New Canon wide format printers

[iCanvas]

Hi all,
 It seems as if Canon is planning to update all it's wide format printers. From the imaging resource website, Dave etchells, interviews the imaging chief of Canon, Masaya Maeda, about forthcoming camera equipment and printers.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2015/09/16/canon-maeda-promises-eos-m-enthusiasts-more-aps-c-lenses-new-printers   

In the interview imaging chief says that printer updates are coming soon. Below the article I questioned Dave about how soon, and if the updates include wide format printers, he said  that yes, the imaging chief, Masaya, stated that the updates to wide format printers were coming soon.

 Has anybody heard anything else besides this?

Gar

[Ernst Dinkla]

A 17" printer prototype too, the shape suggests more in the P800 class than a successor of the iPF5100.

A mirrorless camera that should be nice so I guess not an M type.


Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
December 2014 update, 700+ inkjet media white spectral plots

[Geraldo Garcia]

Canon displayed some new/prototypes large format printers during their recent expo. Just the bodies, no text, no info, just the black bodies (the one on the left).

[ihv]

Indeed. Looks like a bargain for me, all the inks available at all times.

A 17" printer prototype too, the shape suggests more in the P800 class than a successor of the iPF5100.

[Some Guy]

A 'Red Line' printer to match their 'Red Line' lenses.  Interesting. 

I wonder if this new 17" desktop with 12 colors was a result of their newest 50MP camera?  When I talked to their rep, he said the 13" was a match for their 5D Mark II pixel-for-dpi matching back then and why they often bundled that pair in sales promos (Free printer with a 5D Mark II).

Hopefully the head(s) are user-friendly to change out or clean the underside of over Epson who built the thing up around the head.

Will be interesting to see a comparison between the P800 and this thing when it appears -- which seems soon.

SG

[Ernst Dinkla]

It will print Sony A7R MKII images as well I guess. Even if that camera has red line lenses.

Ernst

[Czornyj]

A 'Red Line' printer to match their 'Red Line' lenses.  Interesting. 

I wonder if this new 17" desktop with 12 colors was a result of their newest 50MP camera?  When I talked to their rep, he said the 13" was a match for their 5D Mark II pixel-for-dpi matching back then and why they often bundled that pair in sales promos (Free printer with a 5D Mark II).

Hopefully the head(s) are user-friendly to change out or clean the underside of over Epson who built the thing up around the head.

Will be interesting to see a comparison between the P800 and this thing when it appears -- which seems soon.

SG

We did a small comparison of 5DsR, 5Ds, 5DMk3, and Pentax 645Z images - I saw the difference between 5D3 an 5DsR on 60x90cm (24x36") print, but others had problems with it. The difference was obvious for everyone on 100x150cm (41x62") format.

So my conclusion is that you'd rather need 24-44" LFP to take real life advantage of 50MPix files...

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

We did a small comparison of 5DsR, 5Ds, 5DMk3, and Pentax 645Z images - I saw the difference between 5D3 an 5DsR on 60x90cm (24x36") print, but others had problems with it.

Hi,

Always interesting to have feedback on such visual acuity tests. However, a 60x90cm print from a 5D3 is 162.6 PPI natively, which then got upsampled (by the printer driver?) to 300PPI, and the 5DS R was 245.2 PPI natively, which then got upsampled to 300 PPI. The upsampling (of unknown quality), and potentially without output sharpening added after the upsampling, would have made some (or even a lot of) difference. It obviously also depends on the viewing distance, but at close inspection the difference should be visible unless special upsampling software and output sharpening was used to close the gap.

The difference was obvious for everyone on 100x150cm (41x62") format.

We then get 97.54 PPI natively versus 147.1 PPI natively. So both were upsampled much more. I'm a bit surprised that only then it became so obvious, maybe to do with the viewing distance?

So my conclusion is that you'd rather need 24-44" LFP to take real life advantage of 50MPix files...

It would certainly make a positive difference, but it already should be visible (obvious?) at smaller output sizes, if properly processed.

I do not believe in a literal match between e.g. a 5D2 for 13 inch, but there is a bit of rationale for that thought. If one were to print exactly 13 inch wide, that would result in 432.0 PPI natively without resampling, or at exactly 13 inch high it would be 288.0 PPI. Both close to the default 300 PPI of the printer driver, and since the printed area is usually a bit smaller the resolution would be even higher. No problem at close visual inspection, because it is also close match to a visual acuity of average 20/20 vision at reading distances.

But that does not mean that excellent prints cannot be made from those files at larger sizes, especially since viewing distances are likely to also increase. But they will just be better if we start off with more real sampled pixels, also at closer viewing distances.

Cheers,
Bart

[Czornyj]

Hi Bart,

I printed from LR Print Module, images were upsampled and sharpened to 600ppi (which is native res. of iPF driver).

It was easy for me to spot the difference on 60x90cm format, but I'm experienced printer, inkjet user since Epson Photo EX and I have eyesight of a sharpshooter. The sample portaits were taken in studio - from a tripod, LV focused with L-series lenses. The people could take prints and view them from any distance.

I didn't try to print smaller formats, as 60x90cm (24x36") still wasn't enough for an average photographer. I was also a little bit surprised, of course it was far from scientific experiment, but I didn't really want to push it to extremely abstract level.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I didn't try to print smaller formats, as 60x90cm (24x36") still wasn't enough for an average photographer. I was also a little bit surprised, of course it was far from scientific experiment, but I didn't really want to push it to extremely abstract level.

Hi Marcin,

Yes, a bit surprising. Maybe the upsampling with LR didn't exploit the output sharpening of the 600 PPI resampled data as much as it could have. I know that in LR there are several sharpening levels available for output, but still. One of my favorites is TopazLabs Detail, although it takes a while for initial analyzing on large MP images, or FocusMagic to compensate for some of the 'losses' (or lack of actual resolution) due to upsampling.

For subjects with sharp detail, PhotoZoom Pro is still hard to beat, because it adds real resolution to edge detail, instead of interpolating to magnified edges it creates new sharp ones. This is amazingly effective at normal viewing distances (it may look a bit odd when zoomed in too far for inspection) and makes a difference especially for 600 and 720 PPI output by exceeding average human visual acuity (but not Vernier resolution capability).

Cheers,
Bart

[Geraldo Garcia]

We did a small comparison of 5DsR, 5Ds, 5DMk3, and Pentax 645Z images - I saw the difference between 5D3 an 5DsR on 60x90cm (24x36") print, but others had problems with it. The difference was obvious for everyone on 100x150cm (41x62") format.

My personal experience printing files from clients took me to the same conclusion. It was not a formal experiment and we are talking about completely different images, papers, photographers, lenses and subjects, but I could see the benefits of the 5Ds on a 60x90cm print and even more evidently on a 100x150cm print.

[Czornyj]

Hi Marcin,

Yes, a bit surprising. Maybe the upsampling with LR didn't exploit the output sharpening of the 600 PPI resampled data as much as it could have. I know that in LR there are several sharpening levels available for output, but still. One of my favorites is TopazLabs Detail, although it takes a while for initial analyzing on large MP images, or FocusMagic to compensate for some of the 'losses' (or lack of actual resolution) due to upsampling.

For subjects with sharp detail, PhotoZoom Pro is still hard to beat, because it adds real resolution to edge detail, instead of interpolating to magnified edges it creates new sharp ones. This is amazingly effective at normal viewing distances (it may look a bit odd when zoomed in too far for inspection) and makes a difference especially for 600 and 720 PPI output by exceeding average human visual acuity (but not Vernier resolution capability).

Cheers,
Bart

Bart,

Thanks a lot for comprehensive information, I'll test sharpening methods that you mentioned on the test images and see the influence of them on prints. I think it also may be interesting to print smaller formats...

My personal experience printing files from clients took me to the same conclusion. It was not a formal experiment and we are talking about completely different images, papers, photographers, lenses and subjects, but I could see the benefits of the 5Ds on a 60x90cm print and even more evidently on a 100x150cm print.

...and 5DsR was noticably better - ironically it exhibited much less moiré issues than 5DMk3