Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: Gemmtech on March 08, 2012, 10:33:26 am
-
I would be surprised if the Epson 7900/9900 replacements weren't announced within the next few months. The Epson 7900/9900 were announced May 2008 and launched at the end of 2008, that's almost four years ago... What has Epson been doing? Wasn't Epson on a 3 year cycle for these printers? Certainly they have been working hard to blow away the competition, HP fell way behind, but Canon still appears to be putting out great products.
I have my bucket list of features I would like...
1. Eliminate GD completely, add a clear coating (how difficult can this be?)
2. Accept a cassette that can hold at least 10 sheets, preferably 50 cut sheets of any media type
3. Make the blacks blacker, ala dye
4. Build it from carbon fiber... weight savings would be phenomenal
5. Have an internal cleaning mechanism so clogs are a thing of the past, IOW, don't use ink
6. Add a tweet on twitter for each print I make (Joking)
OK Epson, I'm ready, I'm assuming by 12-12-2012 I'll have an Epson "8000"
Garry
-
OK Epson, I'm ready, I'm assuming by 12-12-2012 I'll have an Epson "8000"
And then the world will end. So, why bother? :P
-
1. Eliminate GD completely, add a clear coating (how difficult can this be?)
It's done on some Epsons, of course. It's going to be a matter of cost and demand rather than difficulty, I think.
2. Accept a cassette that can hold at least 10 sheets, preferably 50 cut sheets of any media type
On the 4900 style or do you mean for the larger machines? What size media? Do you want flat path?
3. Make the blacks blacker, ala dye
For PK or MK or both? Are there any pigments out there that are significantly blacker that we could use to measure against or are they all pretty similar across all the vendors at the moment?
4. Build it from carbon fiber... weight savings would be phenomenal
Is weight really an issue? Are you talking about wanting, say, a more portable 4900 style? Rigidity seems more important to me, as well as keeping cost down (carbon fibre is going to be more expensive).
5. Have an internal cleaning mechanism so clogs are a thing of the past, IOW, don't use ink
Any concepts coming to mind as to how to clean a print head without using ink to push it through?
-
I would be surprised if the Epson 7900/9900 replacements weren't announced within the next few months.
I would be surprised if Epson replaced the 79/9900 any time soon (as in years, not months).
I wouldn't hold your breath...
-
I did forget one feature, maybe it could have a spell check feature! ;)
Re: GD, personally I abhor having to tone down my highlights because there's no or little ink. Just seems like the print shouldn't have any. If I want to display a large print with no glass or coating I shouldn't have the GD.
Re: Cassette, I want a cassette for the "8000" that accepts all cut media size, why not 4x6 min and 24" maximum? How many people complain about roll paper and curl, especially at the end of the roll. I imagine a lot of people would love cut sheet capability? Straight through feed or close to it.
Re: Blacks, PK and MK still aren't at the level of dye.... I'd settle for blacker blacks with PK if I had to chose just one.
Re: Weight, Carbon fiber isn't going to happen, but wouldn't it be nice if one or two people could lift a 7900? :-)
Re: Cleaning, why can't there be a tank of solvent the print heads rest in? Or have the ability to blow solvent through each end of each color line? Anything that is cheaper than the ink itself. I always use an ammonia pad under my print head of my 1280 and I never get a clog. If a solvent could wick up the first 1/4" - 1/2" of the line the clogging should be eliminated, though I'll admit I don't know exactly where the clog occurs in these machines, it seems it should occur at the end of the line. I just believe there has to be a less expensive way to clean the lines without using expensive ink. I don't use $100.00 per gallon product to clean the paint from my Binks spray equipment, I use a solvent and ink is a lot more than $100 per gallon.
-
I would be surprised if Epson replaced the 79/9900 any time soon (as in years, not months).
I wouldn't hold your breath...
That's discouraging, because I'm sure you'd probably know the answer of approximately when! Years? Even cars have a quicker cycle now than 5 years. And there are a lot of improvements that could be done without a complete redesign.
Maybe it's time to tear one down....... :-)
-
I just believe there has to be a less expensive way to clean the lines without using expensive ink. I don't use $100.00 per gallon product to clean the paint from my Binks spray equipment, I use a solvent and ink is a lot more than $100 per gallon.
And that is exactly why they will never do that. Do you think Epson (or any other brand) is selling ink to keep their "printer selling business" alive? No! It is the exact opposite: They are selling printers to keep their "ink selling business" going on, that is where the money is. A more frugal printer is bad business for them.
Best regards.
-
And that is exactly why they will never do that. Do you think Epson (or any other brand) is selling ink to keep their "printer selling business" alive? No! It is the exact opposite: They are selling printers to keep their "ink selling business" going on, that is where the money is. A more frugal printer is bad business for them.
Best regards.
That's true until another company does it, then you have royally pissed off your customer base and if they defect.... And I believe people would rather spend more for the inks and waste less and have fewer problems and less aggravation.
-
Let's assume you had a solvent or whatever other cleaning fluid to run through instead of ink, and it was cheaper. You'd still use ink because you'd have to purge ink already in the head channel (at least, assuming you had a gate at the head) and then you'd need to purge the cleaning fluid with ink once cleaned.
I'm not saying it couldn't be done, but I don't think that approach is quite going to work.
I also doubt very much whether any vendor is relying on cleaning to boost ink sales.
-
Let's assume you had a solvent or whatever other cleaning fluid to run through instead of ink, and it was cheaper. You'd still use ink because you'd have to purge ink already in the head channel (at least, assuming you had a gate at the head) and then you'd need to purge the cleaning fluid with ink once cleaned.
I'm not saying it couldn't be done, but I don't think that approach is quite going to work.
I also doubt very much whether any vendor is relying on cleaning to boost ink sales.
You'd have to purge "some" ink, considerably less than what is being used now, probably 95% less. As far as cleaning to boost ink sales, if they weren't they'd certainly not waste so much.
As far as what will and what won't work, I'm going to have to tear one apart with a couple of my friends and f-i-l to take a look. It wouldn't be the first machine we have redesigned for a manufacturer.
-
Yes, it might be less ink than is currently used, but 95%? I doubt it. You'd have to cost analyse as to whether the amount of ink still used plus the amount of cleaning fluid (at the cheaper price) including what then has to be purged was actually less than the cost of just using ink by itself. It might be, and it might still be cheaper after the cost of the system being put in place and so on.
Even systems that gate the PK/MK at the head use a measurable amount of ink to do a swap - multiply that across all channels and it certainly becomes more complex and less immediately attractive economically.
I'm sure Epson will be eager to review your findings.
-
I can't imagine the possible nightmares of trying to purge the solvent (and guarantee that is 100% purged) so you would have no impact on image quality. the theory sounds good but practicality sounds impossible. Maybe as a scenario to clear some serious problems but not standard practice.
I know we are used to product cycles and yes I think there are some things about the 79/9900 that could be improved, but to be honest I just don't know if there is any way to get a significant and useful improvement in gamut or other factors with pigment ink. I wish they could figure out how to improve the issue with clogs (or whatever they are)- at least be similar to the 38xx printers ... not sure if it's just a size thing or what but they hardly ever clog.
But the 79/9900's are terrific, and any improvements would probably fall in the category of tweaks ... no reason to upgrade until you just need a new one.
but you never know ... (although Jeff probably does so I don't expect one )
-
If Jeff knows, he can't say, so we should probably be more polite and not ask :-)
Wayne - you know, when a service tech flushes or refurbs a machine it takes a full ink charge to make sure that the lines only have ink in them. Sure, some sort of cleaning system would presumably improve upon that and maybe it just needs to inject some cleaner into the ink flow at the head and thus reduce the risk of leaving any behind - but you're right, it's not going to be so simple and the first sign of incorrect colours or banding etc because some cleaning fluid ended up being printed out and you have a whole lot more complaints.
-
That's true until another company does it, then you have royally pissed off your customer base and if they defect.... And I believe people would rather spend more for the inks and waste less and have fewer problems and less aggravation.
That was EXACTLY the line of thinking that made me buy an HP Z3200 and I can´t tell you how happy I am! ;D
-
Yes, it might be less ink than is currently used, but 95%? I doubt it. You'd have to cost analyse as to whether the amount of ink still used plus the amount of cleaning fluid (at the cheaper price) including what then has to be purged was actually less than the cost of just using ink by itself. It might be, and it might still be cheaper after the cost of the system being put in place and so on.
Even systems that gate the PK/MK at the head use a measurable amount of ink to do a swap - multiply that across all channels and it certainly becomes more complex and less immediately attractive economically.
I'm sure Epson will be eager to review your findings.
You may doubt 95% savings, I don't... And I didn't say it would be easy, nothing ever seems to be. :-)
You know, I should lambaste you for your last arrogant (albeit based upon ignorance) comment, but I'll refrain from doing so. The fact is there have been many large corporations with 1000s of brilliant engineers who were taught how to make one of their own devices better or even function properly by an independent engineer or just an average Joe and I'm only speaking about my circle of family and friends. I'm sure the conversation went something like this back in the 70s "Yeah Bill, I'm sure IBM is eagerly waiting for you to sell them an operating system" that could have never happened, IBM was the largest computer company in the world and was being granted more patents than any other company.
A few other well known men...
Robert Kearns - You know who he is right?
Martin Eberhard and Elon Musk
Ross Perot
Steve Wozniak
The aforementioned four men tried to convince very large corporations that their creations were unique, they "failed". Obviously Ross Perot worked for IBM and Steve Wozniak worked for HP, Robert Kearns tried to sell his device (intermittent windshield wiper) to the "Big 3", but they didn't want to buy it, so they stole it, he successfully sued and "won"! (even though he won millions, does one ever win in American Courts?, another discussion) There are countless examples of this, so for you to say "I'm sure Epson will be eager to review your findings." tells me you have never designed or invented anything, for if you had you wouldn't make such a ridiculous comment. A good friend of mine (owner of a small $30 million co.) has saved a letter from Roger Smith (retired CEO of GM in the 1980s) thanking him for showing the engineers at GM how to make a piece of equipment work both companies had purchased, the engineers at GM couldn't get their 7 units working, my friends "Chief Engineer" (self taught, no college education) showed them how to make the machines work. I hope you get the point. It's possible Epson wouldn't welcome somebody with open arms who decided to devise a method of saving ink, but I bet when customers start purchasing other brands, they will wake up.... Don't be one of these people who believes all the best and brightest work for a Fortune 1000 company, they don't and there's a reason why some do and some don't..... Think about it..
I don't know how much Jeff Schewe is told by Epson regarding future products, but if Epson is like every other large corporation they don't tell "consultants" much until the date gets close. I have no idea what Jeff does or doesn't know and that wouldn't discourage me from tearing one apart.
-
That was EXACTLY the line of thinking that made me buy an HP Z3200 and I can´t tell you how happy I am! ;D
And that is why HP & Canon have made great strides..... Granted, HP seems to have fallen behind, but Canon has been a strong contender.
-
You'd have to purge "some" ink, considerably less than what is being used now, probably 95% less. As far as cleaning to boost ink sales, if they weren't they'd certainly not waste so much.
As far as what will and what won't work, I'm going to have to tear one apart with a couple of my friends and f-i-l to take a look. It wouldn't be the first machine we have redesigned for a manufacturer.
There was a Stork textile inkjet printer that had an arrangement like that but that was still a CMYK model so less channels to cope with. Amethyst, Zircon, or?
The most frugal on ink in cleaning and printing are the HP Z models, no need for cleaning fluid technology. Their matte black also has a very high Dmax. On sheet loading it might be the worst model :-)
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst
Shareware too:
330+ paper white spectral plots:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
-
Ernst,
Thanks for the information, interesting...
-
Don't be one of these people who believes all the best and brightest work for a Fortune 1000 company, they don't and there's a reason why some do and some don't..... Think about it..
I've never thought that. I've also never thought, based on anything you've ever written here, that you would be one of the ones not working for such a company - that's all.
-
I've never thought that. I've also never thought, based on anything you've ever written here, that you would be one of the ones not working for such a company - that's all.
This will be the last time I reply to anything you write.
I find your statement ironic......Why respond to anything I write? You seem to be trolling and or stalking me, why? If you don't agree with anything I write, please just ignore my posts and I'll reciprocate. Let's just agree to ignore each other. Fact is, I haven't followed your posts, I don't know who you are, nor do I have any interest, you haven't written anything I have read that leads me to believe you have a clue...
Good day
-
This will be the last time I reply to anything you write.
I find your statement ironic......Why respond to anything I write? You seem to be trolling and or stalking me, why? If you don't agree with anything I write, please just ignore my posts and I'll reciprocate. Let's just agree to ignore each other. Fact is, I haven't followed your posts, I don't know who you are, nor do I have any interest, you haven't written anything I have read that leads me to believe you have a clue...
Good day
People shouldn't respond if they disagree? Seems silly. I just posted in another thread that something you wrote was extremely well said. I call it as I see it - as I presume do you - so we both have to deal with criticism if people don't argee with us.
You might be an amazing engineer but all I've seen doesn't lead me to believe that, and in response to your diatribe I said as much. If you don't like that, sorry, but also tough. All I said was I don't think you're one of those one in a million guys /shrug. I'm certainly not one of those one in a million guys - I don't take it as an insult to be told so, but perhaps I have a more realistic opinion of my own knowledge and abilities and their value to the rest of the world? :-)
-
I have no idea what Jeff does or doesn't know and that wouldn't discourage me from tearing one apart.
Well, I think tearing one apart would void your warrantee but I suspect Epson would be happy to sell you one...
What I know and don't know is subject to NDAs...but I've heard Epson people say publicly that the 79/9900 are at about the limits of the technology of physics and chemistry. Their big movement of late has been solvent printers for the display market. HP has essentially dropped out of the race and the Canon pigment printers are at about their zenith...I just don't see a lot of advances coming in the near term.
-
Well, I think tearing one apart would void your warrantee but I suspect Epson would be happy to sell you one...
What I know and don't know is subject to NDAs...but I've heard Epson people say publicly that the 79/9900 are at about the limits of the technology of physics and chemistry. Their big movement of late has been solvent printers for the display market. HP has essentially dropped out of the race and the Canon pigment printers are at about their zenith...I just don't see a lot of advances coming in the near term.
I'd buy a used 7900 just to have a look....Seems interesting that Epson believes their products (7900/9900) are close to the limits of the technology of physics and chemistry. Has HP dropped out of the race or do they have something in the pipeline? I suppose the question would be, what's next in the world of inkjet printing? 3D printing is very useful in my industry and I first became acquainted with it about 8 years ago, could photography benefit from 3D printing? There aren't clogging issues with the 3D printers..... :-) And the pieces they produce are functional.
-
3D printing is very useful in my industry and I first became acquainted with it about 8 years ago, could photography benefit from 3D printing?
3D in a 2D media? Naw...it's crap, a gimmick. Yes, it has some uses...but not in fine art printing or proofing which is what the 79/9900 printers are designed for. Maybe for movie posters for 3D movies. The last one I saw gave me a headache...
-
3D in a 2D media? Naw...it's crap, a gimmick. Yes, it has some uses...but not in fine art printing or proofing which is what the 79/9900 printers are designed for. Maybe for movie posters for 3D movies. The last one I saw gave me a headache...
Actually I was thinking of 3D printing... IOW, have the depth of an actual painting.... Now we can print anything, from houses to working crescent wrenches. Some people do art reproduction work, but an oil painting reproduced with an inkjet is 2D whereas the original is 3D, why couldn't an inkjet give us that same texture (depth) as an actual oil painting?
-
but I've heard Epson people say publicly that the 79/9900 are at about the limits of the technology of physics and chemistry.
An observation I share, I have said publicly that the 79/9900 are at about the limits of their technology if not over.
The two Epson (eco)solvent printers are in direct competition with four? HP Latex and several solvent printers and numerous (eco)solvent and a "Latex" printer from other manufacturers. Epson will not deliver their latest piëzohead technology to Mimaki, Roland and Mutoh so they switched to other manufacturers like Ricoh for their heads. Maybe there were other reasons for them to do so. Whether Epson can claim the market share of its old customers has to be seen. For photo printers I do not expect big surprises on the Drupa and Photokina events this year but there could be surprises in the sign market and in the inkjet replacement of offset printing and electrostatic printing. In that replacement Canon was the outsider (Océ, now part of Canon is involved though), HP and Epson are the real rivals. Epson sells heads in that market to Screen, Fuji and more. Who survives there is in a good position to re-enter the photo printer market with similar developments. Memjet technology is doing well in label printing but the office printer introduction seems to be delayed for about a year now. I think nobody is out of the photo printer market yet but the domination of Epson is without doubt gone. Reason for Epson to go into other markets that are also tough. The Drupa might tell more than the Photokina what the future could be. The (photo)graphic industry goes through a rough time, information does not need paper as a carrier any more.
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst
Shareware too:
330+ paper white spectral plots:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
-
.... I've heard Epson people say publicly that the 79/9900 are at about the limits of the technology of physics and chemistry. Their big movement of late has been solvent printers for the display market. HP has essentially dropped out of the race and the Canon pigment printers are at about their zenith...I just don't see a lot of advances coming in the near term.
I know of a few things that might surprise people when it happens. Sure, the days of the massive improvements with each update like we saw in 2000-2010 are over. I can only say so much as well but I'd expect advances in the ink themselves and new printers and heads to keep up with them. Refinements in usability will continue to evolve. On board calibration and profiling will evolve. Yes, look for some fun new printers this year from more than one brand.
These are the good days where we can actually enjoy a printer for a good 3+ years or so before we feel compelled to upgrade.
-
The primary markets that Epson's solvent printers (GS6000 and S30) can enter is the vehicle wrap segment, which requires cast vinyl (and laminates), the banner market, where pricing has gotten so competitive that inexpensive banner material is a requirement to be able to sell into this market and the decor canvas field, where clear coats are not mandatory. We have customers who say that half their cost is the time and cost of clear coating. The elimination of coating costs allows the solvent printer owners to be competitive in this tightly budgeted market. It also allows for quicker turnaround time as the production time and storage/drying costs are reduced by as much as 50%. In addition to these market segments, Epson's solvent printers can also play in the Fine Art market, if the right materials and profiles are employed.