New Epson Printers

[sesshin]

From what I've heard inquiring about a pre-order the 9900 w/spectro should be around the $8-9,000 range.

[JimGoshorn]

I wonder, is the spectro is going to be along the lines of an i1 Isis?

Jim

[keith_cooper]

I wonder, is the spectro is going to be along the lines of an i1 Isis?

Given the recent introduction of the ColorMunki with a unit based on the iSis, that's what I'd expect to see inside it ;-)

[Sven W]

Sven,

Are the base units going to cost about the same as the 7880 and 9880?  About $3,000 and $5,000 US?

As far as the spectro, I think I paid about $1,500 US for my Eye One SG.  Is the Epson unit going to be in that price range? Any reason to buy it if I already have an i1?

Thanks!

Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=199308\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

What I understand and heard, is that the x880 will remain in production for a while.
And with a pricedrop. The x900 will have a higher price than the x880 have today.
Without the spectro.
I have'nt seen yet what the new spectro can do, in terms of linearization the printer and profiling media. If it interfer with the firmware in some way.
So I hope we can keep our i1's and using them for the same job.  

/Sven

[Brian Gilkes]

What I understand and heard, is that the x880 will remain in production for a while.
And with a pricedrop. The x900 will have a higher price than the x880 have today.
Without the spectro.

/Sven


This is the same as information I have for the Australian situation. 9900 and 7900 available later this year. No information on other sizes.
Brian
www.pharoseditions.com.au

[yannb]

Hello,

Enclosed is a PDF datasheet for the new Epsons. This was on a CD 'Professional Product Range' made available by Epson Europe at the Drupa trade fair for the graphic industry in Düsseldorf.

Regards,
Yann

[Nill Toulme]

Does "Versatile paper handling: roll or cut sheet media from 8x10" up to 24"/44"..." imply that these wide format printers are any different in this respect from their predecessors?  As a happy 4800 user, I have been under the impression that the 7800 is less than ideal for someone who prints primarily on letter-size cut sheets and only occasionally on rolls.  Is that correct, and if so is the 7900 any different in that regard?  It would be nice to go 24" on my next printer.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

[Ernst Dinkla]

Does "Versatile paper handling: roll or cut sheet media from 8x10" up to 24"/44"..." imply that these wide format printers are any different in this respect from their predecessors?  As a happy 4800 user, I have been under the impression that the 7800 is less than ideal for someone who prints primarily on letter-size cut sheets and only occasionally on rolls.  Is that correct, and if so is the 7900 any different in that regard?  It would be nice to go 24" on my next printer.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I've seen nothing added to the 7900 and 9900 that would make small sheet printing easier compared to Epson wide formats before. The new printers look even more armored with panels so I doubt they are easier on that aspect.


Ernst Dinkla

Try: [a href=\"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/[/url]

[jscriba]

Direct news from Drupa:

Hi folks. I went to Drupa to have a look at those beasts. I should explain that I'm a photographer using an Epson 7800 and I'm considering moving up to 44". So I've been pondering for a while about switching to HP or Canon since I'd really like to have those two blacks. I thought the 9900 might be the machine I had been waiting for.
Looking at the new Epsons, the HP Z-printers and the Canon IPF 9100 here's my current state of knowledge:

1) The new Epson printers are not meant to be replacements for the 7880 and the 9880! Neither should we expect to see a successor the 11880 with a built-in calibration unit any time soon. The reasons the Epson people gave are somewhat consistent:
While the upgrade from 7800 to 7880 (9800 to 9880) was rather incremental, the 7900 and 9900 are built on a mechanically much more sophisticated (read: expensive) platform. Lacking the old mechanical paper release lever they have automatic loading and rewinding, bar-coding of paper (letting the printer remember how much paper is left on a roll) nozzle diagnostics etc. So Epson would want to keep the 7880 and 9880 around for a while as a lower cost alternative. Besides they said that customers have to rely on product life cycles of two years. So we have to expect the new models to be considerably more expensive than the current models. (pricing is not announced, yet)

2) The calibration option looks rather expensive, too. Other than the HP printers which have the photometer integrated into the print head, the Epson option really is an external unit the size of the paper feed which is mounted externally on the printer front to run the paper through after it leaves the printer. One Epson guy made a point that you only have to buy one unit to use on all the printers you own (gives you some idea what their mental picture of a typical customer is).
I asked why the HP system seems so much simpler and one representative derided the HP approach as some kind of silly idea. The sensor would get dirty close to the nozzles and using a black background for measurement and an UV-cut filter in the illumination path it "might be OK for the US marked" (his words) but nothing you could do professional FOGRA-compliant measurements on.
There seems to be some truth in it. As I interviewed a guy on the HP stand who was representing a color management company he conceded that HP does use black as measurement background as a white one would get dirty too quickly. Yes, he said the spectrometer would not be ISO-compliant in itself but with clever software (theirs) you could compensate for this. If this means anything to a photographer remains dubious, to people who are into proofing it most probably does.
Epson seems to be gearing the x900-printers towards the proofing market. The sophisticated spectrometer is supposed to provide all kinds of fancy options like user-selectable black/white background, selectable UV-cut etc. The release mentions automatically scheduled recalibration options that only make sense in a rather industrial environment so expect this options to be somewhat expensive.
This ties into another reason why there isn't supposed to be an upgrade to the 11880: "Nobody proofs on a 64"-printer" said one guy and handling such a large spectrometer unit would be impractical.

3) Does a photographer need a built-in spectrometer? I guess I might. Now I use an Eye-One manual system which generally works fine but my experience ties in with what several people at Drupa told me: You have to re-calibrate at least once a month. The reason is not so much the printer but the paper which is pretty sensitive to temperature and humidity. Especially the fine-art stuff like PhotoRag can change ink absorption characteristics rather quickly. Combine this fact with the problems of reproducibility others have reported with hand-held systems, it seems like a very nice idea of having your printer do the tedious work at a touch of a button.
I found HP Z-printers in two high-quality print shops and they told me they had tossed their Epsons because the HPs are so much faster. The prints I got from them matched my proofs perfectly so color management in general seems to work.
The Canon printers have some kind of built-in spectrometer but I got kind of skeptical as the Canon guy explained to me that the printer doesn't really do (ICC) profiles. Rather you have to use existing profiles Canon offers for download for a lot of papers (preferably Canon-branded media) and the calibration system would fine-tune your printer to make sure it matches that profile. I'm not quite sure what to make of this.

4) There may be other reasons for photographers choosing specific printers: If you are doing fine-art printing you may want to consider loading sheet paper in your large format roll printer. E.g. I regularly use A4-sheets for tests (less expensive) and heavy-weight A3-sheet for my portfolio (not available on roll). On an Epson LFP this has never been a problem. People tell me that even on an 11880 loading A4 is a breeze while others have warned me that trying to load sheets on an HP is a mess. The color management-guy at the HP-stand admitted that trying to load a single sheet is “not a pleasurable experience”. The Canon-guy said that using something as small as A4 on a iPF8100 is rather useless as the paper guide need at least 5cm (2 inch) on one side of the paper to hold it so that area will be unprintable.

What does all that mean? I may have to stick to Epson and may not be able to resist buying the 9900 even if it price tag might put it close to the 11880 with the spectrometer option.

Ouch.

[Ernst Dinkla]

I found HP Z-printers in two high-quality print shops and they told me they had tossed their Epsons because the HPs are so much faster. The prints I got from them matched my proofs perfectly so color management in general seems to work.
The Canon printers have some kind of built-in spectrometer but I got kind of skeptical as the Canon guy explained to me that the printer doesn't really do (ICC) profiles. Rather you have to use existing profiles Canon offers for download for a lot of papers (preferably Canon-branded media) and the calibration system would fine-tune your printer to make sure it matches that profile. I'm not quite sure what to make of this.

4) There may be other reasons for photographers choosing specific printers: If you are doing fine-art printing you may want to consider loading sheet paper in your large format roll printer. E.g. I regularly use A4-sheets for tests (less expensive) and heavy-weight A3-sheet for my portfolio (not available on roll). On an Epson LFP this has never been a problem. People tell me that even on an 11880 loading A4 is a breeze while others have warned me that trying to load sheets on an HP is a mess. The color management-guy at the HP-stand admitted that trying to load a single sheet is “not a pleasurable experience”. The Canon-guy said that using something as small as A4 on a iPF8100 is rather useless as the paper guide need at least 5cm (2 inch) on one side of the paper to hold it so that area will be unprintable.


Ouch.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Went to the Drupa yesterday and I got the same impression of the new Epson models. More aimed at the proofing market than the older generation Epson wide formats.

On the HP Z models sheet paper loading: The last firmware upgrade has the ragged edge paper mode loading and that makes it a lot more reliable and faster. I'm using it for two sided printing right now and placed some registration tabs on the front to align both sides faster. Done that on a Epson 10000 and a 9000 in the past and there is not much difference anymore. The repeating sheet>paper types>paper ritual on the printer buttons is taking time though. There should be a mode in the settings that keeps the data for repeating jobs.

My experience with the Z's calibration and now APS profiling is only positive. For thinner sheets I have used more sheets on top of one another and that practice works for me. The influence of the black table on thicker art papers has not been a problem for me in practice.

The x100 Canon models have calibration only. Canon thinks calibration is important and profiling can be done by third party hard- and software. Using Canon's OEM profiles for its own media catalogue is the obvious option. They do no go as far as HP in supporting the use of third party papers. Nor does Epson. Calibration is important so on that aspect Canon is right.

It is a true inkjet Drupa. I must have seen about 15 different fast dual sided web inkjet printers with single array heads from at least 6 companies. Printing on uncoated newspaper stock of 54 grams as well. Up to 30 inches wide at 400 ft per minute. Mainly water based inks too.
The Océ wax inkjet printer for the CAD market was interesting, the HP Latex inkjet printer impressive in print quality on a wide variety of sign media.


Ernst Dinkla

Try: [a href=\"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/[/url]

[mmurph]

what several people at Drupa told me: You have to re-calibrate at least once a month.

Well, maybe.

I have an i1 and make my own profiles. But I have also done quite well using the Bill Atkinson profilers on multiple Epson 7600's and 9600's over the past years.  Those were made quite a while ago on another machine, but they are certainly "close enough" for almost all of my work.

resist buying the 9900 even if it price tag might put it close to the 11880 with the spectrometer option.

I just don't see a justification from Epson on pricing these macheines higher than the old base price on the 7880/9880, at least without the spectro.  

They have already weakened their price position by churning their machines with the 7800/7880 cycles, and with their recurring discounts.  First they blew out new 7800's at under $2K last fall with the intro of the 7880. This spring they were selling 7800 refurbs for under $2K. They also have deep diccounts on the 7880/9880.

They are also going to have a hard time justifying a price point higher than $3K/$5K when the HP and Canon have been on sale at deep discounts.  ($3.5K for the Canon 44" and $3K for the HP 44" with spectro.)

I hope Epson has a solid product that they can sell at their previous price point, rather than some lame spin about why these machines are worth so much more than tyhe HP and Canon.

[BruceHouston]

Well, maybe.

I have an i1 and make my own profiles. But I have also done quite well using the Bill Atkinson profilers on multiple Epson 7600's and 9600's over the past years.  Those were made quite a while ago on another machine, but they are certainly "close enough" for almost all of my work.
I just don't see a justification from Epson on pricing these macheines higher than the old base price on the 7880/9880, at least without the spectro. 

They have already weakened their price position by churning their machines with the 7800/7880 cycles, and with their recurring discounts.  First they blew out new 7800's at under $2K last fall with the intro of the 7880. This spring they were selling 7800 refurbs for under $2K. They also have deep diccounts on the 7880/9880.

They are also going to have a hard time justifying a price point higher than $3K/$5K when the HP and Canon have been on sale at deep discounts.  ($3.5K for the Canon 44" and $3K for the HP 44" with spectro.)

I hope Epson has a solid product that they can sell at their previous price point, rather than some lame spin about why these machines are worth so much more than tyhe HP and Canon.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=199929\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I share your pain but also recognize that these may be signs of the times.  The U.S. no longer rules the world economy.  The Europeans can buy printers with REAL MONEY.

[BruceHouston]

Direct news from Drupa:

Hi folks. I went to Drupa to have a look at those beasts. I should explain that I'm a photographer using an Epson 7800 and I'm considering moving up to 44". So I've been pondering for a while about switching to HP or Canon since I'd really like to have those two blacks. I thought the 9900 might be the machine I had been waiting for.
Looking at the new Epsons, the HP Z-printers and the Canon IPF 9100 here's my current state of knowledge:

1) The new Epson printers are not meant to be replacements for the 7880 and the 9880! Neither should we expect to see a successor the 11880 with a built-in calibration unit any time soon. The reasons the Epson people gave are somewhat consistent:
While the upgrade from 7800 to 7880 (9800 to 9880) was rather incremental, the 7900 and 9900 are built on a mechanically much more sophisticated (read: expensive) platform. Lacking the old mechanical paper release lever they have automatic loading and rewinding, bar-coding of paper (letting the printer remember how much paper is left on a roll) nozzle diagnostics etc. So Epson would want to keep the 7880 and 9880 around for a while as a lower cost alternative. Besides they said that customers have to rely on product life cycles of two years. So we have to expect the new models to be considerably more expensive than the current models. (pricing is not announced, yet)

2) The calibration option looks rather expensive, too. Other than the HP printers which have the photometer integrated into the print head, the Epson option really is an external unit the size of the paper feed which is mounted externally on the printer front to run the paper through after it leaves the printer. One Epson guy made a point that you only have to buy one unit to use on all the printers you own (gives you some idea what their mental picture of a typical customer is).
I asked why the HP system seems so much simpler and one representative derided the HP approach as some kind of silly idea. The sensor would get dirty close to the nozzles and using a black background for measurement and an UV-cut filter in the illumination path it "might be OK for the US marked" (his words) but nothing you could do professional FOGRA-compliant measurements on.
There seems to be some truth in it. As I interviewed a guy on the HP stand who was representing a color management company he conceded that HP does use black as measurement background as a white one would get dirty too quickly. Yes, he said the spectrometer would not be ISO-compliant in itself but with clever software (theirs) you could compensate for this. If this means anything to a photographer remains dubious, to people who are into proofing it most probably does.
Epson seems to be gearing the x900-printers towards the proofing market. The sophisticated spectrometer is supposed to provide all kinds of fancy options like user-selectable black/white background, selectable UV-cut etc. The release mentions automatically scheduled recalibration options that only make sense in a rather industrial environment so expect this options to be somewhat expensive.
This ties into another reason why there isn't supposed to be an upgrade to the 11880: "Nobody proofs on a 64"-printer" said one guy and handling such a large spectrometer unit would be impractical.

3) Does a photographer need a built-in spectrometer? I guess I might. Now I use an Eye-One manual system which generally works fine but my experience ties in with what several people at Drupa told me: You have to re-calibrate at least once a month. The reason is not so much the printer but the paper which is pretty sensitive to temperature and humidity. Especially the fine-art stuff like PhotoRag can change ink absorption characteristics rather quickly. Combine this fact with the problems of reproducibility others have reported with hand-held systems, it seems like a very nice idea of having your printer do the tedious work at a touch of a button.
I found HP Z-printers in two high-quality print shops and they told me they had tossed their Epsons because the HPs are so much faster. The prints I got from them matched my proofs perfectly so color management in general seems to work.
The Canon printers have some kind of built-in spectrometer but I got kind of skeptical as the Canon guy explained to me that the printer doesn't really do (ICC) profiles. Rather you have to use existing profiles Canon offers for download for a lot of papers (preferably Canon-branded media) and the calibration system would fine-tune your printer to make sure it matches that profile. I'm not quite sure what to make of this.

4) There may be other reasons for photographers choosing specific printers: If you are doing fine-art printing you may want to consider loading sheet paper in your large format roll printer. E.g. I regularly use A4-sheets for tests (less expensive) and heavy-weight A3-sheet for my portfolio (not available on roll). On an Epson LFP this has never been a problem. People tell me that even on an 11880 loading A4 is a breeze while others have warned me that trying to load sheets on an HP is a mess. The color management-guy at the HP-stand admitted that trying to load a single sheet is “not a pleasurable experience”. The Canon-guy said that using something as small as A4 on a iPF8100 is rather useless as the paper guide need at least 5cm (2 inch) on one side of the paper to hold it so that area will be unprintable.

What does all that mean? I may have to stick to Epson and may not be able to resist buying the 9900 even if it price tag might put it close to the 11880 with the spectrometer option.

Ouch.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=199914\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

JScriba and Ernst,

Thanks for the great reports!

But my burning question is what about the 7900/9900 color gamut/print quality with the new inks?  It would be that characteristic which, for me, would determine whether I buy a 7880 or a more expensive 7900.

Bruce

[uaiomex]

Right!
I've been waiting for the AutoPK/MK switch for years. I am more than ready to sell my 7600 and buy a 7900. If the 7900 costs a lot more, I may end keeping the 7600 for MK and getting a 7800 for PK. Main reason is that selling the 7600 won't do that much for raising money for Epson's new Sumo wrestler. 80kg's ?    Sacre coeur!!!
And then again, I may do nothing. Stll no glop and my 7600 is good as new. Keep switching K modes the southafrican way, could be a great money saver.

Folks, in the digital times, there will always be something left. Years ago, manufacturers always tried and sold their best. Not anymore. Is this oligarchy's conspiracy?

Eduardo

Well, maybe.

I have an i1 and make my own profiles. But I have also done quite well using the Bill Atkinson profilers on multiple Epson 7600's and 9600's over the past years.  Those were made quite a while ago on another machine, but they are certainly "close enough" for almost all of my work.
I just don't see a justification from Epson on pricing these macheines higher than the old base price on the 7880/9880, at least without the spectro. 

They have already weakened their price position by churning their machines with the 7800/7880 cycles, and with their recurring discounts.  First they blew out new 7800's at under $2K last fall with the intro of the 7880. This spring they were selling 7800 refurbs for under $2K. They also have deep diccounts on the 7880/9880.

They are also going to have a hard time justifying a price point higher than $3K/$5K when the HP and Canon have been on sale at deep discounts.  ($3.5K for the Canon 44" and $3K for the HP 44" with spectro.)

I hope Epson has a solid product that they can sell at their previous price point, rather than some lame spin about why these machines are worth so much more than tyhe HP and Canon.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=199929\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[eronald]

These days, I wonder if the primary use for a RIP isn't simply to provide consistent print behavior across platforms and updates ?

Edmund

That's not the reason for or anything close to the primary goal of a RIP although that's a capability some find useful.

You primarily implement a RIP because you have to deal with vector artwork, you want to handle CMYK data (which Quickdraw and GDI drivers like those from Epson can't handle), you want to deal with print queues, imposition etc. And that people use a RIP doesn't mean that this implies that the Epson printers are not consistent in behavior. The Epson driver, when using the No Color Adjustment setting could certainly be more linear (its been getting progressively better over the years).

The vast majority of readers here who wish to simply print out images have no need for a RIP.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=199277\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[Ernst Dinkla]

These days, I wonder if the primary use for a RIP isn't simply to provide consistent print behavior across platforms and updates ?

Edmund
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

With Qimage running on my printserver + the calibration and profiling integrated in my printer I wonder if that is even a feature RIPs are needed for. The Wasatch SoftRip here is idle most of the time. The PDF job I'm running now has been through Photoshop + Qimage. I asked them to keep the images in RGB and there is little color in the rest.
Not that Qimage and the Z3100 driver are that compatible but the color is much better than the RIP can do with this 12 ink machine.

If a RIP should keep consistency in color on different printer models things get a lot more complicated and you end with a gamut of the lowest quality printer, all the other ones adapting to that with more complex profiling.

On color management; for the Drupa you can get tickets on the web that you can print on your own printer, preferably in color. I was with a friend and we did a small survey on color consistency of the tickets while in the queue to exchange the web ticket for an entrance ticket. I hope that wasn't representative for what they produce in their print shops :-)


Ernst Dinkla

Try: [a href=\"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/[/url]

[Ernst Dinkla]

But my burning question is what about the 7900/9900 color gamut/print quality with the new inks?  It would be that characteristic which, for me, would determine whether I buy a 7880 or a more expensive 7900.

Bruce
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

We both thought very nice greens, reds and oranges in the samples. And of course there was a lot of red, orange and green in the samples :-)  That's the problem on shows like that and they no longer accept a file that you bring along as it means a risk on their systems. The gamut will be among the best without doubt and improved to the former K3 Vivid Magenta etc.

On samples: when Epson introduced the 10000, 9500 with the first Archival pigment ink they had posters with 50's nostalgia content to disguise the poor gamut of that ink. This time Océ used similar 50's content for their best web inkjet sample. Tasteful but not telling much about gamut. If that is telling something about gamut improvement it will not take more than 5 years and the web models will print offset gamut if the market wants that.


Ernst Dinkla

Try: [a href=\"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/[/url]

[BruceHouston]

We both thought very nice greens, reds and oranges in the samples. And of course there was a lot of red, orange and green in the samples :-)  That's the problem on shows like that and they no longer accept a file that you bring along as it means a risk on their systems. The gamut will be among the best without doubt and improved to the former K3 Vivid Magenta etc.

On samples: when Epson introduced the 10000, 9500 with the first Archival pigment ink they had posters with 50's nostalgia content to disguise the poor gamut of that ink. This time Océ used similar 50's content for their best web inkjet sample. Tasteful but not telling much about gamut. If that is telling something about gamut improvement it will not take more than 5 years and the web models will print offset gamut if the market wants that.
Ernst Dinkla

Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=200038\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes, I see what you mean about the selective "marketing" print samples created for the show.  I suppose that we must wait for a few deliveries of the machines and associated critical reviews...

[Farmer]

I've seen nothing added to the 7900 and 9900 that would make small sheet printing easier compared to Epson wide formats before. The new printers look even more armored with panels so I doubt they are easier on that aspect.

Ernst - you no longer need to lower the front cover to provide a support for loading the cut sheet - it's more automated due to the lack of a manual paper lever and such.  Frankly, loading cut sheet on the 7900/9900 is easier and more intuitive than previous models - for a large format, it's pretty good really.

Would have been ideal to have a cut sheet guide of some sort rather than aligning manually but even that is a reasonably easy task.

Neil - you were asking about black ink change - info I have is that it's less than 1ml in one direction and a "few" ml in the other - don't have a number yet - but less than the 3800.  Combined with a lower price per ml, should be significantly cheaper and simpler.

[neil snape]

Ernst - you no longer need to lower the front cover to provide a support for loading the cut sheet - it's more automated due to the lack of a manual paper lever and such.  Frankly, loading cut sheet on the 7900/9900 is easier and more intuitive than previous models - for a large format, it's pretty good really.

Would have been ideal to have a cut sheet guide of some sort rather than aligning manually but even that is a reasonably easy task.

Neil - you were asking about black ink change - info I have is that it's less than 1ml in one direction and a "few" ml in the other - don't have a number yet - but less than the 3800.  Combined with a lower price per ml, should be significantly cheaper and simpler.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=200680\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Wonderful news. One ml is negligible, finally an end to the switch consumption.

I never found the Z difficult to load sheets. IS it just me or is it a question of what you are used to?

On the new 7900 the back printing of roll length as Canon do , is great. Even better an take up spool like on the HP LFP above the Z.