Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: Abdulrahman Aljabri on December 19, 2007, 07:20:49 am
-
Based on specs the IPF5000 should offer better color and a wider gamut, hence 12 inks vs 8 inks in the R3800.
Nonetheless, one must ask, is there a tangible difference between the two printers? Higher specs don't always translate into better performance and that's why I am wondering.
I am well aware of all the pros and cons of each printer, and if the IPF5000 offers better and wider color gamut I would go with it over the lighter and more compact R3800.
Please share your experience, thanks
-
I would submit that wider color gamut doesn’t equate into better color.
Then you need to define what you mean by wider color gamut. By total volume? What if one color area is wider in on one printer, narrower elsewhere?
-
Then you need to define what you mean by wider color gamut. By total volume? What if one color area is wider in on one printer, narrower elsewhere?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161722\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes total color volume.
Individual colors gamut can significantly vary from one printer to another. Green can be huge in Canon, where as yellow in the shadows can be limited vs. Epson for example.
I would be happy to learn about those details if they are available, but I was looking for the overall difference to be able to make a final decision.
Thanks
-
Best way to do this would be to compare the same paper (and driver settings ideally) and view the profiles in ColorThink. I used to have an IPF 5000 but gave it a way and while I have a 3800, I don't know that I have profiles of the same papers from each.
-
Best way to do this would be to compare the same paper (and driver settings ideally) and view the profiles in ColorThink. I used to have an IPF 5000 but gave it a way and while I have a 3800, I don't know that I have profiles of the same papers from each.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161726\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
ahh perfect!
How did your IPF5000 compare to the 3800 you have now?
-
Best way to do this would be to compare the same paper (and driver settings ideally) and view the profiles in ColorThink.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=161726\")
I have an iPF5000, with a custom profile I made for Epson Premium Luster using Eye One Pro and Profilemaker 5. The size of the gamut on this paper as measured in Colorthink Pro is virtually identical to a similar profile made for the Epson 2400 on the same paper. There is about 1% difference in the total gamut volume.
However, the shapes are different, with the Epson better in the darker colors and also in the warmer & lighter colors (lighter reds/yellows). The Canon is better in the darker blues and the medium greens. This is a very rough summary of the differences, as these profiles have irregular shapes.
There are a couple of views of gamut plots for Inkjetart Luster on the Wiki:
[a href=\"http://canonipf.wikispaces.com/Gamut+Plots]http://canonipf.wikispaces.com/Gamut+Plots[/url]
While these plots are interesting, I think the best way to evaluate the differences is to print real images with problem colors on both printers using perceptual rendering intent and then compare those prints to the original image on the monitor to see which produces the most faithful rendering. Unfortunately, this is not a trivial task, and the results may vary depending on the particular images selected.
--John
-
I would submit that wider color gamut doesn’t equate into better color.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161722\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well said! IMO, the best way to judge printer differences is by looking at side by side print samples made with the same profile technology and on the same paper. I take a stack of print samples with me everywhere I go to show my clients. This visual analysis is more valuable then simple chromaticity diagram comparisons, IMO.
Best way to do this would be to compare the same paper (and driver settings ideally) and view the profiles in ColorThink. I used to have an IPF 5000 but gave it a way and while I have a 3800, I don't know that I have profiles of the same papers from each.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161722\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Chromaticity diagrams indicate the results one might see when printing with Relative Colorimetric, but they don't indicate what kinds of results you might see when printing with the intent that most of us here use: Perceptual.
At the workshop I taught with Andy Biggs in Moab last week I showed everyone print samples from Epson K3+vm, Canon 8100 and HP Z3100 on various papers. All of the profiles were made the same way with Monaco Profiler and the prints were printed with Perceptual. We also examined the corresponding chromaticity diagrams. The Epson and Canon iPF comparison was particularly interesting because the chromaticity diagrams suggested that some colors might appear more saturated on the Epson but the visual comparison contradicted this and clearly showed more favorable results on the Canon prints. I'd like to encourage whoever is interested to repeat this test. As far as educating people to make knowledge decisions about printers and papers, I find this to be more valuable than anything else.
-
It's easy to make an assumption that primary inks increase gamut, but it's a little more complex than that. One reality is you can increase gamut in colors that really aren't important.
I've used or still use a canon 5000,6100, epson 3800, 9800 and 11880. Personally I believe the 3800 has better output than the 5000 and the 9800. Output of the 6100 and 3800 are very close, and it will depend on image type and needed color gamut. Most likely you will have areas in prints that are better on each printer, with neither being obviously superior. Thus it comes down to features, such as mk/pk switching, paper handling (roll?), etc. In my case, I would give the edge to the 6100 (the 5100 should produce identical output), but the difference is so slight it takes side by side images of the right type with some very close scrutiny to see differences.
However, you asked about the 5000, and here I believe there is a difference. When using the 5000 you may have problems with grain in some regions (that's why I quit using it), as well as metamerism and gloss differential. I felt the black improvement by canon as well as the screening improvements in the newer canon x100 printer series are pretty significant. The ability for the printer to calibrate itself and maintain a baseline is extremely valuable as well to account for the drift as nozzles clog and are remapped, keeping profiles more accurate over time. Calibration also makes it possible to get better profiles from 3rd parties such as paper manufacturers.
Don't misunderstand .. the 5000 can produce great prints, but if final print quality is your main consideration, the extra cost of the 5100, or a 3800 would be a better choice IMO.
-
This Luminous Landscape review of the Epson 3800 gives a pretty good comparison with the Canon iPF5000. It gives the print quality edge to the Canon (which is the printer I own).
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/...pson-3800.shtml (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/epson-3800.shtml)
There are many other reasons to choose one over the other (the major being roll feed unit) and it all boils down to personal preference.
-
There are many other reasons to choose one over the other (the major being roll feed unit) and it all boils down to personal preference.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162029\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
True, and with the great price available now, I think the IPF5000 has the edge.
-
True, and with the great price available now, I think the IPF5000 has the edge.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162036\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Right up till you factor in the head cost for replacement if you print alot...the Canon has two $600 print heads that will need to be replaced at some point in time after a certain number of prints. So, when doing the math, be sure to factor in an extra $1,200 for the cost of ownership over time.
-
Right up till you factor in the head cost for replacement if you print alot...the Canon has two $600 print heads that will need to be replaced at some point in time after a certain number of prints. So, when doing the math, be sure to factor in an extra $1,200 for the cost of ownership over time.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162046\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I agree that this is a significant issue with the Canon iPF printers. On the other hand, you have to factor in the time/hassle to keep the Epson printers free of clogs. For me, the potential extra cost is worth the lack of hassle with clogs, but I am sure this will vary from person to person, amount of printing done, etc. Also, if you print a combination of PK/MK the the cost of switching inks has to be factored in (or you have to buy a second printer to dedicate to the other black ink).
--John
-
Right up till you factor in the head cost for replacement if you print alot...the Canon has two $600 print heads that will need to be replaced at some point in time after a certain number of prints. So, when doing the math, be sure to factor in an extra $1,200 for the cost of ownership over time.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162046\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The problem with these threads is that they can get to be a bit partisan - it used just to be canon or nikon (now it's leica too!) - I will declare now that I run an IPF5000:)
If image quality is your first concern you must compare all the options, ideally as used by people who know how to get the best from them. There are then other factors to consider which may include some or all of the following - availability of roll feed, costs of black switching, cost of printer, possible future cost of print heads/clearing clogged heads, ease of use etc etc
I bought the 5000 because I wanted roll feed and the ability to switch blacks without pouring lots of ink into the maintenance cartridge. The roll feed has needed repairing twice (at Canon's expense), but otherwise it has performed in an exemplary manner. I don't print so much that I'd expect the heads to have failed yet anyway.
I have a couple of issues with the output centred around bronzing when printing black and white or some coloured images on RC lustre paper. These issues are much reduced on Hahne Photo Rag Pearl. Otherwise I like it. I suspect that if I'd bought the 3800 I'd have liked that as well - any current generation printed would have improved on my previous epson 2100 with Lyson inks I suspect.
At the time, I would have liked to buy an HP Z3100, but couldn't afford the step up to a 24 inch printer. If I had I would more than likely be happy, but there are an awful lot of threads about them on here! Now when I go for a 24 inch printer it will probably be an IPF6100, if only because I know the interface etc.
So, if it is really about output quality then check them all out, but there are other considerations that may be more important - particularly as they are all capable of delivering nice pictures. Whatever you buy, use it and enjoy it.
Mike
-
Also, if you print a combination of PK/MK the the cost of switching inks has to be factored in (or you have to buy a second printer to dedicate to the other black ink).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162052\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
But, the OP was talking about the 3800 which has all nine inks of board and only does a black nozzle switch not a black line switch. That only takes a couple of minutes and about 1-1.5 ML of ink. Not NEARLY the cost factor of replacing two $600 heads. And the 3800 track record on clogging is WAY down over earlier printers which tends to negate that as an issue.
Considering that it takes Canon 12 inks to meet (or very slightly exceed) Epson's 9 ink offering should tell you something about the value of having REAL GOOD cyan, magenta and yellow inks.
You can add red, green and "blue" till you're blue in the face, but the purity of the subtractive primaries is far more important than trying to glom onto the gamut by using alternative ink colors. Epson learned that lesson back when they did the R800 with red and blue inks replacing the light magenta and light cyan. They ended up with only about a 1% gain in total ink volume but at the expense of the highlight gradations in colors.
The only real major factor between the IPF5000 and the 3800 is the lack of the roll feed for the 3800. If you want to print from rolls, that's pretty much game over. Course, correct me if I'm wrong, but that's an additional cost on the Canon?
-
I have to say that there isn't a single printer on the market that is the silver bullet for inkjet printing. All printers have their positives and negatives, and it is up to the buyer to be educated on all of the differences between them.
As far as output quality goes, I believe that we are at a point where most pigment based printers 17-inch and larger have such similar output that the differences are fairly minor. When you start to factor in size, roll paper options, what media you usually print on, black and white quality and overall usability, this is where the differences begin to show up.
At this moment I could be convinced to have an Epson 3800 for my everyday cut sheet printing, a Canon IPF 6100 for moderately sized rolls, and an Epson 11880 for ultra large format. It just depends.
Scott and I had a great workshop a few weeks ago, and seeing the same exact evaluation image printed on different papers was quite valuable for me and for our workshop participants. All profiles were made with the same hardware and software, eliminating variables. And some black and white prints were printed using the supplier's black and white mode, as well as a straight RGB print using their standard printer driver.
What amazed me was how well a custom profile would do on a printer, printing through the RGB driver. There is considerable variability between different media options if you choose to use the supplier's 'Advanced Black and White' mode or equivalent. Huge density shifts from paper to paper.
-
The only real major factor between the IPF5000 and the 3800 is the lack of the roll feed for the 3800. If you want to print from rolls, that's pretty much game over. Course, correct me if I'm wrong, but that's an additional cost on the Canon?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162058\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Only cut out part of your post to save space, but I think that you're right. The main deciding factor between 5000/5100 and 3800 is the roll feed. If you want it you either buy the canon or a 4800 and pay a lot to switch blacks. If not you pays your money and takes your choice.
As to paying extra for the roll feed, I didn't and it does seem to depend on where and when you buy whether canon want you to pay for the unit. It isn't that expensive in any case.
-
Scott and I had a great workshop a few weeks ago, and seeing the same exact evaluation image printed on different papers was quite valuable for me and for our workshop participants.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162060\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
At this stage, it's down to the paper being the single biggest factor in image quality...that and final print sharpening to achieve optimal print detail. Ironically, the head dither is now still a point in favor of the Epson printers. The 3800 (and the 880 series updates) have substantially improved the dither to the point where Epson can outprint the HP and Canons (which use a single droplet size which is larger and less well formed) in the image detail area of evaluation. The Canon and HP are much softer printers when it comes to detail. Which won't be a huge factor printing on watercolor papers but will make a big different in print sharpness in a paper such as the Exhibition Fiber Paper (EFP) from Epson.
-
Jeff, for the dither of the prints, is this a limitation of the print head or is this managed by the driver/firmware of the printer?
-
At this stage, it's down to the paper being the single biggest factor in image quality...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162066\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I totally agree.
-
At this stage, it's down to the paper being the single biggest factor in image quality...that and final print sharpening to achieve optimal print detail. Ironically, the head dither is now still a point in favor of the Epson printers. The 3800 (and the 880 series updates) have substantially improved the dither to the point where Epson can outprint the HP and Canons (which use a single droplet size which is larger and less well formed) in the image detail area of evaluation. The Canon and HP are much softer printers when it comes to detail. Which won't be a huge factor printing on watercolor papers but will make a big different in print sharpness in a paper such as the Exhibition Fiber Paper (EFP) from Epson.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162066\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Jeff, I've never run side by side tests of the impact of droplet size on dither and image sharpness. I had understood that the intent of the variable droplet size was to improve tonal gradation, but if the dither algorithm is able to use this to improve sharpness, or perhaps I should really refer to resolved detail, that would be a positive. On the other hand, it's the full chain including capture that determines the level of detail you can print and that is likely limited by the camera as much as the printer for bigger prints? I would be interested in your experience and view?
I also agree that paper has the biggest impact on image look and quality, and this turns up one of the problems. I use both matte and glossy paper for different images and so the ability to switch is important. Epson really does need to address this issue in it's larger printers and then they will be able to stand fully on their merits.
Mike.
-
Jeff, for the dither of the prints, is this a limitation of the print head or is this managed by the driver/firmware of the printer?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162067\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Print head technology...the recent Epson printers have variable droplet size (down to 1.5 microliters) and can form VERY precise round drops. At a micro-level, the HP's and Canon's droplets look like paint gun splatters...as a result, the Epsons can form more accurate dither patterns and end up resolving greater detail in prints whose paper will hold the detail. Watercolor, not so much. But fine coated gloss (not really even super glossy) can hold a LOT more detail.
But then the other factor is how the images have been sharpened to extract that detail and print it. In that regard, I still see the Epson 3800 as being a superior printer than either Canon or HP–if you print on the right type of media.
-
At this stage, it's down to the paper being the single biggest factor in image quality...[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162066\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Nonetheless, take your favorite paper, Epson, HP and Canon printers, profile them all the same way, make prints with perceptual and see which print you prefer taking under consideration all of these things (color saturation, fine detail, appearance of neutrality, bronzing, metamerism, etc) and see which one you like best. We can debate details until we are blue in the face but viewing prints is more valuable, IMO. I don't see enough people doing this and I think the results might surprise you.
-
make prints with perceptual and see which print you prefer taking under consideration all of these things (color saturation, fine detail, appearance of neutrality, bronzing, metamerism, etc)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162085\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Uh, you should learn to get over that knee-jerk reaction to using a perceptual rendering intent. First off, the intent will be VERY different between different profile making software. Second, it not always the correct intent for an image. In the "old days" some people were claiming that perceptual should be the default rendering for photography, then a guy named Thomas Knoll decided to have relative colormetric as the default rendering intent in Photoshop and those same people came to realize, particularly in these days of wide-gamut inkjet printers, that more often than not, the best rendering intent for an image may well be relcol. But the ONLY way to determine that with any degree of accuracy is soft-proofing.
And therein is the problem with trying to compare apple to oranges...you would need to tweek an image depending on the exact output printer profile and paper. You can't just print out using a custom profile with perceptual as the intent and then pass judgement over the printers. You must OPTIMIZE the images for each printer and THEN make a comparison. People tend to shy away from the extra work involved in that–or don't have the knowledge & experience to tell them that they must.
Ain't nothing simple and easy...if you really know and care about what you are doing.
-
Uh, you should learn to get over that knee-jerk reaction to using a perceptual rendering intent. First off, the intent will be VERY different between different profile making software.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162099\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I have made a huge pile of prints profiling the same printer and paper with nearly every profiling software on the market testing each and every intent and perceptual option for making those profiles. And I have repeated that test on a variety of printers. I have spent a significant chuck of my life doing extensive testing like this so, belive me, there is no knee jerk reaction here.
GMB's PMP profiles show trades off between RelCol and Perceptual that might cause you to use one intent or the other depending on the image content. Adobe's press profiles have such poor perceptual rending that RelCol is pretty universally the way to go there. MonacoProfier's Perceptual rending is IMO, the best game in town and offers the best of many worlds in one profile with one intent for fine art printing (when the profile is made properly - there are other details to discuss there that's I'd rather not get into).
So yes I know extremely well that there are significant differences with Perceptual rending and I also know from my own experience that extremely picky print makers *always* choose MonacoProfiler profiles when shown these differences or when they do their own comparisons. So when I talk about making fine art prints with MP Perceptual I am doing so with this background.
Jeff I like your point about needing to optimize images for different printers. It may be technically impossible to come up with a totally unbiased evaluation image for comparison as some images may unintentionally or otherwise favor one printer or another. Nonetheless, I don't think any attempt to do so is futile. Quite the contrary.
-
Thank you all for posting all of this useful information.
The fact that I have no way to check both printers before choosing one made me more inclined to relay on specs.
Most of you agree that Canon's higher specs, namely 12 inks, do not mount to better prints than Epson's 9 inks.
Under those circumstanses I am inclined to go with the Epson, but I still have one question.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/...n-ipf5000.shtml (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/canon-ipf5000.shtml)
The review above compares the IPF5000 and 4800 color output, which leads me to ask, was the 3800 color out put an improvement over the 4800? Can I expect the 3800 to produce a better blue, like the Canon produces in this review?
Thanks
-
Unless you print a lot of one specific color that one of the big 3 does better than the other 2 I don't see why how a printer produces one particular shade of any color should be a true determinant.
One produces less than stellar reds, the other less than perfect greens, the third's blue is slightly lacking in one instance. All of these printers are capable of making good prints. There is no one brand that is demonstrably better in all circumstances than the others.
If you can't get to a place to examine prints from all 3, you'll just have to do the research and figure out for yourself which set of shortcomings is most negative for your particular needs. All of the big 3 printers have their own problems, and all of them also have their own positives.
I personally wouldn't be concentrating on which has the best all around image quality (because the IQ of all 3 brands is excellent). I would look more closely at which size, cost, operational/reliability factors and 3rd party support best met my needs.
Derek
Thank you all for posting all of this useful information.
The fact that I have no way to check both printers before choosing one made me more inclined to relay on specs.
Most of you agree that Canon's higher specs, namely 12 inks, do not mount to better prints than Epson's 9 inks.
Under those circumstanses I am inclined to go with the Epson, but I still have one question.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/...n-ipf5000.shtml (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/canon-ipf5000.shtml)
The review above compares the IPF5000 and 4800 color output, which leads me to ask, was the 3800 color out put an improvement over the 4800? Can I expect the 3800 to produce a better blue, like the Canon produces in this review?
Thanks
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162491\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Thank you all for posting all of this useful information.
The fact that I have no way to check both printers before choosing one made me more inclined to relay on specs.
Most of you agree that Canon's higher specs, namely 12 inks, do not mount to better prints than Epson's 9 inks.
Under those circumstanses I am inclined to go with the Epson, but I still have one question.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/...n-ipf5000.shtml (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/canon-ipf5000.shtml)
The review above compares the IPF5000 and 4800 color output, which leads me to ask, was the 3800 color out put an improvement over the 4800? Can I expect the 3800 to produce a better blue, like the Canon produces in this review?
Thanks
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162491\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
As far as your first question, I personally feel my 3800 exceeds the 4800 and 9800 printers (that I no longer own) in many areas, although as with any other comparison of these top end printers, it takes side by side comparison of a pretty varied test print to see differences.
As far as the second question, the comments you are referring to in that article about the canon blues being "more" blue, while interesting, I do not believe have a bearing in a good color managed workflow. Both Epson and Canon printers can produce terrific blues, and side by side prints are virtually identical in the blues when using good profiles, even in an artificially created color ramp.
Interestingly enough, even though the ipf6100 has primary blue ink, the Epson 11880 has a larger gamut in the blues and the greens. I say this not in criticism, because the 6100 is a terrific printer. It just surprised be when I profiled my 6100 and 11880.
-
Interestingly enough, even though the ipf6100 has primary blue ink, the Epson 11880 has a larger gamut in the blues and the greens. I say this not in criticism, because the 6100 is a terrific printer. It just surprised be when I profiled my 6100 and 11880.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162597\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Not at all surprising...when printing ink on paper, you're living in the subtractive primaries world and that's where the quality and refinements of cyan, magenta and yellow ink tells all.
Epson found out themselves that simply adding a red and blue ink won't do a lot for much for total VOLUME of colors when they released the R800/R1800 that added red and blue inks with a gloss optimiser instead of light magenta. light cyan inks. Total volume of color went up a whopping 1-1.5% (at the expense of loosing some important highlight textural gradients).
That's why Epson concentrates on improving their cyan, magenta and yellow inks instead of playing around with adding red, green and blue inks–which really, seriously don't offer a lot when you factor everything in. The fact is, it takes Canon and HP 12 inks to basically match the total volume of color of Epson (K3 with Vivid Magenta) and that's because the real differences in the purity of cyan, magenta and yellow inks are what allow you to create the additive primaries of red, green and blue colors. It's pretty hard to fight physics...
The purity of the subtractive primaries plus the densities of the deep color (dark magenta and dark cyan) play a much larger role in total gamut of color than adding relatively wimpy red, green and blue inks.
Epson tried that route and discovered that additive primaries ain't gonna get you much. So, they've concentrated in other directions...we'll see those results in the future (but the 11880 is just the tip of the iceberg).
:~)
-
Epson tried that route and discovered that additive primaries ain't gonna get you much. So, they've concentrated in other directions...we'll see those results in the future (but the 11880 is just the tip of the iceberg).
:~)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162621\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Wow... what a tip it is. I can't wait to see what's coming.
-
Hey, that is a great post, and does a lot to help answer the questions that have been rolling around in my mind for a while now regarding the efficacy of the 12 ink printers vs the Epson 8 color printers. I never quite understood why the 12 ink printers weren't able to eclipse the 8 ink Epsons before.
Epson found out themselves that simply adding a red and blue ink won't do a lot for much for total VOLUME of colors when they released the R800/R1800 that added red and blue inks with a gloss optimiser instead of light magenta. light cyan inks. Total volume of color went up a whopping 1-1.5% (at the expense of loosing some important highlight textural gradients).
:~)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162621\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Interestingly enough, even though the ipf6100 has primary blue ink, the Epson 11880 has a larger gamut in the blues and the greens. I say this not in criticism, because the 6100 is a terrific printer. It just surprised be when I profiled my 6100 and 11880.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162597\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The chromaticity diagrams led me to the same conclusion and surprised me as well when I initially compared these printers. But when I profiled them both the same way and made prints with PMP's Colorful and MP's perceptual intent I visually saw something that contradicts the chromaticity diagrams. Prints from x100 printers made this way show superior reds, greens, blues and magentas as well as smoother transitions in the granger rainbow. These results seem to suggest that the additional RGB inks do have a positive influence in final print quality that the chromaticity diagrams do not suggest. I have done this comparison over and over at various fine art printing shops. Wayne are you seeing the same thing? Chromaticity diagrams can actually be misleading when it comes to determining fine art print quality and color saturation characteristics.
HP's primary inks - especially the red and green aren't very saturated at all and along with the driver's poor ink mixing don't contribute to expanded gamut as well as Canon's solution. HP has a real asset with the market's only large format gloss enhancer though.
And kudos to Epson for doing more with less. Epson's route does translate into being able to have an extra set of inks around for less initial cost which helps cash flow. That should also help keep their manufacturing costs down. Although I know some R1800 owners that have longed to see that inkset go to large format, I think Epson has a made a a smart decision to more forward with a single 9 color inkset.
Again, I don't think this should be a brand vs brand debate - more a celebration and *evenly balanced recognition* of the differences. The marketplace is diverse and each of these solutions have advantages to different types of users.
-
Right up till you factor in the head cost for replacement if you print alot...the Canon has two $600 print heads that will need to be replaced at some point in time after a certain number of prints. So, when doing the math, be sure to factor in an extra $1,200 for the cost of ownership over time.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162046\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I bought 2 (iPF 5000's) for this reason
Marc
-
Thanks to Scott Martin for informing me about this thread.
The Gamutvision program (which I wrote) can answer many of the questions in this thread about printer color response and color gamut. I can only touch on its many features now. There is far more detail in http://www.gamutvision.com (http://www.gamutvision.com) .
Essentially, printer color gamut and response is a function of the RGB working color space, the rendering intent, and the printer ICC profile, assuming that the profile correctly represents printer response. And profiles tend to be quite good in that regard; if they don't represent printer response correctly prints look awful; such profiles are quickly rejected.
Rendering intents, on the other hand, don't always perform according to the textbook explanations. I wrote Gamutvision in part to explore how they really work. You can quickly change from Perceptual to Rel Col & back and see the precise differences.
Gamutvision lets you explore the effects of all three factors-- working color space, rendering intent, and printer profile. It has a staggering number of displays that allow you to view not only the color gamut (the extreme boundary of color response), but the response of unsaturated colors and color differences (Delta-E, Delta-E 94, and many more). Displays are in 2D and rotatable 3D L*a*b*, xy, and uv spaces. (Tonal response is also displayed.) "Chromaticity diagram" usually refers to the 2D xy "horseshoe" curve, which is an extremely limited and distorted representation of color response. Despite its popularity it doesn't come close to characterizing printer color response.
By examining profiles, you should see that going from 8 to 12 inks may have only a minor effect on gamut (Gamutvision calculates the L*a*b* volume)-- it may have more effect on highlight tonality, which is an important (and underappreciated) aspect of digital print quality.
About the only limitation of Gamutvision is that it doesn't work in native Macintosh mode. (It would be rather complex.) It runs very well on Intel Macs that have Windows installed.
-
If you want to get a bit geeky about profiles and talk about gamut's, its important to understand that the output profile has to make a guess about the source color space for this mapping. That is, by the time most profiles (all Version 2) get the data to convert into an output color space, they are handed (usually) Lab data. They don't know if the actual source data was sRGB or ProPhoto RGB (anything in between). The individual creation profile software does place this assumption of a space in the profile and each company does these conversions using their own idea of what's an ideal mapping of colors. You could plot two profiles to two identical printers (Canon and Epson) but use two different software products to build the profiles and get quite different results. And in some packages, there are various settings to build a Perceptual table (again, altering many of the assumptions about the source as well as building in special alterations to the gamut mapping). V4 profiles should hopefully make this a little more clear to the profiles but that's far from widespread in use today.
Looking at gamuts is sometimes useful. But today, I suspect more users are getting caught up in looking at geek stuff, putting far too much emphasis on these plots. This is happening with Histograms too. In the old days, few users knew or cared about histograms, now some are downright anal about them, even when they think what they are looking at what represents the data when its not. Like Gamut plots, a histogram can be useful. But sometimes, just looking at two prints from two printers (of the same RGB original) tells you far more in far less time with far less geek speak.
-
Interesting info on this thread. Not quite sure what to believe and who's talking from a brand loyalty perspective vs. observation.
Wondering if Schewe has actually worked with the new 5100/6100 Canons or just the older models as he seems quite confident in Epsons superiority.
Personally I am quite aware of the superiority of Epson's deeper warm tones especially a wonderful red that I used to get from my 9600 vs my current ipf8000 (on canvas.) Not that the ipf is lacking in reds like the HP but Epson has deep reds covered. That happens to be a color that really adds to an image when done right and Epson does it so well with mixing instead of primaries. Cool.
That said I will never buy an Epson that forces me to change inks. I wont buy the 9800 or the 9880 or even the 3800. I just don't have that kind of paitence to deal with what I feel was the worst decision in printer history (ink swaps.) That said the 11880 seems like a really great printer, but Epson I'm sure, will hold to their extreemly rigid and high pricing as Canon with it's 9100 in my opinion offers a better value in the 60+ category.
I don't want to hear about ink heads as a reason not to go with Canon as my ipf8000 has done 8000sq/ft with not an issue out of the heads. I doubt anyone with the 5100/6100 line will do that much before desiring a new technology.
I am very interested in the point regarding color graidents and the possible advantage of 12 inks. I would bet an advantage in this area would be very slight and hard to detect?
I use the R1800 with MIS bulk inks for some rough proofing work etc and I can say first hand that the dithering pattern (size of dots) is much better than the ipf5,6,8,9000 line, however this only matters on small prints like 4x6, 5x7 where very close examination is made. So I am also very interested in the improvement of the 5,6,8,9100 series of printer in this regard, as it sounds like there has been an improvement.
I'm just blown away by the value of the Canon printers with the discounts they offer to customers with their LF upgrade discounts. I can't think of a better printer to have in the 16-17 inch range than the ipf5100 and there is no way I would buy a Epson 3800 over it. 3800 over the 5000? Only for it's better drop size but I personally wouldn't buy a printer without a roll feed. That's like removing the blades from a swiss army knife.
If the OP is making profit from his prints ink prices may not matter but I'm thinking the edge has to go to Canon here. Also can you say "Canon Heavyweight Photo Satin" anyone? For the money has anyone found something better? I'll take it over Epson luster any day. Cheaper, thicker and better IMO.
-
Interesting info on this thread. Not quite sure what to believe and who's talking from a brand loyalty perspective vs. observation.
Wondering if Schewe has actually worked with the new 5100/6100 Canons or just the older models as he seems quite confident in Epsons superiority.
Personally I am quite aware of the superiority of Epson's deeper warm tones especially a wonderful red that I used to get from my 9600 vs my current ipf8000 (on canvas.) Not that the ipf is lacking in reds like the HP but Epson has deep reds covered. That happens to be a color that really adds to an image when done right and Epson does it so well with mixing instead of primaries. Cool.
That said I will never buy an Epson that forces me to change inks. I wont buy the 9800 or the 9880 or even the 3800. I just don't have that kind of paitence to deal with what I feel was the worst decision in printer history (ink swaps.) That said the 11880 seems like a really neat idea but Epson, I'm sure will hold to their extreemly rigid and high pricing as Canon with it's 9100 in my opinion offers a better value in the 60+ category.
I don't want to hear about ink heads as a reason not to go with Canon as my ipf8000 has done 8000sq/ft with not an issue out of the heads. I doubt anyone with the 5100/6100 line will do that much before desiring a new technology.
I am very interested in the point regarding color graidents and the possible advantage of 12 inks. I would bet an advantage in this area would be very slight and hard to detect?
I use the R1800 with MIS bulk inks for some rough proofing work etc and I can say first hand that the dithering pattern (size of dots) is much better than the ipf5,6,8,9000 line, however this only matters on small prints like 4x6, 5x7 where very close examination is made. So I am also very interested in the improvement of the 5,6,8,9100 series of printer in this regard, as it sounds like there has been an improvement.
I'm just blown away by the value of the Canon printers with the discounts they offer to customers with their LF upgrade discounts. I can't think of a better printer to have in the 16-17 inch range than the ipf5100 and there is no way I would buy a Epson 3800 over it. 5000? Only for it's better drop size but I personally wouldn't buy a printer without a roll feed. That's like removing the blades from a swiss army knife.
If the OP is making profit from his prints ink prices may not matter but I'm thinking the edge has to go to Canon here. Also can you say "Canon Heavyweight Photo Satin" anyone? For the money has anyone found something better? I'll take it over Epson luster any day. Cheaper, thicker and better IMO.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163117\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The printer will be for personal use. You make very good points, and you are absolutely correct on pricing. Specs wise, Canon offers much more for much less than Epson.
That's the type of information I was hoping to read before making a decision. One question though. What is the the LF discount system that you refrenced half way through your replay?
Thanks
-
LF=Large Format. Canon offers discounts to people who can provide the serial number of any large format printer (over 16 inches I think) as verification that they are upgrading. They sometimes offer a thousand or thousands of dollars off of their printers with this program.
For example I think the ipf8100 (44 inch printer) is available for $3800/free shipping from one vendor I know of. This is an incredible price! I don't think there is a better value to be had anywhere.
-Jonathan
What is the the LF discount system that you refrenced half way through your replay?
Thanks
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163136\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]