Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: pprachun on April 28, 2008, 04:43:12 pm
-
For those of you wondering why the discounts on the present Epson 7880 & 9880 printers -- the new 7900 & 9900! 'bout bloody time I say.
http://www.dimagemaker.com/article.php?articleID=1329 (http://www.dimagemaker.com/article.php?articleID=1329)
-
And the million dollar question is are both blacks finally online together?
For those of you wondering why the discounts on the present Epson 7880 & 9880 printers -- the new 7900 & 9900! 'bout bloody time I say.
http://www.dimagemaker.com/article.php?articleID=1329 (http://www.dimagemaker.com/article.php?articleID=1329)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192353\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I'm assuming this is the trickle down technology from the 11880? Wish there was more information. Guess we have to wait.
-
I'm assuming this is the trickle down technology from the 11880? Wish there was more information. Guess we have to wait.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192377\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If this is accurate it appears they are doing more than just trickling down the 11880 technology (although I'm sure that's also a part of it), since the 11880 is only 9 inks.
At least with 10 inks they should finally be able to end the PK/MK issue. (at least for 24" and larger printers").
-
Damn, they removed the article, what did it say?
-
Damn, they removed the article, what did it say?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192411\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It said they will be announced at DRUPA, whatever that is.
Jon
-
Well, in the mean time, how about a musical interlude? Here is the 2008 official Drupa theme song:
http://www.messe-duesseldorf.de/drupa08/media/drupa_2008.mp3 (http://www.messe-duesseldorf.de/drupa08/media/drupa_2008.mp3)
-
Well, in the mean time, how about a musical interlude? Here is the 2008 official Drupa theme song:
http://www.messe-duesseldorf.de/drupa08/media/drupa_2008.mp3 (http://www.messe-duesseldorf.de/drupa08/media/drupa_2008.mp3)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192413\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Man!... from now on, that's my new ringtone
-
Drupa is 29 May to 11 June, 2008 in Germany.
-
Damn, they removed the article, what did it say?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=192411\")
FWIW I'm keeping track of this one, on one of my 'rumours' pages, although with the info pulled down it seems to have a firmer status ;-)
[a href=\"http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/printers/epson9900-7900.html]Epson 9900/7900 info[/url]
-
It would be wonderful to hear rumor of a new 10 ink Epson 4900 printer, but I guess we will all have wait even still longer for that one.
Joe
-
FWIW I'm keeping track of this one, on one of my 'rumours' pages, although with the info pulled down it seems to have a firmer status ;-)
Epson 9900/7900 info (http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/printers/epson9900-7900.html)
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=192431\")
Keith,
You suggested a gloss enhancer as the channel to round off to ten but there's also the possibility that the two cyans are replaced by one and the two channels left then become red and green or blue. There once was a Canon inkjet with two yellows. It remains a guess what set of inks we will see in the end. Gloss enhancer like the Z3100 already has is the most likely candidate as it really makes a difference and it wouldn't stir up any color management in the Epson environment.
Ernst Dinkla
Try: [a href=\"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/[/url]
-
Come on! They don't have any choice. Epson has drug their feet for years and years and if they don't have instant MK to PK switching now they might as well get out of the business altogether. They'll probably copy HP and offer a glop too and advertise that it is their idea. The other BIG thing that they will do is dump those brown grey channels and Finally offer a neutral black and greys. I know from working with the Z that it makes all the difference in the world ( unless you like loading up your monochrome inks with cyan and fighting neutrality and color crossover in the highlights).
john
And the million dollar question is are both blacks finally online together?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192360\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
They'll probably copy HP and offer a glop too and advertise that it is their idea.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192573\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, isn’t it Epson’s idea then? I thought Epson had a gloss enhancer cartridge on the R800 already four years ago, long before any HP I’m aware of. But I could be wrong.
-
Well, isn’t it Epson’s idea then? I thought Epson had a gloss enhancer cartridge on the R800 already four years ago, long before any HP I’m aware of. But I could be wrong.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192645\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Quite right. That and the R1800. Somehow Epson thought that it was not a good idea for pro printers.
BTW, those printers used blue and red primaries ink also. I believe Epson still thinks that is not a good idea (and they might well be right).
-
I'd like to see a replacement for the Epson 3800 as I'm outgrowing my R2400.
Bud
http://www.budjamesphotography.com (http://www.budjamesphotography.com)
-
Quite right. That and the R1800. Somehow Epson thought that it was not a good idea for pro printers.
BTW, those printers used blue and red primaries ink also. I believe Epson still thinks that is not a good idea (and they might well be right).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192650\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If they really thought that way then pro printers using Epson are simply missing out on what is a great thing. It works well on the R1800 and now the 1900, and works very well on the Z printers up to 44". The method is different, and the Z has different needs, but the Z also does it in a way that is destined for pro prints for display.
The Epson has a very good gamut all around, and touches areas in the shadows that both HP and Canon cannot. Yet both Canon and HP touch light saturated colours better and farther out than any Epson do with the 8/9 ink systems. HP chose a foliage light green that is wonderful for landscapes. Canon chose a super red gamut that is great for city scape scenes. In that aspect both HP and Canon have colours that just cannot be achieved by the current Epson inksets.
Anyone who is serious has to avoid total belief in marketing from any of the companies, and read into the truths here or other forums.
The playing field is open now , and there is room for all three for prints for sale, gallery, artwork, poster etc. All are good, any one can be a targeted intelligent purchase with the right needs/ compromises made with pre-sales info. The OP made a good choice based on his needs, experiences, not on marketing stuff like "we don't need extra colours" which will be worn thin soon enough.
-
The Epson has a very good gamut all around, and touches areas in the shadows that both HP and Canon cannot. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192827\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
With what profiles? I haven't quite found that to be true. I have found the Canon's to be a champ in the shadows and the Z series to be the clear loser in this area.
Here's a test for everyone. Start with a good evaluation image with a granger rainbow, solid color ramps, skin tones, low key imagery and preferably a fall colors shot. Make a set of evaluation prints made both with RelCol and Perceptual using each manufacturer's profiles on the same paper on each printer. Then profile all three brand of printers with the same profiling technology (which necessary for a fair comparison of the inksets). And then make another set of prints on each printer using the same paper with both RelCol and Perceptual.
You'll notice that the RelCol prints show you exactly what the gamut plots indicate. But the Perceptual prints are a different story. If you use ColorVision, PMP Logo Colorful or MP sat+50 profiles you'll see considerably more apparent saturation in the granger rainbow and solid color patches (like R=0 G=255 B=0). You may also notice that the Peceptual prints may *directly contradict* what the gamut plots suggest. The gamut plot may suggest that Epson has the green advantage for example but 10 out of 10 photographers will agree (and I have done such a blind test) that Canon's produce the more desirable and visually saturated green when printed with perceptual using profiles made from the above applications.
I have found Canon to have the advantage for deep greens and blues over the other brands when printed this way. I have also found dark, fall colors photos show more saturation and detail on Canon's when printed in this way. Canon's reds were the best of the three before Epson's K3+vm inkset came out, and Epson's deep magenta and reds are now superior.
I also think its revealing to print a nozzle check and compare each of the inks by themselves. HP's red for example is a joke - a pale orange. Canon's RGB primary inks along with smarter driver ink mixing and on-board 12 bit handling are doing more to expand the gamut and smooth out granger rainbows. Epson's inkset, on the other hand, does quite an impressive job considering the lack of additive primary inks. Epson's high gloss inksets that do have additive primary inks clearly show impressive gains due to those inks so it would be fun to see Epson match HP and Canon's lead in the large format arena.
I totally agree that each inkset is uniquely capable of hitting different gamut areas. Saying that one inkset results in a larger gamut than another inkset would be an (all too common) oversimplification. I would strongly encourage anyone to perform the test mentioned above and weigh the visual results above any misleading gamut plots or anything else when making decisions about what printer to buy. As Neal said, ignore the marketing, forum and expert's hype (all three are typically biased) and do your own tests.
-
On all the profiles (Bill Atkinson profiles, APS Z frm V5, Canon 5000 profiles given to me) I looked at in the bottom end of the L*a*b* locust Epson had more colour information in the lowest ranges of the L* levels. Does the newer x100 Canon inkset have more in the shadows than the older inkset? Both HP and Canon fall back rapidly to a neutral in the deep shadows due to in most part GCR.
In any subjective tests what viewers see as better than the other often surprises me. What I look for in bright greens is realism, not flash.
I have done many lab tests on subjective tests on all three printers but not having all three , nor having the chance to print out with the same care I would have used, as you you do could have a disadvantage to it, such as if the person printing used 16 bit on the Canon or not.
Bill Atkinson's test image has some green fern areas that tell a lot about what all three can do. Objectively one can map these colours, subjectively will be up to the viewer to decide their preferences. Since no analogue printers ever printed these colours before, who knows what is "right", yet for me realism is what I think is best.
-
I also think its revealing to print a nozzle check and compare each of the inks by themselves. HP's red for example is a joke - a pale orange.
Canon's RGB primary inks along with smarter driver ink mixing and on-board 12 bit handling are doing more to expand the gamut and smooth out granger rainbows. Epson's inkset, on the other hand, does quite an impressive job considering the lack of additive primary inks. Epson's high gloss inksets that do have additive primary inks clearly show impressive gains due to those inks so it would be fun to see Epson match HP and Canon's lead in the large format arena.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192886\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well perhaps HP should have called the inks for what they are. I believe marketing , one time again, changed the eng, and science dept. correctly named Orange, Violet, Green.
So rightly so the Red is Orange. It is not a flou orange either.
Profiles go a long way in smoothing out Granger rainbows. Since you have Monaco, other than Argyll, that is the best you can get. The colour maps of the printer should be as linear as possible. Canon uses 2 extra bits in the plug in to it's advantage for the extended inkset. Epson do not need 12 bit processing at this point. HAs anyone seen a difference with the new 16 bit drivers on the 11880 between 8>16 bit?
HP could do better with colour maps, and or a user customizable mapping, also with a higher bit screening as Canon do.
In theory now that Vista and 10.5 are out the plug-in (rip) approach are no longer needed as they can process images at high bit at OS level, including screening.
When I tested it ImagePrint had better control on the Granger rainbows than the HP drivers. I have no idea if they finished IP for HP but hope they did.
-
On all the profiles (Bill Atkinson profiles, APS Z frm V5, Canon 5000 profiles given to me) I looked at in the bottom end of the L*a*b* locust Epson had more colour information in the lowest ranges of the L* levels. Does the newer x100 Canon inkset have more in the shadows than the older inkset[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192894\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Gotta profile them all the same way using the same device to be fair. And yes the black and grey inks are different on the iPF x100 inks which bring a number of advantages including DMax.
Both HP and Canon fall back rapidly to a neutral in the deep shadows due to in most part GCR.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192894\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's not what I'm seeing based on actual prints. I like to look carefully at the bottom portion of the granger rainbow when deep colors fade into black. Many processes go neutral before hitting black but iPF prints do an excellent job maintaining color down there (again with the right profiles).In any subjective tests what viewers see as better than the other often surprises me. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192894\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I agree - that can be really educational. But when large groups of people are unanimous about something that's different. Bill Atkinson's test image has some green fern areas that tell a lot about what all three can do. Objectively one can map these colours, subjectively will be up to the viewer to decide their preferences. Since no analogue printers ever printed these colours before, who knows what is "right", yet for me realism is what I think is best.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192894\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
When it comes to skin tones I can compare prints under high quality lighting or daylight to the person photographed and see better matching with some profiles over others. PMP and EOM profiles, for example, put a little too much pink or magenta in the skin tones even though the gray balance is fine. Photo labs are really good at picking this out and every time I hear about a lab complaining about 'pink' or 'fleshy' skin tones its a red flag that they are using either PMP or EOM profiles.
I also deal with designers and print shops with Pantone spot color matching. When I take out the spectro and compare the Pantone color book samples to inkjet reproductions made with various profiles, I consistently find the MP profiles to provide the lowest (best) Delta E variances. So this is a quantitative way of confirming what I am seeing visually.
Canon uses 2 extra bits in the plug in to it's advantage for the extended inkset.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192894\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
12bit minus 8 bits equals a 4 bit differential right? 4 more bits requires substantially more processing power on the printer. Since Canon makes their own chips perhaps they felt that could push the envelope while everyone else was using on-board 8 bit processing? Canon told me that their tests showed 12 bits to be the sweet spot for quality and demands on processing power.
Epson do not need 12 bit processing at this point. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192894\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Says who? Their granger rainbows could be a little smoother. I'm being crazy picky when I say this - this type of small detail would probably be lost to the general public.
Has anyone seen a difference with the new 16 bit drivers on the 11880 between 8>16 bit?[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192894\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No. Sending 16 bits to the printer doesn't matter much if the on-board processing is limited to 8bits. Since the IPF printers have on-board 12 bit processing you can see a subtle difference between sending 8 and 16 bit data to the printer (this effects smoothness, not gamut of course). On the Epson no. Epson has been asked what their on-board processing bit depth is but their silence and the results seem to suggest that it is 8. I'd certainly love to hear and see otherwise.
In theory now that Vista and 10.5 are out the plug-in (rip) approach are no longer needed as they can process images at high bit at OS level, including screening.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192894\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
What us end users think of as "screening" and what the engineers talk about as screening are two different things. There are several things that happen that effect the dot appearance and placement on the page. Let's just say that when any OEM driver is used (any with most RIPs) the real "heavy lifting" (what the engineers call dot masking and multi color conversions) is done on the printer's on-board processor. Canon's 12 bit LCOA chip is said to have the advantage but I won't be surprised if we start seeing HP and Epson marketing talking about new on-board processing capabilities on future printers, should they catch up.
-
The screening for HP is done at 8 bit for the Z and 16 bit for the 9180. Bit depth for screening is not the same as image bit depth. Epson it's done in the printer, I have no idea on their actual bit depth of masking. I think it is hard to argue that the finesse of the Epson screening is extremely fine, and efficient. In fact it is too real for many of us used to film, press dots etc.
I didn't ask what the processor ASIC has in bit depth but if the new 11880 16 bit drivers produce visual differences.
The reasons of the mild clipping in Epson drivers is not at all bit depth of masking but a decision of pleasing contrast and sharpness. Easy enough to see if you use GutenPrint to run a raw plot.
You are combining a lot of things that are related to total output to visual response to Granger rainbows. I use the most tools as indicators and thus don't have as much conviction as your might due to the variability of the tests I worked on and will work on in the future.
Do you have some documentation on Canon using 12 or 10 bit for masking. I haven't seen any yet, but an awful lot of assumptions either way. When I asked Canon engineers from Japan, they just wouldn't say. Others such as John Panazzo asked too, same they didn't want to say. At least HP is clear and told me quite a bit about the masking other things that are confidential; of course.
Although one would quickly assume that higher bit processing to be an advantage, fact is it is required for performance within the hardware set up to perform at it's optimum , which in the case of Canon is a good thing. Yet assuming the same for other systems is not true until proven , and that, is something that would be for R&D to do.
I don't know what EOM profiles are. OEM? PMP is decidedly different in skin tone repro. I think Monaco is too yellow for my taste, too yellow for a lot of printers too. In the fashion /beauty world and or Asiatic side a brighter magenta is definitely the side you want to be on. The number of times press runs are credited back to the big names have most often been skin tones being too yellow, too dark etc. Considering the Logo guys and girls are over here, I think the skin tones they look to are pointed towards the look pros are looking for. If the labs there are having enormous problems with skin tones I question their source images more than PMP.
We're getting too far off topic though , as all of us have preferences as well as differences in perception/vision. I have always loved discussing these subtleties! Just a note on large groups> there was one image in a lab test with a girl in a bathing suit (hmmm my type of image for testing/ eval !) that unanimously ( a lot of pro photogs) was better on the Epson than Canon or HP. The skin tones were yellower, redder and more saturated, the bathing suit much richer in red and darker thus higher local contrast. Thing is , the perfectly calibrated screen, L*a*b* eyedropper readouts, and Canon and HP ( HP was better) prints were the correct match.
-
Do you have some documentation on Canon using 12 or 10 bit for masking. I haven't seen any yet, but an awful lot of assumptions either way. When I asked Canon engineers from Japan, they just wouldn't say. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193128\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I have an excellent iPF engineer contact at Canon that I talk with at great length with about these issues. The current processor is 12 bits and they have elaborately explained their testing and why they choose 12bits. Should I see you at a trade show I'd be happy to introduce you if he is there.
PMP is decidedly different in skin tone repro. I think Monaco is too yellow for my taste, too yellow for a lot of printers too. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193128\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
In what way did you conduct these PMP vs MP evaluations? How many printers are we talking about about and what type of printers? What did they think about the gray balance differences? Were the prints viewed under daylight?
Measure the skin tones, measure the screen and measure the prints and look for the lowest Delta E variation. I find MP to offer significantly lower delta e variances. It's often not a matter of which one you prefer it's a matter of which one is more accurate.
As far as personal preference goes we may have to agree to disagree. :-] And that's fine! I've shown PMP and MP print comparisons (using the color and B&W evaluation images on my website as well as their own all viewed under daylight) to over 20 pro photo labs (in North America, Australia and Europe) over the last 16 months and every single one has chosen the MP prints.
I don't know what EOM profiles are.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193128\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
OEM= Original Equipment Manufacturer. OEM profiles would be the profiles that are installed along with a printer driver. Some OEM profiles are better that others!
Just a note on large groups> there was one image in a lab test with a girl in a bathing suit (hmmm my type of image for testing/ eval !) that unanimously ( a lot of pro photogs) was better on the Epson than Canon or HP. The skin tones were yellower, redder and more saturated, the bathing suit much richer in red and darker thus higher local contrast. Thing is , the perfectly calibrated screen, L*a*b* eyedropper readouts, and Canon and HP ( HP was better) prints were the correct match.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193128\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
OK, you've got to clarify your methodology when making statements like that. What steps were taken to ensure the test was fair? How were the three printers profiled? What paper was used? Did you measure the original objects photographed and the final prints and compare Delta E variances? Was the preferred print less accurate than another? Why don't you tell us where we can get that image so we can repeat this test?
p.s. Great discussion with you Neil!
-
p.s. Great discussion with you Neil!
Great info Scott & Neil.
THANK YOU!
-
there was one image in a lab test with a girl in a bathing suit (hmmm my type of image for testing/ eval !) that unanimously ( a lot of pro photogs) was better on the Epson than Canon or HP. The skin tones were yellower, redder and more saturated, the bathing suit much richer in red and darker thus higher local contrast. Thing is , the perfectly calibrated screen, L*a*b* eyedropper readouts, and Canon and HP ( HP was better) prints were the correct match.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193128\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I've seen situations in which people preferred the PMP prints over MP prints but it was because the image needed color correction. The MP print was more accurate but the PMP profile applied the warming of the skin tones that the poorly corrected file needed. Again, talking about what is more accurate vs. what is preferred can be dangerous. And when it comes to screen matching the software used to calibrate these display is important. GMB profiles (PMP and EOM) put too much pink in the skin tones on screen as well. You actually do get better when GMB printer and display profiles are used but when you go back to the original objects that were photographed it becomes obvious that the skin tones are more pink than the original. If someone is calibrating their display with either PMP or EOM try calibrating your display with BasICColor or CEDP and take another look at those skin tones, contrast and print matching.
-
DRUPA starts tomorrow, so do we expect the rumored new Epson models to be announced tomorrow?
-
DRUPA starts tomorrow, so do we expect the rumored new Epson models to be announced tomorrow?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=198592\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Very soon, probably : I've received a spam from Epson Europe a few days ago simply stating that some new Epson thing will come out there.
-
Very soon, probably : I've received a spam from Epson Europe a few days ago simply stating that some new Epson thing will come out there.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=198596\")
There will be the wide format ecosolvent model that has been announced before and two office inkjet models, both four color Durabrite with big carts that look like the same model the 9800 uses. Max. print size A4 though.
[a href=\"http://www.letsgodigital.org/nl/18965/epson-b-500dn/]http://www.letsgodigital.org/nl/18965/epson-b-500dn/[/url]
http://www.insidehw.com/Editorials/Events/...our-Vision.html (http://www.insidehw.com/Editorials/Events/EPSON-Exceed-Your-Vision.html)
Few English pages on them so I guess it is more for the European market.
No news in the Dutch press on new wide formats though.
Ernst Dinkla
Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/)
-
http://www.bluelinemedia.com.au/news-archi...-7900-and-9900/ (http://www.bluelinemedia.com.au/news-archive/drupa-news-epson-launches-stylus-pro-7900-and-9900/)
http://www.xrite.com/company_press_room.aspx?News=515 (http://www.xrite.com/company_press_room.aspx?News=515)
-
So they add orange and green and an optional spectro. No mention of Mk/Pk.
http://www.bluelinemedia.com.au/news-archi...-7900-and-9900/ (http://www.bluelinemedia.com.au/news-archive/drupa-news-epson-launches-stylus-pro-7900-and-9900/)
http://www.xrite.com/company_press_room.aspx?News=515 (http://www.xrite.com/company_press_room.aspx?News=515)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=198762\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Finally! I knew about some of the testing on these (very little) and have to say this is going to make a huge difference to art printing, and packaging proofing.
The feature set is what should have been in the Z series, built in Fogra strip reading, spot colours, verification.
The only thing I think is sad is Epson's way of saying that they didn't need extra colours, nor a built in spectro. Here's the proof in literal terms of why, now the users will have what makes the Z series what it is with the traditional quality of Epson.
Nice.
-
Hmmm, no price info, does anyone have a guess? I am on the verge of giving my credit card for a Z3100. Now I'm wondering if I should wait a bit...
-
Well, this seems to be what I've been waiting for. No excuse for me not to spend the money on a 44" Epson now.
Availability is supposed to be late spring. Sooner than I'd expected, though the increased competition may be a factor here.
Here's where I read about the availability:
http://www.print21online.com/supporters/epson/ (http://www.print21online.com/supporters/epson/)
Kind Regards,
Mike
-
Hmmm, no price info, does anyone have a guess? I am on the verge of giving my credit card for a Z3100. Now I'm wondering if I should wait a bit...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=198784\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Take a close look at what your needs are. If the price of the Z is really in line with what you need then it's still a very capable printer.
If there are certain things that you would hope be improved, then wait a bit. A new released printer will always cost more, but it can be justified when improvements are added.
I don't have any major points with the Z , nor Epson, nor Canon in the current series.
But just as Epson did , there is no reason why there won't be other releases too in the other's camps.
-
No doubt big news and nice advances for Epson. I did enjoy that Epson now thinks that linearization is something that needs to be done and not just once at the factory and its good for the life of the printer.
Epson's optional integrated spectrophotometer with mounting device uses the latest X-rite technology to provide automatic colour measurement data to the printer, allowing user profiling and linearisation, enabling professional colour management while at the same time reducing labour costs.
-
That link says: "Matte black is also included on-board and can be auto-switched with photo black."
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
-
Take a close look at what your needs are. If the price of the Z is really in line with what you need then it's still a very capable printer.
If there are certain things that you would hope be improved, then wait a bit. A new released printer will always cost more, but it can be justified when improvements are added.
I don't have any major points with the Z , nor Epson, nor Canon in the current series.
But just as Epson did , there is no reason why there won't be other releases too in the other's camps.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=198794\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yeah, it's hard to buy existing technology right after a new model is released. The Z, I'm sure is much cheaper than the new Epson will be. I think I just need to wait for some reviews so I can look at the pros/cons of both.
-
Yep, I saw that too in Mike's link. Looks like a great overall feature set. Maybe I can convince my boss to replace the proofer this year
That link says: "Matte black is also included on-board and can be auto-switched with photo black."
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=198797\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
That link says: "Matte black is also included on-board and can be auto-switched with photo black."
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=198797\")
Which suggests more a 3800 solution than a 11880 solution. No gloss enhancer on-board as more of us expected instead of the green and orange ink. With the emphasis on proof printing in the spectro addition it may fit another market more than photography or art printing. Much depends on the pricing for the last two markets. Wonder how the spectro not on the head carriage is doing its job. Will see it on Wednesday next week.
Interested in the comments why Epsons need to be calibrated these days :-)
Ernst Dinkla
Try: [a href=\"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/[/url]
-
Yeah, it's hard to buy existing technology right after a new model is released. The Z, I'm sure is much cheaper than the new Epson will be. I think I just need to wait for some reviews so I can look at the pros/cons of both.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=198798\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes it's always the next thing that is better.
In Canada they had a sale on the HP printers , the 44" was going for >3000$ CDN for the PS APS model. We can assume to see prices like that again when or if the models are upgraded.
There won't be many cons for the new Epson given their track record. There will probably be some hick ups around the implementation of the spectro though. At least they have the first experiences with the HP so it should be smoother than that but still it is a huge undertaking to integrate verification online and or inline.
Now it's up to Canon to bring on a built in spectro and everyone is set!
Too bad there is no Gloss Enhancer though....
-
Too bad there is no Gloss Enhancer though....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=198811\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
As someone who owns a 3800 and an R1900, I can definitely say that the R1900 produces glossier prints than the 3800 without using the gloss optimizer. The R1900's inkset is referred to as 'high-gloss' and I believe I just read the 7900/9900's inkset described as high-gloss. Maybe this is how the K3 inkset is described as well, I don't recall, but if the new inks in the 7900/9900 have the gloss level of the R1900 inks, then bronzing will be non-existent and gloss differential will only occur in areas of pure white. I never thought my 3800 prints had any bronzing until I printed out my first R1900, without glop. From an angle they look a bit matte compared to the R1900 prints, though only really by comparison. If the new inks have a similar high-gloss factor, the lack of glop won't be a factor for me, but then my works tend not to have any pure whites, and I prefer UV-protective laminates anyway.
Kind Regards,
Mike
-
I don't have any prints from the 1900 yet.
I do though from the x100 series Canon and Epson K3 which neither is as good as the GE on the Z. If it isn't needed then that's good news. I'll love to see some prints from the high gloss to verify my prints on .
-
I don't have any prints from the 1900 yet.
I do though from the x100 series Canon and Epson K3 which neither is as good as the GE on the Z. If it isn't needed then that's good news. I'll love to see some prints from the high gloss to verify my prints on .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=198822\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Of course, I have no idea on whether the new inkset will have the gloss level of the 1900's inkset. But, after reading your post, I just went and compared 3 prints, one from the 3800, one from the 1900 with glop, one from the 1900 without glop. The 3800 shows mild bronzing and dullness at an oblique angle in the proper light. The 1900 prints, I can't tell any difference between them despite that one uses the glop and the other doesn't. But, as I said, my work contains light shaded tones, but no pure white.
This is assuming of course that the 1900 printer isn't applying the glop even though I think I have it switched off. I've only had the printer for a few days, but I have the gloss option unchecked in the drivers, and I haven't seen a drop in the glop level after my initial prints using it. Though it did drop really fast just after doing just a couple of prints, so I'm pretty sure it would be obvious if I somehow didn't have it switched off properly.
Kind Regards,
Mike
-
Another thought. The R1900 is quite geared toward glossy printing. I'm not sure if the high gloss level of the inkset would in any way be inappropriate for printing on matte surfaces, since I haven't used the printer for that. If its a disadvantage in those instances, then I could certainly see the new inkset not adopting the gloss levels of the R1900 inkset. In which case, of course, I would agree with those that wish the 7900 and 9900 had included a gloss cart.
Kind Regards,
Mike
-
That same Epson press release does mention "high gloss levels on water resistant prints."
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
-
That same Epson press release does mention "high gloss levels on water resistant prints."
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=198828\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, Nill, that's what I was referring to, and that's what made me wonder if what I'm seeing on the R1900 will carry over to the new printers. I hadn't realized that the high-gloss comments about the R1900 represented a real-life difference until I printed out my own first R1900 prints.
Kind Regards,
Mike
-
Which suggests more a 3800 solution than a 11880 solution.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=198809\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, with the carts adding up to eleven (PK,MK,LB,LLB,C,LC,M,LM,Y,O,G) and ten ink channels, it certainly has to be the same situation as with the 3800. Maybe next gen will have a new print head and 12 channels with glop and no auto switching of blacks. Though a yearly upgrade path for items this expensive and difficult to transport and move about is a little scary.
Kind Regards,
Mike
-
Firstly, to Ernst - ColorBase is a free utility that has always been available since K3 for the Epson printers for customers who wanted to linearise and had their own spectro.
Some key features for the new Epsons:
Optional Spectro - you don't have to pay for it if you don't want it and it comes with both white and black backing plates (white is the ISO standard) and you can get with or without UV filter. The accuracy of the spectro in terms of mechanical placement seems just fine and with a built in fan to speed up the process (optionally) it seems very functional.
Orange and Green - obviously extending the gamut (and Orange has already proved very useful on the R1900 and really seems useful as a "dark yellow" which has always been an issue. The new LUT technology that is touted for the R1900 also applies here and gives some 18 million trillion (not a typo) colours in the LUT and more precision in how it chooses which combination of ink to use to both reduce bronzing and improve graininess etc.
High speed cutter. Really, you have to see it :-)
Colour LCD display is nice.
Quieter and faster printing and for the proofing market in particular a new resolution mode of 1440x1440. They've also turned around the previous 1440x720 mode to be 720x1440.
Powered roll feeder means never having paper spool up and hang down. It also does away with a spindle (much easier to handle), instead using two plug-in style carriers that change from 2in to 3in core at the flick of a switch and with the powered roll feeder there's no need to worry about normal and high tension settings - all automatic.
-
The Z series on Matt paper is a no go. Sorry I had one, and it was horrible. Yes it is quite nice on glossy paper but on matt paper the epson wins hand downs. That was one of the reasons I switched back to Epson, after havin a HP Z 3100 44in fpr 6 months.
-
Firstly, to Ernst - ColorBase is a free utility that has always been available since K3 for the Epson printers for customers who wanted to linearise and had their own spectro.
Some key features for the new Epsons:
Optional Spectro - you don't have to pay for it if you don't want it and it comes with both white and black backing plates (white is the ISO standard) and you can get with or without UV filter. The accuracy of the spectro in terms of mechanical placement seems just fine and with a built in fan to speed up the process (optionally) it seems very functional.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=198856\")
I have been aware of ColorBase since it was introduced. My line referred to the Epson user comments that an Epson is calibrated at the factory and doesn't need calibration in time. That has been contradicted both by ColorBase and this Spectro feature. Just a small revenge on the usual Epson comment that thermoheads have inconsistent output and Epson piëzoheads not.
The Spectro specs are without question an improvement on what has been available so far in integrated spectrometers.
I'm a bit puzzled by the Green ink. The Epson gamut wasn't bad in Green so far and the R1800/R800 went for a Blue ink instead. Looks like a Pantone Hexachrome route to me without the name and again a more proof printer oriëntated switch to the gamut.
Ernst Dinkla
Try: [a href=\"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/[/url]
-
Well, the piezo certainly drifts less (or less quickly might be a better way to put it), but like anything it's worth being able to calibrate and correct - no doubt about it.
As for green - yeah - the O and G looks like Hexachrome - not a bad thing. Orange has been promoted for the skin tones and providing a "dark yellow". Green is an important colour and one to which we're particularly sensitive - makes sense to strengthen that.
We all (should) know that gamut maps aren't the be all and end all, but this 10 colour inkset is looking to have much better gamut than the competing 12 colour inksets (and Epson's 8 colour set), particularly in the shadow areas.
-
As for green - yeah - the O and G looks like Hexachrome - not a bad thing. Orange has been promoted for the skin tones and providing a "dark yellow". Green is an important colour and one to which we're particularly sensitive - makes sense to strengthen that.
We all (should) know that gamut maps aren't the be all and end all, but this 10 colour inkset is looking to have much better gamut than the competing 12 colour inksets (and Epson's 8 colour set), particularly in the shadow areas.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=198923\")
Orange and Green has been the choice for the Epson head wide formats since the first Roland HiFi and the similar Mimaki and Mutoh models (Epson's first pigment ink in fact). Even then some commented that the green was good already in the 6 ink models while blue could be more improved. Sky blue should be easier to control with an extra blue in the mix. The R1800/R800 inkset with red and blue (and GE) proved to be very good for color prints. I tend to think that like the new Epson ecosolvent with its green and orange this is a more graphic market choice and the Spectro features have that same appeal.
The shadow areas on Epson's UC and K3 have been good already and are more likely related to the black generation in the media presets being less severe than in HP's media presets. It depends on how they are formulated right now (two extra hues to add in the separations) whether that is kept at the same level. Epson must know it is a forte in their printer's gamut, enough discussed here over the past year. A line in the 7900/9900 announcement mentions "excellent short term colour stability", could be the spectro related fan that dries the ink more quickly but I guess there's less ink needed in the mixing of colors. To be expected with the Orange and Green added but might stretch to more black generation as well. The HP Vivera pigment ink shows a similar short term colour settling. Again an important aspect for proof printing but nice for any other job's CM as well. There will be enough gamut discussions soon comparing the Epson latest K3 3 hue, HP 6 hue, Canon 6 hue and the new Epson 5 hue inkset.
[a href=\"http://www.print21online.com/supporters/epson/]http://www.print21online.com/supporters/epson/[/url]
Ernst Dinkla
Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/)
-
Just a small revenge on the usual Epson comment that thermoheads have inconsistent output and Epson piëzoheads not.
You are making a lot of assumptions with that line of thought.
First, as someone who built the Exibition Fiber Paper profiles for Epson, doing so from a very large patch sample and a number of printers over the US, all operating correctly (head alignment etc), I can tell you all the models have very, very low deltaE values. These units are very, very consistent. The fact that so many Epson users find the canned profiles of excellent quality prove this point (least we forget the work of color geek Bill Atkinson years ago).
ColorBase is not a product supported or supplied in the US which may tell you how at least in this country, how its considered a necessary addition.
Revenge? No, but an option (yes option) that some users, especially those using many differing papers (from differing manufacturers who's consistency is unknown) is a nice feature. Again, its an OPTION. Its not required.
-
I cannot wait to hear from Epson USA, and when the anticipated ship date will be on these printers. I left Epson for the ability to switch black inks on the fly, and it is good to see that Epson is finally listening to their customers. I am just surprised that it took this long. I remember complainging about this 3 years ago.
-
You are making a lot of assumptions with that line of thought.
First, as someone who built the Exibition Fiber Paper profiles for Epson, doing so from a very large patch sample and a number of printers over the US, all operating correctly (head alignment etc), I can tell you all the models have very, very low deltaE values. These units are very, very consistent. The fact that so many Epson users find the canned profiles of excellent quality prove this point (least we forget the work of color geek Bill Atkinson years ago).
ColorBase is not a product supported or supplied in the US which may tell you how at least in this country, how its considered a necessary addition.
Revenge? No, but an option (yes option) that some users, especially those using many differing papers (from differing manufacturers who's consistency is unknown) is a nice feature. Again, its an OPTION. Its not required.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=198934\")
We have to go 18 months back when HP introduced the Z3100 with the integrated spectrometer and the comments then of Epson aficionados on the addition of a spectrometer to an inkjet printer. Thermohead inconsistency was their argument. I have written then that we could wait for a similar spectro addition to an Epson wide format and their comments when that happens. It isn't my suggestion that the Epsons are inconsistent but the inconsistency of thermoheads has been exaggerated. I do not see any problem in my printshop related to Z3100 thermohead inconsistency and at the same time I like the ability to calibrate the printer to batches of new paper, third party papers plus custom profiling with APS. Something that will be possible too for Epson users now.
Ernst Dinkla
Try: [a href=\"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/[/url]
-
We have to go 18 months back when HP introduced the Z3100 with the integrated spectrometer and the comments then of Epson aficionados on the addition of a spectrometer to an inkjet printer.
I also remember getting several reports of a built in spectro option before the 11880 was announced... obviously wasn't ready for use at that time ;-)
-
Recent Epson pro printers have proven to be quite consistent when new across the line. The way it should be.
It's not when the printers are new that there is a frequent need of calibration , but one that has been seen as necessary further on and also with environmental changes, more so media changes.
Many users have noted variations when production tolerances are best controlled.
Even though it is better to maintain a tight tolerance, it really is up to the user to determine their own tolerance levels. IF you print the same image a year later and the delta E is around +/- 2 it's probably not that important, to most that is.
Those printing for galleries though should be maintaining their printers with calibration and verification. So for them an on board spectro is very good thing.
This can be done manually, as it has been done in the past. An on board spectro is the most reliable error free way of maintaining calibration and verification.
It is an option that will make fine art and proofers very happy, but is not a strict requirement for people printing one offs. Fact is the inter printer differences would probably be unnoticed by most between print runs as well, hence Epson insisting it was not necessary. How they translate that in their marketing is absurd trying to say that because their Piezo heads don't need it is rather an strange way of justification. Yet Epson always say the new printer is the best etc etc , making the past best no longer valid.
I hope this makes sense and the only point that was made was one of Epson's marketing speak.
Nothing wrong with liking the product, certainly not the new propositions, it's best to competition the marketing lines that are changing their tune just because they don't like healthy.
-
First, as someone who built the Exibition Fiber Paper profiles for Epson, doing so from a very large patch sample and a number of printers over the US, all operating correctly (head alignment etc), I can tell you all the models have very, very low deltaE values. These units are very, very consistent. The fact that so many Epson users find the canned profiles of excellent quality prove this point (least we forget the work of color geek Bill Atkinson years ago).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=198934\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Andrew,
I don't argue that Epson's are quality printers. I've owned some.
Every print for pay shop I know though also uses RIPs (Ergosoft, etc.) so that they can linearize their Epsons. If Epsons are that stable and consistent why do they feel the need to linearize their printers? Just curious. Yes, these shops are fanatics about the output of their printers.
Again, not picking a fight. Epson has clearly lead the way for a long time. I'm just at the point where I think Canon, HP and Epson all offer top notch printers for fine art photographers. From my perspective differences in output are becoming small and buying decisions are based features rather than big differences in the quality of prints.
-
How much ink will be wasted switching blacks with this shared head/channel. Any idea?
Ed
-
Maybe none at all... you don't waste any now "switching" from, say, red to yellow...
Oh but wait, I thought it would be just another channel. Does it indeed share a head/channel?
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
-
Maybe none at all... you don't waste any now "switching" from, say, red to yellow...
Oh but wait, I thought it would be just another channel. Does it indeed share a head/channel?
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=198996\")
It probably shares a head only and has two separate channels to that head. 3800 style.
Probably a larger ink buffer in the head than the 3800 has so a bit more ink lost in the switch. If I recall it correctly a switch cycle PK>MK>PK is 6 ML on the 3800. Maybe something like 10-12 ML lost on this one.
I had a similar switch on an Epson 9000 quad. An extra CIS bottle with PK and tube + damper. The not in use damper parked on a stainless steel pin where the cutter used to be. It worked quite well. Printing some waste A3's to get rid of the ink in the damper and head.
Ernst Dinkla
Try: [a href=\"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/[/url]
-
I'm a bit puzzled by the Green ink. The Epson gamut wasn't bad in Green so far and the R1800/R800 went for a Blue ink instead. Looks like a Pantone Hexachrome route to me without the name and again a more proof printer oriëntated switch to the gamut.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=198920\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I've always felt the Achilles heel of the Epson K3 inkset is dark greens. Maybe it's not an issue for some types of work, but loss of detail in dark greens has always been my biggest problem when printing landscape/nature images. And I've seen prints from the Canon IPFx100 that convinced me that line is definitely better in this regard.
-
Availability is supposed to be late spring. Sooner than I'd expected, though the increased competition may be a factor here.
That late spring comment came from an Australian review, so that might be late winter in the northern hemisphere.
-
More like late fall actually.
Regards,
Bernard
-
Thanks Ernst:
That's what I thought. Some WASTED ink has to happen in order for a single head to share two different inks. Otherwise it wouldn't being an Epson!
I think I'm ready to upgrade my 7600 now. Too bad the glop was not yet.
Canon and Epson somehow share some of their bloodline, I think.
Regards
Eduardo
It probably shares a head only and has two separate channels to that head. 3800 style.
Probably a larger ink buffer in the head than the 3800 has so a bit more ink lost in the switch. If I recall it correctly a switch cycle PK>MK>PK is 6 ML on the 3800. Maybe something like 10-12 ML lost on this one.
I had a similar switch on an Epson 9000 quad. An extra CIS bottle with PK and tube + damper. The not in use damper parked on a stainless steel pin where the cutter used to be. It worked quite well. Printing some waste A3's to get rid of the ink in the damper and head.
Ernst Dinkla
Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=199014\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
More like late fall actually.
Yes, you're right. Late fall would be the opposite of late spring. Dohhhhh :-)
-
Thanks Ernst:
That's what I thought. Some WASTED ink has to happen in order for a single head to share two different inks. Otherwise it wouldn't being an Epson!
I think I'm ready to upgrade my 7600 now. Too bad the glop was not yet.
Canon and Epson somehow share some of their bloodline, I think.
Regards
Eduardo
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=199038\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No, they have two channels, one for Pk and one for Mk. No waist at all.
Same as for 11880.
And the on-board-spectro is going for a quite hefty price.
You can choose between diffferent combos. Ad the spectro later, if you want.
/Sven
-
No, they have two channels, one for Pk and one for Mk. No waist at all.
Same as for 11880.
And the on-board-spectro is going for a quite hefty price.
You can choose between diffferent combos. Ad the spectro later, if you want.
/Sven
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=199146\")
The 11880 has 9 inks, 9 nozzle rows.
So for the 9900 11 heads (11 rows of nozzles actually) + 11 ink channels then ?
No time lost - no ink lost at the switch ?
The 9900 info says: Automatic switching of photo and matte black inks
The 3800 info says: The 9 individual ink cartridges include three black inks with automatic switching photo and matte black cartridges.
The 11880 info says: Automatic Real-time Black Ink Mode Switching
Printers can automatically utilize two different Black ink modes –
Photo Black or Matte Black.
My bet is on two channels but one head and time + ink lost at the switch. Nothing dramatic like on the old 44" models but in line with the 3800.
(edited) This site says:
[a href=\"http://dpnow.com/4923.html]http://dpnow.com/4923.html[/url]
Epson Stylus Pro 7900 and 9900 key features summary:
• 11-colour Epson UltraChrome™ HDR ink set, expanding UltraChrome™ K3 with Vivid Magenta by adding Orange and Green in 11 individual, high capacity 350ml or 700ml cartridges
• 10-channel Epson MicroPiezo TFP™ print head for accurate and reliable imaging with the highest image quality
Ernst Dinkla
Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/)
-
A few things:
The PK/MK switch is like the 3800, but with less ink cost.
There's no pricing on the spectro yet (nor on any aspect of the printers), so anyone claiming it's going for a "hefty" price is making it up :-). It will be available with either UV filter or not as you choose (or you can get both). The spectro can be removed from the holder (so you can swap if you get both, for example). You can also change the backing plate from white to black as you want.
-
A few things:
The PK/MK switch is like the 3800, but with less ink cost.
There's no pricing on the spectro yet (nor on any aspect of the printers), so anyone claiming it's going for a "hefty" price is making it up :-). It will be available with either UV filter or not as you choose (or you can get both). The spectro can be removed from the holder (so you can swap if you get both, for example). You can also change the backing plate from white to black as you want.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=199167\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Less ink cost by the cost per ml of the larger tanks?
I like the idea of a removable spectro, so one can re-certify the spectro, repairs would be easier, or swap them out as needed. Also the ability to change the backing would be as you prefer would be good , as Flexo proofing needs a different backing than most graphics art.
There is some confusion about the Z spectro in this regard. There is a calculation of focus and reflection done at spectro initialisation but is not the same thing as a black backing. This is at least what I was told when I questioned the notions of black backing. So long as the spectro stays on board there is no problem with the way this is done, but certainly if you can remove the spectro , even swap the filters there will be the need for a backing tile calibration for each change.
-
Less ink cost by the cost per ml of the larger tanks?
Good enough for me
Any rumors out there about the 17" version of this line?
I'm trying to decide if I should go for a 3800 now or wait for the 4900.
Stupidly, I've already sold my 4800, but still have the HP B9180 here. But I will never be really happy with that one on matte papers (except for the deeper blacks).
-
Less ink cost by the cost per ml of the larger tanks?
I like the idea of a removable spectro, so one can re-certify the spectro, repairs would be easier, or swap them out as needed. Also the ability to change the backing would be as you prefer would be good , as Flexo proofing needs a different backing than most graphics art.
There is some confusion about the Z spectro in this regard. There is a calculation of focus and reflection done at spectro initialisation but is not the same thing as a black backing. This is at least what I was told when I questioned the notions of black backing. So long as the spectro stays on board there is no problem with the way this is done, but certainly if you can remove the spectro , even swap the filters there will be the need for a backing tile calibration for each change.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=199211\")
Neil,
More than a year ago I calculated ink cost per ML for several printer models. European market so in Euro and without VAT. The 3800 was then at 45 Eurocent a ML right now 46 Eurocent. I guess that the 350 and 700 ML carts could be a bit lower than that but the 11880 700 ML cart is at 28 Eurocents per ML right now. If it is based on a price like that the switch cycle PK>MK>PK would be something like 9.5 ML at most. Talking about 2.75 Euro for a cycle PK>MK>PK in ink cost. Maintenance tank cost not counted.
If I load two or three sheets of paper on top of one another in the Z3100 for calibration and profiling what is theoretically wrong in that approach given your last observation. I have done that with some thin papers as that used to be the way I did it with the old (but still correct) SpectroCam. Not yet with the APS version though.
Ernst Dinkla
Try: [a href=\"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/[/url]
-
Hi Guys
Just got back from looking at the new 7990 at the PMA show in Brisbane. Prints looks great with the new inkset, the greens in particular look better as you'd expect.
Ink cost estimated to be slightly less than half what it works out at from the 110/220 carts, so similar to that of the 11880.
Expected to be available in October. I'm hoping to get my hands on one sometime before that with a bit of luck...
-
Neil - less ink and less ink cost.
-
Neil - less ink and less ink cost.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=199246\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
So it uses less ml of ink to do the switch than the 3800 print head?
How much does it use then, as the 3800 is 4.5 ml in one direction and 1.5 ml in the other.
-
Neil,
More than a year ago I calculated ink cost per ML for several printer models. European market so in Euro and without VAT. The 3800 was then at 45 Eurocent a ML right now 46 Eurocent. I guess that the 350 and 700 ML carts could be a bit lower than that but the 11880 700 ML cart is at 28 Eurocents per ML right now. If it is based on a price like that the switch cycle PK>MK>PK would be something like 9.5 ML at most. Talking about 2.75 Euro for a cycle PK>MK>PK in ink cost. Maintenance tank cost not counted.
Yes I know that the cost per ml is cheaper with larger tanks. Yet I want to know how much ink is used per switch , if that is possible.
If I load two or three sheets of paper on top of one another in the Z3100 for calibration and profiling what is theoretically wrong in that approach given your last observation. I have done that with some thin papers as that used to be the way I did it with the old (but still correct) SpectroCam. Not yet with the APS version though.
Ernst Dinkla
There are advantages and disadvantages of absolute vs. a more relative reading. Depends on the way the software extrapolates the reflection values. There are other things that come into play like surface type, amount of diffusion, etc. We used to always put one or two layers on the DTP 41 too, but that is using hardware/software that doesn't use this type of spectro lens.
-
Every print for pay shop I know though also uses RIPs (Ergosoft, etc.) so that they can linearize their Epsons. If Epsons are that stable and consistent why do they feel the need to linearize their printers? Just curious.
That's not the reason for or anything close to the primary goal of a RIP although that's a capability some find useful.
You primarily implement a RIP because you have to deal with vector artwork, you want to handle CMYK data (which Quickdraw and GDI drivers like those from Epson can't handle), you want to deal with print queues, imposition etc. And that people use a RIP doesn't mean that this implies that the Epson printers are not consistent in behavior. The Epson driver, when using the No Color Adjustment setting could certainly be more linear (its been getting progressively better over the years).
The vast majority of readers here who wish to simply print out images have no need for a RIP.
-
So, you have to switch black inks on these or no? I don't mean wasted ink, etc. I mean print on glossy photo paper, and then make a print on matte paper, with no need to change anything other than paper selection.
-
Roscolo - Both PK and MK are installed at the same time and will siwtch as required - you don't need to switch cartridges.
Neil - I hope to have those exact figures shortly.
-
And the on-board-spectro is going for a quite hefty price.
You can choose between diffferent combos. Ad the spectro later, if you want.
/Sven
Sven,
Are the base units going to cost about the same as the 7880 and 9880? About $3,000 and $5,000 US?
As far as the spectro, I think I paid about $1,500 US for my Eye One SG. Is the Epson unit going to be in that price range? Any reason to buy it if I already have an i1?
Thanks!
Michael
-
From what I've heard inquiring about a pre-order the 9900 w/spectro should be around the $8-9,000 range.
-
I wonder, is the spectro is going to be along the lines of an i1 Isis?
Jim
-
I wonder, is the spectro is going to be along the lines of an i1 Isis?
Given the recent introduction of the ColorMunki with a unit based on the iSis, that's what I'd expect to see inside it ;-)
-
Sven,
Are the base units going to cost about the same as the 7880 and 9880? About $3,000 and $5,000 US?
As far as the spectro, I think I paid about $1,500 US for my Eye One SG. Is the Epson unit going to be in that price range? Any reason to buy it if I already have an i1?
Thanks!
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=199308\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
What I understand and heard, is that the x880 will remain in production for a while.
And with a pricedrop. The x900 will have a higher price than the x880 have today.
Without the spectro.
I have'nt seen yet what the new spectro can do, in terms of linearization the printer and profiling media. If it interfer with the firmware in some way.
So I hope we can keep our i1's and using them for the same job.
/Sven
-
What I understand and heard, is that the x880 will remain in production for a while.
And with a pricedrop. The x900 will have a higher price than the x880 have today.
Without the spectro.
/Sven
This is the same as information I have for the Australian situation. 9900 and 7900 available later this year. No information on other sizes.
Brian
www.pharoseditions.com.au
-
Hello,
Enclosed is a PDF datasheet for the new Epsons. This was on a CD 'Professional Product Range' made available by Epson Europe at the Drupa trade fair for the graphic industry in Düsseldorf.
Regards,
Yann
-
Does "Versatile paper handling: roll or cut sheet media from 8x10" up to 24"/44"..." imply that these wide format printers are any different in this respect from their predecessors? As a happy 4800 user, I have been under the impression that the 7800 is less than ideal for someone who prints primarily on letter-size cut sheets and only occasionally on rolls. Is that correct, and if so is the 7900 any different in that regard? It would be nice to go 24" on my next printer.
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
-
Does "Versatile paper handling: roll or cut sheet media from 8x10" up to 24"/44"..." imply that these wide format printers are any different in this respect from their predecessors? As a happy 4800 user, I have been under the impression that the 7800 is less than ideal for someone who prints primarily on letter-size cut sheets and only occasionally on rolls. Is that correct, and if so is the 7900 any different in that regard? It would be nice to go 24" on my next printer.
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=199756\")
I've seen nothing added to the 7900 and 9900 that would make small sheet printing easier compared to Epson wide formats before. The new printers look even more armored with panels so I doubt they are easier on that aspect.
Ernst Dinkla
Try: [a href=\"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/[/url]
-
Direct news from Drupa:
Hi folks. I went to Drupa to have a look at those beasts. I should explain that I'm a photographer using an Epson 7800 and I'm considering moving up to 44". So I've been pondering for a while about switching to HP or Canon since I'd really like to have those two blacks. I thought the 9900 might be the machine I had been waiting for.
Looking at the new Epsons, the HP Z-printers and the Canon IPF 9100 here's my current state of knowledge:
1) The new Epson printers are not meant to be replacements for the 7880 and the 9880! Neither should we expect to see a successor the 11880 with a built-in calibration unit any time soon. The reasons the Epson people gave are somewhat consistent:
While the upgrade from 7800 to 7880 (9800 to 9880) was rather incremental, the 7900 and 9900 are built on a mechanically much more sophisticated (read: expensive) platform. Lacking the old mechanical paper release lever they have automatic loading and rewinding, bar-coding of paper (letting the printer remember how much paper is left on a roll) nozzle diagnostics etc. So Epson would want to keep the 7880 and 9880 around for a while as a lower cost alternative. Besides they said that customers have to rely on product life cycles of two years. So we have to expect the new models to be considerably more expensive than the current models. (pricing is not announced, yet)
2) The calibration option looks rather expensive, too. Other than the HP printers which have the photometer integrated into the print head, the Epson option really is an external unit the size of the paper feed which is mounted externally on the printer front to run the paper through after it leaves the printer. One Epson guy made a point that you only have to buy one unit to use on all the printers you own (gives you some idea what their mental picture of a typical customer is).
I asked why the HP system seems so much simpler and one representative derided the HP approach as some kind of silly idea. The sensor would get dirty close to the nozzles and using a black background for measurement and an UV-cut filter in the illumination path it "might be OK for the US marked" (his words) but nothing you could do professional FOGRA-compliant measurements on.
There seems to be some truth in it. As I interviewed a guy on the HP stand who was representing a color management company he conceded that HP does use black as measurement background as a white one would get dirty too quickly. Yes, he said the spectrometer would not be ISO-compliant in itself but with clever software (theirs) you could compensate for this. If this means anything to a photographer remains dubious, to people who are into proofing it most probably does.
Epson seems to be gearing the x900-printers towards the proofing market. The sophisticated spectrometer is supposed to provide all kinds of fancy options like user-selectable black/white background, selectable UV-cut etc. The release mentions automatically scheduled recalibration options that only make sense in a rather industrial environment so expect this options to be somewhat expensive.
This ties into another reason why there isn't supposed to be an upgrade to the 11880: "Nobody proofs on a 64"-printer" said one guy and handling such a large spectrometer unit would be impractical.
3) Does a photographer need a built-in spectrometer? I guess I might. Now I use an Eye-One manual system which generally works fine but my experience ties in with what several people at Drupa told me: You have to re-calibrate at least once a month. The reason is not so much the printer but the paper which is pretty sensitive to temperature and humidity. Especially the fine-art stuff like PhotoRag can change ink absorption characteristics rather quickly. Combine this fact with the problems of reproducibility others have reported with hand-held systems, it seems like a very nice idea of having your printer do the tedious work at a touch of a button.
I found HP Z-printers in two high-quality print shops and they told me they had tossed their Epsons because the HPs are so much faster. The prints I got from them matched my proofs perfectly so color management in general seems to work.
The Canon printers have some kind of built-in spectrometer but I got kind of skeptical as the Canon guy explained to me that the printer doesn't really do (ICC) profiles. Rather you have to use existing profiles Canon offers for download for a lot of papers (preferably Canon-branded media) and the calibration system would fine-tune your printer to make sure it matches that profile. I'm not quite sure what to make of this.
4) There may be other reasons for photographers choosing specific printers: If you are doing fine-art printing you may want to consider loading sheet paper in your large format roll printer. E.g. I regularly use A4-sheets for tests (less expensive) and heavy-weight A3-sheet for my portfolio (not available on roll). On an Epson LFP this has never been a problem. People tell me that even on an 11880 loading A4 is a breeze while others have warned me that trying to load sheets on an HP is a mess. The color management-guy at the HP-stand admitted that trying to load a single sheet is “not a pleasurable experience”. The Canon-guy said that using something as small as A4 on a iPF8100 is rather useless as the paper guide need at least 5cm (2 inch) on one side of the paper to hold it so that area will be unprintable.
What does all that mean? I may have to stick to Epson and may not be able to resist buying the 9900 even if it price tag might put it close to the 11880 with the spectrometer option.
Ouch.
-
I found HP Z-printers in two high-quality print shops and they told me they had tossed their Epsons because the HPs are so much faster. The prints I got from them matched my proofs perfectly so color management in general seems to work.
The Canon printers have some kind of built-in spectrometer but I got kind of skeptical as the Canon guy explained to me that the printer doesn't really do (ICC) profiles. Rather you have to use existing profiles Canon offers for download for a lot of papers (preferably Canon-branded media) and the calibration system would fine-tune your printer to make sure it matches that profile. I'm not quite sure what to make of this.
4) There may be other reasons for photographers choosing specific printers: If you are doing fine-art printing you may want to consider loading sheet paper in your large format roll printer. E.g. I regularly use A4-sheets for tests (less expensive) and heavy-weight A3-sheet for my portfolio (not available on roll). On an Epson LFP this has never been a problem. People tell me that even on an 11880 loading A4 is a breeze while others have warned me that trying to load sheets on an HP is a mess. The color management-guy at the HP-stand admitted that trying to load a single sheet is “not a pleasurable experience”. The Canon-guy said that using something as small as A4 on a iPF8100 is rather useless as the paper guide need at least 5cm (2 inch) on one side of the paper to hold it so that area will be unprintable.
Ouch.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=199914\")
Went to the Drupa yesterday and I got the same impression of the new Epson models. More aimed at the proofing market than the older generation Epson wide formats.
On the HP Z models sheet paper loading: The last firmware upgrade has the ragged edge paper mode loading and that makes it a lot more reliable and faster. I'm using it for two sided printing right now and placed some registration tabs on the front to align both sides faster. Done that on a Epson 10000 and a 9000 in the past and there is not much difference anymore. The repeating sheet>paper types>paper ritual on the printer buttons is taking time though. There should be a mode in the settings that keeps the data for repeating jobs.
My experience with the Z's calibration and now APS profiling is only positive. For thinner sheets I have used more sheets on top of one another and that practice works for me. The influence of the black table on thicker art papers has not been a problem for me in practice.
The x100 Canon models have calibration only. Canon thinks calibration is important and profiling can be done by third party hard- and software. Using Canon's OEM profiles for its own media catalogue is the obvious option. They do no go as far as HP in supporting the use of third party papers. Nor does Epson. Calibration is important so on that aspect Canon is right.
It is a true inkjet Drupa. I must have seen about 15 different fast dual sided web inkjet printers with single array heads from at least 6 companies. Printing on uncoated newspaper stock of 54 grams as well. Up to 30 inches wide at 400 ft per minute. Mainly water based inks too.
The Océ wax inkjet printer for the CAD market was interesting, the HP Latex inkjet printer impressive in print quality on a wide variety of sign media.
Ernst Dinkla
Try: [a href=\"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/[/url]
-
what several people at Drupa told me: You have to re-calibrate at least once a month.
Well, maybe.
I have an i1 and make my own profiles. But I have also done quite well using the Bill Atkinson profilers on multiple Epson 7600's and 9600's over the past years. Those were made quite a while ago on another machine, but they are certainly "close enough" for almost all of my work.
resist buying the 9900 even if it price tag might put it close to the 11880 with the spectrometer option.
I just don't see a justification from Epson on pricing these macheines higher than the old base price on the 7880/9880, at least without the spectro.
They have already weakened their price position by churning their machines with the 7800/7880 cycles, and with their recurring discounts. First they blew out new 7800's at under $2K last fall with the intro of the 7880. This spring they were selling 7800 refurbs for under $2K. They also have deep diccounts on the 7880/9880.
They are also going to have a hard time justifying a price point higher than $3K/$5K when the HP and Canon have been on sale at deep discounts. ($3.5K for the Canon 44" and $3K for the HP 44" with spectro.)
I hope Epson has a solid product that they can sell at their previous price point, rather than some lame spin about why these machines are worth so much more than tyhe HP and Canon.
-
Well, maybe.
I have an i1 and make my own profiles. But I have also done quite well using the Bill Atkinson profilers on multiple Epson 7600's and 9600's over the past years. Those were made quite a while ago on another machine, but they are certainly "close enough" for almost all of my work.
I just don't see a justification from Epson on pricing these macheines higher than the old base price on the 7880/9880, at least without the spectro.
They have already weakened their price position by churning their machines with the 7800/7880 cycles, and with their recurring discounts. First they blew out new 7800's at under $2K last fall with the intro of the 7880. This spring they were selling 7800 refurbs for under $2K. They also have deep diccounts on the 7880/9880.
They are also going to have a hard time justifying a price point higher than $3K/$5K when the HP and Canon have been on sale at deep discounts. ($3.5K for the Canon 44" and $3K for the HP 44" with spectro.)
I hope Epson has a solid product that they can sell at their previous price point, rather than some lame spin about why these machines are worth so much more than tyhe HP and Canon.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=199929\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I share your pain but also recognize that these may be signs of the times. The U.S. no longer rules the world economy. The Europeans can buy printers with REAL MONEY.
-
Direct news from Drupa:
Hi folks. I went to Drupa to have a look at those beasts. I should explain that I'm a photographer using an Epson 7800 and I'm considering moving up to 44". So I've been pondering for a while about switching to HP or Canon since I'd really like to have those two blacks. I thought the 9900 might be the machine I had been waiting for.
Looking at the new Epsons, the HP Z-printers and the Canon IPF 9100 here's my current state of knowledge:
1) The new Epson printers are not meant to be replacements for the 7880 and the 9880! Neither should we expect to see a successor the 11880 with a built-in calibration unit any time soon. The reasons the Epson people gave are somewhat consistent:
While the upgrade from 7800 to 7880 (9800 to 9880) was rather incremental, the 7900 and 9900 are built on a mechanically much more sophisticated (read: expensive) platform. Lacking the old mechanical paper release lever they have automatic loading and rewinding, bar-coding of paper (letting the printer remember how much paper is left on a roll) nozzle diagnostics etc. So Epson would want to keep the 7880 and 9880 around for a while as a lower cost alternative. Besides they said that customers have to rely on product life cycles of two years. So we have to expect the new models to be considerably more expensive than the current models. (pricing is not announced, yet)
2) The calibration option looks rather expensive, too. Other than the HP printers which have the photometer integrated into the print head, the Epson option really is an external unit the size of the paper feed which is mounted externally on the printer front to run the paper through after it leaves the printer. One Epson guy made a point that you only have to buy one unit to use on all the printers you own (gives you some idea what their mental picture of a typical customer is).
I asked why the HP system seems so much simpler and one representative derided the HP approach as some kind of silly idea. The sensor would get dirty close to the nozzles and using a black background for measurement and an UV-cut filter in the illumination path it "might be OK for the US marked" (his words) but nothing you could do professional FOGRA-compliant measurements on.
There seems to be some truth in it. As I interviewed a guy on the HP stand who was representing a color management company he conceded that HP does use black as measurement background as a white one would get dirty too quickly. Yes, he said the spectrometer would not be ISO-compliant in itself but with clever software (theirs) you could compensate for this. If this means anything to a photographer remains dubious, to people who are into proofing it most probably does.
Epson seems to be gearing the x900-printers towards the proofing market. The sophisticated spectrometer is supposed to provide all kinds of fancy options like user-selectable black/white background, selectable UV-cut etc. The release mentions automatically scheduled recalibration options that only make sense in a rather industrial environment so expect this options to be somewhat expensive.
This ties into another reason why there isn't supposed to be an upgrade to the 11880: "Nobody proofs on a 64"-printer" said one guy and handling such a large spectrometer unit would be impractical.
3) Does a photographer need a built-in spectrometer? I guess I might. Now I use an Eye-One manual system which generally works fine but my experience ties in with what several people at Drupa told me: You have to re-calibrate at least once a month. The reason is not so much the printer but the paper which is pretty sensitive to temperature and humidity. Especially the fine-art stuff like PhotoRag can change ink absorption characteristics rather quickly. Combine this fact with the problems of reproducibility others have reported with hand-held systems, it seems like a very nice idea of having your printer do the tedious work at a touch of a button.
I found HP Z-printers in two high-quality print shops and they told me they had tossed their Epsons because the HPs are so much faster. The prints I got from them matched my proofs perfectly so color management in general seems to work.
The Canon printers have some kind of built-in spectrometer but I got kind of skeptical as the Canon guy explained to me that the printer doesn't really do (ICC) profiles. Rather you have to use existing profiles Canon offers for download for a lot of papers (preferably Canon-branded media) and the calibration system would fine-tune your printer to make sure it matches that profile. I'm not quite sure what to make of this.
4) There may be other reasons for photographers choosing specific printers: If you are doing fine-art printing you may want to consider loading sheet paper in your large format roll printer. E.g. I regularly use A4-sheets for tests (less expensive) and heavy-weight A3-sheet for my portfolio (not available on roll). On an Epson LFP this has never been a problem. People tell me that even on an 11880 loading A4 is a breeze while others have warned me that trying to load sheets on an HP is a mess. The color management-guy at the HP-stand admitted that trying to load a single sheet is “not a pleasurable experience”. The Canon-guy said that using something as small as A4 on a iPF8100 is rather useless as the paper guide need at least 5cm (2 inch) on one side of the paper to hold it so that area will be unprintable.
What does all that mean? I may have to stick to Epson and may not be able to resist buying the 9900 even if it price tag might put it close to the 11880 with the spectrometer option.
Ouch.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=199914\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
JScriba and Ernst,
Thanks for the great reports!
But my burning question is what about the 7900/9900 color gamut/print quality with the new inks? It would be that characteristic which, for me, would determine whether I buy a 7880 or a more expensive 7900.
Bruce
-
Right!
I've been waiting for the AutoPK/MK switch for years. I am more than ready to sell my 7600 and buy a 7900. If the 7900 costs a lot more, I may end keeping the 7600 for MK and getting a 7800 for PK. Main reason is that selling the 7600 won't do that much for raising money for Epson's new Sumo wrestler. 80kg's ? Sacre coeur!!!
And then again, I may do nothing. Stll no glop and my 7600 is good as new. Keep switching K modes the southafrican way, could be a great money saver.
Folks, in the digital times, there will always be something left. Years ago, manufacturers always tried and sold their best. Not anymore. Is this oligarchy's conspiracy?
Eduardo
Well, maybe.
I have an i1 and make my own profiles. But I have also done quite well using the Bill Atkinson profilers on multiple Epson 7600's and 9600's over the past years. Those were made quite a while ago on another machine, but they are certainly "close enough" for almost all of my work.
I just don't see a justification from Epson on pricing these macheines higher than the old base price on the 7880/9880, at least without the spectro.
They have already weakened their price position by churning their machines with the 7800/7880 cycles, and with their recurring discounts. First they blew out new 7800's at under $2K last fall with the intro of the 7880. This spring they were selling 7800 refurbs for under $2K. They also have deep diccounts on the 7880/9880.
They are also going to have a hard time justifying a price point higher than $3K/$5K when the HP and Canon have been on sale at deep discounts. ($3.5K for the Canon 44" and $3K for the HP 44" with spectro.)
I hope Epson has a solid product that they can sell at their previous price point, rather than some lame spin about why these machines are worth so much more than tyhe HP and Canon.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=199929\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
These days, I wonder if the primary use for a RIP isn't simply to provide consistent print behavior across platforms and updates ?
Edmund
That's not the reason for or anything close to the primary goal of a RIP although that's a capability some find useful.
You primarily implement a RIP because you have to deal with vector artwork, you want to handle CMYK data (which Quickdraw and GDI drivers like those from Epson can't handle), you want to deal with print queues, imposition etc. And that people use a RIP doesn't mean that this implies that the Epson printers are not consistent in behavior. The Epson driver, when using the No Color Adjustment setting could certainly be more linear (its been getting progressively better over the years).
The vast majority of readers here who wish to simply print out images have no need for a RIP.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=199277\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
These days, I wonder if the primary use for a RIP isn't simply to provide consistent print behavior across platforms and updates ?
Edmund
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=200017\")
With Qimage running on my printserver + the calibration and profiling integrated in my printer I wonder if that is even a feature RIPs are needed for. The Wasatch SoftRip here is idle most of the time. The PDF job I'm running now has been through Photoshop + Qimage. I asked them to keep the images in RGB and there is little color in the rest.
Not that Qimage and the Z3100 driver are that compatible but the color is much better than the RIP can do with this 12 ink machine.
If a RIP should keep consistency in color on different printer models things get a lot more complicated and you end with a gamut of the lowest quality printer, all the other ones adapting to that with more complex profiling.
On color management; for the Drupa you can get tickets on the web that you can print on your own printer, preferably in color. I was with a friend and we did a small survey on color consistency of the tickets while in the queue to exchange the web ticket for an entrance ticket. I hope that wasn't representative for what they produce in their print shops :-)
Ernst Dinkla
Try: [a href=\"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/[/url]
-
But my burning question is what about the 7900/9900 color gamut/print quality with the new inks? It would be that characteristic which, for me, would determine whether I buy a 7880 or a more expensive 7900.
Bruce
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=199953\")
We both thought very nice greens, reds and oranges in the samples. And of course there was a lot of red, orange and green in the samples :-) That's the problem on shows like that and they no longer accept a file that you bring along as it means a risk on their systems. The gamut will be among the best without doubt and improved to the former K3 Vivid Magenta etc.
On samples: when Epson introduced the 10000, 9500 with the first Archival pigment ink they had posters with 50's nostalgia content to disguise the poor gamut of that ink. This time Océ used similar 50's content for their best web inkjet sample. Tasteful but not telling much about gamut. If that is telling something about gamut improvement it will not take more than 5 years and the web models will print offset gamut if the market wants that.
Ernst Dinkla
Try: [a href=\"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/[/url]
-
We both thought very nice greens, reds and oranges in the samples. And of course there was a lot of red, orange and green in the samples :-) That's the problem on shows like that and they no longer accept a file that you bring along as it means a risk on their systems. The gamut will be among the best without doubt and improved to the former K3 Vivid Magenta etc.
On samples: when Epson introduced the 10000, 9500 with the first Archival pigment ink they had posters with 50's nostalgia content to disguise the poor gamut of that ink. This time Océ used similar 50's content for their best web inkjet sample. Tasteful but not telling much about gamut. If that is telling something about gamut improvement it will not take more than 5 years and the web models will print offset gamut if the market wants that.
Ernst Dinkla
Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=200038\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, I see what you mean about the selective "marketing" print samples created for the show. I suppose that we must wait for a few deliveries of the machines and associated critical reviews...
-
I've seen nothing added to the 7900 and 9900 that would make small sheet printing easier compared to Epson wide formats before. The new printers look even more armored with panels so I doubt they are easier on that aspect.
Ernst - you no longer need to lower the front cover to provide a support for loading the cut sheet - it's more automated due to the lack of a manual paper lever and such. Frankly, loading cut sheet on the 7900/9900 is easier and more intuitive than previous models - for a large format, it's pretty good really.
Would have been ideal to have a cut sheet guide of some sort rather than aligning manually but even that is a reasonably easy task.
Neil - you were asking about black ink change - info I have is that it's less than 1ml in one direction and a "few" ml in the other - don't have a number yet - but less than the 3800. Combined with a lower price per ml, should be significantly cheaper and simpler.
-
Ernst - you no longer need to lower the front cover to provide a support for loading the cut sheet - it's more automated due to the lack of a manual paper lever and such. Frankly, loading cut sheet on the 7900/9900 is easier and more intuitive than previous models - for a large format, it's pretty good really.
Would have been ideal to have a cut sheet guide of some sort rather than aligning manually but even that is a reasonably easy task.
Neil - you were asking about black ink change - info I have is that it's less than 1ml in one direction and a "few" ml in the other - don't have a number yet - but less than the 3800. Combined with a lower price per ml, should be significantly cheaper and simpler.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=200680\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Wonderful news. One ml is negligible, finally an end to the switch consumption.
I never found the Z difficult to load sheets. IS it just me or is it a question of what you are used to?
On the new 7900 the back printing of roll length as Canon do , is great. Even better an take up spool like on the HP LFP above the Z.
-
Ernst - you no longer need to lower the front cover to provide a support for loading the cut sheet - it's more automated due to the lack of a manual paper lever and such. Frankly, loading cut sheet on the 7900/9900 is easier and more intuitive than previous models - for a large format, it's pretty good really.
Would have been ideal to have a cut sheet guide of some sort rather than aligning manually but even that is a reasonably easy task.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=200680\")
I did understand that but I am a bit sceptic about the precision of the sheet loading for small and large sheets. Could be wrong about that.
After some double sided print jobs I'm interested in any machine that gives better registration. Either printing dual sided on the roll or on sheets or a hybrid of both. On the Z3100 I could do it quite well now by running one side printing from the roll and have the printer cut per sheet. Roll 63 cm wide and cut at 45 cm lengths and then feeding the sheets again after a cut at one vertical side so the printer edge sensor places the print horizontally right.
Has this double sided registration been addressed in the 7900 and 9900 as they are more directed to proofing ?
Seen several solutions on the Drupa for double sided proof printing on wide formats but none that really could make the registration. One company had two 7800s or 7600s stacked vertically (one turned 180 degrees) and a stainless steel ramp to guide the paper between the two printers. On the Océ booth a wide format had an extra roll spindle that allowed to unroll an already printed roll in the right way for the second print run but registration was lousy. There is Techsage's SpinJet for the older HP models but no follow up for recent models (harder to add a device like that too).
Not that they were that reliable. VersoJet is another option for the same printer models.
Ernst Dinkla
Try: [a href=\"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/[/url]
-
I did understand that but I am a bit sceptic about the precision of the sheet loading for small and large sheets. Could be wrong about that.
After some double sided print jobs I'm interested in any machine that gives better registration. Either printing dual sided on the roll or on sheets or a hybrid of both. On the Z3100 I could do it quite well now by running one side printing from the roll and have the printer cut per sheet. Roll 63 cm wide and cut at 45 cm lengths and then feeding the sheets again after a cut at one vertical side so the printer edge sensor places the print horizontally right.
Has this double sided registration been addressed in the 7900 and 9900 as they are more directed to proofing ?
Seen several solutions on the Drupa for double sided proof printing on wide formats but none that really could make the registration. One company had two 7800s or 7600s stacked vertically (one turned 180 degrees) and a stainless steel ramp to guide the paper between the two printers. On the Océ booth a wide format had an extra roll spindle that allowed to unroll an already printed roll in the right way for the second print run but registration was lousy. There is Techsage's SpinJet for the older HP models but no follow up for recent models (harder to add a device like that too).
Not that they were that reliable. VersoJet is another option for the same printer models.
Ernst Dinkla
Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/)
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=200697\")
If you're looking for professional double sided printing, then maybe consider Agfa's Grand Sherpamatic:
[a href=\"http://www.agfa.com/en/gs/products_services/all_products/grandsherpamatic.jsp]http://www.agfa.com/en/gs/products_service...sherpamatic.jsp[/url]
It's not cheap, I tell you...
Regards,
Yann
-
Ernst - no, there's no specific assistance to help with double-sided printing and correct registration.
As I said before, a proper guide of some sort when placing cut sheet would be welcome and some feedback has been given to that extent. That would assist with double sided registration if it ever happened.
-
If you're looking for professional double sided printing, then maybe consider Agfa's Grand Sherpamatic:
http://www.agfa.com/en/gs/products_service...sherpamatic.jsp (http://www.agfa.com/en/gs/products_services/all_products/grandsherpamatic.jsp)
It's not cheap, I tell you...
Regards,
Yann
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=201240\")
Looks professional but 25K Euro isn't what I like to spend.
2x CMYK or CcMmYKk dye based inks.
4 minutes at 360 dpi for a dual 1000 x 700 mm sheet with 2x CMYK.
1 mm precision at that sheet size between front and back.
I guess at 720 dpi and the other inkset it will be 16 minutes at least ... still a good speed but the 3 manufcturer's 60" models around are already faster and have pigment ink.
Ernst Dinkla
Try: [a href=\"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/[/url]
-
With a 9800 Epson I get less than 0.5 mm variation front to back. The thing is to work out how the printer thinks. Now they aint that smart. They were never intended for 2 side printing, but they do operate consistently- not being smart enough to do otherwise.Like a dog they need guidance. I attach sheets to the end of rolls with tape and print as if for roll. Left to right and top to bottom is adjusted after the first run through in Photoshop. It works. Operating as if for a roll enables borderless printing on sheets so I can print full bleed on deckle edges. One must develop strategies to overcome cretinous engineering programming. Don't expect a printer to easily perform tasks it was not designed for. Remember Graham Nash and Mac Holbert took a grinder (or similar) to a $250,000 Iris proofer to get it to print on art paper. Long ago in the 20th Century machines were a lot more versatile and manual. You had a machine that could do just about anything . You just set all the controls for the job in hand. Now most machines in the mass market try to make things easier for idiots and everything is programmed . The challenge for the operator who wants a result different to what the manufacturer assumes he/she wants, is to out manouver the machine mindset.
Cheers
Brian
www.pharoseditions.com.au
-
One must develop strategies to overcome cretinous engineering programming. Don't expect a printer to easily perform tasks it was not designed for. Remember Graham Nash and Mac Holbert took a grinder (or similar) to a $250,000 Iris proofer to get it to print on art paper. Long ago in the 20th Century machines were a lot more versatile and manual. You had a machine that could do just about anything . You just set all the controls for the job in hand. Now most machines in the mass market try to make things easier for idiots and everything is programmed . The challenge for the operator who wants a result different to what the manufacturer assumes he/she wants, is to out manouver the machine mindset.
Cheers
Brian
www.pharoseditions.com.au
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=201347\")
There's no hesitation here to customise printers and scanners or methods for the jobs at hand. Used that on the silkscreen equipment as well. The main reason I'm checking what exists in double sided printing is to pick up some ideas or to learn what doesn't work. Last week I did a job on a double sided paper 25" wide that started by cutting a roll of 50"wide 190 grams with the DeWalt. Printing the first sides from the roll and the second side as sheets. Last step was spot varnish applied in silkscreen.
I thinks the 1 mm tolerance is a bit rough too. But they start from the roll and the second printing is in sheets. At approx. 1000 x 700 mm there will always be some difference if compared to two runs done sheet wise.
Ernst Dinkla
Try: [a href=\"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/[/url]
-
Further thoughts on 9900 and calibration:
For those who are - like me - pondering about waiting for the new printers, here are some more thoughts on Epson's (probable) model strategy. What I wrote in my earlier post from Drupa has been corroberated by experts I have talked to in the meantime. The 7900 and 9900 printers are squarely targeted at the proofing market. The new ink set aims at being able to proof most of Pantone's spot colors and the spectrometer option is a high-end tool offering options like switchable UV-cut filters, user selectable black/white background etc. This has to be seen as a strategic move to defend the huge market share that Epson already has in the proofing sector against upstarts like HP making their solution of a print head integrated sensor look less professional.
The new printers will be marketed as high-end cousins to the photography-oriented models 7880 and 9880 which remain on the market. As photographers we are now facing an uncomfortable choice: Do we want the two black inks? Sure? Do we need the expensive high-end photometer? Probably not really.
Yes, it's true – from a perspective of physical measurement a robot photometer will be more reproducible than a hand-held one and prints made months appart without recalibration are visibly different. I recently reprinted an image on PhotoRag made a year ago with the same profile I used since then and the results differ very significantly. However, from an artistic point of view none of the pictures look "bad". So unless you are for some reason compelled to deliver identical prints over a long period of time you might live happily ever after with hand-made or ready-made profiles as others have suggested.
Epson will continue to have single-black "low cost" printers on the market for at least another year (keeping the 7880 alive for two years), so those of us who want the freedom to choose blacks without the ink change penalty will be pressured to buying the big irons. Even without the on-board photometer the 9900 will be priced significantly higher than the 9880 due to the more sophisiticated mechanics (we photographers don't really need, either). Let's face it: Epson makes its money in the printing industry and we photographers are welcome to buy into what technology they are willing make available at a time of their choice. Just look at their offence of introducing a new A3 photo printer (R2880) with vivid magenta but single matte/glossy black channel.
-
Further thoughts on 9900 and calibration:
For those who are - like me - pondering about waiting for the new printers, here are some more thoughts on Epson's (probable) model strategy. What I wrote in my earlier post from Drupa has been corroberated by experts I have talked to in the meantime. The 7900 and 9900 printers are squarely targeted at the proofing market. The new ink set aims at being able to proof most of Pantone's spot colors and the spectrometer option is a high-end tool offering options like switchable UV-cut filters, user selectable black/white background etc. This has to be seen as a strategic move to defend the huge market share that Epson already has in the proofing sector against upstarts like HP making their solution of a print head integrated sensor look less professional.
The new printers will be marketed as high-end cousins to the photography-oriented models 7880 and 9880 which remain on the market. As photographers we are now facing an uncomfortable choice: Do we want the two black inks? Sure? Do we need the expensive high-end photometer? Probably not really.
Yes, it's true – from a perspective of physical measurement a robot photometer will be more reproducible than a hand-held one and prints made months appart without recalibration are visibly different. I recently reprinted an image on PhotoRag made a year ago with the same profile I used since then and the results differ very significantly. However, from an artistic point of view none of the pictures look "bad". So unless you are for some reason compelled to deliver identical prints over a long period of time you might live happily ever after with hand-made or ready-made profiles as others have suggested.
Epson will continue to have single-black "low cost" printers on the market for at least another year (keeping the 7880 alive for two years), so those of us who want the freedom to choose blacks without the ink change penalty will be pressured to buying the big irons. Even without the on-board photometer the 9900 will be priced significantly higher than the 9880 due to the more sophisiticated mechanics (we photographers don't really need, either). Let's face it: Epson makes its money in the printing industry and we photographers are welcome to buy into what technology they are willing make available at a time of their choice. Just look at their offence of introducing a new A3 photo printer (R2880) with vivid magenta but single matte/glossy black channel.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=203008\")
While the HP head carriage integrated spectrometer may look less professional there's no reason to think it isn't suited for proof printing calibration. Fogra certifications for the Z3100 show that the color deviation specs are within the limits Fogra sets for proof solutions.
[a href=\"http://www.gmgcolor.com/gmgcolor/561+M5d637b1e38d.0.html]http://www.gmgcolor.com/gmgcolor/561+M5d637b1e38d.0.html[/url]
Canon can bring similar consistency:
http://www.canon-europe.com/about_us/news/...100_ipf6100.asp (http://www.canon-europe.com/about_us/news/solutions_business_news/1h08/drupa_may_efi_ipf5100_ipf6100.asp)
The main point is that piëzo heads are more expensive for the job to be done and if they can not make the difference in the market with their other properties like pumping solvent based inks, high viscosity inks, etc, they have heavy competition from thermo head systems. This stretches from humble desktop models to sign printers that avoid the choice for solvent inks like HP's Latex technology and the HP's Inkjet Web Press single pass roll width (now 36") printer.
Epson has a much wider market than graphic arts and certainly wouldn't like to be limited to that market where it is also facing the competition from the same brands on the same conditions. But it could well be that Epson has to make its money in the big printing industry mainly from now on. The Drupa stand showed the Epson small web label/sticker (Eco) solvent printer with a single pass head array. When asked the people servicing it told me that Epson plans to sell that printer itself. There were many heads and head assemblies shown to be used by third party manufacturers like Screen. The office A4 models with the Epson pro heads and big carts is another attempt to create a new market. The other choice is selling heads only and that in competition with many other piëzo head manufacturers.
Ernst Dinkla
Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/)
-
... I recently reprinted an image on PhotoRag made a year ago with the same profile I used since then and the results differ very significantly. ...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=203008\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
How do you know it was the printer that changed over the course of the year, and not the year-old print?
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
-
How do you know it was the printer that changed over the course of the year, and not the year-old print?
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=203042\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Exactly why an on-board spectro could reduce the tolerance and repeatability to minimize differences leading to a positive objective target control rather than a visual check (important nonetheless) without assurances upfront at print time.
Significant differences would tell me that there may be operating system /application/ driver changes, environmental changes too more important than the print permanence.
-
The spectro debate will subside over time, as the technology price falls. I don't see Epson losing market share quickly in the fine arts business, their distribution is very good. The papers match the abilities of the printers, and are well distributed. Repro is a different trade, and Canon have an obvious channel entry here, along with HP who have always been present.
Edmund
-
The new printers will be marketed as high-end cousins to the photography-oriented models 7880 and 9880 which remain on the market. As photographers we are now facing an uncomfortable choice: Do we want the two black inks? Sure? Do we need the expensive high-end photometer? Probably not really.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=203008\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I recall reading somewhere that the spectro is going to be an option so without that but with the wider gamut inks and two blacks, the printer is still fairly well aimed at the photo market as well wouldn't you say?
Jim
-
I recall reading somewhere that the spectro is going to be an option so without that but with the wider gamut inks and two blacks, the printer is still fairly well aimed at the photo market as well wouldn't you say?
Jim
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=203053\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Exactly! The Spectrophotometer is really immaterial to the discussion. It is a new, state of the art X-Rite device that can be ordered or not and allows those who wish to profile their own papers that opportunity at a very good price point.
-
I just got an email from SoP with the latest pricing:
Canon iPF5100 $1100 free delivery
Canon iPF6100 $2000 free delivery
Canon iPF8100 $3000 free delivery (ends this Wednesday)
Canon iPF9100 $8000 free delivery
Epson 4880 $1500 after rebate plus 3 free rolls Epson media
Epson 7880 $2450 after rebate plus 3 free rolls Epson media
Epson 9880 $4000 after rebate plus 3 free rolls Epson media
Epson 11880 $10300 after rebate plus 3 free rolls Epson media
I imagine other resellers are following these prices too. Sounds like they are trying to blow out the 8100s especially. With these prices (and feature set) the iPF printers are hard to overlook.
-
I just got an email from SoP with the latest pricing:
Canon iPF5100 $1100 free delivery
Canon iPF6100 $2000 free delivery
Canon iPF8100 $3000 free delivery (ends this Wednesday)
Canon iPF9100 $8000 free delivery
Epson 4880 $1500 after rebate plus 3 free rolls Epson media
Epson 7880 $2450 after rebate plus 3 free rolls Epson media
Epson 9880 $4000 after rebate plus 3 free rolls Epson media
Epson 11880 $10300 after rebate plus 3 free rolls Epson media
I imagine other resellers are following these prices too. Sounds like they are trying to blow out the 8100s especially. With these prices (and feature set) the iPF printers are hard to overlook.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=203091\")
Right, and the Epson 7900 and 9900 discussed here will not be under the 7880 + 9880 pricing whether there is a spectrometer or calibration aboard or not. As I understand it the bare 9900 and 7900 will be more expensive than their equivalents from the competition that do have a spectrometer aboard or at least a calibration instrument integrated. There has to be quite a difference in the other specs to compensate that price difference. Maybe it is also immaterial to the discussion that there is a spectrometer on the Z3100 etc but users of that printer model like the extra feature.
Ernst Dinkla
Try: [a href=\"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/[/url]
-
I recall reading somewhere that the spectro is going to be an option so without that but with the wider gamut inks and two blacks, the printer is still fairly well aimed at the photo market as well wouldn't you say?
Jim
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=203053\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Epson are aiming this product at the proofing market with art and photo in close 2nd place.
The spectro will be supported by all the big RIP players as well as point and click epson software for lino, ICCs and checks.
Some nice touches are the option for UV cut, white and black backing, a fan to help dry time and a bar which flattens the media before the patch is read which was a issue on the HP. But the best option is that you can take it or leave it.
The new cutter is great. You no longer have to wait for the head to reset to home position. As soon as the job is finished the printer spools some paper out and cuts in one fast action saving about 30secs.
Powered paper feed on the roll stops the media backing up which can damage some medias and there's no spindle anymore. Two guides with 2 and 3" adapters built in hold the roll and slide to fit rolls loaded.
-
Epson 4880 $1500 after rebate plus 3 free rolls Epson media
Epson 7880 $2450 after rebate plus 3 free rolls Epson media
Epson 9880 $4000 after rebate plus 3 free rolls Epson media
Epson 11880 $10300 after rebate plus 3 free rolls Epson media
Any thoughts that these might be the future price points for these machines?
Epson has been discounting the 7800/7880/9800/9880 for **so long** that they are going to have trouble moving back to their previous price point!
Too much churn. First they closed out the 7800 for $2,000 or less. That was just last December. Then these rebates starting in March, extended through June. Plus 7800 refurbs for under $1,800 at the same time.
Seems like $2,450 may wind up being the new street price for a 7880? Where will the 7900 without spectro slot in - $4,500 US street? $4K? $3.8K? Less?
I can't believe they will get away with more than $5K on a 24" machine (without spectro.)
Best,
Michael
-
Neil - finally confirmed that PK-MK is less than 1ml and MK-PK is under 3ml.
-
Neil - finally confirmed that PK-MK is less than 1ml and MK-PK is under 3ml.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=203931\")
2/3 of what a 3800 uses then. 4 ml on a full cycle PK>MK>PK and 1.20 Euro ex VAT or the equivalent of approx a 4 square feet print. Better than I expected.
Ernst Dinkla
Try: [a href=\"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/[/url]
-
For those of you wondering why the discounts on the present Epson 7880 & 9880 printers -- the new 7900 & 9900! 'bout bloody time I say.
http://www.dimagemaker.com/article.php?articleID=1329 (http://www.dimagemaker.com/article.php?articleID=1329)
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=192353\")
This link works:
[a href=\"http://site.booksmartstudio.com/blog/?p=10]http://site.booksmartstudio.com/blog/?p=10[/url]
-
4 ml on a full cycle PK>MK>PK and 1.20 Euro ex VAT or the equivalent of approx a 4 square feet print. Better than I expected.
Ernst Dinkla
Hopefully that will be enough to stop all of the whining!
Epson really screwed up with the PK/MK switching, I can't belive how stupid they have been on that. Still not 100% right. But it does get a little tedious to read about it over, and over, and over .....
Does anyone have a "best guess" on list or street pricing on the 7900/9900 without the spectro? I will probably just continue with the i1 for now.
Thanks!
Michael
-
Does anyone have a "best guess" on list or street pricing on the 7900/9900 without the spectro? I will probably just continue with the i1 for now.
I doubt anybody who really knows, can say anything. I'm anxiously awaing this info though. If it turns out that the 7900 is going to cost $4-5K then I'll probably just go with a Canon 6100. The 7900 sounds like exactly what I want, but I just can't spend that much.
If Epson is going to try to keep prices on the new printers extremely high by saying they're for the proofing market while offering the 880's as the more affordable offering for photographers that will be a real shame. After all it seems to me the expanded gamut and PK/MK switching would be more useful for the latter group.
-
For those of you that have seen examples from the printer, how well does it do with the subtleties of the different colors? Any improvements?
Also, does it use a limited set of patches to create a profile and still provide accuracy?
Thanks!
Jim
-
does anyone know of a location to see a gamut plot comparing the 9880 with 9900 ?
would very much like to see one to know what the extra inks give in everyday use, besides being able to hit pantone colours,
-
No, not yet. Stay tuned for a report by Joseph Holmes though , as that would be the best place for reporting when it can be done.
What is usually seen is gamut extensions, not the same thing as gamut largeness. The additional primaries makes for some extensions into the areas they can go where no multiple inks can, but don't create overall gamut. This is fine tuned in the color maps where the ink is added, the tapering of the combined inks etc. There is no doubt that the new printers will be well done. It will be interesting to see how close the three brands will be able to achieve spot colours now.
-
I notice that 16bit printing with Mac is mentioned in the press release.
Does anyone know if 16bit printing will be possible when using these new printers on a Windows based system?
- Rune M.
-
I notice that 16bit printing with Mac is mentioned in the press release.
Does anyone know if 16bit printing will be possible when using these new printers on a Windows based system?
- Rune M.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206966\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The bigger issue is the host software which MUST pass this data to the driver. Photoshop doesn't. Lightroom doesn't unless you're talking about the beta which indeed does.
-
Canon uses a plug in for their 16 bit printing. Works well too. Try the ipf series.
-
MacOS is at an advantage here because the latest version actually has a 16-bit printing pipeline in the OS. The Windows printing pipeline is strictly 8-bit, so to do 16-bit printing you need not only a special-purpose non-standard print driver, but also specific support for that driver in any application that uses it. It's possible - witness the Canon PS plug-in - but it's a lot more work for everybody involved and also non-standard (imagine if every manufacturer had their own 16-bit print driver architecture and applications had to write special support for each one).
One would hope that Windows 7 will have a 16-bit printing pipeline, but I haven't looked specifically into it plus I think that's quite a ways off at any rate.
-
Canon uses a plug in for their 16 bit printing. Works well too. Try the ipf series.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207016\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Note, the Canon export plug-in for Photoshop exports 10 or 12 bit data (can't remember) not the entire 16 bit data. So it's not really a 16 bit option.
-
Note, the Canon export plug-in for Photoshop exports 10 or 12 bit data (can't remember) not the entire 16 bit data. So it's not really a 16 bit option.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207311\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
12bit
-
I just got an email from SoP with the latest pricing:
Canon iPF5100 $1100 free delivery
Canon iPF6100 $2000 free delivery
Canon iPF8100 $3000 free delivery (ends this Wednesday)
Canon iPF9100 $8000 free delivery
Epson 4880 $1500 after rebate plus 3 free rolls Epson media
Epson 7880 $2450 after rebate plus 3 free rolls Epson media
Epson 9880 $4000 after rebate plus 3 free rolls Epson media
Epson 11880 $10300 after rebate plus 3 free rolls Epson media
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=203091\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I am new to this forum. I'm thinking of upgrading from my Epson 9000 to one of the current pigment printers. Can people make some vendor suggestions? I am not familiar with "SoP" mentioned above.
Thanks,
John M.
-
I am new to this forum. I'm thinking of upgrading from my Epson 9000 to one of the current pigment printers. Can people make some vendor suggestions? I am not familiar with "SoP" mentioned above.
Refers to Shades of Paper. You can look up their web site.
-
Note, the Canon export plug-in for Photoshop exports 10 or 12 bit data (can't remember) not the entire 16 bit data. So it's not really a 16 bit option.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207311\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Canon's engineers tell me that Adobe requires plug-ins to export either 8 or 16 bits and therefore their plug-in offers both options. When 16 bit is chosen in the plug-in a true 16 bits (or 15+1) is actually exported. The current iPF printers on-board LCOA processors process that information in 12 bits - the same as the capture bit depth of their pro DSLR's at that time. It would be nice for other manufacturers to officially state at which bit depth their on-board processing takes place.
-
It would be nice for other manufacturers to officially state at which bit depth their on-board processing takes place.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208012\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
With the new Leopard drivers on 10.5.x and above, the Epson processing is done on the full bit range of the data sent with no down-sampling. So, if you send it 16 bit, it processes in 16 bit.
-
With the new Leopard drivers on 10.5.x and above, the Epson processing is done on the full bit range of the data sent with no down-sampling. So, if you send it 16 bit, it processes in 16 bit.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208128\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The Epson processing with which Epson printer models, Jeff?
-
With the new Leopard drivers on 10.5.x and above, the Epson processing is done on the full bit range of the data sent with no down-sampling. So, if you send it 16 bit, it processes in 16 bit.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208128\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
True 16bit processing requires huge processing power and I'm told the economics behind providing 16 vs 14, 12, 10 or 8 bit processing are significant. While the benefits of going from 8 to 12 bits are significant, the benefits of going all the way to 16bits are minimal but the processing requirements increase substantially.
It seems unlikely that Epson would put such power onboard and not release 16bit software sooner like Canon did, so that users could take advantage of that power. When I've pressed Epson about their onboard processing power they've backed down and haven't been able to provide an answer. Can you direct us to someone at Epson's engineering group (not sales) that can provide us with an official answer?
-
The Epson processing with which Epson printer models, Jeff?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208130\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
3800, 4880, 7880, 9880 with the 6.xx level drivers on Leopard. Course, Photoshop CS3 only sends 8 bit data to the driver even when 16 bit printing is checked. Lightroom beta 2 is the first app that can send 16 bit data to the print pipeline. The next version of Photoshop should as well.
-
3800, 4880, 7880, 9880 with the 6.xx level drivers on Leopard.
The 2880 I just got also has this option in the driver.
-
The 2880 I just got also has this option in the driver.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208151\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
but the question here has become "once 16 bit data is delivered to the printer, at what bit depth does the printer's onboard processor process that data?" If the printer has 8 bit onboard processing then the extra data sent to the printer is irrelevant. High bit depth processing must be enabled at all three levels (application, driver and printer) for us to see real differences on paper. We need to have a 3rd party report card on the three brands to see how they all measure up in this respect.
-
but the question here has become "once 16 bit data is delivered to the printer, at what bit depth does the printer's onboard processor process that data?"
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208153\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The newer printers process the full 16 bit–also the 11880 should be added to that list. Earlier 7800/9800 and earlier are indeed maxed out at 8 bit.
-
The newer printers process the full 16 bit–also the 11880 should be added to that list.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208160\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If that's the case it seems funny that they aren't bragging about it, answering direct questions about this or providing Photoshop printing plug-ins like their competitors are so that people can take advantage of it.
-
If that's the case it seems funny that they aren't bragging about it, answering direct questions about this or providing Photoshop printing plug-ins like their competitors are so that people can take advantage of it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208162\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You'll see that messaging particularly with the newest printers this fall. The fact is, the only known apps that can even send 16 bit data to the print pipeline is Lightroom and Aperture (and Preview).
So, it's not like the printers can do much if that apps can't send the data, ya know? As far as making Photoshop export plug-ins to print to the printers, the problems with the Canon plug-ins are an indication that doing that ain't easy...
-
You'll see that messaging particularly with the newest printers this fall. The fact is, the only known apps that can even send 16 bit data to the print pipeline is Lightroom and Aperture (and Preview). So, it's not like the printers can do much if that apps can't send the data, ya know? [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208167\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yeah, I do know, and the plug-ins allow for 16 bit printing for every Photoshop user out there (back to Photoshop version 6 as I recall). Those plug-ins have significant other advantages (speed, better previewing, sharpening, interpolation methods, etc) and have been really nice to use for demanding users during the past few years while Adobe and the OSes have been getting their print pipelines in order.
-
heard through two authorized grapevines that "No Pricing Yet but We have been told Expect a Min of 1 K More and the spectro is an option" for the 7900.
I doubt anybody who really knows, can say anything. I'm anxiously awaing this info though. If it turns out that the 7900 is going to cost $4-5K then I'll probably just go with a Canon 6100. The 7900 sounds like exactly what I want, but I just can't spend that much.
If Epson is going to try to keep prices on the new printers extremely high by saying they're for the proofing market while offering the 880's as the more affordable offering for photographers that will be a real shame. After all it seems to me the expanded gamut and PK/MK switching would be more useful for the latter group.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204286\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
heard through two authorized grapevines that "No Pricing Yet but We have been told Expect a Min of 1 K More and the spectro is an option" for the 7900.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=209743\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That would be fair considering you can change the backing plate, remove the spectro etc.