PRO-1000 - page length update - don't get too excited...

[keithcooper]

I'm told that a page length increase is included with the latest firmware

"Feature: (1.1): ROM: The maximum printable height of custom paper size will be lengthened to 25.5-inch (647.70mm) with specifying in the printer driver."

I don't have a PRO-1000 here so have not verified the detail.
 
It's better than nothing, but from a marketing point of view seems like still shooting yourself in the foot but with a smaller calibre weapon.

[keithcooper]

Download link - history section shows update details

http://www.canon.co.uk/support/consumer_products/products/printers/inkjet/other_series/imageprograf_pro-1000.aspx?type=firmware

[shadowblade]

I guess you can now print a 16x24... (on 17x25)

Still useless for someone who shoots panoramas three quarters of the time, though.

[Mark D Segal]

The purpose of increasing the maximum length to 25.5 inches is to provide on paper the equivalent of a "full frame" aspect ratio without wasting paper on one dimension. If most of your work is printing panoramas, ideally you want a printer model with a roll holder. The only two current desktop pro models would be an Epson P800 or 4900.

[keithcooper]

The purpose of increasing the maximum length to 25.5 inches is to provide on paper the equivalent of a "full frame" aspect ratio without wasting paper on one dimension. If most of your work is printing panoramas, ideally you want a printer model with a roll holder. The only two current desktop pro models would be an Epson P800 or 4900.

Whilst that is an improvement, I don't really regard many of my wider cropped prints as panoramas. For example - a 2:1 (or even 16:9) crop from a 200mm shot is not panoramic IMHO ;-)

I'd like to be able to use 2:1 aspect ratio paper or more. Fortunately I have big printers here, but the Canon PRO-1000 limit is arbitrary and a bit perverse.

BTW I'd add the iPF5100 to your list - it is still a current 'Pro' model and the stand is optional, so it's at least as much a desktop machine as the 4900

Quite reasonably priced now...
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/reviews/printer/canon_ipf_5100.html

[howardm]

possibly add the Canon IPF5100 but that could be considered stretching the definition of desktop (ignoring that the product is 2-3 generations out of date at this point).

[Mark D Segal]

possibly add the Canon IPF5100 but that could be considered stretching the definition of desktop (ignoring that the product is 2-3 generations out of date at this point).

Totally

[Mark D Segal]

the Canon PRO-1000 limit is arbitrary and a bit perverse.

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/reviews/printer/canon_ipf_5100.html

No, the limit is not arbitrary; all technical decisions made in respect of designing these printers are based on considered technical criteria. Whether they sit well from a marketing perspective is another matter, and whether the criteria could be accommodated in other ways is yet another matter, but "arbitrary" they are not. "Perverse" means nothing unless one specifies in relation to what.

As for panoramas - what is a panorama? It is a very wide-angle sweep determined at the capture stage. We can print such constructs at any size and they are still panoramas, so the discussion here about the size of the panorama, not whether panoramas can be printed. Hahnemuhle has produced a panorama paper that is only 23.3 inches long and 8.25 inches wide. So this facilitates small size panoramas that will print in a Canon Pro-1000. Anyone who wants their panoramas to be longer than 25.5 inches would not be using this printer, and that is a limitation of interest to marketing.

[keithcooper]

possibly add the Canon IPF5100 but that could be considered stretching the definition of desktop (ignoring that the product is 2-3 generations out of date at this point).

Sorry - both 4900 and 5100 are huge but fit on my standard 'desktop'

The 4900 weighs 52kg
The 5100 weighs 49kg
The PRO-1000 weighs 32kg

I've had both here for review, and if you're going to call the 4900 a desktop, then the 5100 is too
Here are both on the same tabletop.

In terms of print quality, the older ink set hasn't stopped producing good prints on many media.

The 4900 is also close in age to the 5100.

[keithcooper]

No, the limit is not arbitrary; all technical decisions made in respect of designing these printers are based on considered technical criteria. Whether they sit well from a marketing perspective is another matter, and whether the criteria could be accommodated in other ways is yet another matter, but "arbitrary" they are not. "Perverse" means nothing unless one specifies in relation to what.

As for panoramas - what is a panorama? It is a very wide-angle sweep determined at the capture stage. We can print such constructs at any size and they are still panoramas, so the discussion here about the size of the panorama, not whether panoramas can be printed. Hahnemuhle has produced a panorama paper that is only 23.3 inches long and 8.25 inches wide. So this facilitates small size panoramas that will print in a Canon Pro-1000. Anyone who wants their panoramas to be longer than 25.5 inches would not be using this printer, and that is a limitation of interest to marketing.

Sorry, I disagree - you have obviously talked to your Canon people - likewise ;-)
Happy to choose other words though...

Very true about 'panoramic' - it's never been a term I was truly happy with.  A local supplier does 297x900mm paper for that choice of aspect ratio.

[Mark D Segal]

Sorry, I disagree - you have obviously talked to your Canon people - likewise ;-)
Happy to choose other words though...

Clearly Canon is a pretty big operation with more than one mouth in the company, but anyone who led you to think these design decisions are arbitrary is likely talking above or aside from their pay-grade. The more I discuss technical issues with the concerned people in the various companies the more impressed I am that they usually know exactly what they are doing and for what reasons. That of course doesn't mean I necessarily buy into every argument, but one thing I know for sure is that the decisions are not "arbitrary", nor would I put considered engineering judgment into that category as long as it has an operationally significant basis.

[Mousecop]

I guess you can now print a 16x24... (on 17x25)

Still useless for someone who shoots panoramas three quarters of the time, though.

Yes, that should be kind of obvious by the lack of roll paper holder.

[tarzan1234]

This is the deal breaker for me. I have been waiting for an upgrade from 13". I was excited to hear they were relaxing the length limit. Although not a frequent pano shooter, I do make pano shots from time to time and want to print them. I just cut from a roll and feed the paper manually so can live without a roll holder. However, limiting the length to 25" just kills the deal for me.

[BradSmith]

Mark, Keith
I realize you can't divulge specific, precise info you have from a manufacturer about a specific printer.  But how about some general info to help us understand.  What do you think are possible technical reasons why a printer company, any printer company, (I remember that the Epson 3800 also had a maximum print length) limits the print length? Overheating?  Paper skew?  Output tray not long enough?   or    or

Or, I suppose, the reason could be marketing rather than technical, as in, " let's limit the print length for our less expensive printers so people who want/need to print longer will have to purchase our more expensive printer"
Brad

[Richard.Wills]

Brad,

I'd put paper skew at the top of the list. Numerous rips have let us print longer than the manufacturer's max lengths, and the machines haven't gone pop. Effective length of output and input trays are simple to increase.

Having printed several football pitches worth of media over the recent years (ball, round or ovoid, hands optional), I still prefer to limit printing to 43" out of a 44" roll, when the length goes beyond a couple or three metres. Probably paranoia, as the paper skew check on the Canons and Epson is reasonably (!) sensitive, but on the times when I've turned it off, there has been the potential to drift (by more or less than a degree) over the length of a print.

Imagine the reputation your machine might develop if you said it could do a 16x64" print, but the borders routinely ranged from 8 to 16mm. Safer to cripple the software to an almost un-noticable drift and let the third party drivers take the rap for going beyond the machine's (and the loader of the paper's) average ability.

Might sill be a conspiracy.