Are the Z3200 Reds REALLY better than the Z3100?

[jhein]

I just received my Z3200 sample pictures from HP.  As a happy Z3100 owner I wanted to know if the reds really are better.  The red sample they sent was on the Premium ID Gloss.  A paper that generally doesn't have red issues for me at least.  I compared the reds to some of the reds I have printed in the past and couldn't see much difference.  HP doesn't provide the same image from both printers  

So how could I compare them?  I downloaded and installed the Windows XP Z3200 driver and installed it.  It did complain that it couldn't find a Z3200 printer, so I gave it the IP address of my Z3100 and it worked.  It installed the canned Z3200 profiles alongside my Z3100 profiles.

Next I fired up my copy ProfileMaker 5 ProfileEditor and used gamut view to compare the profiles.  Obviously this does not tell the whole story but it DOES tell a story.  The story is that there is noticeable red bump in the darker tones (L<50) but not much difference in the lighter tones (L>50).

Attached are two comparisons.  I chose HP Matte and HP Premium ID Gloss as examples.  There are three screenshots of each at L=25, L=50 and L=75.

Bottom Line: More research is still needed but if you like the Z3100 but don't like the dark reds on matte paper, the Z3200 is worth investigating.

enjoy,
Jim
PS.  The Z3200 drivers did not mess up my Z3100 driver.  I am able to print to the Z3100 using the Z3200 driver though there is no real benefit.

Matte:
[attachment=8937:HP_Matte_25.JPG] [attachment=8938:HP_Matte_50.JPG] [attachment=8939:HP_Matte_75.JPG]

Gloss:
[attachment=8940:HP_Gloss_25.JPG] [attachment=8941:HP_Gloss_50.JPG] [attachment=8942:HP_Gloss_75.JPG]

[rdonson]

Interesting, Jim.  A friend has a Z3200 on the way.  When he gets it set up we'll be able to do some comparisons from the same files.  That said, I'm confident that the reports in this forum on the Z3200 have been accurate with regards to the reds.  For me I've just stuck with HP media for mattes and the reds have been acceptable for my work.  I'm not doing art reproduction so my reds aren't as critical.

[neil snape]

There were no huge problem with reds on photo paper. For example it is a well known fact the Canon reds are the brightest around walking way past Epson K3, and past the Z 3100 in brightness. It was only in the shadows that Epson can not only hold it's ground without the added primaries, but in most cases exceed saturation and chroma.
Measured colors and gamut plots don't tell the whole story. Visually side by sides, the Z 3200 definitely has a more lively red, one that has more local contrast. New inks, a different color map, perhaps some changes in screening all would be reasons why this is so.
Even without comparison samples singularly the Z3200 has reds that pop, purples that are rich and an esthetically more lively rendering of all warm bright tones.
I do have print samples of images on Epson Canon, HP Z3100+3200 here and the differences are easily seen on the right images.

As I have always said, and always been able to prove, most images most of the time will print just as well on any of the three brands.

The entire "reds" issue is and always has been blown out of proportion.

It all started right here on this forum with someone that wanted to print on an el cheapo matte paper, that his Epson 4000 (such a wonderful printer....) could do better.


There seems to be a myth that the with improvements both Canon and HP now with the improved reds will outdo Epson. On most images no, but be careful about a global assumption , as if you look closely Epson still has the advantage of ink pigment loads over Canon and HP and will do wonderful things even on matte papers or your el cheapo papers too for that matter.