Topic: HP Z3100 Problems with Colour Gamut (Read 146625 times)

Christopher · « **Reply #80 on:** February 15, 2007, 05:22:49 am »

Quote

I assume you are talking about matte only then?
Please re-read my post. I said exactly what and where HP is on matte media. I don't need to print out your chart to know the inefficiencies of the current inks and separations on matte.
The gamut extensions on matte are less than stellar. Yet light gamut is in line with other printers, so fine art printing is still possible on many art styles. Don't forget one of the decisions of HP was to go for lightfastness and the compromise of this is gamut extension.
As far as APS goes, or the internal profiler , those are the options that HP offer. APS will make better profiles than the Easy on photo media. That is all I said. The number of patches is another topic that has been covered in many other places.
RIP makers that make their own screens absolutely should try to better the driver separations. I would think they could do better by having different separations per media. But it has been many years since I worked on helping on rip development.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=101026\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The screenshot above is not from matt. It's from glossy media and you see clearly that the z series is getting out performed on nearly all sides.

Snd sorry, but what do you mean by Fine Art printing in lighter areas ? I mean sorry, but most of the good pictures I know or love from diffrent artists have a also many dark colours... Do you want to say, that oh sorry you can only print in light L values ?

AND even there the Epson is right on so what do you gaine ? nearly nothing I would say. You loose just the shadow part.

neil snape · « **Reply #81 on:** February 15, 2007, 06:54:47 am »

Quote

The screenshot above is not from matt. It's from glossy media and you see clearly that the z series is getting out performed on nearly all sides.

Snd sorry, but what do you mean by Fine Art printing in lighter areas ? I mean sorry, but most of the good pictures I know or love from diffrent artists have a also many dark colours... Do you want to say, that oh sorry you can only print in light L values ?

AND even there the Epson is right on so what do you gaine ? nearly nothing I would say. You loose just the shadow part.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=101029\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

As I said I don't need to look at your prints , nor do I want to want to go there. If you are getting better results on the mid to upper side on glossy something is wrong somewhere. 2D plots of gamuts and 4000 patch samples are not definitive methods to discount potential.
For the rest I've said what needs to be said without interpretation.

Panascape · « **Reply #82 on:** February 15, 2007, 07:06:49 am »

Quote

As I said I don't need to look at your prints , nor do I want to want to go there. If you are getting better results on the mid to upper side on glossy something is wrong somewhere. 2D plots of gamuts and 4000 patch samples are not definitive methods to discount potential.
For the rest I've said what needs to be said without interpretation.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=101033\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Sorry Neil but that is the sort of response that I would expect from HP. There are many of us here who are competant and who do know what we are doing. I would expect that after the statements you have made you would be open to debate.

Is it your contention that it is not possible that someone else might have encoutered different results from yours and that only your opinion and results are correct?

Christopher · « **Reply #83 on:** February 15, 2007, 08:07:20 am »

"As I said I don't need to look at your prints , nor do I want to want to go there. If you are getting better results on the mid to upper side on glossy something is wrong somewhere. 2D plots of gamuts and 4000 patch samples are not definitive methods to discount potential.
For the rest I've said what needs to be said without interpretation."

No than that's good for you. If you are happy with what you get than that is great, but here are also people who expect that their 7000EUR printer is not outperformed by a 800EUR model. BUT that's the case right now. It is sad and I hope HP can fix that.

I really don't care whether you look at my stuff or not, but why are you even bothering posting here ? Just to make it sound right ? Sorry if you are happy fine, but there is a problem and I prefer to trust more my own testing, and the statement from specialist companies over yours...

We are not talking about potential. I think the z3100 has a lot. We are talking about facts, and here the z3100 fails...

EricWHiss · « **Reply #84 on:** February 15, 2007, 12:32:40 pm »

Has anyone tried the new firmware and ICC profiles yet? Please share your results when you get some.

Panascape · « **Reply #85 on:** February 15, 2007, 12:34:43 pm »

Eric, the news letter says there is new firmware but the site still has the old firmware, I am told it is possibly coming on Monday.

A. Andrew Gonzalez · « **Reply #86 on:** February 15, 2007, 12:46:21 pm »

Quote

Has anyone tried the new firmware and ICC profiles yet? Please share your results when you get some.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=101068\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The newsletters firmware / driver page is dated 2006/12 . This looks old.

Hope they are in fact updating

Panascape · « **Reply #87 on:** February 15, 2007, 12:58:22 pm »

I have been assured that we should be able to expect something on Monday.

neil snape · « **Reply #88 on:** February 15, 2007, 01:29:05 pm »

Quote

"As I said I don't need to look at your prints , nor do I want to want to go there. If you are getting better results on the mid to upper side on glossy something is wrong somewhere. 2D plots of gamuts and 4000 patch samples are not definitive methods to discount potential.
For the rest I've said what needs to be said without interpretation."

No than that's good for you. If you are happy with what you get than that is great, but here are also people who expect that their 7000EUR printer is not outperformed by a 800EUR model. BUT that's the case right now. It is sad and I hope HP can fix that.

I really don't care whether you look at my stuff or not, but why are you even bothering posting here ? Just to make it sound right ? Sorry if you are happy fine, but there is a problem and I prefer to trust more my own testing, and the statement from specialist companies over yours...

We are not talking about potential. I think the z3100 has a lot. We are talking about facts, and here the z3100 fails...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=101038\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Exactly why I'll leave you to it. You obviously have a lot of your own testing to do. You've already tagged all the problems with your sticker of failure so why do you bother ?

jpgentry · « **Reply #89 on:** February 15, 2007, 01:37:18 pm »

this problem with reds and browns on matte is probably not going to go away unless they change the inkset.

I print canvas on the ipf8000 and it is better than the hp but still not quite the 4000.

I keep seeing ppl making comments about sample prints being ok but most sample prints are on satin or gloss.

jonathan

Panascape · « **Reply #90 on:** February 15, 2007, 01:57:20 pm »

Hi Jonathan

I have been testing this problem for a while and have been extracting ink from the cartdriges and test mixing the inks. The Magenta and yellow mix on their own are capable of producing a better red than we are seeing. I am still hopefully optomistic that this is as some of us suspect, just a colour mixing issue.

Robert

Mark D Segal · « **Reply #91 on:** February 15, 2007, 02:00:20 pm »

The constructive aspects of this discussion are coming down to the following propositions:

(1) It would seem there is a growing consensus here that the Epson professional line is outperforming the Z line on matte papers. That is unfortunate for the Z line because many photographers prepare their art photography portfolios on matte-type papers. This is something I personally will want to test as soon as I have the opportunity to do so.

(2) Some apparently savvy users are having problems with the reproduction of red whatever the media on the Z line compared with Epson 2400 upward. The cause of this remains to be fully determined, and that will require a joint effort between the affected parties and Hewlett-Packard.

Beyond these two propositions, at this point I don't see the need for some of the sour rhetoric being traded accross the web here. Nor do I expect HP, or any other large corporation for that matter, to respond to technical issues by writing into a web blog. They never do. What we can hope for is that they are working on the issues and the affected people will report back progress in due course. Is it time to call it a day for now?

Mussi_Spectraflow · « **Reply #92 on:** February 15, 2007, 02:06:54 pm »

Here is a 3d gamut plot movie comparing the Epson 7800 with the HP Z3100 on satin media. I think the results are quite good. I built this profile myself and have been using it to compare results between the epson and HP. As far as the performance of the printer on RC paper I find the quality to be very good. Again there are trade off's between the two printers but I do not find the the performance of the Z to be inadequate in this arena. As far as quality on matte papers goes, I am still looking into the issues and hop to be able to comment more in the near future.

http://www.spectraflow.com/pages/videos/gamutvideo.html

- Regards

Julian Mussi

madmanchan · « **Reply #93 on:** February 15, 2007, 02:12:49 pm »

Nice video. I'm assuming the wireframe is the Epson, the solid is the HP. Right?

jpgentry · « **Reply #94 on:** February 15, 2007, 02:22:16 pm »

you guys don't forget about the z2100. maybe fine art printers should look here if it is indeed a color mixing issue while leaving the 3100 to the photo guys.

how do those profiles look on the 2100? I would think this would tell you if the problem is inkset or mixing. my hunch is still that its inkset and that they optimised the inks for satins and glossies.

I think ppl have sold the canon line short besause of issues with the little ipf5000 that do not exist on the larger formats. the thing is super fast as well. canvas prints are very acceptable even in reds. don't overlook it...

jonathan

Mussi_Spectraflow · « **Reply #95 on:** February 15, 2007, 03:21:55 pm »

To clarify on the video. Yes the wireframe is the epson and the true-color solid is the HP.

Christopher · « **Reply #96 on:** February 15, 2007, 06:27:03 pm »

Quote

To clarify on the video. Yes the wireframe is the epson and the true-color solid is the HP.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=101099\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

does it stay the same if you go below L values of 50 ?

Mussi_Spectraflow · « **Reply #97 on:** February 15, 2007, 07:07:46 pm »

Quote

does it stay the same if you go below L values of 50 ?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=101133\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm sorry I don't follow. Does what stay the same below an L value of 50?

Christopher · « **Reply #98 on:** February 15, 2007, 07:14:22 pm »

Quote

I'm sorry I don't follow. Does what stay the same below an L value of 50?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=101138\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The Gamut you showed us on which L value was it ? I mean I know that it performce good at 75 or let's say everything higher than 50, but how do they look on a L value from 25. ( I mean Level of light and darkness L from LAB)

francofit · « **Reply #99 on:** February 15, 2007, 07:46:13 pm »

Quote

The Gamut you showed us on which L value was it ? I mean I know that it performce good at 75 or let's say everything higher than 50, but how do they look on a L value from 25. ( I mean Level of light and darkness L from LAB)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=101139\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

May be you have missed the comments written under the graphs (see under the video...

Quote

....Below L* 50 and continuing down till around an L* of 25 the gamut shapes diverge, with the Epson showing a stronger cyan and the HP a stronger blue. This makes sense considering the HP’s lack of a true cyan. Below an L* of 25 the Epson’s gamut is slightly larger. Over all, below an L* of 50 the Epson’s gamut seems more rounded where as the HP gamut falls in a more linear manner.....

Author Topic: HP Z3100 Problems with Colour Gamut (Read 146625 times)