Luminous Landscape Forum

Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: Kenneth Sky on January 05, 2007, 02:07:41 pm

Title: Z3100 review
Post by: Kenneth Sky on January 05, 2007, 02:07:41 pm
Michael
Thanks on behalf of all your viewers for this excellent review. You've answered all of our potential questions about an exciting but unaffordable ( for most of us who don't have the volume to justify the cost) product that appears to have been executed flawlessly by the manufacturer. But you have tantalized us with the vague hope of a 17" version. How likely is that to happen?
Ken
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: ricgal on January 05, 2007, 03:08:20 pm
Quote
Michael
Thanks on behalf of all your viewers for this excellent review. You've answered all of our potential questions about an exciting but unaffordable ( for most of us who don't have the volume to justify the cost) product that appears to have been executed flawlessly by the manufacturer. But you have tantalized us with the vague hope of a 17" version. How likely is that to happen?
Ken
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=93908\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Please can you tell me where Michael's the review of the 3100 is?
cheers
Ric
Ahaa found it!!!!!
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: BlasR on January 05, 2007, 03:27:21 pm
Just hit what,s new front page.  Or click the link

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/...00-review.shtml (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/HP-Z3100-review.shtml)

BlasR
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: jjlphoto on January 05, 2007, 03:27:47 pm
Quote
Please can you tell me where Michael's the review of the 3100 is?
cheers
Ric
Ahaa found it!!!!!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=93923\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: william on January 05, 2007, 04:56:35 pm
I'd love to see the Z3100 offered in two configurations: with and without the built-in profiler.  I mean, it's cool and all, but since I've pretty much standardized on 4-5 papers, I don't really have the need to do custom profiles on a regular basis for a variety of papers (hence, why I don't own a printer profiling tool now).  So, if most of the higher cost of the HPs versus comparable Epson and Canon models is attributable to the profiling hardware, I'd love to see a lower cost version without it.  While we're at it, I could also live without the networking stuff and built-in harddrive.  All of these things (profiler, networking, harddrive, are really innovative and will be of great use to studios doing high volume printing, but they're of less use for others, IMO.

Thoughts?
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: abiggs on January 05, 2007, 05:07:08 pm
Quote
I'd love to see the Z3100 offered in two configurations: with and without the built-in profiler.

Thoughts?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=93950\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That sounds good, but the spectro is probably handling the calibrations, and that seems to be an integrated part of the system.

$.02
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: Stephen Best on January 05, 2007, 05:12:28 pm
Quote
I'd love to see the Z3100 offered in two configurations: with and without the built-in profiler.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=93950\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

HP has the option to pull the spectro later, say if they need to compete on price with whatever Epson comes out with. The built-in spectro doesn't appeal to me either but the trend in the market is to make products user-proof.

One thing that wasn't mentioned in the review is the need to continually carry spares of (it looks like) six unique printheads in case one drops out in the middle of a job. Ink supplies you can predict. Over time the cost would be the same but you're up for an additional $420 initially.

Anyway, it looks like a nice printer.
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: Mark D Segal on January 05, 2007, 05:51:13 pm
Quote
Michael
Thanks on behalf of all your viewers for this excellent review. You've answered all of our potential questions about an exciting but unaffordable ( for most of us who don't have the volume to justify the cost) product that appears to have been executed flawlessly by the manufacturer. But you have tantalized us with the vague hope of a 17" version. How likely is that to happen?
Ken
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=93908\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'd love to have a 17/18 inch version of this machine simply to save on space, but I don't expect it would be any more than say 500~1000 USD cheaper, because materials are not the big ticket cost items for this kind of product. Something else to think about is the prospect of Canon marketing a 22~26 MP 1 series DSLR some time this year. If that happens, the sheer number of megapixels will enable yet higher quality ~ bigger enlargements, so for those wanting or marketing such prints, the 24~44 inch size range could match the next generation DSLR quite nicely - for a price.
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: wolfnowl on January 05, 2007, 08:35:47 pm
Thanks for another great review, Michael!  Sounds like HP has really done their homework with this printer.  Did I hear you correctly in the video that in addition to the 24" roll, the printer also accepts cut sheets of different sizes?

Mike.
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: michael on January 05, 2007, 10:12:17 pm
Yes, it accepts single sheets up to 24" wide, by up to 300 feet long, though a feed at the rear of the printer.

Michael
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: Paul Williamson on January 05, 2007, 11:01:39 pm
The review says:
Quote
When a head is replaced, or an ink cartridge as well, a calibration needs to be performed.
Does that mean that if a cartridge runs out in the middle of a big print, the big print is ruined? Or can the cartridge be swapped and the print continued?
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: adiallo on January 06, 2007, 12:00:34 am
Quote
I'd love to see the Z3100 offered in two configurations: with and without the built-in profiler...While we're at it, I could also live without the networking stuff and built-in harddrive.  All of these things (profiler, networking, harddrive, are really innovative and will be of great use to studios doing high volume printing, but they're of less use for others, IMO.

Thoughts?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=93950\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Just curious. If you want a printer w/o a spectro, hard drive and built-in network functionality, why not just buy a current Epson? I'm not trying to be sarcastic. The HP has alot going for it. I'm setting up the 44 inch version right now. But HP is differentiating their 3100 series with the above mentioned add-ons, quad black ink set and user maintenence features. Take those out and you've got no reason to buy their printer over an Epson or Canon.
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: John Camp on January 06, 2007, 12:03:22 am
I'm glad you're going to have this for a while; because the print heads are another consumable, I'm very interested in whether they are consumed at the expected rate, or it there are problems. The Epsons I've used have an "ink remaining" check that you can pop up on your computer if you're wondering where you're at with the ink. Is there a "head remaining" check with the HP?

Somebody above mentioned "user proof" printers...that sounds like my kind of printer.

JC
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: EvoM on January 06, 2007, 02:12:59 am
Great review as expected, thanks Micheal! You have answered all my questions. This printer is really a benchmark for the other manufacturers. It's great to see a company "leap-frog" what's available and not hinder the product by having to purchase "extras"!

Cheers

Evo
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: michael on January 06, 2007, 05:15:40 am
Amadou,

Yes, there is print head monitoring. I'm not at the printer at the moment, so this is from memory, but as I recall it shows if the heads are within warrenty, have concerns, or are near exhausted. No surprises are likely, as the printer is constantly monitoring and reporting on the head's health.

Michael
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: Brian Gilkes on January 06, 2007, 06:20:39 am
As usual, an enjoyable review. Thanks Michael.
In forthcoming reviews I would like some more on B&W. For instance is the DMax better with 4 blacks? A figure of 1.77 has been bandied around. I get 1.6 on the Epson 9800  and would love some more play in the shadows.
I'm also interested in how the printer handles deckle edge paper , but I have a suspicion it will be me testing that!
Tests here have indicated the greatest chart deviations that need to be profile corrected,  using Epson's K3 inkset , is in the cyans. I have been informed this is also a major problem with offset inks.
HP's avoidance of the dark cyan  may get around this problem , so some analysis of this would be useful.
It will be interesting to see how long Epson takes to respond.
Cheers,
Brian
www.pharoseditions.com.au
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: BernardLanguillier on January 06, 2007, 06:30:40 am
Merci beaucoup for the review Michael.

Very interesting!

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: Quentin on January 06, 2007, 06:34:53 am
Good review, nice printer, but perhaps we should consider the real reason for the replaceable printheads.  This is not  feeature desinged-in for the benefit of owners, but a consequence of the forced use of a different technology that wears out the printheads more quickly.  

Epson have the patents on their unique piezo technology.  Their system causes minimal printhead wear, so the printeads can be designed to last the lifetime of the printer.  They can therefore be calibrated accurately at the factory with no need for a built-in spectro.  Disposable technology does not sit easily in a world where we are trying not to waste resources.

Still might buy one, as HP are cleverly making a virtue out of a necessity, but I might wait and see what Epson do next.  My ageing 7600 is still going strong - along with the original printheads.

Quentin
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: jjlphoto on January 06, 2007, 07:31:08 am
Quote
Epson have the patents on their unique piezo technology. 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=94065\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I thought the DX series piezo heads Epson uses were actually developed by Mutoh and Epson has an exclusive license to them (aside from Mutoh).
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: Mark D Segal on January 06, 2007, 08:12:05 am
Quote
..............This is not  feeature desinged-in for the benefit of owners, but a consequence of the forced use of a different technology that wears out the printheads more quickly. 

Epson have the patents on their unique piezo technology.  Their system causes minimal printhead wear, so the printeads can be designed to last the lifetime of the printer.  They can therefore be calibrated accurately at the factory with no need for a built-in spectro.  Disposable technology does not sit easily in a world where we are trying not to waste resources.

Quentin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=94065\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Quentin, my reading of this is a bit different. Many years have gone by during which non-Epson manufacturers could have developed their own form of piezo-electric technology from first principles. They have consistently chosen not to do so - from what I've heard because they don't want the printhead determining the life of the printer.

While Epson can calibrate the printer accurately at the factory, what assurance have they ever given that this calibration will remain unchanged for the "life of the printer"?  And have you ever seen a definition of the "life" of an Epson printer? The only one I know of is that because this print-head is so expensive, when the print-head dies so does the printer. Hence when anyone says that the print head lasts the life of the printer they are of course correct - as the printhead DEFINES the life of an Epson printer. Canon and HP have chosen not to go this route - at the cost of replacing print heads as Michael described.

Now, the built-in spectro is primarily meant for creating paper profiles as one easy-to-use closed-loop system between your computer and the printer. For anyone who wants to experiment or use many paper types - and more and more interesting papers are emerging every year - this is a wonderful feature for automating colour management accross an infinite range of papers, primarily unrelated to the issue of calibrating printheads.
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: vintola on January 06, 2007, 09:10:33 am
Quote
Yes, it accepts single sheets up to 24" wide, by up to 300 feet long, though a feed at the rear of the printer.

Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=94013\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Great Review. This printer went to my "MUST HAVE" -list.  One question remainded unanswered. What is the minimum size of the sheet paper You can use. Or does the printer accept only 24" sheets.
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: Mark D Segal on January 06, 2007, 09:34:22 am
Quote
Great Review. This printer went to my "MUST HAVE" -list.  One question remainded unanswered. What is the minimum size of the sheet paper You can use. Or does the printer accept only 24" sheets.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=94080\")

Answers here:

[a href=\"http://h30267.www3.hp.com/country/us/en/designjet/pdp/designjet/Z3100-specifications_and_warranty.html?pageseq=225611]http://h30267.www3.hp.com/country/us/en/de...?pageseq=225611[/url]
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: vintola on January 06, 2007, 09:49:20 am
Quote
Answers here:

http://h30267.www3.hp.com/country/us/en/de...?pageseq=225611 (http://h30267.www3.hp.com/country/us/en/designjet/pdp/designjet/Z3100-specifications_and_warranty.html?pageseq=225611)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=94083\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks MarkDS. This page says all sizes greater than A4. Probably this means that the Z3100 doesn't accept the standard A4.
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: Tim Ernst on January 06, 2007, 10:10:03 am
On that same info page is also says:

"All 24 inch models:
Letter to 24-in wide sheets, 18- to 24-in wide rolls"

so I would assume that means letter size is OK. I did not notice the 18" roll minimum width until just now - that seems odd - I wonder if that is true? I've got a 17" roll sitting right here next to my 24" model and I will see if it will accept it sometime this weekend...
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: Mark D Segal on January 06, 2007, 10:11:13 am
Quote
Thanks MarkDS. This page says all sizes greater than A4. Probably this means that the Z3100 doesn't accept the standard A4.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=94085\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Actually, the text I am reading off that web-page on my monitor says:

"Letter to 24-in wide sheets" for the 24" model and "Letter to 44-in wide sheets for the 44 inch model. "Letter" in North America is 8.5 by 11 inches, which is slighter wider and slightly shorter than European A4. This link is to the US website. It will most likely print A4 for the European models, but you can verify the specs for machines delivered in Europe.
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: haefnerphoto on January 06, 2007, 10:47:12 am
From what I can discern this printer addresses all the issues I've had concerning pigment inkset printers.  I print on gloss paper frequently and the gloss differential wasn't acceptable, also, (and I'm going back a ways) the fragile nature of the prints (from a 2200 at least, scuffing, etc) was a problem too.  The prints I received from HP on a satin paper seem durable and GD free, apparently that's the case with the gloss paper also.  Now, as much as I'd like to make large prints, the majority of printing I do is no larger than a spread ad (app 12x18).  Hopefully, the manufacturer's representatives moniter this site and others to see what their customers are thinking.  So I am pleading, requesting, asking for consideration that a 17" model will be produced sooner than later!  Many thanks, Jim Haefner     http://www.haefnerphoto.com/ (http://www.haefnerphoto.com/)
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: Quentin on January 06, 2007, 01:43:53 pm
Quote
Quentin, my reading of this is a bit different. Many years have gone by during which non-Epson manufacturers could have developed their own form of piezo-electric technology from first principles. They have consistently chosen not to do so - from what I've heard because they don't want the printhead determining the life of the printer.

While Epson can calibrate the printer accurately at the factory, what assurance have they ever given that this calibration will remain unchanged for the "life of the printer"?  And have you ever seen a definition of the "life" of an Epson printer? The only one I know of is that because this print-head is so expensive, when the print-head dies so does the printer. Hence when anyone says that the print head lasts the life of the printer they are of course correct - as the printhead DEFINES the life of an Epson printer. Canon and HP have chosen not to go this route - at the cost of replacing print heads as Michael described.

Now, the built-in spectro is primarily meant for creating paper profiles as one easy-to-use closed-loop system between your computer and the printer. For anyone who wants to experiment or use many paper types - and more and more interesting papers are emerging every year - this is a wonderful feature for automating colour management accross an infinite range of papers, primarily unrelated to the issue of calibrating printheads.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=94072\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Mark, I still think the "choice" was forced upon Canon and HP.  Just look at the lead Epson have established in the photo printer market.  That is at least in part down to their superior printhead technology.  The disposable printheads only become acceptable in a pro machine with this latest built in spectro technology (or if you have your own profiling kit).  I don't deny the bult in spectro changes the dynamics - its  a very clever idea and one that does have some advantages - but its there to solve a problem Epson don't have, and it does increase the cost.  

Quentin
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: Mark D Segal on January 06, 2007, 02:20:59 pm
Quote
I don't deny the bult in spectro changes the dynamics - its  a very clever idea and one that does have some advantages - but its there to solve a problem Epson don't have, and it does increase the cost. 

Quentin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=94162\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Quentin, the built-in spectro is mainly for profiling printing papers, not for re-linearizing the printhead. Here is what Michael says about he purpose of the built-in spectro in his Review:

<<This device lives in the printer's head assembly and allows the user to create ICC profiles for just about any paper one could wish to use, and to do so in about a half hour with the press of a single button. >>

You need ICC profiles for Epson and Canon printers too.

The HP in-built paper profiling solution will be most convenient and economic for people who want or need to do alot of profiling because they use many different papers.
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: Haraldo on January 06, 2007, 02:21:32 pm
Quote
<Mark, I still think the "choice" was forced upon Canon and HP. Just look at the lead Epson have established in the photo printer market. That is at least in part down to their superior printhead technology. The disposable printheads only become acceptable in a pro machine with this latest built in spectro technology (or if you have your own profiling kit). I don't deny the bult in spectro changes the dynamics - its a very clever idea and one that does have some advantages - but its there to solve a problem Epson don't have, and it does increase the cost.
Quentin >

I disagree. HP's built-in spectro technology has nothing to do with "solving a problem Epson don't have." It's simply an advanced user feature. HP needed to leap-frog ahead and that's what they chose (among other things). Personally, I think that ALL pro large-format printer will have this incorporated (wearing my futurist hat). It's a logical innovation.

It is your opinion that piezo is "superior." It is not a fact. Epson has gone the piezo route while Canon and HP have gone the thermal route (and they both introduced inkjet printers in the early '80s long before Epson ever did, but not in the high-quality/photo arena, which Epson pioneered  for desktop in 1994). There are advantages and disadvantages to both. (And BTW, HP also uses piezo heads in other devices for other printing markets.)

And the spectro does not add much to the overall unit cost (HP has told me this).

Harald Johnson
author, "Mastering Digital Printing, Second Edition"
DP&I.com ( http://www.dpandi.com (http://www.dpandi.com) )
digital printing and imaging consultant
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: Mark D Segal on January 06, 2007, 02:43:54 pm
Harald - yes all clearly correct - based on results I've seen from all the latest Canon, HP and Epson printers I challenge any-one to identify in a blind test any systematic and generalized superiority of one printer over the other. Michael made this point and from what I've seen I agree. Of course there is also more than the print-head accounting for image quality and no amateur technologist can legitimately ascribe any particular aspect of print quality to a particular component of the machine and its firmware. Every manufacturer wants us to believe their mouse-trap delivers the finest quality. Fine. I just trust my eyes - in fact I was at the eye doctor yesterday for my annual check-up and he says my eyes are just fine   .

While the spectro may not add much to unit cost - no reason to doubt what HP told you - from a consumer perspective what matters is the ALTERNATIVE cost of what we would spend for profiling solutions without the HP innovation. The HP Z3100 at 5000 bucks is clearly much costlier than a Canon IPF5000 or an Epson 3800 and about 1000 more than an Epson 7800 (probably the closest comparator), but they aren't comparable machines - HP is clearly in a different league. It is a package of features and performance one is buying, of which the spectro is only one. If we bought a cheaper printer and did alot of profiling we may well end-up putting 1200 into an Eye-1, or a bunch of profiles from a commercial service costing something less than that - but there is no free lunch whoever's printer we buy - we still need those ICC profiles regardless!

Another important variable to watch is clogging. So far from what I have been hearing, clogging is still mainly an Epson issue.
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: John Hollenberg on January 06, 2007, 03:36:06 pm
Quote
Another important variable to watch is clogging. So far from what I have been hearing, clogging is still mainly an Epson issue.

I agree.  Don't know about the HP, but there have been no reports of clogging for the Canon IPF5000 that I have been able to find.  Since we have about 300 unique visitors per day to the IPF5000 Wiki and an active discussion forum there as well, I would certainly expect at least ONE report of clogging if this was a problem the IPF series of printers had.  There are a lot of other quirks (mostly firmware and software), but it is a relief knowing the printer will not have a clog when it comes time to print.  I was going to compare more to my Epson 2400, but it has two color channels with a lot of clogs in them and I can't do a cleaning since one of the other inks is low.

--John
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: AJSJones on January 06, 2007, 04:45:29 pm
Thanks Michael.

A little surprised there's no mention of speed, even though it depends on settings obviously.  My 7600, along with others' by the sound of it, is doing fine, but it's always been quite slow.  AT this point I don't have a large volume so it's not a big deal.  The newer Epsons and Canons and possibly now HPs are reported to be speedier;  how long would a 24x30 or 24x36 print take at, say, "gallery" quality settings?  Are these printers reaching some sort of mechanical limit and is bi-directional printing common/norm/exception as a way to double the speed?

Andy
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: michael on January 06, 2007, 04:49:44 pm
As I may have mentioned elsewhere, during the month of December I made close to 2,000 11X17" prints with the Canon iPF 5000 without a single head clog. In fact, after 7 months not a single one.

I simply can't say that about the Epson Photo, 1200, 1270, 2000P, 4000, 5000, and 4800 printers that I've had over the years, where clogs are just a normal part of running such printers.

Michael
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: ddolde on January 06, 2007, 05:20:08 pm
I never had a clog on my Epson R2400.  In fact I let it sit unused for over three months in Arizona while I was away and upon returning it produced a perfect nozzle check print.

FWIW the R2400 just got sold for a new 3800.  It was close to a wash considering how much ink I got with the new 3800.

The Z3100 looks great though...just too big to take on the road.
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: tbonanno on January 06, 2007, 05:20:24 pm
This printer really sounds nice!  Surprised that it doesn't handle 8x10, but can live with that.  I've been wanting to move up to a 24" and this one sounds like it may be the ticket to replace my iPF5000 in a few months?  HP seeems to have built in a lot of useful features.

Thanks for the useful and informative review Michael.  Will look forward to your long-term experiences with this printer.

Quote
On that same info page is also says:

"All 24 inch models:
Letter to 24-in wide sheets, 18- to 24-in wide rolls"

so I would assume that means letter size is OK. I did not notice the 18" roll minimum width until just now - that seems odd - I wonder if that is true? I've got a 17" roll sitting right here next to my 24" model and I will see if it will accept it sometime this weekend...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=94089\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: Haraldo on January 06, 2007, 05:36:01 pm
[SAY, how the heck do I do the QUOTE MARKS thing like you guys are doing? I don't see it on  the bottom when I get ready to reply. Help me out here...]

Quote
Mark S. "While the spectro may not add much to unit cost - no reason to doubt what HP told you - from a consumer perspective what matters is the ALTERNATIVE cost of what we would spend for profiling solutions without the HP innovation. The HP Z3100 at 5000 bucks is clearly much costlier than a Canon IPF5000 or an Epson 3800 and about 1000 more than an Epson 7800 (probably the closest comparator), but they aren't comparable machines - HP is clearly in a different league. It is a package of features and performance one is buying, of which the spectro is only one. If we bought a cheaper printer and did alot of profiling we may well end-up putting 1200 into an Eye-1, or a bunch of profiles from a commercial service costing something less than that - but there is no free lunch whoever's printer we buy - we still need those ICC profiles regardless! "

Good point Mark (well, you are an economist, right? ;-). Not only could you easily spend the cost difference in stand-alone color mgt. hardware and software, you also need to figure in your time and trouble. I, for one, am not going to miss all that manual patch-reading and ensuing neck aches. I will take the 30 minutes the Z3100 requires to AUTOMATICALLY make a profile and work on images, check e-mail, get a snack, look at this list, etc.

Another thought about my prediction (that all pro printers will have auto profiling)... this requires an assumption that the other two Big Boys (Epson and Canon) will be in favor of customers NOT buying their papers but buying 3rd party and profiling them. HP has thrown their hat in the ring by acknowledging this fact and basically saying: "OK, we know you use other paper in our machines, so if you're going to do it, here's something to make it a lot easier." It will be very interesting to see if the other guys follow suit.

Harald
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: Tim Ernst on January 06, 2007, 06:31:24 pm
"The HP Z3100 at 5000 bucks is clearly much costlier than a Canon IPF5000 or an Epson 3800 "

Hum, nothing like comparing apples to grapes, and not knowing the cost of the apples to begin with. Someone should get real here. The 24" z sells for about $4,000. It is a 24" printer. The Canon and Epson noted are 17" printers. Duh, of course they are going to cost a lot less - so does a Yugo when you compare it to a Mercedes...The z is clearly a different beast...
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: Mark D Segal on January 06, 2007, 06:39:10 pm
Quote
"The HP Z3100 at 5000 bucks is clearly much costlier than a Canon IPF5000 or an Epson 3800 "

Hum, nothing like comparing apples to grapes, and not knowing the cost of the apples to begin with. Someone should get real here. The 24" z sells for about $4,000. It is a 24" printer. The Canon and Epson noted are 17" printers. Duh, of course they are going to cost a lot less - so does a Yugo when you compare it to a Mercedes...The z is clearly a different beast...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=94216\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I made the pont it is a different beast several posts back. No-one is comparing apples to grapes, but there is no harm surveying the choices and assessing who offers what for how much money.
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: Mark D Segal on January 06, 2007, 06:45:03 pm
Quote from: Haraldo,Jan 6 2007, 05:36 PM
[SAY, how the heck do I do the QUOTE MARKS thing like you guys are doing? I don't see it on  the bottom when I get ready to reply. Help me out here...]

Harald
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=94200\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Harald, immediately underneath (right) the post you wish to quote, click on the "Quote" button, which turns red. Then click on the "Reply" button beside it. That opens the reply space with the whole quote embedded between square brackets. You can cut out as much of that material as you wish by selecting it and deleting it. Then add your reply in the same window underneath the final line of the peice you are responding to that reads "[/quote]".  Then click on "Add Reply" underneath the Options and Icons and you're done.

Cheers,

Mark
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: Stephen Best on January 06, 2007, 06:50:51 pm
Quote
HP has thrown their hat in the ring by acknowledging this fact and basically saying: "OK, we know you use other paper in our machines, so if you're going to do it, here's something to make it a lot easier." It will be very interesting to see if the other guys follow suit.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=94200\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You're confusing two issues: optimal ink load, dry time etc settings for third-party papers and profiling. Epson could decide tomorrow to make it easy for users of their machines (current and future) to work with third-party papers and it doesn't need a built-in spectro. A software solution would work just as well ... they're already halfway there with ColorBase. Maybe even better as it enables assessment of dry down per head pass by eye. A bit of competition will hopefully force them to get their act together.

As to whether other manuafcturers follow suit and add built-in spectros to their future models, it remains to be seen. Maybe they won't have any choice if the market demands it (whether most end up using it or not). I'm not convinced that the process will build totally optimal profiles, nor that GM/X-Rite are prepared to cannibalize their own market for stand-alone profiling solutions. But for those that just want a "profile", it's an attractive feature.
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: Tim Ernst on January 06, 2007, 06:52:38 pm
"No-one is comparing apples to grapes"

Yup, I think you just did. It really doesn't matter in this case though and I think the facts speak for themselves...
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: Mark D Segal on January 06, 2007, 07:20:53 pm
Quote
You're confusing two issues: optimal ink load, dry time etc settings for third-party papers and profiling. Epson could decide tomorrow to make it easy for users of their machines (current and future) to work with third-party papers and it doesn't need a built-in spectro. A software solution would work just as well ... they're already halfway there with ColorBase. Maybe even better as it enables assessment of dry down per head pass by eye. A bit of competition will hopefully force them to get their act together.

As to whether other manuafcturers follow suit and add built-in spectros to their future models, it remains to be seen. Maybe they won't have any choice if the market demands it (whether most end up using it or not). I'm not convinced that the process will build totally optimal profiles, nor that GM/X-Rite are prepared to cannibalize their own market for stand-alone profiling solutions. But for those that just want a "profile", it's an attractive feature.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=94221\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Stephen, you may refer back to Michael's review where the issue of dry-down time in the profiling process is well covered.

There is a software solution for Epson printers called "ImagePrint" and it costs over a thousand dollars, providing generic profiles for many papers - but they are not profiles individualized to the user's machine. They are very good profiles, but one does depend on the machines being very well calibrated to one standard and staying that way.

While you may not be convinced that the HP process will build what you call "optimal profiles", I've seen the results first hand and that quality would not be obtained with sub-standard profiles. The equipment built-in to the Z3100 is state-of-the-art and it does allow profiling from a read of over 900 patches. One would think that should suffice.
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: Stephen Best on January 06, 2007, 07:26:45 pm
Quote
Stephen, you may refer back to Michael's review where the issue of dry-down time in the profiling process is well covered.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=94228\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Different thing. The dry time per head pass governs the printing speed in the respective modes (uni/bi-directional). I'm not sure how HP accomodates this with their built-in calibration, unless they're factoring in conservative values.
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: Mark D Segal on January 06, 2007, 07:42:55 pm
Quote
Different thing. The dry time per head pass governs the printing speed in the respective modes (uni/bi-directional). I'm not sure how HP accomodates this with their built-in calibration, unless they're factoring in conservative values.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=94229\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

My understanding, based on what I've read, is that the machine reads the patches the machine has printed - so if the user sets the machine to print patches in bi-directional mode it will read those and likewise for unidirectional mode.  So if drying time per head pass really makes a noticeable difference to anything and the machine allows printing the patches in different modes, one would use the profile consistently under the conditions in which it was created, as one should do with any profiling. Then there should be no issue. But it would be good for someone who knows the detailed mechanics of this process to jump in and correct any errors here. HOWEVER, all that said and done, if HP is correct as Michael quotes them, that drying time is not an issue, perhaps judging from results one should give them the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: Kenneth Sky on January 06, 2007, 07:51:38 pm
The point of this thread is that the Z3100 appears to be as good as it gets (for the time being) and all other printers can be judged against it - not just for output but for convenience, consistency and cost. I only wish I could justify it to myself (and my wife  )
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: Stephen Best on January 06, 2007, 07:53:28 pm
Quote
My understanding, based on what I've read, is that the machine reads the patches the machine has printed - so if the user sets the machine to print patches in bi-directional mode it will read those and likewise for unidirectional mode.  So if drying time per head pass really makes a noticeable difference to anything and the machine allows printing the patches in different modes, one would use the profile consistently under the conditions in which it was created, as one should do with any profiling. Then there should be no issue. But it would be good for someone who knows the detailed mechanics of this process to jump in and correct any errors here. HOWEVER, all that said and done, if HP is correct as Michael quotes them, that drying time is not an issue, perhaps judging from results one should give them the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=94231\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I doubt that the spectro has the resolution to see smearing or bleeding. This is normally something that one can only assess by eye ... but HP may well have come up with a procedure.
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: Mark D Segal on January 06, 2007, 08:06:12 pm
Quote
I doubt that the spectro has the resolution to see smearing or bleeding. This is normally something that one can only assess by eye ... but HP may well have come up with a procedure.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=94233\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Stephen, I'm not an insider and I have no technical background in how they designed this process, but based on the results I've seen, and reading what HP put behind the development of this printer, I would be truly surprised if they had not been aware of and dealt with that issue in the design process.

Have you seen this printer at work and what it does? I have, and I think it is truly remarkable. The only thing holding me back from buying one tomorrow is that I'm waiting to see whether HP produces the same product in a 17~18 inch version - that would better suit my needs - and regardless of which one I buy rest assured my wife will not be the one helping me to cart it upstairs..........but my son or son-in-law may  .
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: Quentin on January 06, 2007, 08:19:09 pm
Quote
It is your opinion that piezo is "superior." It is not a fact. Epson has gone the piezo route while Canon and HP have gone the thermal route (and they both introduced inkjet printers in the early '80s long before Epson ever did, but not in the high-quality/photo arena, which Epson pioneered  for desktop in 1994). There are advantages and disadvantages to both. (And BTW, HP also uses piezo heads in other devices for other printing markets.)

And the spectro does not add much to the overall unit cost (HP has told me this).

Harald Johnson
author, "Mastering Digital Printing, Second Edition"
DP&I.com ( http://www.dpandi.com (http://www.dpandi.com) )
digital printing and imaging consultant
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=94169\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Epson went the Piezo route and broke away from the pack.  Coincidence?  Maybe, maybe not. Heating up ink droplets has a number of disadvantages.  It's more dificult to use ink encapsulation technology, for example.   The short lifespan of thermal heads is yet another headache. Its simply not credible that a manufacturer would actually want their printheads to wear out relatively quickly.  Fact is, Canon and HP are stuck with the problem.  The whole replaceable printehead think is just making the best of difficult situation.

As for including a spectro not adding much to the unit cost, how much is not much?  Its got to be a few hundred $$ at least.  Now it might be a great idea but I stand by the view it is necessitated by the whole printhead issue.  

Epson have their own issues such as bronzing and metamerism, and I may well buy one of these HP printers; ultimately it does not matter if the reason they arrived at this place is because of problems or because of design choices.   They are where they are and it looks poretty good.

Quentin
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: Stephen Best on January 06, 2007, 08:25:34 pm
Quote
Have you seen this printer at work and what it does?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=94236\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm not currently in the market for a new printer, just interested in the technology and where things are headed. The Z3100 looks to be a nice printer, and I said so above. Next time around, who knows what I'll buy. It takes a long time to get the best from any printer, know what it can and can't do well so I'd need some real financial and/or quality imperative to move (I run my printers as a business). Paper handling is probably a more significant factor for me in the choice of printer. Irrespective, HP seems to be pushing the right buttons for a lot of people. I'll be monitoring the fallout.
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: rdonson on January 06, 2007, 08:33:32 pm
Quote
While Epson can calibrate the printer accurately at the factory...

I've always wondered about the factory calibration that Epson claims to do on every pro printer.  Don't they all arrive dry with no sign that ink has been run through them?
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: Mark D Segal on January 06, 2007, 08:39:00 pm
Quote
Epson went the Piezo route and broke away from the pack.  Coincidence?  Maybe, maybe not. Heating up ink droplets has a number of disadvantages.  It's more dificult to use ink encapsulation technology, for example.   The short lifespan of thermal heads is yet another headache. Its simply not credible that a manufacturer would actually want their printheads to wear out relatively quickly.  Fact is, Canon and HP are stuck with the problem.  The whole replaceable printehead think is just making the best of difficult situation.

As for including a spectro not adding much to the unit cost, how much is not much?  Its got to be a few hundred $$ at least.  Now it might be a great idea but I stand by the view it is necessitated by the whole printhead issue. 

Epson have their own issues such as bronzing and metamerism, and I may well buy one of these HP printers; ultimately it does not matter if the reason they arrived at this place is because of problems or because of design choices.   They are where they are and it looks poretty good.

Quentin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=94237\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Quentin, if you believe what Michael reported in his review, the print heads do not wear out quickly. Furthermore, FWIW I've been using an HP office deskjet (admittedly different animal) quite regularly for the past four and half years and the print heads have not worn out yet, nor do they show any signs of doing so. This issue is a "red-herring". You can stand by your view that the spectro was necessitated by what you call "the printhead issue", but I really think the one has nothing to do with the other. So we'll agree to disagree about that until a technical authority on the design of this printer steps forward with a better answer.   And you are right - it does indeed look pretty good.
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: Mark D Segal on January 06, 2007, 08:47:00 pm
Quote
..............I'd need some real financial and/or quality imperative to move (I run my printers as a business). Paper handling is probably a more significant factor for me in the choice of printer. Irrespective, HP seems to be pushing the right buttons for a lot of people. I'll be monitoring the fallout.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=94239\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Stephen - paper handling is a major issue I can relate to - one aspect of which for me is the ability to profile and use any kind of paper without incurring the horrendous waste of time and ink on the Epson 4800 for every switch between matte and non-matte. That was a HUGE design error on Epson's part. They have largely rectified it with the 3800, but the 3800 strikes me as flimsy and I think the vertical paper feed is a bit finicky. I too will be monitoring peoples' experience with the HP Zs, while I wait a while to see or hear whether HP will produce an 18" model with 12 inks and a spectro.
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: Mark D Segal on January 06, 2007, 08:54:57 pm
Quote
I've always wondered about the factory calibration that Epson claims to do on every pro printer.  Don't they all arrive dry with no sign that ink has been run through them?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=94240\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes indeed - this has been noted before - and remains a deep, dark mystery in Epson-lore. They are perhaps the only ones who can explain it and they don't usually say too much about how things are done under the hood. (Maybe it is better not to know certain things................  )
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: John Hollenberg on January 06, 2007, 09:18:41 pm
The Epsons do have ink run through them at the factory.  I know, because my Epson 9600 came with a few small blobs of color in a couple of the ink lines.  I was assured by others more knowledgeable that this was normal.  Of course, it turned out that the head had to be replaced immediately, so perhaps it wasn't as normal as one would think :-)

--John
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: JimGoshorn on January 07, 2007, 11:39:19 am
One thing I didn't get a clear impression of in Michael's review (thanks Michael) was how does the printer handle linearizing the profiles? Is that part of the calibration process?

Jim
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: Haraldo on January 07, 2007, 12:54:02 pm
Let me jump in here on a couple of points, putting several things together.

[***I still don't see the QUOTE function on my browers -- MARK S., can you email me privately to discuss? I don't want to take up list time with my stupidity]

On the piezo/thermal/heads question: Quentin, I disagree with you on most of your points.
-- It's an urban legend (which I have also promoted) that thermal heats the ink droplets; it doesn't.
-- HP has ink encapsulation.
-- The user-replacability of the printheads is a good thing, not a problem in my view. In reality, the heads will last a long, long time (based on total ink throughput), but at least you have the option to replace them, if you want. Same with Canon. Not with Epson without either a BIG cost or throwing the printer away.
-- Adding the spectro function to the Z3100 has nothing to do with any percieved printhead problems (I have discussed this at length with HP).
Let's just agree to disagree, OK?

On the dry-down/stabilization, all this is user controllable. You can lengthen/shorten the dry-down time. On dry-down for calibration/profiling, HP has determined that 5 mins is all that's required for their inks and calib/profiling protocols. Stephen: I haven't seen smearing or bleeding on my Z3100, which I only recently installed. (FYI, measurement time is adaptive to the density of the measured colors; more time for measuring dark than light colors. HP does not average multiple measurements per patch since the printed colors are very uniform, hence, no need. The in-the-box profiling function reads just under 500 patches for profiles (+ 160 for calibration), but it's open-ended and you can tie into any target size or type you want, up to 7,000 patches if feel like it. Only takes more paper and time, and I think the Advanced Profiling Solution option.

On the issue of calibration in general and Epson ColorBase in particular, now this is an interesting point. Epson has all along communicated that the pro printers are "factory calibrated" and you don't have to worry about it after that. How many times have you printed in a factory, especially theirs? ;-) Seriously, it's fairly apparent to me that all printers change over time. Parts wear, the printing environment changes, etc. Let me say right here that I know very little about ColorBase (in fact, if you search on Epson sites for it, you get nothing). Apparently, it's a software solution that helps you -- DUH -- calibrate your printer! (someone please correct me if I'm wrong) HP has been offering this since 2004 starting with the DJ130. Maybe Epson is finally realizing that they need to change their tune on this point? I dunno, just theorizing. And where is Canon on this?

All for now. Gotta install a new dishwasher.

Harald
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: Mark D Segal on January 07, 2007, 01:29:56 pm
Quote
Let me jump in here on a couple of points, putting several things together.

[***I still don't see the QUOTE function on my browers -- MARK S., can you email me privately to discuss? I don't want to take up list time with my stupidity]


On the issue of calibration in general and Epson ColorBase in particular, now this is an interesting point. Epson has all along communicated that the pro printers are "factory calibrated" and you don't have to worry about it after that. How many times have you printed in a factory, especially theirs? ;-) Seriously, it's fairly apparent to me that all printers change over time. Parts wear, the printing environment changes, etc. Let me say right here that I know very little about ColorBase (in fact, if you search on Epson sites for it, you get nothing). Apparently, it's a software solution that helps you -- DUH -- calibrate your printer! (someone please correct me if I'm wrong) HP has been offering this since 2004 starting with the DJ130. Maybe Epson is finally realizing that they need to change their tune on this point? I dunno, just theorizing. And where is Canon on this?

All for now. Gotta install a new dishwasher.

Harald
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=94334\")

Harald, I'm sending you a separate, illustrated, email on "Quote-Reply". Once you're finished installing the dishwasher, have a look - that should do it for you.

Re Epson ColorBase, Michael reviewed it on this website some time ago. You can be forgiven for not finding ColorBase - it's not made available in North America, but is elsewhere - and Michael notes that as well. Here's his review:

[a href=\"http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/software/epson-colorbase.shtml]http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/...colorbase.shtml[/url]

I don't think any of that changes anything either of us have been saying about the issues raised in this thread.

Cheers,

Mark
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: hdierolf on January 07, 2007, 02:34:00 pm
Thanks for the in debt review. Your efforts are much appreciated.

From the specs that HP publishes it appears that the printer has a native resolution of 600x600 DPI and then it says 2400x1200 optimized. I read this to mean that the 2400x1200 resolution is achieved through software interpolation. If I understand this correctly the HP Z3100 would then by far not have the precision that the Epsons have.

Could you please comment on this?
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: Dan Wells on January 07, 2007, 02:46:22 pm
Has anyone yet tried profiling this machine with an external spectro? I just wonder if HP's small test charts are getting all that it is capable of. My Canon iPF5000 benefits noticeably from the massive Atkinson 4096 test chart (using a slightly modified copy of EyeOne Match), as compared to the 918 patch chart that ships with the EyeOne, The benefit isn't huge, but it's there at the margins, and fine art printing is a game of extracting the last bit our systems are capable of! I was a little disappointed when I noted in Michael's review that even the "advanced profiling" option package only permitted a thousand patch chart. 1000 patches is still a small to medium sized test chart (I'd call anything under 1000 small, 1000 to 2000 or so medium, 2000 to 4096 large, and anything above 4096 really huge). Printers do seem to benefit from larger test charts, and it would take a linear printer indeed (and an easily profiled paper) for 500 patches to be fully adequate for all uses. Maybe HP has built a printer so linear that it really only needs a small test chart, but this is a potential limitation I'd love to see some z3100 owner (who also owns an EyeOne or some other profiling package) test...

                                                      -Dan
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: abiggs on January 07, 2007, 03:01:11 pm
Dan, in my experience more patches does not equal a bigger reproducible gamut. I have found that the gradations within the gamut are better, especially in more vivid colors that are brighter.

$.02
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: Tim Ernst on January 07, 2007, 03:29:09 pm
Dan:

I agree with what Andy just said - I made a normal profile with an external eyeone and compared prints with the profile the z3100 created and I can't tell any difference in the prints with the naked eye at normal viewing distances. I don't look at prints with microscopes or at gamut plots so this is the only thing that is of interest to me and to my customers. I'm a happy camper (with the automatic profiles), so I'll let this printer do all the work from now on...
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: abiggs on January 07, 2007, 03:44:06 pm
The challenge is that if you have a small number of patches, and you accidentally get a bad reading from just a few of them, your resulting profile will be skewed off by a greater amount than if you had more patches to read from, but the same number of errors.

I have always liked the idea of the Eye One IO, where readings are doing automatically, but I cannot seem to get complete confidence in the readings, as the Eye One is never allowed to touch down on the surface of the media, which means each reading will be tainted by the ambient light. Off topic pontification, so I apologize.
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: Stephen Best on January 07, 2007, 04:38:12 pm
Quote
Has anyone yet tried profiling this machine with an external spectro? I just wonder if HP's small test charts are getting all that it is capable of.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=94370\")

Colorvision's C. David Tobie claimed to get better results with his PrintFix2 solution, and get HP to agree. You can find the discussion somewhere on Yahoo's EpsonWideFormat or LargeFormatInkjet group. Personally, I think it's more likely to be "different" than "better". Since HP sell their own package which enables more patches there must be some advantage, otherwise why bother. It really depends on how linear the printer is. I would imagine that adding RGB primaries to the mix would make things less linear.

You can have a dozen profiles, all just as "accurate" but still prefer one over another. It depends upon your sophistication in assessing profiles for your own purposes. If based on GM's standard algorithms, the results are likely to be very good though ... and likely good enough for most. If two printers sell for the same price, and one has a spectro then why not? If they're not the same price, then you have to look hard at what you're actually getting for the extra.

Relevant links:

[a href=\"http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/EpsonWideFormat/message/74726]http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/EpsonWi...t/message/74726[/url]
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/EpsonWi...t/message/74751 (http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/EpsonWideFormat/message/74751)
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: deelight on January 07, 2007, 05:04:17 pm
Quote
Actually, the text I am reading off that web-page on my monitor says:

"Letter to 24-in wide sheets" for the 24" model and "Letter to 44-in wide sheets for the 44 inch model. "Letter" in North America is 8.5 by 11 inches, which is slighter wider and slightly shorter than European A4. This link is to the US website. It will most likely print A4 for the European models, but you can verify the specs for machines delivered in Europe.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=94090\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Yes, the Z series accepts European DIN A4 size. I recently printed this size on my    NEW    Z3100.

I can truly second what michael said in his review (at least about the documentation and specs, exept about print quality, because unfortunately I did have no time at all during the last week since the delivery of my Z3100 and the only prints I made were two profiling prints    )  

Just one more thing to say:

Dont try to calibrate and profile on DIN A4 paper, the profiling chart needs to have an DIN A3 paper size. It is printed after the calibrating chart (which is DIN A4) is read by the spectro. It brought some headache to me, because profiling was not successful. Simply use the 24 roll  for your first profiling  

Not noticed by Michael is the paper sheet fed. You can only feed a single sheet of paper (which is no problem for my workflow), but you also have to feed it free hand without a corner to lay along (ähh, sorry for my English, guess I am missing the right word... no dictionary around   ). Then the printer corrects the angle, but is only able to do this in a small amount. If fed incorrectly the printer rejects the sheet. This might take  1+ minute, if fed incorrectly  2-3 times. This is something to do better for HP, although of course it is a minor point.

Best regards from Cologne...

Clem
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: Tom.D.Arch on January 07, 2007, 07:18:19 pm
Quote
On that same info page is also says:

"All 24 inch models:
Letter to 24-in wide sheets, 18- to 24-in wide rolls"

so I would assume that means letter size is OK. I did not notice the 18" roll minimum width until just now - that seems odd - I wonder if that is true? I've got a 17" roll sitting right here next to my 24" model and I will see if it will accept it sometime this weekend...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=94089\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I haven't been able to see a Z series printer in person yet, so I'm speculating here: could the 18" min. roll size be cased by the roll mounting spindle?  Can the removable 'spindle cap' be slid closer than 18" to the fixed end of the spindle?

I hope that 18" isn't really the minimum - 17" roll material looks pretty appealing to me for some uses (particularly if feeding individual sheets is as big a hassle as it sounds...).  If I'm right about the spindle end being the issue, I've been trying to imagine making a wood spacer on a lathe.  (I hope that wouldn't void the warranty ;^) )

(As an aside: I'm an architect in a very small firm.  I'm hoping to talk my boss into getting a z3100 when he gets back from his holiday vacation.  (Let's hope that two weeks with his mother in law hasn't put him in a bad mood!)  The Z series looks like a great middle ground between cranking out small runs of 'blueprints' and generating high quality presentation materials.  After seeing some of our drawings printing in draft mode on a B9180 at 12 sec. per 11x17 sheet, with very readable results, I suspect that we will be able to get 24"x36" sheets in less than the 2 min. per D sheet that the Z specs list.  I know this sounds like a 'waste' of such a capable machine, but I promise to do as much photo printing as I can!)
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: Roscolo on January 07, 2007, 08:41:54 pm
Quote
I hope that 18" isn't really the minimum - 17" roll material looks pretty appealing to me for some uses (particularly if feeding individual sheets is as big a hassle as it sounds...). 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=94419\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If the Z3100 can't take 17" rolls, it just went off my potential purchase list. Hard to believe such a well-designed printer would have such a "deal-breaker" flaw.
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: michael on January 07, 2007, 09:14:38 pm
The minimum roll is 18". A curious decision, I agree.

Michael
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: larryg on January 07, 2007, 09:43:08 pm
The minimum roll is 18". A curious decision, I agree.

Michael



This is a real shocker.  I was interested in this printer until this.  I regularly print 8x10 prints from a 10" roll with the Epson 7600.

This is really disapointing that no smaller than 18" rolls can be used

This is a deal breaker for me also.  I will just have to wait a while and see what else comes down the perverbial pike.
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: ternst on January 07, 2007, 10:30:15 pm
Sorry guys, but sometimes the posted specs of printers is not quite accurate, so keep your checkbooks open.

I just loaded a 17" roll of InkJetArt Luster paper in the 24" z3100 and it loaded and printed just fine. There is no minimum width stop on the roll itself with either 2" or 3" core - you can cinch it down as small as you like. And obviously the printer had no issues with a roll narrower than 18". How much narrower will it go - no telling, but there is no physical reason why it would not do 10", 8" or even smaller, so if it did limit the width it would be a software issue (the minimum sheet width is listed as 8.3" - I have enough trouble getting 13 x 19 sheets to load without a five-minute tug of war so have not tried any smaller sheets).

Someone here also noted recently something about the 2400 x 1200 dpi rating of the z3100 printers - it being that or 600 x 600 - this is what is listed in the specs for this printer but in the printer manual it also lists 1200 x 1200 - it does not say if this is true or interpolated...

On another related roll-paper size note I also found the 59' roll length limit on the Canon ipf5000 printer to be bogus - I had this same 100' roll installed in that printer as well and it worked just fine, so no real 59' length limit on the Canon, at least not for this type of paper (3" core).

Tim Ernst in Arkansas
www.Cloudland.net
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: jpgentry on January 07, 2007, 10:30:49 pm
If indeed quality is equal, the important questions (to me) are none that have been debated yet, and they are cost of operation, speed and durability (of mechanics not heads.)  Also quality of support.  I think paper handling (sheets) will clearly go to Epson and Canon over HP.

I have the ipf8000 (44") and have a comment (though off topic.)  I am so mad at Canon for the simple fact that they have intentionally shrouded the issue of operating costs by not disclosing how much ink the ipf models use.  While they give you the total amount of ML used per print, the driver will only read remaining ink in 20% increments so you cannot get a fix on ink usage.

Canon is feeble when it comes to communicating with their customers in the US.  Take one look at their Japaneese support site and graphics and information abound, but check the US support site and nearly every link (for the ipf8000) says "no information."  Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.  HELLO CANON!  WAKE UP!

I love the machine, but they are dumping on their US customers.  HP clearly knows where their revenue comes from.

-Jonathan
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: John Hollenberg on January 07, 2007, 10:37:15 pm
Quote
On another related roll-paper size note I also found the 59' roll length limit on the Canon ipf5000 printer to be bogus - I had this same 100' roll installed in that printer as well and it worked just fine, so no real 59' length limit on the Canon, at least not for this type of paper (3" core).

Tim,

How exactly did you test this?  The 59 foot length refers to the length of ONE print.  Did you make a 70 or 80 foot print to test?  :-)

--John
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: ternst on January 07, 2007, 10:41:55 pm
John:

I thought the spec read that the max ROLL length was 59', but I just now looked at the specs again and it does say roll PRINT length. I thought that was kind of an odd roll length limit - still think it is an odd print length limit but not one I am going to be testing anytime soon! I just sold my Canon this afternoon and was kind of sad to see it go - wish they would have had a 24" model available, although the HP is pretty darn nice...
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: John Hollenberg on January 07, 2007, 10:44:50 pm
Quote
John:

I thought the spec read that the max ROLL length was 59', but I just now looked at the specs again and it does say roll PRINT length. I thought that was kind of an odd roll length limit - still think it is an odd print length limit but not one I am going to be testing anytime soon! I just sold my Canon this afternoon and was kind of sad to see it go - wish they would have had a 24" model available, although the HP is pretty darn nice...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=94448\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes, but there is a footnote which says that the maximum printable length is dependent on a number of factors,

"The maximum printable length varies depending on the application, OS, and RIP used. The maximum printable length from Printer Driver 2006 is 50 feet."

Maybe the guy who wrote the software happened to be turning 59, and couldn't see letting the printer best him in this area :-)

--John
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: ternst on January 07, 2007, 10:49:43 pm
I just turned 51 and can't tell the difference between roll and print length so I can't complain too much. I think at one time the Photoshop limit was eight feet long or something like that so it sounds like we are making progress...
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: Haraldo on January 07, 2007, 11:38:40 pm
Quote
If indeed quality is equal, the important questions (to me) are none that have been debated yet, and they are cost of operation, speed and durability (of mechanics not heads.)  Also quality of support.  I think paper handling (sheets) will clearly go to Epson and Canon over HP.[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=94446\")

[let see if my quotes work. Thanks Mark!]

Here's something by David Saffir on some cost differences:
[a href=\"http://tinyurl.com/ybp8cr]http://tinyurl.com/ybp8cr[/url]

And I see no reason why you couldn't use 17" rolls. Or 13". Or whatever. I'm going to try to find out.

Harald
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: Tom.D.Arch on January 07, 2007, 11:50:29 pm
Glad to hear about smaller rolls working!

Another question: with 11 inks and the gloss enhancer, I'm thinking that there's a chance that some inks or other won't be used before the chip in the ink cartridges 'expire' them.  I'm wondering if anyone could tell me when the 'birthdate' of their inks is and/or how long their built in life spans are.
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: John Hollenberg on January 07, 2007, 11:58:52 pm
Harald,

RE: the URL you posted--one of the numbers for the Epson 9800 doesn't look right to me.  Joseph Holmes states that 90 ml of ink is used for the black ink swap.  The URL you posted says 230 ml.  That's quite a difference.  Hard to believe Joe got it wrong.

--John
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: Haraldo on January 08, 2007, 12:12:38 am
Quote
Another question: with 11 inks and the gloss enhancer, I'm thinking that there's a chance that some inks or other won't be used before the chip in the ink cartridges 'expire' them.  I'm wondering if anyone could tell me when the 'birthdate' of their inks is and/or how long their built in life spans are.

I just checked my Z3100, and my Green ink cartridge expires on March 1, 2010. The Blue is Jan 14, 2010. The Gloss Enhancer is Jan. 19, 2010. Go figure. (Note: because I have an early unit, I have no idea what production line the inks came from)

BTW, I've been testing the Gloss Enhancer and I am now the Official World's Expert on it ;-) (no one else to compete with at the moment). Let me know if you have questions about it.

Harald Johnson
author, "Mastering Digital Printing, Second Edition"
DP&I.com ( http://www.dpandi.com (http://www.dpandi.com) )
digital printing and imaging consultant
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: Dan Wells on January 08, 2007, 12:26:53 am
Quote
Dan:

I agree with what Andy just said - I made a normal profile with an external eyeone and compared prints with the profile the z3100 created and I can't tell any difference in the prints with the naked eye at normal viewing distances. I don't look at prints with microscopes or at gamut plots so this is the only thing that is of interest to me and to my customers. I'm a happy camper (with the automatic profiles), so I'll let this printer do all the work from now on...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=94374\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

What Andy said has been my experience as well (that the actual increase in gamut from 918 to 4096 patches is modest if it's there at all, but that gradations get better). However the increased image quality is achieved, I certainly do see improved image quality from the 4096 patch profiles (primarily in gradation, especially in pastel colors). On the iPF 5000, you'd need the two prints next to each other to see the difference, but if you had them next to each other, it would be obvious... I now profile all my paper with the Atkinson targets.

                                               -Dan
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: Stephen Best on January 08, 2007, 12:42:10 am
Quote
Here's something by David Saffir on some cost differences:
http://tinyurl.com/ybp8cr (http://tinyurl.com/ybp8cr)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=94453\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

These 24"/44" printers are workhorses and not for hobbyists. The total ink costs can be considerable (though a lot less on Epson than the figures quoted above) but far less than you'll spend on quality paper. In terms of what you'd bill a print for, the ink cost is minor. Also, anyone worried about the life of open 130ml carts is looking at the WRONG printer. I don't know what it is on HP but it's six months on Epson.
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: Tom.D.Arch on January 08, 2007, 02:53:55 am
Quote
I just checked my Z3100, and my Green ink cartridge expires on March 1, 2010. The Blue is Jan 14, 2010. The Gloss Enhancer is Jan. 19, 2010. Go figure. (Note: because I have an early unit, I have no idea what production line the inks came from)

Harald Johnson
author, "Mastering Digital Printing, Second Edition"
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=94457\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks!  Assuming that the normal shipping units have similar lifespans, it shouldn't be an issue.  (I'm a bit worked up on this issue - I'm probably going to have to throw out about US$50 of ink for my HP multi-function that looks like it's past the expiration date (which is smudged) on the box.  When the current cart dies, I'll try them, but I'm not optimistic.  Thanks, HP)  This is probably also good news for folks considering ordering twin-packs of ink (when they're shipping, that is...)

Quote
These 24"/44" printers are workhorses and not for hobbyists. The total ink costs can be considerable (though a lot less on Epson than the figures quoted above) but far less than you'll spend on quality paper. In terms of what you'd bill a print for, the ink cost is minor. Also, anyone worried about the life of open 130ml carts is looking at the WRONG printer. I don't know what it is on HP but it's six months on Epson.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=94459\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

In a lot of ways, I wish that the Z series actually was the wrong printer for us.  We are looking for a machine that can produce color technical drawings (at least at US Arch D - 24"x36") reasonably quickly - but raw speed isn't that important.  (I'm not going to spend the time collating and binding 8 sets of 35 sheets - we'll send those jobs to our 'blueprinting' service)  At the same time, we need the machine to produce high quality presentation materials, including renderings - some photorealistic, some hand drawn, photos of completed projects, and ideally boards that can reasonably accurately represent the colors of materials such as brick and concrete, which are a bit unpleasant to carry around to meetings in any quantity.  HP's "legacy" as a maker of technical plotters leads me to believe that these machines will hold up to cranking out hundreds of square feet of 'draft mode on bond' and then turn on a dime to do the high quality stuff.

From what I can see out there, none of the Epson printers could really handle the basic line drawing production that we need.  (Plus, what I hear about Epson clogging is pretty unappealing)  Canon seems to have 'graphics' plotters that don't do photos particularly well and photo printers that, like Epson, couldn't plot line drawings with any reasonable speed.  (One Canon rep I spoke with was quite honest about this, to his credit.)  At US$3,400 to $6,300, the Z units appear to be a great fit for our needs and at very competitive pricing versus the other two, given the built-in calibration, hard drive for big jobs, etc.

Now that I've done some research, I see that with the 44" units and the Z UV/water resistant pigment inks, we would also be able to bring thousands of dollars of work in-house, such as tyvek "grand opening" banners for our commercial projects and construction signs (not to mention bringing control in-house - I'm driven crazy every time I see a particular construction sign with a rendering I did of the building that's under construction, but the sign printer ran it way undersaturated!)  Plus there's the potential of everything from printing wall murals as 'wallpaper' strips to doing full-scale templates for the fabrication of complicated building elements.

So yes, I'm almost certainly being paranoid about 130ml carts expiring, but if the cutoff was something like 6 months, I'd likely be in hot water with my boss if we had to order hundreds of dollars of new ink because several carts still containing some perfectly good ink had all expired simultaneously!  I do realize that all this talk of using a highly precise, finely tuned photo printer to do this sort of stuff sounds insane to a bunch of photographers, but this is part of how HP is marketing these machines to graphics arts users and it's part of how I can justify buying any large format printer for the firm.

Perhaps this does raise a good question for some purely photo-printing users here - given that there are 11 individual inks, that's 1.4L(!) of ink.  (From Michael's review, it looks like he's using something like 6-7mL per m2 on matte material.  That's over 2,300 ft2 of printing to use a full round of ink, and of course, not everyone uses the colors evenly.)  Even if the chip in the cart says it's good for 3-4 years, when should you throw out a cart that isn't quite empty?  Six months?  Longer?
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: Stephen Best on January 08, 2007, 03:12:28 am
Quote
From what I can see out there, none of the Epson printers could really handle the basic line drawing production that we need.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=94468\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I print maps that size every now and then on my 7800 but pigments aren't the cheapest way to print.

These printers like to be driven hard, and used as such the total ink usage would be much the same across brands. It's only when you let Epsons sit idle that clogs can be an issue. Low use could also mean shorter life for printheads on Canon/HP.

You could put a case to your boss that by coming in every now and then and using the office printer for your photographic work that you're actually doing them a service :-).
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: Mark D Segal on January 08, 2007, 08:26:13 am
Quote
If indeed quality is equal, the important questions (to me) are none that have been debated yet, and they are cost of operation, speed and durability (of mechanics not heads.)  Also quality of support.  I think paper handling (sheets) will clearly go to Epson and Canon over HP.

I have the ipf8000 (44") and have a comment (though off topic.)  I am so mad at Canon for the simple fact that they have intentionally shrouded the issue of operating costs by not disclosing how much ink the ipf models use.  While they give you the total amount of ML used per print, the driver will only read remaining ink in 20% increments so you cannot get a fix on ink usage.

Canon is feeble when it comes to communicating with their customers in the US.  Take one look at their Japaneese support site and graphics and information abound, but check the US support site and nearly every link (for the ipf8000) says "no information."  Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.  HELLO CANON!  WAKE UP!

I love the machine, but they are dumping on their US customers.  HP clearly knows where their revenue comes from.

-Jonathan
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=94446\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

JP - no news here - Canon's whole approach to dealing with customers is to put it diplomatically "stony". Unless you are a certified professional enrolled in their professional service program, forget it. Try to get your sensor cleaned on an emergency basis at various Canon service centers in Canada or Europe and see what kind of reception you get. As for the IPF5000, there is a ton of complaints about inadequate documentation and non-user-friendly firmware. Have they said boo about it to any one? Have they published any fixes? I cancelled my order for the IPF5000 with the first whiff of these problems and I'm glad I did. I know it makes excellent prints, well-built machine, real workhorse, but I just don't have the patience to deal with a combination of usability-foibbles and poor documentation - and if their service set-up for printer problems works like certain other aspects of their service I'd be wary. Service is an important factor. I've had excellent support from both Epson and HP on the various occasions I've needed it, and I would trust both of them in this regard.
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: Mark D Segal on January 08, 2007, 08:44:38 am
Quote
[let see if my quotes work. Thanks Mark!]

Here's something by David Saffir on some cost differences:
http://tinyurl.com/ybp8cr (http://tinyurl.com/ybp8cr)

And I see no reason why you couldn't use 17" rolls. Or 13". Or whatever. I'm going to try to find out.

Harald
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=94453\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Harald, you are welcome and glad you got it working.

Thanks for pointing us to the Saffir website - good stuff there. His perspective on the cost of waste is very well-taken, as I can second from my own detailed tracking of these issues that has been published on this website for both the Epson 4000 and the 4800. The point I am at pains to make about this matter is that one does need to allow a farily substantial build-up usage experience to have a representative sample of machine operating conditions under a wide variety of circumstances and therefore a valid representative sample of performance from which to draw inferences. While the early indications for the new HPs seem to be good from what I've read (I don't own one yet - only seen them in operation and the results) - I think more time and experience needs to accumulate from a variety of users before we know the whole story reliably from a user-perspective.

As a matter of up-date on my Epson 4800, after 13 months of usage, the average cost per 54 sq. in. of printed coverage is as follows (in Canadian dollars):

Printer amortization (capital consumption): 39 cents;
Enhanced Matte Paper (letter-size): 40 cents;
Ink for Printing: 37 cents;
Ink for cleaning and maintenance: 17 cents;
NB: Excludes media-switching cycles - not economic to do on a 4800.
TOTAL cost (excl maintenance tank - too little): $1.33
My accumulated waste ratio, thanks to decent colour management, is only 9.5%, hence on a waste-adjusted basis my cost per 54 sq. in. is $1.47.

Now, this information is useful for gleaning insights about differences. For example, a printer that costs 5000 instead of 2400 would roughly double the amoritization cost for the same rate of output. EEM is the cheapest quality paper on the market. Replacing it with Hahnemuhle, Innova, or the like would triple the paper cost. Ink for Printing would vary according to the paper. What I'm not counting here is the time-value of the convenience of media switching and the market value of the flexibility which the Z3100 offers compared with my 4800. Depending on one's operating circumstances, those two factors could dwarf the ones I have accounted.
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: Mark D Segal on January 08, 2007, 08:58:53 am
Quote
I print maps that size every now and then on my 7800 but pigments aren't the cheapest way to print.

These printers like to be driven hard, and used as such the total ink usage would be much the same across brands. It's only when you let Epsons sit idle that clogs can be an issue. Low use could also mean shorter life for printheads on Canon/HP.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=94469\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Stephen, this is partially correct. Firstly, preliminary evidence suggests there is substantial difference in ink consumption per sq.in. of coverage. I've seen it myself even between the Epston 4000 and 4800, as reported on this website in my costing article for the 4800. Preliminary reports of ink consumption for recent HP models suggests differences from Epson. You can apply Google to assemble the evidence such as it is at this early stage of experience.

As for the conditions in which Epson printers clog, I have put a great deal of time and effort into this issue, having lived through scads of it, done alot of web research, had many conversations with senior technical reps of Epson America, and observed the performance of my printer over time under a range of print production,  temperature and humidity conditions. The unambiguous conclusion I have come to is that there is no one cause. It is a multidimensional problem. When I first got my 4800 it simply didn't clog for quite some time, which was a real breather from my previous 4000 which had become impossible. Then it started clogging - alot. Epson arranged a service call with their Canadian service reps - a firm named Trek-Hall here in Toronto. They detected that the capping mechanism wasn't sitting exactly right, so they fixed it. Since then there has not been one clogging session. Routine cleanings yes, but clogging and expensive clean-outs, No. The machine was idle for a month while we were away on an extended holiday. When I came back I switched it on expecting the worst, but it did a routine cleaning consuming 8.9 ml of ink and worked perfectly thereafter. Just yesterday I re-activated the machine after it had been sitting idle since December 24th (two weeks + a bit) and same thing - an 8.9 ml cleaning cycle and it worked just fine. All that said, there are some deep, dark mysteries about why and how Epson printers clog under various conditions - because the most striking thing I've discovered about it is the INCONSISTENCY of a broad range of user experience.
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: Haraldo on January 08, 2007, 12:13:09 pm
Quote
The minimum roll is 18". A curious decision, I agree.

As I just posted on the "Issues" thread here, you can print on any roll (or sheet) width you want as long as it's not narrower than A4/Letter. (and of course, not wider than the machine can handle!)

Harald Johnson
author, "Mastering Digital Printing, Second Edition"
DP&I.com ( http://www.dpandi.com (http://www.dpandi.com) )
digital printing and imaging consultant
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: abiggs on January 08, 2007, 12:16:40 pm
Quote
Printer amortization (capital consumption): 39 cents;
Enhanced Matte Paper (letter-size): 40 cents;
Ink for Printing: 37 cents;
Ink for cleaning and maintenance: 17 cents;
NB: Excludes media-switching cycles - not economic to do on a 4800.
TOTAL cost (excl maintenance tank - too little): $1.33
My accumulated waste ratio, thanks to decent colour management, is only 9.5%, hence on a waste-adjusted basis my cost per 54 sq. in. is $1.47.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=94498\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Oh my. Seems this is a science experiment, and not photography any more.

           
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: Mark D Segal on January 08, 2007, 02:36:53 pm
Quote
Oh my. Seems this is a science experiment, and not photography any more.

          
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=94555\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It's neither. It's cost accounting, which numerous creators of various forms of intellectual property do or have someone else do for tracking the business side of their creative endeavours. So why set-up such foolish dichotomies? What are you trying to prove?
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: deelight on January 08, 2007, 03:20:17 pm
Someone posted in this thread that HP suggests to always leave the Z3100 printer on, as it can do cleaning circles when needed. Is that true, anyone to confirm that?

Mine falls asleep after a period of maybe 10 minutes not in use, but the fan (and supposedly the HD aswell?) is still running. Does it also fall asleep after a longer period? Or should it allways run??? Cant imagine that. Anyone?

Thanks,

Clem
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: Stephen Best on January 08, 2007, 04:50:32 pm
Quote
All that said, there are some deep, dark mysteries about why and how Epson printers clog under various conditions - because the most striking thing I've discovered about it is the INCONSISTENCY of a broad range of user experience.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=94499\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'd agree with this. I'm sure there's some models that are defective out of the box and need fixing/replacing. The experience on EpsonWideFormat would suggest that Epson usually does the right thing. It's probably difficult for them though to distinguish between those with real problems and those that expect their machine to run perfectly every time at startup. I'd consider something that takes more than the minimum to ready the printer a "clog". The point I was trying to make is that, when actually up and printing, dropouts are rare ... at least in my experience. I think I've had one instance in over a year where my 7800 dropped out. So while it may occasionally take some ink to ready the printer, spread over a print run for the next eight hours or so it's not a significant contributer to running overall costs. But I can only talk from my experience with the 4800/7800. Anyway, we're getting off track here ...
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: Haraldo on January 08, 2007, 05:32:07 pm
Quote
Someone posted in this thread that HP suggests to always leave the Z3100 printer on, as it can do cleaning circles when needed. Is that true, anyone to confirm that?

HP recommends that you leave the printer on; it does it's thing automatically. It takes less ink and time than turning it on and off. I don't know the ink amount used for always-on; supposed to be very small. I'm leaving mine on.

Quote
Mine falls asleep after a period of maybe 10 minutes not in use, but the fan (and supposedly the HD aswell?) is still running. Does it also fall asleep after a longer period? Or should it allways run??? Cant imagine that. Anyone?

The default Sleep Time is 30 mins and you can change it to what you want: 30-240 mins.

Harald
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: jpgentry on January 10, 2007, 08:03:46 pm
I just had a post moderated at the Epson forum for talking about why I feel, despite the "snags" I've had with Canons feedback to customers that I still feel like it's the best 44 inch printer on the market, at least for me.

In the thread that was removed at the Epson Yahoo group we were discussing prices of the HP z3100.  It was commented on that the cheapest price was $6100.

I had commented that the IPF8000 (44") despite my complaints of Canon's lack of feedback from their website and not displaying the exact ML left in the carts (my two biggest complaints) the printer has performed flawlessly and there has been nothing that I haven't been able to do with it.

I also posted that the Canon 44" compared very favorably to the HP 44" in that I was able to purchase it from itsupplies.com for $3400 shipped (if you have the serial number of a 17" or larger printer as an upgrade price.  Note you do not have to give them your printer), compared to $6100 for the HP.  I already have the ability to generate accurate profiles so this was not a big selling point for me.  From what I understand the Canon is faster and prints on thicker materials.  Quality is a toss-up.

I sold my 9600, 4000 and HP dj130 all on ebay and was abe to more than pay for the new ipf8000.  It was a no-brainer for me.

-Jonathan
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: Haraldo on January 10, 2007, 10:57:34 pm
Quote
I just had a post moderated at the Epson forum for talking about why I feel, despite the "snags" I've had with Canons feedback to customers that I still feel like it's the best 44 inch printer on the market, at least for me. ...

Hey Jonathon, have you tried the LargeFormatInkjet group? It's the spin-off from EpsonWide Format to handle non-Epson discussion. This may be the reason they booted your messages off the EWF group.

Here it is for anyone who's interested:
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/largeformatinkjet (http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/largeformatinkjet)

Harald
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: jpgentry on January 10, 2007, 11:04:43 pm
Sure.  I understand why they booted the post.  I got a page long reason from the moderator.  I just feel that understanding the differences of competing products are a very important thing to all current Epson owners.  I totally disagree with them moderating these posts.  

When you go to the Epson Groups homepage at the top it says this:
"Description
EPSON Epson epson Wide Format Epson ink jet printers: 10600, 10000, 9800, 9600, 9500, 9000, 7800, 7600, 7500, 7000, 5000, 5500, 4800, 4000, 3000 and associated hardware, software, supplies, consumables. Discussion of any subject related to wide format ink jet printing, including discussion of other printers is welcome."

Notice the last line.  Now 5 minutes after calling it to the moderators attention he has changed the description that has been there for a VERY LONG TIME.

Anyway back to the discussion of the "Z."

Quote
Hey Jonathon, have you tried the LargeFormatInkjet group? It's the spin-off from EpsonWide Format to handle non-Epson discussion. This may be the reason they booted your messages off the EWF group.

Here it is for anyone who's interested:
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/largeformatinkjet (http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/largeformatinkjet)

Harald
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=95023\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: Mark D Segal on January 10, 2007, 11:26:54 pm
If it's the same site and moderator I had trouble with, I understand what's going on. Don't lose any sleep over it or them.
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: Colorwave on January 14, 2007, 04:18:16 pm
I was told by a HP rep at Macworld that HP will be offering $500 plus free supplies on the 24" Z3100 and $1000 and free supplies on the 44" model as competitive upgrades, starting on February 1st.  It will be based on serial numbers only and the purchaser will have not need to surrender their old printer.  They haven't announced how long the promotion will last, but typically run them for several months.  I'll be ordering one in early February.  Yipee!

I haven't seen much in the way of feedback for Mac compatible RIPs yet, although HP says that all the major players have released their RIP as of this week.  Have there been any reviews of Imageprint for the Z3100 published yet?  Have you heard a list price for this RIP?  My understanding is that it is a little better performer in photographic output than the EFI RIP.

With the Photoshop plugin, it sounds like a RIP is less critical than in earlier models, but still the best way to squeeze the best performance out of the machine.  I'm interested in what others have to say on this topic.

-Ron
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: Tom.D.Arch on January 15, 2007, 12:37:12 am
Quote
I was told by a HP rep at Macworld that HP will be offering $500 plus free supplies on the 24" Z3100 and $1000 and free supplies on the 44" model as competitive upgrades, starting on February 1st.  It will be based on serial numbers only and the purchaser will have not need to surrender their old printer.  They haven't announced how long the promotion will last, but typically run them for several months.  I'll be ordering one in early February.  Yipee!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=95716\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Anyone have a dead (qualifying) LF printer they need hauled away for 'scrap'?  
Title: Z3100 review
Post by: Colorwave on January 15, 2007, 11:02:31 am
The best part of this sort of deal is that you can keep the printer if it still serves your needs, or have them dispose of it for free if it is an anchor.  

BTW:  I found prices of $1,495. for the 24" version of Imageprint and $2,495. for the 44" version.  If money was no object, it would be a pretty easy decision to spring for it.  I may try it without it initially by printing with the Photoshop plugin and upgrade later.