Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: z3200 vs Z3200PS  (Read 3511 times)

Charles Gast

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 250
z3200 vs Z3200PS
« on: February 23, 2013, 01:02:49 AM »

 I am considering a 44inch z3200. The dealer says we can still special order the z3200PS in 44inch, but the one without post script is not available from HP at all. The 24inch z3200 is available with or without PS.

The PS option seems to add about $1000 to the cost so it is holding be back since I don't think I need it.
All I do is photo printing of the "fine art" variety on roll and also sheet media.
Does anyone know of any advantages I may have from having the post script option?  I never print from PDF files or print text.
Maybe I'm missing something.
Logged

Ernst Dinkla

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3281
Re: z3200 vs Z3200PS
« Reply #1 on: February 23, 2013, 06:11:32 AM »

The main reason I have a Z3200-PS is that the plain Z3100 that I had/have was not printing beyond 9 feet length. In the PS package the HPGL-2 driver is bundled as well and that one (though you do not have to use it) could extend the printing length for all the drivers. Based on the experience of another Z3100 user in the past. That package is optional for a plain Z3100 and I guess a plain Z3200. I have seen Z3200 users remark that their plain Z3200 prints any length without all extras I mention here so I could have been wrong in my decision.

If you do not need Postscript interpretation or Pantone color descriptions the PS part is not that interesting. There are more log features for accounting and a server driver type for job repeating  but I do not use that either with Qimage Ultimate at hand. There is the Advanced Profiling Solution with a monitor puck (OEM Display II) included. More versatile than Color Center profiling, with more choices aboard. I bought an APS package separately for the Z3100 at that time so I have two now and one for sale, or better already reserved. The APS will work for your old Z3100 too if you keep that. It will do a better job for the Z3100 in straight profiling, Color Center on the Z3200 is much improved, less difference for between the profile creator results for that one.

My 2 cents.

--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
December 2012, 500+ inkjet media white spectral plots.
Logged

Charles Gast

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 250
Re: z3200 vs Z3200PS
« Reply #2 on: February 23, 2013, 11:23:15 PM »

Thank you Ernst. It looks like I can see no value in the PS after all.  I purchased the APS kit soon after I started using the 3100. I would not go without it that's for sure. APS made a big difference with certain media (matte/canvas) especially with certain images.  I understand that if I buy a basic 3200 I can use the APS with that too. 
It is unfortunate that HP appears to have no future plans for this printer series. If I were to go with an Epson 9900 44inch and purchase the spectro option for that I would be spending over $6000. That is never going to happen. My daughter uses one of those in her job as a graphics designer and even with daily usage she tells me that print head cleanings are needed at least daily. Three reasons I went to HP was dramatic reduction in waste of the expensive ink, the spectro so I can calibrate any media any time, replace print heads and re-calibrate, and the 200+ year pigments. 6 years later no other manufacturer does all those things at this price. Its also a huge plus that I can go to HP, order parts, and do the repairs myself. It saves me quite a lot of money and surprisingly enough (sarcasm) I don't have money to waste lately  ;)
 It looks like I either stay with the 3100 24 inch + APS or go to the 3200PS 44 inch. Maybe I could sell the 3100 with the APS since I don't have use for two of either. Going to the 3200 24inch from the 3100 only gives me better reds as far as I can tell so not enough advantage to spend $2600 there. Bottom line is that these machines will be off the market soon apparently. If HP keeps parts in stock for 10 years I'll be good.
Logged

artobest

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 285
    • http://www.siskinpress.co.uk
Re: z3200 vs Z3200PS
« Reply #3 on: February 25, 2013, 07:09:28 AM »

As I understand it, the PS version also gives you much more flexibility in specifying custom paper sizes (Postscript Custom Size). This is something I do on a regular basis.

Atlex.com

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 215
Re: z3200 vs Z3200PS
« Reply #4 on: February 26, 2013, 11:27:29 AM »

Technically, the Epson 9900 doesn't use as much ink during cleanings and it is fairly comparable (if not a bit better) than HP.  Canon's IPF8400 is also equivalent to Epson and HP's models in the 44".  HP is slowly discontinuing their models as the Z3200 series is being scarce.  Z3200PS is the only one available at the moment.

I've sold many of the 9900's to customers and they love the way it works.  All printers will have some type of issue (cleaning, cloggings, etc) as this will never be completely fixed as technology won't work like that...unfortunately.

If you're still looking into what the best model would be to go with, we can surely assist you with that.  Our tech has much experience printing and using as well as fixing the printers on his end directly.  Some things do need to get fixed from the manufacturer as we can't do it ourselves.

For the 9900 with spectroproofer, it does come out to more than the HP Z3200PS does.  The other option would be to do the 9900 with a color management hardware like the ColorMunki photo to make the image on the monitor come out the same on the printer and cost less than the HP PS version would.  This is just an idea and not as much.  The ColorMunki is normally around $400 which can be used on many computers.

Hope this helps out.
atlex.com
Logged

John Caldwell

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 565
Re: z3200 vs Z3200PS
« Reply #5 on: February 26, 2013, 02:31:12 PM »

As I understand it, the PS version also gives you much more flexibility in specifying custom paper sizes (Postscript Custom Size). This is something I do on a regular basis.

Owning the 24" 3200 non-PS version, I have never been unable to specify a custom paper size. On the other hand, the longest print I've ever made was about 6 feet. So while I am not suggesting the above claim is incorrect, I haven't personally bumped up against any such limitation.

John Caldwell
Logged

Colorwave

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1007
    • Colorwave Imaging
Re: z3200 vs Z3200PS
« Reply #6 on: February 26, 2013, 03:08:50 PM »

Technically, the Epson 9900 doesn't use as much ink during cleanings and it is fairly comparable (if not a bit better) than HP.

Do I understand you correctly in saying that the 9900 uses the same or less ink overall than a Z3200?

Also, has HP confirmed that the Z3200ps is being discontinued, or do you anticipate them being available for the foreseeable future (a few months, at least)?
« Last Edit: February 26, 2013, 06:41:06 PM by Colorwave »
Logged

Greggw

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8
Re: z3200 vs Z3200PS
« Reply #7 on: February 26, 2013, 05:26:27 PM »

I recently bough a designjet directly from HP Directly, they said they had no intention of discontinuing this line,
also my printer does not use a fraction of ink compared to my epson and the inks are much more archival.
They also said once a printer is discontinued inks & replacement parts are available for 10 years from that date.
Logged

Damir

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 194
Re: z3200 vs Z3200PS
« Reply #8 on: February 27, 2013, 05:06:52 AM »

I have Epson 9800. It is nightmare, always have trouble in prints, lines, bandings; when I want to cut paper it unwind entire roll on my floor; it looks like ink is magicaly dissapearing from printer... My Z just work, and work, and work, I just clean it before important job, as it build up ink on MK head that can show up on prints.
Logged

Ernst Dinkla

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3281
Re: z3200 vs Z3200PS
« Reply #9 on: February 27, 2013, 07:42:42 AM »


Hope this helps out.
atlex.com


Write that the HP Zs may be hard to deliver but forget the other remarks about ink use and a ColorMunki as an equivalent to the Z's spectrometer + software.

The Zs are reliable, consume way less ink that the Epsons while still keeping heads in condition, do not need to switch MK>PK>MK, easier and cheaper in maintenance and deliver longlasting, excellent prints. The spectrometer is integrated and so is the profile creation software.

Right now my 6 year old Z3100 is printing the same watercolor repros that I have done on that printer in 2007 and the years after that. The artist is happy with the color consistency over the years.

--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
December 2012, 500+ inkjet media white spectral plots.
Logged

Roscolo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 675
Re: z3200 vs Z3200PS
« Reply #10 on: February 27, 2013, 05:02:04 PM »

Write that the HP Zs may be hard to deliver but forget the other remarks about ink use and a ColorMunki as an equivalent to the Z's spectrometer + software.

The Zs are reliable, consume way less ink that the Epsons while still keeping heads in condition, do not need to switch MK>PK>MK, easier and cheaper in maintenance and deliver longlasting, excellent prints. The spectrometer is integrated and so is the profile creation software.

Right now my 6 year old Z3100 is printing the same watercolor repros that I have done on that printer in 2007 and the years after that. The artist is happy with the color consistency over the years.

--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
December 2012, 500+ inkjet media white spectral plots.

My experience also. Also found the APS on the web, installed and it activated. YMMV. HP has discontinued twinpacks of ink for the z3100 / z3200 so factor in that your ink is going to cost more now. I also have the Canon ipf8300. Depending on the price, I would probably get the Canon ipf8400 unless the z3200ps is just a whole lot cheaper, especially since you already have APS with your existing z3100, and you can use that to profile any other printer. I'm using my z3100 to make profiles on HP and 3rd party media that I'm running through the Canon ipf8300. Profiles are spot on so far. The Canon drivers / software / print plug-in are light years better than HP's clunky, although quite workable once you get used to it, interface.
Logged

MonsterBaby

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 136
Re: z3200 vs Z3200PS
« Reply #11 on: February 27, 2013, 06:58:37 PM »

i heard so many people talk about clogging... and i really dont know what they are talkin about!

my Z31 .. never had clogged heads.. my Z32 neither clogs.. i could switch the Z31 off for weeks and it would start up and i could print!

the only time i had clogged heads was when i forgot to swith off the Z32 when i went away for 4 weeks... and somewhere in between it crashed and couldnt do it cleaning cycles..

THAT was the only time i had to take out the heads.. clean them.. do some cleaning cycles and was ready to go again.

so this clogging must be founded by epson or canon.. but def not by HP
Logged

georgek

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 126
    • Digitalarte
Re: z3200 vs Z3200PS
« Reply #12 on: February 28, 2013, 05:47:38 AM »

Write that the HP Zs may be hard to deliver but forget the other remarks about ink use and a ColorMunki as an equivalent to the Z's spectrometer + software.

The Zs are reliable, consume way less ink that the Epsons while still keeping heads in condition, do not need to switch MK>PK>MK, easier and cheaper in maintenance and deliver longlasting, excellent prints. The spectrometer is integrated and so is the profile creation software.


+1

artobest

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 285
    • http://www.siskinpress.co.uk
Re: z3200 vs Z3200PS
« Reply #13 on: March 01, 2013, 06:16:00 AM »

Owning the 24" 3200 non-PS version, I have never been unable to specify a custom paper size.


As I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong) you can create a custom paper size in the standard version, but you must name it and save it to the paper-sizes list; but with the PS version, Postscript Custom Size is an option in the paper-sizes list: with it, you can make an ad hoc size on the fly without saving and naming it, very useful in many cases.

Again, correct me if I'm wrong.

Ernst Dinkla

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3281
Re: z3200 vs Z3200PS
« Reply #14 on: March 01, 2013, 06:49:43 AM »

As I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong) you can create a custom paper size in the standard version, but you must name it and save it to the paper-sizes list; but with the PS version, Postscript Custom Size is an option in the paper-sizes list: with it, you can make an ad hoc size on the fly without saving and naming it, very useful in many cases.

Again, correct me if I'm wrong.

Could be quite correct. The PS3 driver acts in more ways like a true (Epson) Windows driver than the PCL3 version. Like Qimage can crop the print page waste correctly on the PS3 driver and not on the PCL3 driver. I should switch one day to PS3 but old habits die hard and then I have to face two different drivers; the PCL3 on teh Z3100 and the PS3 on the Z3200.

--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
December 2012, 500+ inkjet media white spectral plots.
Logged

Geraldo Garcia

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 363
    • Personal blog
Re: z3200 vs Z3200PS
« Reply #15 on: March 01, 2013, 12:04:17 PM »

As I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong) you can create a custom paper size in the standard version, but you must name it and save it to the paper-sizes list; but with the PS version, Postscript Custom Size is an option in the paper-sizes list: with it, you can make an ad hoc size on the fly without saving and naming it, very useful in many cases.

Well... Yes, but nothing prohibits you from creating a saved paper size to be your custom variable size. I have one named "whatever" and use it editing its size as needed.

Best regards.
Logged

Ernst Dinkla

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3281
Re: z3200 vs Z3200PS
« Reply #16 on: March 01, 2013, 12:19:48 PM »

Qimage's recall of jobs does not like that.
With the PCL3 driver it will select the saved size on the name and does not check the size.

Ernst, op de lei getypt.
Logged

artobest

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 285
    • http://www.siskinpress.co.uk
Re: z3200 vs Z3200PS
« Reply #17 on: March 02, 2013, 07:06:02 AM »

Furthermore, the new custom size is apparently not available until you close and reopen Preferences. Sounds like a pain to me, but I don't have to live with it.

MonsterBaby

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 136
Re: z3200 vs Z3200PS
« Reply #18 on: March 04, 2013, 02:10:51 PM »

i dont like the PS3 driver at all to use with qimage
it has weird behaviors on rotating the print and putting it anywhere!

the PCL is always str8 out correct.

i like the PS option for sending pdfs to the printer without a RIP. like the pantone emulation there as well. and i do a lot of large prints with the "PS browser" as well
Logged

Ernst Dinkla

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3281
Re: z3200 vs Z3200PS
« Reply #19 on: March 04, 2013, 02:36:54 PM »

the PCL is always str8 out correct.

Not when an ad hoc custom size is recalled by Qimage.
Not when a print page is cropped to its nested images content by Qimage to save paper. You have to reduce the print page size in the driver which takes more time

Ernst, op de lei getypt.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up