waste but with more that twice the size!
So as I said the variables are just too much to calculate correctly and that is the main reason different people get different results.
-
After the good news comes the bad...
Today 3 days later than my previous print I got the 50ml clean! And it's not the CO only, after it 3 of my inks got the exclamation mark!
So the Always_ON suggestion is not working!!! My printer is behind UPS and it was always on.
BTW my previous prints got some ink on the back side of the sheet, obviously something was not clean. Now, 30 Euro later, everything is clean. Also for the next two A4 prints, the printer wasted almost no ink, so it knows it's clean ;)
-
Here is some usage data from 50ml clean to another 50ml clean and summary of what I have learned so far.
First 50ml clean: 19.5.2017
Second 50ml clean: 10.10.2017
Printed: 13.395 sq. for 519 sheets mostly borderless. You can calculate average size.
Ink consumed for printing according to Account Manager: 176.495gr
Gone to the maintenance cartridge (MC): 143ml (including only the second 50ml). Note that just measuring the MC difference from first big clean to the next is 111gr, because of the evaporation of ink from the MC. I record MC weight before and after every print so I can sum the difference for the period and it is obvious that in this almost five months 32gr. have evaporated from the MC.
I think this data gives good info about real ink wasted by the Pro-1000 printer when used seldom and left always on.
If you include power off/on cleaning routines however ink wasted will be increased considerately depending of how often you power ON the printer. Here is the table listing the waste on every power on:
On after 0-4h: 0 gr.
On after 4h: 0.11 gr.
On after 5h: 0.15 gr.
On after 6h: 0.9 gr.
On after 24h: 1 gr.
On after 2 days: 2 gr.
On after 4 days or more: 3.2 gr.
If you keep the printer always on you almost always waste ink for the first print and the table looks like this:
Print after 0-6h 0 gr.
Print after 6h 0.9 gr.
Print after 12h 1 gr.
Print after 24h 2 gr.
Print after 2d 2 gr.
Print after 3d or more 3.17 gr.
Ink maintenance and auto nozzle check do not affect the above tables.
In fact I have no idea what Ink maintenance settings does, but I will not be surprised if it is responsible for the 50gr ink dump. The only thing I see happens when it is off is that the inks are rarely agitated. Auto Nozzle check adds some cleaning between prints when the printer thinks it is needed. If you disable it the printer blindly cleans the head on fixed intervals. My printer do not show significant ink wasted when enabled, so I left it on in the end.
So what's next. I will disable again the Nozzle check and ink maintenance and wait after I have printed the same quantity to see if I'm gonna get the 50gr. clean again. Then I will record the statistics again and see where we go from then...
-
Printed: 13.395 sq. for 519 sheets mostly borderless. You can calculate average size.
Ink consumed for printing according to Account Manager: 176.495gr
Gone to the maintenance cartridge (MC): 143ml (including only the second 50ml).
...
I think this data gives good info about real ink wasted by the Pro-1000 printer when used seldom and left always on.
...
Ink maintenance and auto nozzle check do not affect the above tables.
In fact I have no idea what Ink maintenance settings does, but I will not be surprised if it is responsible for the 50gr ink dump. The only thing I see happens when it is off is that the inks are rarely agitated. Auto Nozzle check adds some cleaning between prints when the printer thinks it is needed. If you disable it the printer blindly cleans the head on fixed intervals. My printer do not show significant ink wasted when enabled, so I left it on in the end.
So what's next. I will disable again the Nozzle check and ink maintenance and wait after I have printed the same quantity to see if I'm gonna get the 50gr. clean again. Then I will record the statistics again and see where we go from then...
Thanks a lot, Sabin. Good data points. Seems again to roughly match the 1:1 seen before (wasting as much ink as is put on paper).
Regarding ink maintenance setting you earlier concluded "This setting is responsible for time related maintenances! After disabling it the printer does not perform the time related ink waste that I described in my previous posts!!" at http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=117644.msg985258#msg985258. Does this new report indicate this was not the case anyhow?
Interesting if the 50gr clean stops with the settings off, or it will always happen. The 50gr clean you got this time, was that happening at or around replacing a full MC, or just came out of nowhere?
-
Thanks a lot, Sabin. Good data points. Seems again to roughly match the 1:1 seen before (wasting as much ink as is put on paper).
Regarding ink maintenance setting you earlier concluded "This setting is responsible for time related maintenances! After disabling it the printer does not perform the time related ink waste that I described in my previous posts!!" at http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=117644.msg985258#msg985258. Does this new report indicate this was not the case anyhow?
Interesting if the 50gr clean stops with the settings off, or it will always happen. The 50gr clean you got this time, was that happening at or around replacing a full MC, or just came out of nowhere?
The second one I got was on the second maintenance tank, the ink maintenance setting was OFF and happened after 9 days of inactivity with the printer always on. I was about to print a set of photographs and I asked for a nozzle check print. The printer made a long clean. The smell of the ink covered the whole room, three cartridges went to "!" and the maintenance tank bar went from 20% to 60%, then I got my perfect nozzle check print :).
-
Thanks a lot, Sabin. Good data points. Seems again to roughly match the 1:1 seen before (wasting as much ink as is put on paper).
Regarding ink maintenance setting you earlier concluded "This setting is responsible for time related maintenances! After disabling it the printer does not perform the time related ink waste that I described in my previous posts!!" at http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=117644.msg985258#msg985258. Does this new report indicate this was not the case anyhow?
Interesting if the 50gr clean stops with the settings off, or it will always happen. The 50gr clean you got this time, was that happening at or around replacing a full MC, or just came out of nowhere?
Yes, that's what I believed then. The logic of the cleaning routines is not straight forward and the facts mislead me.
The new 56ml to be exact came from nowhere. I have printed 3 days ago several pages after 60+ days of not using the printer.
1:1 ratio of wasted ink is close enough, but this is only when not using the printer heavily. If you print a lot of stuff every day things will be different. For example if you are not using the printer for 4 days and power it off after use you will have 6.4 grams waste on first page (3.2 for power on and 3.2 for 1st page print). A2 print takes about 2 grams if I remember correctly. So ratio will be 3:1 if this is your usual printing habit. Not to mention the 50gr. that will come some day...
On the other hand the printer uses average of 0.2gr-0.5gr. between prints. So printing A2 sheets with 2gr of ink and 0.5gr waste will give different results. In the end even calculating the waste the printer is worth it for me compared to going somewhere to have your stuff printed. 2-3$ of waste for 1 print a week is less than the transport to a printshop.
-
Update:
after 73 days and 17h from last print, with the printer always on, I printed a Nozzle check:
3m 15sec - agitating inks
17min clean, request of new MC, then 8min more clean.
Total ink to both maintenance cartridges: 52 grams
Between this and the previous big clean from 10.10.2017 I have printed only 3 A4 sheets on the date of the previous clean.
So printing or not, after about 60 days inactivity with printer ON or OFF we pay the price of 50-60 grams of ink + MC tank.
before clean
(http://files.offroad-bulgaria.com/sabin/pics/canon/IMG_2901s.JPG)
after clean
(http://files.offroad-bulgaria.com/sabin/pics/canon/IMG_2902s.JPG)
-
Just for the record. The "Ink Maintenance" setting was On or Off? Thanks.
Update:
after 73 days and 17h from last print, with the printer always on, I printed a Nozzle check:
3m 15sec - agitating inks
17min clean, request of new MC, then 8min more clean.
Total ink to both maintenance cartridges: 52 grams
Between this and the previous big clean from 10.10.2017 I have printed only 3 A4 sheets on the date of the previous clean.
So printing or not, after about 60 days inactivity with printer ON or OFF we pay the price of 50-60 grams of ink + MC tank.
before clean
(http://files.offroad-bulgaria.com/sabin/pics/canon/IMG_2901s.JPG)
after clean
(http://files.offroad-bulgaria.com/sabin/pics/canon/IMG_2902s.JPG)
-
Auto nozzle check: 0ff
System cleaning frequency: standard
Ink maintenance: Off
-
New record in waste/cleaning cycle. Around 90ml! One of those 90ml got on paper. That was after idling for 19 days, printer always on, auto nozzle check off, system cleaning frequency standard, ink maintenance off. First print took 20 minutes including cleaning.
I went from two cartridges with the !-symbol to all 12. Most be the most expensive print I've ever done :\. Have had similar length print pauses before, with a cleaning cycle of something like 3-8ml iirc, but 90...
Notice I didn't weigh the maintenance cartridge this time, but looked at the total ink consumption reported by Accounting Manager. See attachments. I have screendumps of all 12 individual cartridge usages before/after this cleaning as well if interested.
And yes, yes, there are costs involved in running it etc, but the magnitude of costs for this particular printer model still surprises and worries me.
-
New record in waste/cleaning cycle. Around 90ml! One of those 90ml got on paper. That was after idling for 19 days, printer always on, auto nozzle check off, system cleaning frequency standard, ink maintenance off. First print took 20 minutes including cleaning.
I went from two cartridges with the !-symbol to all 12. Most be the most expensive print I've ever done :\. Have had similar length print pauses before, with a cleaning cycle of something like 3-8ml iirc, but 90...
Notice I didn't weigh the maintenance cartridge this time, but looked at the total ink consumption reported by Accounting Manager. See attachments. I have screendumps of all 12 individual cartridge usages before/after this cleaning as well if interested.
And yes, yes, there are costs involved in running it etc, but the magnitude of costs for this particular printer model still surprises and worries me.
I believe that the total ink consumption figure reported by the Accounting Manager app is inaccurate. I think that was the usual 50-60 ml dump. In any case this is unacceptable IMO. In my case the consumption remains around the 1:1 figure (more or less depending on the usage). Currently I use the same settings as you but I print every second day either a commissioned job or the Qimage unclog pattern (half page).
-
I mean no disrespect to anyone here. I have been printing for some years. i recently purchased a pro 1000. I do not measure anything, but I also don't have any issues of excess ink consumption (relative to any other printer I have owned).
-
I mean no disrespect to anyone here. I have been printing for some years. i recently purchased a pro 1000. I do not measure anything, but I also don't have any issues of excess ink consumption (relative to any other printer I have owned).
Please read this same thread from the beginning.
I use a PRO-1000 for 14 months now. I recap here the consumption of my PRO-1000 after the replacement of the third maintenance tank:
Paper consumed 62,626 m² (749.609 ft²).
Total ink on paper 701,656 ml (701.656 ml).
Total ink in the waste tanks ~660 ml (the cost of the wasted ink is around 500 euro).
-
I fully understand. I just don't understand the ongoing purpose of this exercise. I have owned many photo printers. My pro-1000 cost per page doesn't seem any different than it was for my previous printers. In the end, isn't that what matters? If the printing process requires a certain amount of ink as "run off" , isn't it a case of it is what it is? Moreover, isn't it possible that either there was a problem with earlier manufacturer dates, or perhaps a specific issue with yours? It's clear that the maintenance tank fills up quicker than my Epson, but I am not sure if they are the same capacity. Again, I just want to understand what is the end goal of this thread. Thank you.
Please read this same thread from the beginning.
I use a PRO-1000 for 14 months now. I recap here the consumption of my PRO-1000 after the replacement of the third maintenance tank:
Paper consumed 62,626 m² (749.609 ft²).
Total ink on paper 701,656 ml (701.656 ml).
Total ink in the waste tanks ~660 ml (the cost of the wasted ink is around 500 euro).
-
I fully understand. I just don't understand the ongoing purpose of this exercise. I have owned many photo printers. My pro-1000 cost per page doesn't seem any different than it was for my previous printers.
So all your other printers for any ml of ink they put on paper sent another one or more to the waste tank? Do you have any data to support that?
Moreover, isn't it possible that either there was a problem with earlier manufacturer dates, or perhaps a specific issue with yours?
No it's not only mine. The participants in this thread are affected also and most probably your printer is the same too.
It's clear that the maintenance tank fills up quicker than my Epson, but I am not sure if they are the same capacity.
If you are not sure then you can't compare them.
Again, I just want to understand what is the end goal of this thread. Thank you.
Goals:
1. Make Canon notice the issue. Don't forget that during this thread Canon posted a firmware (2.040) addressing the excessive consumption of the "CO" ink.
2. Inform potential buyers of the printer.
3. Calculate as precisely as possible the printing costs with this printer. You cannot rely only on data reported by the Accounting Manager application. Maybe this isn't important for you but it is for me and I will continue to track it and report it here for anyone interested.
-
Goals:
3. Calculate as precisely as possible the printing costs with this printer. You cannot rely only on data reported by the Accounting Manager application. Maybe this isn't important for you but it is for me and I will continue to track it and report it here for anyone interested.
There was a time when I focused a lot on this question of how much it costs to make a print. This is useful to some people but not others. For people selling prints that customers pay hundreds of dollars for, it's insignificant whether the ink costs 2 dollars or 4 dollars. For service bureaux and hobbyists on a budget, it's a much bigger deal and worthwhile knowing.
The problem is, however, that the printer manufacturers - all of them - have ensured that we cannot know this with any precision unless we go the trouble of keeping careful records matching the square footage (or square meters) of printing with the weight of the waste tank and using a specific gravity factor for converting that weight into fluid ml. It is good that some such as yourself are doing this, because if the companies themselves are not willing to be transparent on this matter, the customers will be transparent with each other. This of course is a lose-lose proposition for the printer manufacturers because they lose control or influence over this information that affects the public perception of their products. That they seem unwilling to understand this and find ways of dealing with it never fails to amaze me, but that's where we are with it. I would add that whether we are dealing with Epson or Canon printers, they all consume lots of ink for maintenance. Unfortunately so far there is no other way. Best to admit it and be open about it. When one discusses this with the companies, they do correctly point out that maintenance consumption varies widely depending on a number of factors they don't control, so there is no one number that will be true for all users and they don't want to publish information that will mislead a large number of customers. I agree with them about the obvious existence of this issue. The way to deal with it is to publish ranges (from "this" to "that" depending on X, Y and Z) and educate consumers that these are estimates they won't be hung-out to dry on. At least it would provide a ballpark within which to begin knowing how to improve on waste and whether the printer is performing roughly according to normal expectations for the conditions at hand.
-
There was a time when I focused a lot on this question of how much it costs to make a print. This is useful to some people but not others. For people selling prints that customers pay hundreds of dollars for, it's insignificant whether the ink costs 2 dollars or 4 dollars. For service bureaux and hobbyists on a budget, it's a much bigger deal and worthwhile knowing.
The problem is, however, that the printer manufacturers - all of them - have ensured that we cannot know this with any precision unless we go the trouble of keeping careful records matching the square footage (or square meters) of printing with the weight of the waste tank and using a specific gravity factor for converting that weight into fluid ml. It is good that some such as yourself are doing this, because if the companies themselves are not willing to be transparent on this matter, the customers will be transparent with each other. This of course is a lose-lose proposition for the printer manufacturers because they lose control or influence over this information that affects the public perception of their products. That they seem unwilling to understand this and find ways of dealing with it never fails to amaze me, but that's where we are with it. I would add that whether we are dealing with Epson or Canon printers, they all consume lots of ink for maintenance. Unfortunately so far there is no other way. Best to admit it and be open about it. When one discusses this with the companies, they do correctly point out that maintenance consumption varies widely depending on a number of factors they don't control, so there is no one number that will be true for all users and they don't want to publish information that will mislead a large number of customers. I agree with them about the obvious existence of this issue. The way to deal with it is to publish ranges (from "this" to "that" depending on X, Y and Z) and educate consumers that these are estimates they won't be hung-out to dry on. At least it would provide a ballpark within which to begin knowing how to improve on waste and whether the printer is performing roughly according to normal expectations for the conditions at hand.
Thank you for your input.
Let's not forget that the printer in question is a relative affordable desktop printer which is going to be purchased by a big number of people including hobbyists. If someone eg prints only 4-5 prints a month most of the ink will be eventually end in the waste tank. This information IMO must be known before the purchase. I cannot imagine that there is not a way for Canon (or any other company) to statistically calculate and present it in an official document. After all they are collecting data from every individual printer. I see it in my PC from time to time when the relevant application is sending usage data...
-
I would go further and suggest that with the extensive amount of testing they do before any new printer model is released to market they know just about everything there is to know about how it consumes ink for whatever purpose under just about whatever operating conditions. The problem for them is how to publish this information in a manner that won't end-up in them being taken to court. Staying out of legal trouble is a prime mover of much corporate behaviour. I think there must be ways to do it safely, but I'm not a corporate lawyer. The other reason for not publishing of course is fear of the competition, but it is exactly here where publishing the information may just be a good commercial move. It builds trust and gives them a hand in how the product is perceived in this respect. And if they had to compete with each other on ways to see consumers minimizing waste, that is good for us and good for the environment.
-
Fully understood, and your efforts are appreciated. I am still wondering how wide spread the issue is.
Mark,
Given your affiliation with LL, isn't it possible for you to reach out to Canon? It seems that after more than a year of testing, either there is a problem, or there isn't (I think the printer model is almost 2 years old?); And if there is, there should be a focus on convincing Canon (unless we think observations will change going forward).
I still think "RELATIVE" cost per print is the right metric. That should be what everyone is concerned about. Most processes have waste, and there are too many variables to know whether measuring waste tank content is relevant at all. Canon has their own ink set and print tech. Perhaps greater amounts of ink are intended to go to the waste cartridge, but less ink is needed for the page than would be for competitors. Yes, both Epson and Canon use 80ml cartridges priced about the same, but that might be driven by sales/marketing strategy on the part of Canon. My point is this: I am not sure any metric other "RELATIVE" ink cost/ per page matters in the end. For technological reasons, focusing on the waste tank may be a red herring. BTW, by "RELATIVE", I mean relative to competitive products.
I would go further and suggest that with the extensive amount of testing they do before any new printer model is released to market they know just about everything there is to know about how it consumes ink for whatever purpose under just about whatever operating conditions. The problem for them is how to publish this information in a manner that won't end-up in them being taken to court. Staying out of legal trouble is a prime mover of much corporate behaviour. I think there must be ways to do it safely, but I'm not a corporate lawyer. The other reason for not publishing of course is fear of the competition, but it is exactly here where publishing the information may just be a good commercial move. It builds trust and gives them a hand in how the product is perceived in this respect. And if they had to compete with each other on ways to see consumers minimizing waste, that is good for us and good for the environment.
-
Logan,
I reached the end of the road discussing this with both companies quite some time ago. Waste of time raising it with them yet again. They know the issues and it's up to them. You and I and a number of others on this website may think it would be a good idea to publish this information, but if there isn't traction for it amongst the broader customer base, they have no incentive to invest in the resources, which could be considerable in terms of peoples' time, to make it happen. They will certainly not publish comparisons with other companies' products - that is playing with fire. The best one could expect is that they will do their own. Other people may then be able to make comparisons if the eventual data would be comparable.
For any one wanting to know the comprehensive cost of ink for making a print, one needs to include for both the ink that goes onto paper and the ink that goes into the tank, because I know from the testing I and others have done that the amounts for the latter are considerable.
-
BTW, I do want to make clear that the work done in the past relating to this thread is really appreciated. It may be a case of both sides are right. IOW, the waste tanks do fill up fast, but that is by design and not relevant to cost/print.
What I do think is fair game, is the question of cleaning cycles wasting ink for low volume periodic printing. In the end, that too may be a management issue for customers. For example, making sure to print one page per week (even if automated via QImage or the like) and not turning off the printer.
Considering that a tolerable trade-off given the quality of the output, I think that is a reasonable work around. Let's not forget that this printer is definitely not targeted to causual end users. The competitors have there quirks as well, including Epsons.
-
What goes into the waste tank definitely IS relevant to the cost per print. And it should not be left to discussion forums to know how to minimize maintenance waste. The printer manuals should lay out these considerations in enough detail for customers to be able to manage their printing habits accordingly. And yes agreed, all of them consume ink for maintenance - the technology requires it.
-
Thanks. For me personally, it is straight forward: "About how many prints do I get between cartridge changes? And am I happy with the answer I get?". So far, my experience is about the same or more than when I was using my Epsons.
So it's like fuel for a car. Back when no cars were fuel efficient, or when the fuel efficient ones didn't meet my driving/transport needs, I had three choices: pick from available options, drive less, or don't drive at all. But once fuel efficient options appeared that also met my requirements, I could have my cake and eat it too.
Logan,
I reached the end of the road discussing this with both companies quite some time ago. Waste of time raising it with them yet again. They know the issues and it's up to them. You and I and a number of others on this website may think it would be a good idea to publish this information, but if there isn't traction for it amongst the broader customer base, they have no incentive to invest in the resources, which could be considerable in terms of peoples' time, to make it happen. They will certainly not publish comparisons with other companies' products - that is playing with fire. The best one could expect is that they will do their own. Other people may then be able to make comparisons if the eventual data would be comparable.
For any one wanting to know the comprehensive cost of ink for making a print, one needs to include for both the ink that goes onto paper and the ink that goes into the tank, because I know from the testing I and others have done that the amounts for the latter are considerable.
-
I respectfully disagree. If I have an Epson printer and a Canon printer and both get about the same number of equal size prints out of their 80ml cartridge set, it is not relevant that one printer has more ink in the waste tank than the other.
However, I would agree that where it would be relevant is where the tank is filling up without printing (i.e., cleaning cycles).
What goes into the waste tank definitely IS relevant to the cost per print. And it should not be left to discussion forums to know how to minimize maintenance waste. The printer manuals should lay out these considerations in enough detail for customers to be able to manage their printing habits accordingly. And yes agreed, all of them consume ink for maintenance - the technology requires it.
-
I am not seeing massive depletion of ink due to maintenance. Perhaps it warrants RMA for those people that are?
I respectfully disagree. If I have an Epson printer and a Canon printer and both get about the same number of equal size prints out of their 80ml cartridge set, it is not relevant that one printer has more ink in the waste tank than the other.
However, I would agree that where it would be relevant is where the tank is filling up without printing (i.e., cleaning cycles).
-
The main point of knowing how much ink is being expended for maintenance under what conditions is to understand how to minimize waste and how much the waste is costing. You don't get that insight comparing an Epson with a Canon or just knowing how many prints you make on how many cartridges, which is tough because they all empty at different rates anyhow.
-
What goes into the waste tank definitely IS relevant to the cost per print. And it should not be left to discussion forums to know how to minimize maintenance waste. The printer manuals should lay out these considerations in enough detail for customers to be able to manage their printing habits accordingly. And yes agreed, all of them consume ink for maintenance - the technology requires it.
Absolute agreement, it would be a wonderful if manufacturers were upfront about maintenance waste, and ways to minimise safely.
Recently purchased an Epson P800 after much weighing pros and cons of this system vs Canon Pro 1000. I have to say a difficult call to make with two main things swinging it for me. First the panoramic option and the offer roll holder and secondlly feeling that I may have better control of maintenance cycles and control of ink waste. Only time will tell if this decision is a sound one ???
-
Thanks for your reply. I still don't understand your analysis though. Let's set the maintenance cycle waste aside as I have already agreed that could be an issue (although it has not been an issue in any way for me). What else matters other than cost per print?
Lets assume that the ink cartridges for PRINTERS 1 and 2 cost about the same. If by design, PRINTER 1 uses X% of a cartridge for prints, and Y% to excess, and PRINTER 2 uses Y% of a cartridge for prints, and X% to excess, but both printers print about the same number of prints from a cartridge, why would we care as photographers about which percentage goes where?
Of course we can say that printers should be more efficient, just as we say for cars. That is different than saying there is a defect.
Likewise if there are management solutions for dealing with cleaning cycles waste, we could focus on giving definitive guidance in a concise manner to people on this forum. I have followed the guidance here and I am not seeing any issues whatsoever.
The main point of knowing how much ink is being expended for maintenance under what conditions is to understand how to minimize waste and how much the waste is costing. You don't get that insight comparing an Epson with a Canon or just knowing how many prints you make on how many cartridges, which is tough because they all empty at different rates anyhow.
-
Thanks for your reply. I still don't understand your analysis though. Let's set the maintenance cycle waste aside as I have already agreed that could be an issue (although it has not been an issue in any way for me).
How long do you own the printer? How many maintenance tanks? Have you ever encounter a cleaning event like this shown in the following video? In this particular case the printer sent to the maintenance tank 58gr of ink. Mine did this three times until now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVz0dA9Lz9E (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVz0dA9Lz9E)
-
If an algorithm can be (and is) designed to tell you how much ink is being sprayed onto paper, it can also be designed to tell you how much ink is going into the maintenance tank. You only know with certainty how much is being wasted by knowing how much is being wasted, and you only know how much waste can be reduced if the manufacturer tells you what's being wasted and also tells you how to manage the printer to minimize it. Both companies are not doing either and both companies are capable of doing both. In fact back in the days of the Epson 4000 you got total ink used on each nozzle check printout, so you could subtract the latest one from the immediately previous one and easily see how much ink for all purposes was used for what you printed between nozzle checks. But they disabled that information by the time the 4800 came out (maybe because I made public use of it on this website - who knows). And if I remember correctly what I was told about CO use in the Canon Pro-1000, for this one "ink" only, the Accounting Manager reports total consumption, not just the amount sprayed on paper. If so, why not provide it for the other inks? There's been no technical explanation I've seen or received from either company about why all usage can't be reported.
As I've said, this may not be a big deal for some people, it may be a bigger deal for others. It's quite OK for you if you're happy just knowing total ink consumption for both purposes and you are willing to set up an accounting framework for doing that, recognizing that the cartridges expire at different times as you create more prints, making it necessary to do stock-flow inventory accounting - I know because I've gone that route. Other people may prefer a more direct route to the information that makes printer management more transparent and easier. That said, it's obviously not a burning issue to the larger user base, otherwise the manufacturers would have most likely addressed it by now. I'm leaving it at that, because I think we know the issues at play and we've kind of exhausted them.
-
Thanks.
I have owned the 1000 for a few months. Although the low ink notice has appeared, I am still printing away with the original cartidges. I leave the printer on, set the maintenance settings as previously recommended on this forum. I don't have any long cleaning cycles like that. The cycles I see are those that are similar in during to what I had on Epson. I did just get a notice that I should replace the maintenance cartridge. I normally print 8.5x11 and up with a mix of glossy and matte. I have recently made custom media types for each paper I use and I don't know whether that had any impact on ink usage. I print exclusively through QImage. I found Canon PSP to be cumbersome.
I am not sure how long you have had yours, but it does make me wonder if they had an issue early on, and then fixed the issue for subsequent manufacturing runs.
How long do you own the printer? How many maintenance tanks? Have you ever encounter a cleaning event like this shown in the following video? In this particular case the printer sent to the maintenance tank 58gr of ink. Mine did this three times until now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVz0dA9Lz9E (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVz0dA9Lz9E)
-
Thanks.
I have owned the 1000 for a few months. Although the low ink notice has appeared, I am still printing away with the original cartidges. I leave the printer on, set the maintenance settings as previously recommended on this forum. I don't have any long cleaning cycles like that. The cycles I see are those that are similar in during to what I had on Epson. I did just get a notice that I should replace the maintenance cartridge. I normally print 8.5x11 and up with a mix of glossy and matte. I have recently made custom media types for each paper I use and I don't know whether that had any impact on ink usage. I print exclusively through QImage. I found Canon PSP to be cumbersome.
I am not sure how long you have had yours, but it does make me wonder if they had an issue early on, and then fixed the issue for subsequent manufacturing runs.
I bought mine on January 2017. The low ink warning is very conservative. I believe that a long cleaning cycle is about to happen sooner or later. Please report here any different behavior. Thanks.
-
Update on PRO-1000 ink consumption. I just replaced the fourth maintenance tank. I calculated the ink consumption from the beginning 18 months ago. I printed a total of 91 m2/ 980 feet2 with 1900ml of ink (1000ml on paper and 900 ml in the four waste tanks). The consumption depends on the usage. The worst I managed is 17m2 of printed surface between the second and the third maintenance tank and the best 29m2 between the third and the fourth. The average printed surface is 20 prints A2 (16" x 24") per month. If the costs of the 80ml cartridge is 60$ the cost of ink for every A2 (16" x 24") is 4$.
-
Replaced a full maintenance cartridge today, as it demanding it when starting a print job (4 A4 pages). Total ink consumed in Accounting Manager jumped from 924ml before print start to 1020ml after maintenance cartridge replacement and the four pages. Yep, that's roughly 100ml. Just a data point.
I didn't weigh the cartridge. If someone is super excited to have that done, I might do it though.
-
Replaced a full maintenance cartridge today, as it demanding it when starting a print job (4 A4 pages). Total ink consumed in Accounting Manager jumped from 924ml before print start to 1020ml after maintenance cartridge replacement and the four pages. Yep, that's roughly 100ml. Just a data point.
I didn't weigh the cartridge. If someone is super excited to have that done, I might do it though.
There's something very wrong with this. Replacing a maintenance tank should consume no ink and making 4 A4 sized prints should consume only several ml - nothing like 100ml. Was there a long delay at any point with the printer sounding as if it may be cleaning itself extensively? I don't know what else would explain this, unless there is something amiss with the accounting.
-
Replaced a full maintenance cartridge today, as it demanding it when starting a print job (4 A4 pages). Total ink consumed in Accounting Manager jumped from 924ml before print start to 1020ml after maintenance cartridge replacement and the four pages. Yep, that's roughly 100ml. Just a data point.
I didn't weigh the cartridge. If someone is super excited to have that done, I might do it though.
Replacing the tank didn't cause the ink consumption. Starting your new print job did right after you put the new maintenance cartridge in. You can pull a maintenance tank in and out of the printer at any time and no ink gets consumed. It's the start of the print cycle where the printer decides to preemptively run a cleaning cycle which causes the ink consumption. If your printer hadn't printed in a while it initiates increasingly aggressive cleaning cycles corresponding to how long the printer has sat from last use. Also, fully unplugging the printer or brief power failures at the outlet supplying the Pro-1000 will reset the internal timer and cause the Pro-1000 to "think" a big power cleaning cycle is required.
That said, I usually see about a 58ml jump in the weight of the maintenance tank if the Pro-1000 has not been used for about two months even if it was left in sleep mode and now power failure occurred. If it has printed a few days before, a much smaller cleaning cycle (a few ml) will be performed. At around 2-3 weeks of non use, several ml of ink will get consumed. The mother of all cleaning cycles (58ml every time I checked by weighing the maintenance tank before and after this major cleaning cycle) occurs at around 45-60 days of non use. That seems to be the extreme situation. Hence, you may be the new record holder for ink consumed when getting your printer back up and running, or the Accounting manager got it wrong. :)
-
Replacing the tank didn't cause the ink consumption. Starting your new print job did right after you put the new maintenance cartridge in. You can pull a maintenance tank in and out of the printer at any time and no ink gets consumed. It's the start of the print cycle where the printer decides to preemptively run a cleaning cycle which causes the ink consumption. If your printer hadn't printed in a while it initiates increasingly aggressive cleaning cycles corresponding to how long the printer has sat from last use. Also, fully unplugging the printer or brief power failures at the outlet supplying the Pro-1000 will reset the internal timer and cause the Pro-1000 to "think" a big power cleaning cycle is required.
That said, I usually see about a 58ml jump in the weight of the maintenance tank if the Pro-1000 has not been used for about two months even if it was left in sleep mode and now power failure occurred. If it has printed a few days before, a much smaller cleaning cycle (a few ml) will be performed. At around 2-3 weeks of non use, several ml of ink will get consumed. The mother of all cleaning cycles (58ml every time I checked by weighing the maintenance tank before and after this major cleaning cycle) occurs at around 45-60 days of non use. That seems to be the extreme situation. Hence, you may be the new record holder for ink consumed when getting your printer back up and running, or the Accounting manager got it wrong. :)
Yes, your added detail to what I said just above coheres with my experience while I still had the printer. No way it should be consuming 100ml even on the heaviest cleaning cycle.
-
Replacing the tank didn't cause the ink consumption. Starting your new print job did right after you put the new maintenance cartridge in. You can pull a maintenance tank in and out of the printer at any time and no ink gets consumed. It's the start of the print cycle where the printer decides to preemptively run a cleaning cycle which causes the ink consumption. If your printer hadn't printed in a while it initiates increasingly aggressive cleaning cycles corresponding to how long the printer has sat from last use. Also, fully unplugging the printer or brief power failures at the outlet supplying the Pro-1000 will reset the internal timer and cause the Pro-1000 to "think" a big power cleaning cycle is required.
That said, I usually see about a 58ml jump in the weight of the maintenance tank if the Pro-1000 has not been used for about two months even if it was left in sleep mode and now power failure occurred. If it has printed a few days before, a much smaller cleaning cycle (a few ml) will be performed. At around 2-3 weeks of non use, several ml of ink will get consumed. The mother of all cleaning cycles (58ml every time I checked by weighing the maintenance tank before and after this major cleaning cycle) occurs at around 45-60 days of non use. That seems to be the extreme situation. Hence, you may be the new record holder for ink consumed when getting your printer back up and running, or the Accounting manager got it wrong. :)
I have had some of the ~58ml jumps previously as well, and have also previously seen big jumps together with the forced replacement of full maintenance tank (two times). It made a several minutes long whining after the new maintenance cartridge came in. Sounded very intense. If it sounded as the previously observer ~58ml I don't recall. I was making me a coffee after installing the cartridge, and worried somewhat as I could here the faint screaming of preparing printer.
The printer has been idling for 2-3 weeks, but done so several times before with much less cleaning. And as I've seen before, the biggest jumps have been related to full maintenance cartridge replacement (triggered by print job) - those have been bigger than normal. Have yet to experience a forced cartridge replacement jumping less than ~50ml.
Total print time was almost 40 minutes for those four pages (highest quality), so it did play around quite a white within those minutes while preparing.
Indeed the ~100ml is at least a personal record. Not a proud one. Prints came out fine though, but at that total cost, they better do :).
-
Replaced a full maintenance cartridge today, as it demanding it when starting a print job (4 A4 pages). Total ink consumed in Accounting Manager jumped from 924ml before print start to 1020ml after maintenance cartridge replacement and the four pages. Yep, that's roughly 100ml. Just a data point.
I didn't weigh the cartridge. If someone is super excited to have that done, I might do it though.
The "Total ink consumed" calculation in the Accounting Manager app is untrustworthy. For example, the total ink in ml I have installed in the printer is 2880 ml / 36X80ml (and there is a lot of it still in the printer cartridges). The "Total ink consumed" reports 3300ml. Impossible.
-
My usage experience so far.
Bought a Canon Pro-1000 printer in May 2018 as a replacement for my dribbling 10 year old Epson 3880 (a great machine until the end!). My typical usage is low at about 6 prints per month (50/50 B&W and colour) spread over two weeks.
After the initial installation the Pro-1000 ink levels were all showing about 50%. (But that's to be expected.)
From 18 May 2018 to 5 July 2018 printed 22 mainly A3 images using a reported 27.29 ml ink.
Went overseas for some weeks. Printer was switched off.
Started printer again on 29 Aug 2018. The start-up sounded just like a normal pre-printing start-up. Not the excessive start-up that I was half-expecting.
Printed 4 off A3 images on 29 Aug. After that the CO cartridge was indicated as running low. Shut down printer. Subsequently ordered CO plus some other cartridges.
Next started the printer on 4 Sept 2018. The start-up sounded normal. Printed 1 off A3 matte image and shut down again.
Started printer on 10 Sept. The start-up was ridiculous - didn't time it but it went on for something like 10 minutes! Thereafter 11 ink tanks and the maintenance tank were all showing a low warning. I printed 3 off A3 matte images. At this stage the Accounting Manager was showing 37.486 ml of ink used for a total of 30 off mostly A3 prints.
regards - Peter
-
My usage experience so far.
Bought a Canon Pro-1000 printer in May 2018 as a replacement for my dribbling 10 year old Epson 3880 (a great machine until the end!). My typical usage is low at about 6 prints per month (50/50 B&W and colour) spread over two weeks.
After the initial installation the Pro-1000 ink levels were all showing about 50%. (But that's to be expected.)
From 18 May 2018 to 5 July 2018 printed 22 mainly A3 images using a reported 27.29 ml ink.
Went overseas for some weeks. Printer was switched off.
Started printer again on 29 Aug 2018. The start-up sounded just like a normal pre-printing start-up. Not the excessive start-up that I was half-expecting.
Printed 4 off A3 images on 29 Aug. After that the CO cartridge was indicated as running low. Shut down printer. Subsequently ordered CO plus some other cartridges.
Next started the printer on 4 Sept 2018. The start-up sounded normal. Printed 1 off A3 matte image and shut down again.
Started printer on 10 Sept. The start-up was ridiculous - didn't time it but it went on for something like 10 minutes! Thereafter 11 ink tanks and the maintenance tank were all showing a low warning. I printed 3 off A3 matte images. At this stage the Accounting Manager was showing 37.486 ml of ink used for a total of 30 off mostly A3 prints.
regards - Peter
It cleaned itself.
-
An update on Canon PRO-1000 ink consumption for anyone interested. I just replaced the fifth waste tank. I change a waste tank every four months. I have printed 120 square meters of paper. Total ink on paper 1330ml. Total ink in the five waste tanks 1100ml.
-
I'm seeing the same. In 12 months with the Pro-1000, I just installed the 5th maintenance cartridge. In a few days under 5 years with the Epson 3880 (still going strong in another location), I'm on my 3rd. Usage is about the same, though not measured.
Ink cost per year in my spreadsheet is $1,582 (including one full set in inventory) for the Pro-1000 and $554 for the 3880. While the Pro-1000 has excellent print quality, I regret the purchase.
-
I'm seeing the same. In 12 months with the Pro-1000, I just installed the 5th maintenance cartridge. In a few days under 5 years with the Epson 3880 (still going strong in another location), I'm on my 3rd. Usage is about the same, though not measured.
Ink cost per year in my spreadsheet is $1,582 (including one full set in inventory) for the Pro-1000 and $554 for the 3880. While the Pro-1000 has excellent print quality, I regret the purchase.
Hi! It would be interesting if you could calculate (when and if you have time) the total printed surface for the Canon, it's very easy with the Accounting Manager application you just export all the print jobs to excel and sum up the printed area column, in order to better relate the ink consumption to actual usage.
Thanks!
-
Hi! It would be interesting if you could calculate (when and if you have time) the total printed surface for the Canon, it's very easy with the Accounting Manager application you just export all the print jobs to excel and sum up the printed area column, in order to better relate the ink consumption to actual usage.
Thanks!
That's useful but not sufficient. To make this comparison properly you need to know how many square feet of ink coverage have been done with both printers, and you need to know the NET amount of ink used for each, whether for laying down on paper, or for maintenance. To do this, you need to calculate the sum of ink acquired from the beginning to date whether with the initial purchase of the printer or thereafter and subtract from that the estimated amount of ink that you have in the printer and in inventory outside the printer. The result of that calculation is net usage for both purposes, which you can then compare on a per square foot printed with each machine. Knowing what we know about information the manufacturers make available to us, there is no other reliable way of making this comparison than to use this kind of an inventory-based approach for deriving net ink consumption. Unless the comparison is soundly based in proper accountancy it's just impressionistic - you won't know with any accuracy which printer model is overall more efficient than which.
-
That's useful but not sufficient. To make this comparison properly you need to know how many square feet of ink coverage have been done with both printers, and you need to know the NET amount of ink used for each, whether for laying down on paper, or for maintenance. To do this, you need to calculate the sum of ink acquired from the beginning to date whether with the initial purchase of the printer or thereafter and subtract from that the estimated amount of ink that you have in the printer and in inventory outside the printer. The result of that calculation is net usage for both purposes, which you can then compare on a per square foot printed with each machine. Knowing what we know about information the manufacturers make available to us, there is no other reliable way of making this comparison than to use this kind of an inventory-based approach for deriving net ink consumption. Unless the comparison is soundly based in proper accountancy it's just impressionistic - you won't know with any accuracy which printer model is overall more efficient than which.
I keep a very detailed log for my printer (Canon PRO-1000). I compared the information about consumption (paper/ink) provided by the accounting manager software plus an estimate of the amount of ink in the printer plus what is wasted (by weighting the full maintenance tanks) with my actual purchases of ink (from the beginning) and I came to the conclusion that I can trust the Accounting manager software. If MarkFarber provided the total amount of paper his Canon printed and the total amount of ink it used (easily obtained from the AM application) I can compare his usage pattern with mine and make an estimate of how frequent or infrequent printing affects ink consumption for the PRO-1000.
-
I keep a very detailed log for my printer (Canon PRO-1000). I compared the information about consumption (paper/ink) provided by the accounting manager software plus an estimate of the amount of ink in the printer plus what is wasted (by weighting the full maintenance tanks) with my actual purchases of ink (from the beginning) and I came to the conclusion that I can trust the Accounting manager software. If MarkFarber provided the total amount of paper his Canon printed and the total amount of ink it used (easily obtained from the AM application) I can compare his usage pattern with mine and make an estimate of how frequent or infrequent printing affects ink consumption for the PRO-1000.
Yes, you can trust the accounting manager software for ink laid on paper, but it's not useful for ink used on maintenance. Weighing the full maintenance tanks and subtracting the weight of an unused tank is one way of going about it, but the result needs to be adjusted by the specific gravity of the ink to derive an accurate liquid measurement of ink in the tanks.
-
Yes, you can trust the accounting manager software for ink laid on paper, but it's not useful for ink used on maintenance. Weighing the full maintenance tanks and subtracting the weight of an unused tank is one way of going about it, but the result needs to be adjusted by the specific gravity of the ink to derive an accurate liquid measurement of ink in the tanks.
I have already calculate that :) by weighting a full and an empty ink cartridge. The difference is 88 grams. So 80ml is 88 grams.
-
Yup, that's about the correction factor I determined as well when I was into that issue some time ago.
-
Bad news.
With firmware 2.050 I started a print today and was asked to change the maintenance cart (MC) after that there was about 6 min different noises and I got 58grams in the MC.
Men that hurts!!
I also experienced power loss for several hours as the power grid went off two days ago for the whole night and my USP run out of battery.
So the questions are: Do we get this cleaning activated on every new MC? Do we get this cleaning after power loss, because of reset of internal timers? Will this cleaning happen if we change the MC before requested by the printer?
Next things to test:
1. is to unplug the printer from the wall socket for one night and see if it will get the 58 grams and if not maybe we can add 58g ink price to the price of the MC.
2. Change MC before it is full.
So after all maybe it's not about days off...
As yet another data point:
I was asked to replace the MC and after replacing it an initiating the next print it did the whole long whining exercise once again - last time was 201807. It is 7-10 minutes of expensive draining, 60 grams of ink in the MC after that print (measured; accounting manager clocked in a total ink consumed delta of 94ml). Last MC replacement was the very same process.
It should be noted that the prints just before this MC replacement (same day) were perfect and had initiated with what seemed as a regular small cleaning/preparation.
-
I'm replying to this old post because I'm trying to decide between the Epson P800 and the Canon Pro-1000. I came across this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GCZy78FhVg done by Jose Rodriguez who compares both printers (it also turns out that he lives pretty close to me in Maryland). Look starting at minute 5 of the video where he talks about the Canon programmed cleaning cycles. He says that it does a programmed clean 60 hours from the last print job. "If" this is true one ought to be able to print an image every other day and reset this clock which is what he states (he has both printers mentioned).
His group of videos are plentiful and the ones I've watched pretty informative.
-
I'm replying to this old post because I'm trying to decide between the Epson P800 and the Canon Pro-1000. I came across this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GCZy78FhVg done by Jose Rodriguez who compares both printers (it also turns out that he lives pretty close to me in Maryland). Look starting at minute 5 of the video where he talks about the Canon programmed cleaning cycles. He says that it does a programmed clean 60 hours from the last print job. "If" this is true one ought to be able to print an image every other day and reset this clock which is what he states (he has both printers mentioned).
His group of videos are plentiful and the ones I've watched pretty informative.
I believe that this is not how it works. It is way more complicated. For example the printer will perform a cleaning routine even during continuous heavy printing sessions. I am keeping a record of the printer ink consumption. The attached screenshot gives a summary after two years and a little more.
It is very difficult (if not impossible) to improve on the 50/50 ink on paper/ink in the maintenance tank figure. Only after printing almost 40 square meters per month (this is roughly 160 A2 pages) the figure was 80/20 (the last row in the spreadsheet).
As a general comment I say that it is a fantastic printer, very well build, capable of heavy use with excellent output quality. I recently added a PRO-4000 which now is taking almost all the load but I am still using the 1000 for printing small jobs and cut sheets and I am planning to keep using it.
-
Yes, I made a mistake in reporting on what he said in the video. The Canon printer does a peremptory cleaning regardless at defined intervals. One can over come this by regular printing.
-
It is very difficult (if not impossible) to improve on the 50/50 ink on paper/ink in the maintenance tank figure. Only after printing almost 40 square meters per month (this is roughly 160 A2 pages) the figure was 80/20 (the last row in the spreadsheet).
Thank you for this info. After reading this thread I decided to go with the Epson SC-P5000 instead of Canon Pro-1000.
-
Thank you for this info. After reading this thread I decided to go with the Epson SC-P5000 instead of Canon Pro-1000.
I am not so sure that the SC-P 5000 is not using a considerable amount of ink for maintenance. Mark Segal, who owns one, reported in the forum (I didn't bookmarked the conversation) that the printer performs from time to time a big cleaning routine which consumes a significant amount of ink and there is always the ink used in the black ink type swap. Only in the long run and after detailed measurements and logging can someone state with confidence that it is more ink/cost efficient than the Canon.
Following is another view on the Canon 1000 cost per print based on my notes. If a PFI-1000 cartridge costs 60$ then the ink cost for a 17x22 is about 4.5$ including the ink used for maintenance. Add to this something like 6.5$ for a sheet of the best baryta paper and the total cost per print at 11$ sounds logical.
-
Roughly every six months the user is advised on the LCD to perform an all-channel deep cleaning from the Admin panel. It is not mandatory, but advised to maintain the health of the print head. If this sounds like the six-monthly call from the dentist to get your teeth cleaned, the analogy isn't too bad. Neither is mandatory and both are probably good for your health or your printer's health, except the cost of the Epson procedure is typically less than that at the dentist, at least here in Toronto. It uses about 70ml, so roughly CAD 70.
The ink swap uses probably about $5 worth of ink.
If the P5000 has been left unused for a week or more, the printer will do an auto-clean that is beyond user control. This auto-clean, one can tell from listening to it and timing it, does not consume much ink (again, I fault both Canon and Epson for their secrecy over the use of ink for maintenance). Apart from that, the user maintains complete control over the extent of cleaning a P5000, which is a feature I like. I accept all these pigment-based printers consume a fair bit of ink for maintenance, but I like to be able to control it myself and know what's going on.
Hard to say which model consumes more or less ink for maintenance without keeping careful records and similar usage patterns for both, involving the weight of the maintenance tanks at timed intervals under similar conditions. This is very hard for anyone to do, and as such makes these comparisons hazardous. At the same time, for me, this would be a low-priority variable for making a decision on which printer to buy. I could go into that, but I have before elsewhere and it would off-topic here.
-
Agree. It is, at least for me, a hard decision between the two.
After reading many threads on this forum about both printers I found two more pluses for the Epson SC-P5000 as almost all posters note that the image quality on both is excellent:
1. Longer lasting inks, thus easier to sell prints as archival to clients.
2. 20% cheaper ink price per ml: Canon uses 80 ml ink tanks priced at 47,90 € in my country (0,59875 € per ml) and the Epson uses 200 ml ink tanks priced at 96,16 € (0,4808 € per ml).
-
Agree. It is, at least for me, a hard decision between the two.
After reading many threads on this forum about both printers I found two more pluses for the Epson SC-P5000 as almost all posters note that the image quality on both is excellent:
1. Longer lasting inks, thus easier to sell prints as archival to clients.
2. 20% cheaper ink price per ml: Canon uses 80 ml ink tanks priced at 47,90 € in my country (0,59875 € per ml) and the Epson uses 200 ml ink tanks priced at 96,16 € (0,4808 € per ml).
Point #1 is arguable. Print permanency is as dependent on the paper as the ink set. If you use any paper with OBAs and TiO it really doesn't matter about the ink set, the paper is the weak link.
-
This is perhaps OT for this thread, but if your talking about the relative merits of inksets, it wouldn't do any harm to mention in passing that the SC-P5000 is capable of greater gamut volume than either the SC-P800 or the Pro-1000. How many photos can really benefit from this additional capability is an open question, varying by subject matter of course.