Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Down

Author Topic: Observations on Chroma Optimizer (“CO”) Usage Canon Pro-1000 Printer  (Read 8364 times)

sabin

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 26

Very interesting Sabin.

My question on reading this is whether there is a bigger price to pay down the road for turning off as much of this maintenance stuff as possible. I suppose we won't get to know that unless or till something unwanted happens. Or put another way, there has to be some logic behind the default settings and some logic behind the options to tune them way down, but none of that logic is anywhere explained, so we are a bit in the dark on all this, taking the long-term perspective on it.

Thats a good question. Time will tell I guess.

I read somewhere that the dryer the air, the more the chance to get clogged nozzles. I guess that hot and dry is the worst scenario. If one get clogs from time to time, it's better not to disable the extra maintenances. In my case with only one case of very faint clogged nozzles I have decided to risk it. No because it's too expensive, but because I'm curious what will happen. BTW today searching for something in the canon documentation I found a text in the printers manual regarding ink maintenance. It states that some ink is used to clear air bubbles from the system. So in theory the negative may not be only clogged nozzles, but decreased printing quality as in fact Canon warns in the manual about disabling this functions.
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10397
    • http://www.markdsegal.com

That Ink Maintenance is only about letting the printer agitate the cartridges periodically. It isn't about cleaning cycles.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml

Panagiotis

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 51

That Ink Maintenance is only about letting the printer agitate the cartridges periodically. It isn't about cleaning cycles.
It must be about something else because I set mine to off and it stills agitates the cartridges.
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10397
    • http://www.markdsegal.com

It must be about something else because I set mine to off and it stills agitates the cartridges.

Strange, because I consulted the manual (at least the version I have) and what I reported is what it appears to say about that setting. I use the world "appears" because the use of the English language and editorial structure in that manual leaves a lot to be desired, but I thought this was reasonably understandable, so I mentioned it.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml

sabin

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 26

It must be about something else because I set mine to off and it stills agitates the cartridges.

I confirm that, mine also with IM off agitates the inks.
Logged

Panagiotis

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 51

Strange, because I consulted the manual (at least the version I have) and what I reported is what it appears to say about that setting. I use the world "appears" because the use of the English language and editorial structure in that manual leaves a lot to be desired, but I thought this was reasonably understandable, so I mentioned it.

You are right about what the manual states. I checked it and it's clear. But I just printed two and it agitated the inks as usual despite the "Ink Maintenance" is set to "OFF". So what the manual states is at least strange not to say inaccurate :).
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10397
    • http://www.markdsegal.com

You are right about what the manual states. I checked it and it's clear. But I just printed two and it agitated the inks as usual despite the "Ink Maintenance" is set to "OFF". So what the manual states is at least strange not to say inaccurate :).

Not the first time. Perhaps useful in the final analysis to ask Canon directly what they mean by this, because in light of reported experience it may well be less clear than it seems!
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml

traderjay

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 57

I have the same behavior with my Pro 1000 as well and I think this is an essential feature to prevent the pigment particles from settling, thus affecting the output quality or even worse clogging the printhead if an excessive amount is passed through the nozzles. This is MUCH better than having the remove the 12 cartridges manually and shaking the tanks. Epson users can only dream of the features and technology found in the Pro 1000 :)
Logged
Workstation - DUAL XEON E5-2696v4 | ASUS STRIX GeForce GTX 1080Ti OC | Triple NEC PA301W | Crucial 64GB DDR4 ECC | ASUS Z10PE-D16 WS | 1TB Samsung 960 Pro M.2 NVME
FreeNAS & Plex Server - XEON E3 1265L V3 | Supermicro X10SAE | 16GB DDR3 ECC | 6 X 3TB HGST 7K4000 Ultrastar RAIDZ2 | 3 X 3TB HGST 7K400

henrikolsen

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 70
Re: Observations on Chroma Optimizer (“CO”) Usage Canon Pro-1000 Printer
« Reply #68 on: September 28, 2017, 08:32:21 AM »

If you turn off "Auto nozzle check" and "Ink maintenance" you will reduce the ongoing ink waste. System cleaning cannot be disabled but at least can be set to standard (not short).

Update on testing with "Auto nozzle check" and "Ink maintenance" turned off:
For 16 days and 15 hours... but the printer performed cleaning of 3.28g before printing. If I have not been testing on/off, that was going to be the only waste.

he "Ink maintenance" turned off, the printer is performing some mandatory ink maintenance on long pauses without printing. Now I have to find out how long is the pause, so that I can print something before the timer kicks in and I think this will be the end of my tests for least maintenance waste owning this printer.

Any new observations on the timer/cleaning procedures, or how to avoid/minimize? Has it been behaving since, leaving it always on and disabling auto nozzle check and ink maintenance?
Logged

GrahamBy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1657
    • 500px
Re: Observations on Chroma Optimizer (“CO”) Usage Canon Pro-1000 Printer
« Reply #69 on: September 28, 2017, 12:05:54 PM »

I've done nothing special with regrd to the cleaning schedule, but since installing the latest firmware upgrade many months back, behaviour seems to have improved:
- The CO usage was never out of line and continues to run down at about the same rate as the LGY/GY/PBK carts
-The 2nd maintenance tank is about 60% full but hasn't made any recent sudden leaps
-After the initial shock of seeing all the carts drop to about the 10% level despite my printing 95% B&W, the colour and MBK carts don't appear to have dropped further, although I'm now about 50% through the PBK/GY/LGY/CO quartet. LGY is the lowest.

Of course it doesn't mean that it won't go nuts the next time I start it up. On average I turn it on once a week and make 3-4 A3+ prints.
Logged

Panagiotis

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 51
Re: Observations on Chroma Optimizer (“CO”) Usage Canon Pro-1000 Printer
« Reply #70 on: September 29, 2017, 06:48:18 AM »

My pro-1000 ink consumption after 9 months (I calculated this right after the second maintenance tank was full).

The printer is used 2-3 times a week. In one occasion was left unused for 16 days and in another 9 days.

The printer stays always on almost from the beginning and the ink maintenance setting is to OFF the last 3 months.

Total surface printed 45,413 square meters (488,821 square feet), pages 290 (mostly A3+ to A2). 50/50 matt/photo, 70/30 color/bw.

Total ink on paper 516,579ml. Total ink in the maintenance tanks (both of them) 470ml. Ratio 52/48.

The most used inks from more to less:

  • Chroma Optimizer
  • Gray
  • Yellow
  • Matte Black
  • Photo Gray
  • Photo Black
  • Cyan
  • Blue
  • Red
  • Photo Magenta
  • Photo Cyan
  • Magenta

I will recalculate this when I will replace the third maintenance tank.
Logged

henrikolsen

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 70
Re: Observations on Chroma Optimizer (“CO”) Usage Canon Pro-1000 Printer
« Reply #71 on: September 30, 2017, 03:34:39 PM »

The printer stays always on almost from the beginning and the ink maintenance setting is to OFF the last 3 months.

Interesting if you can spot a change in ink waste after turning on the maintenance setting.

Total ink on paper 516,579ml. Total ink in the maintenance tanks (both of them) 470ml. Ratio 52/48.

Thanks for the data. The ratio seems absurd to me, and I would still think it should be noted more in reviews and sales material. Or better, be improved. I have seen several examples of print cost calculations and they certainly don't include a 1:1 print:waste ratio. Quite significant. If in the <25% waste range I wouldn't bark, but 1:1... I wonder if anyone with a Pro-x000 roll model could compare with these data. I have a feeling they don't have around a 1:1 print:waste ratio, but are significantly better. But I don't trust that feeling until I see some data :).

Do we know if anyone with enough insight at Canon thinks this is as expected? Will anyone dare to say so, or just say "it varies...".
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10397
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Observations on Chroma Optimizer (“CO”) Usage Canon Pro-1000 Printer
« Reply #72 on: September 30, 2017, 04:15:26 PM »


............ The ratio seems absurd to me, .............

I find it quite strange. The last calculation I did (details not on hand just now), the ratio was more like 1.46 for Total Ink/Ink on paper, i.e. for every ml of ink used for printing, 0.46 ml ink used in maintenance; but this included one of those massive cleaning cycles from having turned off the printer and not used it for a while. With the printer left on indefinitely and used more often, the ratio should improve quite dramatically. I was hoping to measure this, but the project got shut-down by a power failure in Toronto which shut the machine down.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml

Panagiotis

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 51
Re: Observations on Chroma Optimizer (“CO”) Usage Canon Pro-1000 Printer
« Reply #73 on: September 30, 2017, 06:20:51 PM »

Interesting if you can spot a change in ink waste after turning on the maintenance setting.
I can't unfortunately. I forgot to take note when exactly I turn off the setting. The only difference is that the first maintenance tank was 566gr. full and the second was 519gr. This translates in a difference of 47g. which is 43ml. (a ratio of 1.1 between 1ml and 1g. because the difference between a full and an empty cartridge is 88g). I will update my data when I will replace the third tank.

Quote
Thanks for the data. The ratio seems absurd to me, and I would still think it should be noted more in reviews and sales material. Or better, be improved. I have seen several examples of print cost calculations and they certainly don't include a 1:1 print:waste ratio. Quite significant. If in the <25% waste range I wouldn't bark, but 1:1... I wonder if anyone with a Pro-x000 roll model could compare with these data. I have a feeling they don't have around a 1:1 print:waste ratio, but are significantly better. But I don't trust that feeling until I see some data :).

Do we know if anyone with enough insight at Canon thinks this is as expected? Will anyone dare to say so, or just say "it varies...".

I am confident on this. I keep notes in a custom xls every time I change a cartridge or a maintenance tank. Of course I assume that the Accounting Manager software gives reliable data and that the ink in the maintenance tank stays always in liquid form! If it's not then the consumption is worse :(

There are two interesting post here from user Czornyj which reports a very low ink wastage 6.5% on a PRO-4000. Also this post is the first reference I saw on the PF-10 printhead lifetime, 8-10lt of ink on average:

http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=120755.0
Logged

henrikolsen

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 70
Re: Observations on Chroma Optimizer (“CO”) Usage Canon Pro-1000 Printer
« Reply #74 on: October 01, 2017, 03:24:08 AM »

I am confident on this. I keep notes in a custom xls every time I change a cartridge or a maintenance tank. Of course I assume that the Accounting Manager software gives reliable data and that the ink in the maintenance tank stays always in liquid form! If it's not then the consumption is worse :(

Just to be clear. I trust your observations. I have seen worse waste than this on the Pro-1000. But even a 1:1 I find absurd.

There are two interesting post here from user Czornyj which reports a very low ink wastage 6.5% on a PRO-4000. Also this post is the first reference I saw on the PF-10 printhead lifetime, 8-10lt of ink on average:

http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=120755.0

Yes, this is why I find the 1:1 ratio really absurd on the Pro-1000. This observation on the Pro-4000 seem more normal, but likely also with more usage. But you have still used your Pro-1000 fairly regularly, and I still wonder if wasting this much ink compared to what lands on paper is really expected behaviour, or the Pro-1000 simply has some design fault, be it firmware or hardware.
It does share the same inkset and head, and although other things likely differ somewhat, keeping the same head type and ink ready for action, I would except takes roughly the same amount of maintenance - not suddenly exploding on the smallest model. Even if you printed more (volume and higher frequency), there is a _long_ way down to hit around the same maintenance usage as the reported Pro-4000. Just wandering... Canon, are you listening? Could your thorough data collection be submitted to Canon for a comment?

If it doesn't change, a Pro-2000 might be a better buy (assuming it behaves as a Pro-4000), if it can fit in - unless someone reports the same heavy maintenance here as seen on the Pro-1000.
Logged

Panagiotis

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 51
Re: Observations on Chroma Optimizer (“CO”) Usage Canon Pro-1000 Printer
« Reply #75 on: October 01, 2017, 05:25:12 AM »

Could your thorough data collection be submitted to Canon for a comment?
I really don't want to try contact again the Canon Greece staff. They don't respond. When I set up the printer software somewhere I check an option to send information to Canon and periodically I see a pop up about "sending usage information to Canon" so I assume someone somewhere is looking at my data.
Logged

GrahamBy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1657
    • 500px
Re: Observations on Chroma Optimizer (“CO”) Usage Canon Pro-1000 Printer
« Reply #76 on: October 01, 2017, 01:00:28 PM »

To add to the absurdity, mine emptied its first colour cartridge a few minutes ago (after a total of about 25 A3+ prints). Can you guess which?

Blue. Which along with red, should not have been used at all given the printing I do.

Maybe it was the fault of the initial firmware... things seem far saner since 2.040 went in.

None the less, it means Canon sold the printer with firmware that pissed over 400€ of ink away, or about 60% of total usage according to rough counting on fingers.
That really, deeply sucks. A classic case of "fuck you, we can't be arsed testing our products" corporate arrogance.
Logged

henrikolsen

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 70
Re: Observations on Chroma Optimizer (“CO”) Usage Canon Pro-1000 Printer
« Reply #77 on: October 01, 2017, 02:12:22 PM »

That was fast Graham, really fast. I feel your pain. The waste is enormous. And I'm yet to be convinced the troubles are over with latest firmware (improved on some areas, sure). But of course I hope the best.

I wonder if it's possible to update the firmware, before you initialize the printer. I'm going to set up a another Pro-1000 soon that has been standing uninitialised for half a year or more. Would be nice to prime it with newest firmware. Anyone knows? I'm guessing the menus aren't available until initial forceful setup has been done, priming head and ink lines... Unless there's some service mode I don't know about access to on the Pro-1000. I'm sure it's there somehow, at least for Canon repair staff.
Logged

henrikolsen

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 70
Re: Observations on Chroma Optimizer (“CO”) Usage Canon Pro-1000 Printer
« Reply #78 on: October 01, 2017, 02:49:21 PM »

The old uninitialized Pro-1000 has firmware 1.110 the firmware updater says. Tried connecting it, but it won't do firmware update ("could no t update" it says) - likely as long as printer's built-in init sequence has been done (priming).

I was curious to test if newer firmware would waste less ink on priming compared to the old. I know the lines and head/buffer has to be filled, but still a lot goes in the maintenance cartridge to start with (meaning past the head). At least the transport fluids in the new head gets a very very thorough ejection/cleaning with all the expensive ink flowing through it and down the maintenance drain on init.
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10397
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Observations on Chroma Optimizer (“CO”) Usage Canon Pro-1000 Printer
« Reply #79 on: October 01, 2017, 03:42:03 PM »

If Canon uses similar shipping procedures to Epson (and I don't know whether they do), it is likely that much of what drains into the maintenance tank on initial start-up is not ink, but shipping fluid, mixed with a bit of ink as the initiation process nears completion.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Up