Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: ScottWald on August 14, 2007, 10:08:28 am
-
I’ve been working carefully with the Epson 3800 for about half a year now, printing exclusively on matte papers. On the whole I have been happy with it, but there are two serious shortcomings I have come up against which I think people should know about. First, printing on matte Epson Ultra Premium Presentation Paper (formerly called Enhanced Matte) will result in noticeable mottling in large areas of deep black. I still use this paper for proofing, but the prints are not acceptable for exhibition. Second, you cannot use Hahnemuhle Photo Rag 308 with this printer. There is a serious problem with the low-value greens–the ink appears not to adhere to the paper. These are not problems with my individual unit. I have waited before making this post so that I can confirm with other careful users of this printer that they are experiencing the same problems.
-
Hi
I print B&W pictures on PhotoRag in ABW mode. I set the ink density in the printer driver between -3% and -5% depending on the picture to avoid problems with deep blacks. The results are wonderful. I can't help you on the greens, though.
Hope that helps.
-
I use the 3800 with a RIP and the results with Enhanced Matte are great. IMHO the problem might be with the profile not the printer.
-
I also use the 3800. I agree that there is a problem with mottling in large dark areas when using Enhanced Matte. I found this problem existed with the 2200, plus with a number of non-epson matte papers.
I'd suggest that you use EM for proofing and Velvet Fine Art for your final prints. VFA does not suffer this mottling, and it offers subtle improvements across the board. It's also one of the brighter rag-type papers. I love it.
-
I’ve been working carefully with the Epson 3800 for about half a year now, printing exclusively on matte papers. On the whole I have been happy with it, but there are two serious shortcomings I have come up against which I think people should know about. First, printing on matte Epson Ultra Premium Presentation Paper (formerly called Enhanced Matte) will result in noticeable mottling in large areas of deep black. I still use this paper for proofing, but the prints are not acceptable for exhibition. Second, you cannot use Hahnemuhle Photo Rag 308 with this printer. There is a serious problem with the low-value greens–the ink appears not to adhere to the paper. These are not problems with my individual unit. I have waited before making this post so that I can confirm with other careful users of this printer that they are experiencing the same problems.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133186\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I've been unable to see any problem (and I've looked through a loupe) on my 3800.
I will note that my paper is not new and is labeled "Enhanced Matte".
I did also notice that the color profile crushes the darkest tones a wee bit compared to the ABW driver, but still produces a pleasing color print. One might even argue that although less than accurate, the profile punches up the image a tad which seems to work well on matte paper.
Perhaps Epson has changed the paper slightly since writing the printer driver and profiles?
-
To illustrate what Scott means about the mottling, here are some examples:
http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/photos/tmp/overink1.jpg (http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/photos/tmp/overink1.jpg)
http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/photos/tmp/overink2.jpg (http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/photos/tmp/overink2.jpg)
http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/photos/tmp/overink3.jpg (http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/photos/tmp/overink3.jpg)
http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/photos/tmp/overink4.jpg (http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/photos/tmp/overink4.jpg)
http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/photos/tmp/overink5.jpg (http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/photos/tmp/overink5.jpg)
Definitely don't need a loupe to see them. Here the angle of lighting and the perspective of the camera was set to maximize the effect, just to demonstrate.
-
Curious. I have made over 450 A3+ prints on my 3880 on Photo Rag 308 and about 100 A2 on the same paper. results have been very very good. The last batch were of hedges - full range of greens from very dark (almost black) to iridescent. As long as they are kept within gamut they have all printed without any problems at all. I use a custom profile and certainly have never seen any ink refusing to stick or any mottling problems.
-
I use a custom profile and certainly have never seen any ink refusing to stick or any mottling problems.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133290\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Note that the mottling issue was for EEM only (a.k.a. Ultra Premium Presentation Paper Matte) -- I haven't seen any mottling on HPR 308 and I don't think Scott has run into it either (we've discussed some of these issues offline).
In terms of the greens on HPR, it's not so much that the ink doesn't stick, but that the greens seem to lack detail compared to the other color ranges. It's as if somehow the ink has been smeared a bit so they look muddy.
Which Media Type are you using for HPR? I'm using the Velvet Fine Art Media Type, but as I recall when testing the other Media Types the results were basically the same.
One think that's unclear is whether there are variations between HPR batches. It's possible that Scott and I got unlucky.
-
I've been unable to see any problem (and I've looked through a loupe) on my 3800.
I will note that my paper is not new and is labeled "Enhanced Matte".
..................
Perhaps Epson has changed the paper slightly since writing the printer driver and profiles?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133245\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The name of the paper has changed twice since it was called Archival Matte way back when, but I am informed the specs have not changed.
-
To illustrate what Scott means about the mottling, here are some examples:
http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/photos/tmp/overink1.jpg (http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/photos/tmp/overink1.jpg)
http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/photos/tmp/overink2.jpg (http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/photos/tmp/overink2.jpg)
http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/photos/tmp/overink3.jpg (http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/photos/tmp/overink3.jpg)
http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/photos/tmp/overink4.jpg (http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/photos/tmp/overink4.jpg)
http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/photos/tmp/overink5.jpg (http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/photos/tmp/overink5.jpg)
Definitely don't need a loupe to see them. Here the angle of lighting and the perspective of the camera was set to maximize the effect, just to demonstrate.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133272\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yikes! I'm definitely not seeing that. It's awful. It really makes me think something has changed in the paper.
Has Epson responded to this issue?
-bruce
-
Thanks everyone for your replies. Rugydp, I haven’t tried b&w printing with my 3800 and HPR308 and am encouraged by your experience. Matt4626, I find the EEM mottling problem strongly correlated with the 3800. I printed on a 2200 for a couple of years without seeing the effect, and I’ve taught at an art college where they run acres of EEM through a 2200 and a 4800 and I’ve never seen the problem there. Pflower, your experience is encouraging. May I second Eric’s request and ask which custom profile you have been using? Also, is there anyone else out there getting good color results with HPR308? If so, perhaps Eric is right that he and I have bad batches of paper. I have a sealed box of HPR308 from a different batch which I wasn’t even going to open, but if many others aren’t experiencing the problems the Eric and I are it might be worth breaking the seal and giving it a try. So please let us know if you're getting good results.
On a more positive note, I just printed a 24-image exhibition on Epson Ultra Smooth Fine Art an am very happy with the results (I have also had good results using Epson Velvet Fine Art). I did have one defective box of USFA—areas of differing density in the deep blacks—but it was quickly and cheerfully replaced under warranty.
-
It is unlikely that you have a bad batch of paper. As Eric Chan mentioned, and Eric and I have worked together testing this, the problem is largely confined to Epson Enhanced Matte paper (or whatever they call it now) on the 3800. I use the same paper extensively on a 4800, we have compared performance for this issue, and there is no comparison. That being the case, part of the explanation may be Epson's particular profile for the combination of that printer and that paper. Epson has expressed considerable interest in analyzing this matter, but I am not sure whether there is yet a conclusive outcome to this work.
-
Hi Mark,
Thanks for chiming in here. One reason Scott and I are thinking about a possibility of a bad batch of HPR is because of another photographer's post (somewhere else, can't remember where) in which he was also having problems with HPR holding the ink, and his dealer contacted Hahnemuehle in Germany, where they confirmed based on his batch number (printed on the box) that they did indeed have some problems at the factory applying the coating evenly, due to some temperature issues. They ended up replacing the box with papers from another batch and the ink handling issues disappeared afterwards.
Obviously this is an uncommon situation, and perhaps even less likely that both Scott and I would wind up independently with bad batches and seeing the exact same greens issue ...
-
Hi Mark,
Thanks for chiming in here. One reason Scott and I are thinking about a possibility of a bad batch of HPR is because of another photographer's post (somewhere else, can't remember where) in which he was also having problems with HPR holding the ink, and his dealer contacted Hahnemuehle in Germany, where they confirmed based on his batch number (printed on the box) that they did indeed have some problems at the factory applying the coating evenly, due to some temperature issues. They ended up replacing the box with papers from another batch and the ink handling issues disappeared afterwards.
Obviously this is an uncommon situation, and perhaps even less likely that both Scott and I would wind up independently with bad batches and seeing the exact same greens issue ...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133434\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi Eric, I thought the defective paper suggestion was in regard to EEM - if it is HPR and the company has acknowledged the problem, that is a different story indeed! BTW, where do we stand with Epson now on the EEM/3800 mottling issue?
-
Hi Mark,
I guess I would describe the situation as unresolved ... Epson seemed to feel the problem would be fixed with new profiles, but I haven't seen any new profiles posted to the web site yet. Maybe they're still working on them, but I'm not sure.
-
Hi Mark,
I guess I would describe the situation as unresolved ... Epson seemed to feel the problem would be fixed with new profiles, but I haven't seen any new profiles posted to the web site yet. Maybe they're still working on them, but I'm not sure.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133460\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Eric, that sounds like the status. I'd be surprised if they are still working on it. How long can it take to draft, test and refine a profile? I think they quietly dropped the issue either because they couldn't resolve it, or other things took priority.
-
I agree, Mark. If I had to guess, they're probably busy with the new xx80 series of printers and whatever else is to come after that. In my discussion with them, they were quite clear that relatively few 3800 users had complained about the EEM mottling issue, so I doubt it was ever a high priority to address.
-
I have just read these posting with great interest as i have been having some issues with my 3800 and hahnemuehle photo rag myself.
Although mine are with the paper rippleing, as in the actual paper has waves in after it has been printed on to. Mainly where there are areas of black
I have had no problems with mottling or greens on any of my prints.
Can i ask what 3800 users have their 'drying time per print head pass' set at?
Cheers
Andrew.
-
Hi Mark,
I guess I would describe the situation as unresolved ... Epson seemed to feel the problem would be fixed with new profiles, but I haven't seen any new profiles posted to the web site yet. Maybe they're still working on them, but I'm not sure.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133460\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi all,
I have a question, 2 actually:
1. Would a custom profile (eg made by EyeOne + PM5?) solve the mottling issue? Because the problem seems to be leaning towards ink density and the way the ink is laid down. Can a custom profile solve that?
2. Is there anybody with Colorbyte or Colorburst RIP who has printed without the mottling problem? matt4626 > you mentioned about using a RIP, could you tell us what the software is? Thanks!
Best
Wes
-
Although mine are with the paper rippleing, as in the actual paper has waves in after it has been printed on to. Mainly where there are areas of black
Can i ask what 3800 users have their 'drying time per print head pass' set at?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133777\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I've found that it doesn't really make a difference. I leave mine at the default but have tried it up to 3 seconds per head pass -- yes, it makes the whole printing process take forever!
Either way, the fact remains that the dark areas of the print still get the same amount of ink coverage, and the only way to get rid of the ripples is to let the print dry thoroughly. Then, if the ripples still aren't completely gone, sandwich the print between two pieces of acid-free tissue and then put a heavy weight carefully over the print to help flatten the print further. Be careful when doing this so as not to damage the print.
-
I've found that it doesn't really make a difference. I leave mine at the default but have tried it up to 3 seconds per head pass -- yes, it makes the whole printing process take forever!
Either way, the fact remains that the dark areas of the print still get the same amount of ink coverage, and the only way to get rid of the ripples is to let the print dry thoroughly. Then, if the ripples still aren't completely gone, sandwich the print between two pieces of acid-free tissue and then put a heavy weight carefully over the print to help flatten the print further. Be careful when doing this so as not to damage the print.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133801\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Eric, we've been around this one before too, but something here just doesn't make sense to me. My prints come out of the Epson 4800 "almost dry" - in the sense that one can hardly see any rippling at all - just a slight dampness in very dark areas of the print. (And the same was true for my 2000P and 4000 printers in the past.) I leave them to dry overnight anyhow, but this rippling seems to be a 3800 phenominon and one wonders why.
-
1. Would a custom profile (eg made by EyeOne + PM5?) solve the mottling issue? Because the problem seems to be leaning towards ink density and the way the ink is laid down. Can a custom profile solve that?
A custom profile doesn't appear to help. Believe me, I've tried. I've used various software (including PM5 and MonacoPROFILER). I've tried varying the ink density between -20% and +20%. I've used both 1440 dpi and 2880 dpi, both High Speed on and High Speed off. The mottling is still there. Note that profiles don't really vary the total ink density; they simply shift the balance between how much ink is put down. In other words, the total ink limit and overall ink strategy -- which is determined largely by the Media Type setting in the driver -- remains the same regardless of which profile is used.
I believe, based on all of the testing and evidence that I have available to me, that the mottling is largely due to an interaction between three things: (1) the 3800's new screening algorithm implemented by the driver, (2) the K3 inks, and (3) EEM paper.
2. Is there anybody with Colorbyte or Colorburst RIP who has printed without the mottling problem? matt4626 > you mentioned about using a RIP, could you tell us what the software is? Thanks!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133778\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I have used the ColorBurst RIP demo to make test prints on EEM. Yes, the mottling is reduced, but not eliminated. However, the black is also significantly weaker, leading to a less vibrant, less rich print. Makes me think the ink limit is set more conservatively with the ColorBurst RIP, which certainly could lead to less mottling, but at the expense of image quality. I have not tried making a custom profile for the ColorBurst RIP (not sure I can do this with the demo). The canned EEM profile that came with the ColorBurst RIP for the 3800 had some serious other issues, such as noticeable banding in the 3/4 shadow tones.
I would love to try a print using ImagePrint but unfortunately the demo version for Windows does not allow one to print (this is by design).
Interestingly, I had someone send me an EEM profile target the other day (for the purposes of making a custom profile). The target was printed with an Epson 2200 with UltraChrome inks. Not only was there zero mottling (none at all), but the d-max was considerably higher (1.77 compared to 1.65 with the 3800).
-
Ill keep an eye on the prints to see how they dry out, if they dont ill try the method suggested by Eric.
Another thing my prints suffer with is ink marks on the edge of the paper that is last out.
I know this has been covered before, and ive read the same response on several forums.
But are there any other ways apart from setting the platen gap to wider to solve the issue?
Its not a constant problem, but the last few prints out have been marked.
Im printing on sheets of A3 and need the whole page as the prints are for my folio!!!
-
Eric
for what it is worth, I get serious mottling in solid black areas using EEM in my R2400 using the standard profile and the Advanced B/W mode. This also happens on Hahnemuhle Photo Rag, but is much less noticeable. It does NOT happen on the Harman FB matt, or on gloss papers like Innova Ultra Smooth Gloss.
Best regards
John
-
I have been watching this thread with considerable interest, for a couple of reasons:
1. About 99% of my printing is on EEM, and
2. My Epson 2200 seems to be on its last legs (it goes to the Epson Doctor on Monday).
I have been seriously considering the 3800 instead of the 2400 when I do have to replace it, but I really do not want to have to deal with the mottling!
I use ImagePrint for color printing on the 2200, and QTR for B&W, but from what I've heard here on LL about the 3800, it sounds as if I shouldn't need a RIP (which I needed for decent color on the 2200 --- If I had known that I would be using EEM almost exclusively, I would have been better off getting a custom profile; but hen, if pigs had wings . . . )
I hope you guys get this solved before too long. And thanks for all the good info.
-Eric
-
A custom profile doesn't appear to help. Believe me, I've tried. I've used various software (including PM5 and MonacoPROFILER). I've tried varying the ink density between -20% and +20%. I've used both 1440 dpi and 2880 dpi, both High Speed on and High Speed off. The mottling is still there. Note that profiles don't really vary the total ink density; they simply shift the balance between how much ink is put down. In other words, the total ink limit and overall ink strategy -- which is determined largely by the Media Type setting in the driver -- remains the same regardless of which profile is used.
I believe, based on all of the testing and evidence that I have available to me, that the mottling is largely due to an interaction between three things: (1) the 3800's new screening algorithm implemented by the driver, (2) the K3 inks, and (3) EEM paper.
I have used the ColorBurst RIP demo to make test prints on EEM. Yes, the mottling is reduced, but not eliminated. However, the black is also significantly weaker, leading to a less vibrant, less rich print. Makes me think the ink limit is set more conservatively with the ColorBurst RIP, which certainly could lead to less mottling, but at the expense of image quality. I have not tried making a custom profile for the ColorBurst RIP (not sure I can do this with the demo). The canned EEM profile that came with the ColorBurst RIP for the 3800 had some serious other issues, such as noticeable banding in the 3/4 shadow tones.
I would love to try a print using ImagePrint but unfortunately the demo version for Windows does not allow one to print (this is by design).
Interestingly, I had someone send me an EEM profile target the other day (for the purposes of making a custom profile). The target was printed with an Epson 2200 with UltraChrome inks. Not only was there zero mottling (none at all), but the d-max was considerably higher (1.77 compared to 1.65 with the 3800).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133804\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It just occurred to me that the 3800 is the only printer with the photo and matte blacks inks installed at the same time. Could there be an issue of mixing of the black inks? Just thinking outloud...
-bruce
-
I have been watching this thread with considerable interest, for a couple of reasons:
1. About 99% of my printing is on EEM, and
2. My Epson 2200 seems to be on its last legs (it goes to the Epson Doctor on Monday).
I have been seriously considering the 3800 instead of the 2400 when I do have to replace it, but I really do not want to have to deal with the mottling!
I use ImagePrint for color printing on the 2200, and QTR for B&W, but from what I've heard here on LL about the 3800, it sounds as if I shouldn't need a RIP (which I needed for decent color on the 2200 --- If I had known that I would be using EEM almost exclusively, I would have been better off getting a custom profile; but hen, if pigs had wings . . . )
I hope you guys get this solved before too long. And thanks for all the good info.
-Eric
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133830\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi EricM.
It's not a good time to buy a new printer. Especially if like me you are mainly using Epson Enhanced Matte. Based on all I've seen and heard my overall impression of the current market situation is this: the Epson 3800 can produce great results, but I think it is a transitional product with some issues for which there is no estimated time of resolution. The Canon IPF5000 remains problematic in most of the ways that John Hollenberg;s Wiki have revealed. The HP Z3100 seems like a dream machine but you need to be able to justify the cost.
It's hard to give people advice about what they should buy, but if you can nurse your 2200 for another year or so, it is a considerable option, because by then there should be a new raft of options from Epson and others that may resolve the current issues and cause regret for having invested in one of the current crop.
If however you have no choice and really need a machine to tide you over, an Epson 2400 (now at B&H for 750 minus 75 rebate) is probably a great value and a sensible price point under the circumstances. Also it will be closest to what you already know best.
-
Eric, we've been around this one before too, but something here just doesn't make sense to me. My prints come out of the Epson 4800 "almost dry" - in the sense that one can hardly see any rippling at all - just a slight dampness in very dark areas of the print. (And the same was true for my 2000P and 4000 printers in the past.) I leave them to dry overnight anyhow, but this rippling seems to be a 3800 phenominon and one wonders why.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133803\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I agree, Mark. It is a little odd. I have heard reports from several 3800 users (via email, here, and other forums) that matte prints come out not only damp, but the paper is wavy or ripply. I don't know whether the differences seen between the 3800 and other K3 printers (e.g., the 4800) are due to environmental conditions, but I doubt it. If the print was ripply/wavy after several days, or became that way after a long period, then yes, I might argue that differences in humidity might play a role. But in the cases that I've seen, the print comes out from the printer and immediately appears wavy, and only in the dark areas of the print, where the ink coverage is heavy. Midtones and highlights show no such waviness. I don't have an explanation for it, but it does seem to be happening.
-
But are there any other ways apart from setting the platen gap to wider to solve the issue?
Its not a constant problem, but the last few prints out have been marked.
Im printing on sheets of A3 and need the whole page as the prints are for my folio!!!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133810\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Unfortunately, not that I know of. BTW, I set my Platen Gap to Wide, not Wider. If you have very well-behaved paper, i.e., the sheet is extremely flat, then you may not need to set the PG to Wide/Wider. But for now I see no disadvantage (visually, in terms of inspecting image quality in the printed result) of using PG = Wide, so that's what I do. No head strikes since February (which is when I got the printer).
-
Hi EricM.
It's not a good time to buy a new printer. Especially if like me you are mainly using Epson Enhanced Matte. Based on all I've seen and heard my overall impression of the current market situation is this: the Epson 3800 can produce great results, but I think it is a transitional product with some issues for which there is no estimated time of resolution. The Canon IPF5000 remains problematic in most of the ways that John Hollenberg;s Wiki have revealed. The HP Z3100 seems like a dream machine but you need to be able to justify the cost.
It's hard to give people advice about what they should buy, but if you can nurse your 2200 for another year or so, it is a considerable option, because by then there should be a new raft of options from Epson and others that may resolve the current issues and cause regret for having invested in one of the current crop.
If however you have no choice and really need a machine to tide you over, an Epson 2400 (now at B&H for 750 minus 75 rebate) is probably a great value and a sensible price point under the circumstances. Also it will be closest to what you already know best.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133844\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi Mark,
Sounds look good advice. The HP seems out of my price range, and if it weren't for John H's wiki (which seems a great substitute for the missing manual), I'd never consider the Canons. My 2200 has done so well for me that I'm very likely to stick with Epson.
The information that you and Eric Chan have put out here on LuLa about the 3800 make it sound very tempting. But I agree that waiting for next year's crop of new printers is a good idea if possible.
My 2200 goes to the printer doctor Monday. It has been giving error warnings for about a week now, and just a few minutes ago it decided to quit altogether (the all-red-lights-flashing syndrome).
Fortunately, I don't have any pressing printing needs this week. So I'll repair it this time at least, and see how far it takes me.
Thanks,
-Eric M.
-
I've not noticed any problems with greens on HPR308 or HPR196 Duo. I do however print with my own custom profiles on this paper.
Mottling on EEM is definitely a problem I've seen on both the 3800 and the 2400 K3 printers.
-
I don't agree that it is a bad time to buy a printer.
There are great choices available from Canon Epson and HP in both the 13" and 17" range of printers.
I really like the prints that I'm getting out of my 3800. And seriously doubt that I will bother upgrading within the next 2 or 3 years no matter what Epson or the others come out with.... well that is unless they come out with a 17" printer, with roll feed, no pizza wheels, no black switching and cost $500!
If your 2200 is working for you then that's great. If you're printing a lot then I don't agree that the 2400 is a good choice. Switching inks and the small cartridges were a constant annoyance for me on that printer. I've had my 3800 for about 6 months now and still haven't yet changed out a cart (though I will have to do the lk cart fairly soon).
Derek
-
I don't agree that it is a bad time to buy a printer.
There are great choices available from Canon Epson and HP in both the 13" and 17" range of printers.
Derek
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133909\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
There is no question that the current generation of printers produces excellent prints. But for the Epsons and Canons (setting aside the "Cadillac" solution of an HP z3100) there are a number of known issues most of which we should expect to be worked out in forthcoming models within a year. That was the basis of my suggestion.