Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: Wayne Fox on April 14, 2015, 11:46:40 am
-
New printer finally announced.
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/epson-unveils-new-surecolor-p800-17-inch-wide-professional-printer-300065190.html
Similar to 3880, 80 ml cartridges but one big difference is Roll paper adaptor is available.
-
I'm currently testing the P600 and UltraChrome HD ink set. I think some of my findings for the P600 and the new UCHD ink set are likely to hold true for the P800 as well. Some initial DMAX info for the PK black already reported here: http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/news.73.html
This article will get fairly regular updates as I discover more about print quality, printer reliability, light fastness, etc. The project is ongoing.
cheers,
Mark
-
Epson's website says the printing length of the P800 is 22". Twenty two inches?? Very strange for a printer that can handle rolls. Their 3800/3880s print to 37+" using the Epson driver. I wonder if they offer 'banner' mode, which may be a work-around for the print length limitation.
-
Epson's website says the printing length of the P800 is 22". Twenty two inches?? Very strange for a printer that can handle rolls. Their 3800/3880s print to 37+" using the Epson driver. I wonder if they offer 'banner' mode, which may be a work-around for the print length limitation.
It better be a typo ;D. Otherwise, Epson's going to hear a lot of negative feedback on that one!
cheers,
Mark
-
they made the same specification for the 3880 since that (22") is the longest sheet Epson sells. They dont
talk about the 37" limit because they dont offer paper that long. Once the roll adaptor is added, I'd bet there is
some electro/mechanical widget/interaction that tells the printer to 'go long' (ie. you probably cannot print >37" w/o the roll adaptor).
I wonder if the roll adaptor is 'driven' in any form or just a glorified broom handle ;)
-
Bingo! This'll be my next printer (assuming >= 3880-level performance). :)
-Dave-
-
Exciting news! I think this will be my first photo printer :)
A quick google to confirm news gave me this quote "When using roll paper, prints can extend up to 10 feet for banners and panoramas."
-
Exciting news! I think this will be my first photo printer :)
A quick google to confirm news gave me this quote "When using roll paper, prints can extend up to 10 feet for banners and panoramas."
That notwithstanding, many users of 17" printers also enjoy 17x25 inch cut sheet paper for unabridged FX format images. I guess one might have a sporting chance of loading a longer cut sheet into the printer, but telling the driver you are using a roll. We shall see ::)
cheers,
Mark
-
Wonder if it will stay in the 180 nozzles per channel category that made the 38x0 models so reliable or goes for the 360 nozzles. With the roll feature added it could mean the end for the 4x00 models range too. No specifications to find yet.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
December 2014 update, 700+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
Epson's website says the printing length of the P800 is 22". Twenty two inches?? Very strange for a printer that can handle rolls. Their 3800/3880s print to 37+" using the Epson driver. I wonder if they offer 'banner' mode, which may be a work-around for the print length limitation.
The US website also had this problem with the 3880. 17" x 22" is the largest borderless print size, not the maximum print size.
It will be interesting to see if they have increased the pixel limitation beyond 30k. It would seem that they have managed to get beyond the 95 cm (37.4 inch) limitation.
But still the PK/MK switching. Really.
Brian A
-
Official page at Epson.com is now up. http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/jsp/Pro/SeriesSureColorP800/Overview.do?ref=van_p800
Looking at the specs there is an image of the roll feed adaptor, and it appears to be more robust than typical of some of these printers (remember the 2200 roll feed?) It appears to be somewhat similar to what I have in the 11880 and easily could have some "geared assistance". The price also seems to indicate it's more than just a place to hold a roll of paper.
As far as nozzle density, based on output speeds which seem faster it may be 360 nozzles instead of 180 per channel. However, Epson has produced many printers with 180 nozzle density that had plenty of issues (the original 4800?) so here's hoping whatever made the 3880 so reliable made it's way into the new printer.
It does appear that for a 17" printer this will be the best choice for most. The 4900 offers some nice features, and of course the extra gamut with orange and green, but the new blacks and dMax may be more appealing and if it does match the 3800 in reliability then a sweet machine for sure.
As far as fading, I guess the printer can have a small affect on this because dither's and screens may change how much actual ink ends up on a print (set me straight on that mark), but I think the biggest factors are the ink itself and the paper it's on, so it should perform nearly the same as the p600. I'm excited to see Mark's results, Wilhelms results so far certainly looks promising.
-
Regarding the add-on roll accessory: It is likely that there is a built-in paper cutter, or will we be left with manually cutting prints? I don't recall how the 2200 worked in this regard.
I wish the 4900 was friendly to 7" wide sheet stock, as one might use in printing 5x7" getting cards. Does the 3800 cries allow 7" stock, and if so, might the p800 work for card printing?
John-
-
Further information ...
1st the good news, basically the same head as the 3880, 180 nozzles/inch so hopefully similar reliability.
Unfortunately, now the not so good news, no cutter. Makes using roll paper a little bit of a pita, but at least it can be done somewhat effectively unlike the 3880.
-
The roll holder on my old 2200 was totally useless. I gave up on it very quickly, and never missed it once I upgraded to the 3800, which is still working just fine.
I've been expecting to have to replace the 3800 with a 3880 soon, but now I guess I'll wait until the p800 has some meaningful user reports.
-
The roll holder on my old 2200 was totally useless. I gave up on it very quickly, and never missed it once I upgraded to the 3800, which is still working just fine.
Agreed. I tossed mine after trying it once.
This one appears to be better designed. Here's a picture from epson. Appears similar to the 4900 roll holder.
-
"An optional 17-inch wide roll paper adapter is ideal for canvas and longer print lengths of up to 10 feet for creating breathtaking panoramas."
This statement is in the original link, so 10' may be the limit.
It will be interesting if the new ink set address current printing issues present with their other pro series, like bronzing and gloss differential.
Paul
-
Apparently they are not using the precisioncore head technology as Epson has been boasting for more than a year or so?
Also looks like the P600 can deliver smaller inkdrop size (2pl for P600 vs 3.5pl voor P800)?
Wondering as to why not the new printhead technology.
-
Hopefully Epson will include full 80ml carts with the new P800 (versus 'starter' carts) - something that made the 3880 an exceptional value.
-
"An optional 17-inch wide roll paper adapter is ideal for canvas and longer print lengths of up to 10 feet for creating breathtaking panoramas."
This statement is in the original link, so 10' may be the limit.
It will be interesting if the new ink set address current printing issues present with their other pro series, like bronzing and gloss differential.
Paul
Epson claims "40% reduction" in bronzing with the new ink set and gives an illustrative raking-light photo of a print surface which seems promising, but Epson doesn't claim it's eliminated. I've had the P600 only a few days now and haven't had a chance to really study the bronzing issue exhaustively, but if you are a person (like me) who truly dislikes bronzing so much that you break out the Print Spray in order to fully eliminate it on all glossy and luster prints, then it's clear the new ink set hasn't really changed anything. In fact, I've been scratching my head trying to figure out why I'm not seeing any difference at all between a multi hue color target I printed on Premium Luster with both the 3880 and the P600. Using the Epson supplied ICC profiles for both printers, the prints are very close in overall color and tone (slight edge going to the P600 for better Dmax and smoother dot structure), but as I walk the two prints side-by-side around my home to compare them under different illuminants,i.e., angle them various ways, place them in direct sun, indirect north light through a window, or under Solux 4600K lamps, I just can't convince myself that bronzing is any better on the P600. Ditto for differential gloss and overall gloss. Bronzing shows up mostly in the same color blends but with some different color patches exhibiting various degrees of bronzing as well when comparing to the 3880 print. The diffuse qualities of the incident light and the specific angle of view seems to affect (enhance or diminish) the observable bronzing in an essentially identical way. So, try as hard as I have already to induce obvious differences, I walk away thinking "Six to one, half a dozen the other". Problem not resolved.
I regret to say that we are still at a point with pigmented aqueous inkjet technology where bronzing is best eliminated by an additional gloss optimizer channel (which the Ultrachrome HD set doesn't have) or with an externally applied overcoat like Premier Print Shield.
kind regards,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
Mark-
I just read your report on the p800. I was wondering if the low Dmax in some cases could be caused by the profile used. What would happen if you sent out a black patch (RGB=000) directly to the printer, bypassing any profile, and then measuring that to see what the printer/paper/ink combination can produce? You could also convert your test image to the profile and see what values the profile converts 000 to.
-John
-
Mark-
I just read your report on the p800. I was wondering if the low Dmax in some cases could be caused by the profile used. What would happen if you sent out a black patch (RGB=000) directly to the printer, bypassing any profile, and then measuring that to see what the printer/paper/ink combination can produce? You could also convert your test image to the profile and see what values the profile converts 000 to.
-John
Yes, I totally agree that the result I got with the Hahnemuhle ICC profile where 1440 dpi produced poorer DMax than the 5760 dpi driver setting even though Hahnemuhle specified 1440 dpi for that profile, is going to be easy to resolve by doing a few more tests along the lines you have suggested above. It's on my "to do" list to send the P600 an untagged "no color adjust" target at the different screen output resolutions. This should tell us whether the Dmax differences I observed on HNPHotoRagPearl are due to the Epson output resolution setting or whether the HN Profile recommendation was simply bogus. The 5760 dpi setting was the better choice for that profile on all counts...Dmax, color, and tone) even though the HN documentation says to use 1440 dpi.
In part, this is typical "generic profile" nonsense where the vendor doesn't really give you enough to go on as far as appropriate driver settings. For example, the documentation called for "Quality 4 (1440 dpi)" but quality 4 only applies to PC and not to Mac, and on my Mac, the Epson driver also has two 1440 choices for Premium Luster (i.e. "photo -1440dpi" and "superfine-1440dpi"). I initially chose "photo-1440dpi", but 5760 dpi -high speed off turned out to work best no matter what because it gave great color and tighter dot structure that was easily held by the media. No way would I drop back to a 1440 dpi setting with an expensive fine art paper like HN Photo Rag Pearl. I'd be leaving image quality on the table. I'd rather wait a few minutes longer for a superior print.
Please check back for continuing updates to the article on a regular basis. I'm taking a different approach with the P600 project by treating it as a "work in progress". I know I need to perform many more tests, but I figured the printmaking community would rather learn something about the new Epson printers and HD ink set sooner rather than waiting much longer for the definitive final report ;D
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
Apparently they are not using the precisioncore head technology as Epson has been boasting for more than a year or so?
Also looks like the P600 can deliver smaller inkdrop size (2pl for P600 vs 3.5pl voor P800)?
Wondering as to why not the new printhead technology.
As far as droplet size, Nothing really new with this, been that way for a while. For some reason the smaller lower end printers often can print a smaller droplet, and additionally have a higher droplet “resolution”, example the R3000 is also 2pl droplet size and resolution is listed as 5760 x 1440 dpi. I have no answer as to why, but it certainly doesn’t seem to affect the quality of the finished prints.
As far as the head technology, I think PrecisionCore’s strength is speed, and it’s being deployed in lower end printers to make them more competitive with laser printer. But many of the technologies they describe in the precisionCore materials sound very similar to descriptions used when the “new” technology of the 11880 head was introduced which then made it’s way into all the Stylus Pro printers. Perhaps PrecisionCore is just marketing speak for putting some of this technology into the lower end to get faster printing speeds?
I really don’t see it as a negative, print speed ratings of the new printer seem faster so it could be the some of that technology is in there. From a print quality perspective the 3880 is no slouch and the biggest benefit of the new printer would be perhaps the blacks, definitely the longevity issue with yellow ink, and the ability to manage rolls.
-
... For some reason the smaller lower end printers often can print a smaller droplet, and additionally have a higher droplet “resolution”, example the R3000 is also 2pl droplet size and resolution is listed as 5760 x 1440 dpi. I have no answer as to why, but it certainly doesn’t seem to affect the quality of the finished prints.
It is most likely an engineering trade-off. A smaller printer makes smaller prints. You can deliver smaller drops and still build the image in a reasonable time. As the size of the print goes up, the patience of the customer will go down if print times become excessive. Given a finite number of nozzles, use bigger drops for a higher volume of ink flow, and the speed of the printer goes up to offset the time needed to cover the larger print area.
As for drop sizes and image quality, this topic does becomes more academic very quickly, but it fascinates me. The often cited argument is that if you can't see the dot structure at normal viewing distances, then why bother making finer dots? Well, it hinges on eye-brain visual stimuli that are hard to quantify. While we can say that people with 20-20 vision and good near distance focusing (i.e., young folks who don't need reading glasses :D) are going to be able to resolve approximately 5 to 6 line pairs per mm in the image plane, it's well known that photographic prints with even higher resolution are perceived to be of finer quality. The micro structural details lying just out of our immediate zone of visual acuity, also contribute to one's sense of image sharpness (this is Fourier Transform mathematics). We could have a very protracted discussion here, but consider a case well known to many photographers from the film era. Contact prints from large format negatives look sharper yet smoother tonally than enlarged prints from the same negative, even when the enlargement is kept to only very low power (e.g. 2x-4x enlargement) from a large format negative in a diffusion head enlarger such that the final print still out resolves extra high frequency details well above that 6 lp/mm visual resolution limit on the print surface.
Also, consider how many old photographs are now being repurposed today. We are scanning them at high resolution to make new copies, and because a hardcopy print is often the only remaining example of a treasured image (I'll bet the digital era isn't going to completely eliminate that reality) and we often want to enlarge the image in the new copy print, microstructure detail in the original print becomes a very relevant factor as to how good the copy print is going to look. Any printer that can produce a finer micro structural detail, more free of dot structure or graininess per unit area of printed image, is going to yield a print with superior copy/enlargement capabilities. That's a big deal to archivists and historians. 8) You can get some sense of this value in better micro structure in an inkjet print from an article I wrote quite a while ago regarding the Fuji Drylab printers. You will find it here: http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/news.47.html (http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/news.47.html)
cheers,
Mark
-
That is the main reason, shorter processing and printing time when the minimum droplet size is larger. You see it in all wide format brands, either 3.5 or 4 picoliter. I also think that larger droplets allow preciser dot placement when the head carriage has to run faster, the last again a necessity to speed up printing on wide format printers. It has to be seen whether page wide head arrangements show a development to smaller droplets, the data stream on that kind of printers is probably the other limitation and the media speed can be high too so similar issues of dot addressing remain.
Precise and even dot addressing influences Dmax measurements too. A black patch without even the tiniest white spot gives the best Dmax result. The ink load itself does not have to be higher. On my old Epson 9000s an uneven black patch was often the cause for a lower measured Dmax. The highest printer resolution settings can create better black patches and even some dot overlap with the minimum droplet size then used. If the printer is correctly aligned.
After color profiling there is a loss in Dmax anyway. In best case I measure the highest Dmax on one of the black patches of my Z3x00 calibration targets, after that get the same or slightly lower Dmax on a (QTR) B&W target that I print with the driver set on printer color management (BW or Color mode does not matter then) and no application color management done. Using the created QTR B&W profile then in Qimage's color management (perceptual + BPC) and with the driver CM still on the Dmax drops slightly.
However using a color profile (P + BPC) + color mode and the printer CM off always takes the Dmax down. With no BPC set at Relative Colormetric it is worse, black chopped off. Tried this with several profile creators. My best guess is that they need some slack to allow color conversions up to the shadows but the black color tint is not affected compared to the calibration target black so I wonder why not keep the black itself where it was and create a roll off that is acceptable in the tone range. Could be the algorithms that specify the color mapping afterwards but it certainly affects the Dmax. The printer color management does not have this effect and (as I understand it) is based on a LUT per media preset.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
December 2014 update, 700+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
My question is simple it seems Canon and HP are better in low humidity then past epson printers is this one based on the same enginerring as apst epons . Stuck valve problems and blown headds from low humidty?
-
My question is simple it seems Canon and HP are better in low humidity then past epson printers is this one based on the same enginerring as apst epons . Stuck valve problems and blown headds from low humidty?
I run my 3880 through the winter months in a low humidity environment without any clogs. Don't know how low the humidity gets, but skin dries out and static electricity shocks everywhere.
-
My 3880 was according to Epson destroyed by low humidity and they jsut laughed at me when I asked for a discount on a new one and said they would have somone get back to me no one ever did.
-
I run my 3880 through the winter months in a low humidity environment without any clogs. Don't know how low the humidity gets, but skin dries out and static electricity shocks everywhere.
Here in northern NM the humidity is often in single digits, I’ve had no issues with my 3880 from day one. Can go months without printing and the heads clean as can be. Can’t say the same for the 4900 that sat a few feet away.
-
Here in northern NM the humidity is often in single digits, I’ve had no issues with my 3880 from day one. Can go months without printing and the heads clean as can be. Can’t say the same for the 4900 that sat a few feet away.
Same here in central Virginia. 3880 and 9890 in the same room. The 3880 can go a couple of months without printing, then print with no problem. I sometimes have nozzles fall out while printing with the 9890. I have had RH at 15%, and still have no problems with the 3880. I now keep the Rh around 50%.
Brian A
-
The studio humidity level is of limited importance if the head seals on the capping station function correctly. That environment is humid enough. Any equipment sold these days gets a recommended humidity and temperature level but will function beyond the limits most of the time. If the seals do not function correctly the issues may appear later if the studio humidity is higher but in the end the cleaning processes are also compromised as the waste pump can not create enough sucking power either with bad sealing. The 9xx0 nozzle density is an issue, the lousy wiper design another. The long Epson 7900 from the inside - out thread does not indicate that humidity is the main problem.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
December 2014 update, 700+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
seems we’ve veered off topic, np with that but thought this was sort of relevant to the main discussion of the new printer and inkset so I’d put it here instead of a new thread. this press release came out yesterday with what appears to be solid longevity numbers/expectations, especially B&W in ABW mode which may top out at over 400 years.
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/new-epson-ultrachrome-hd-pigment-ink-technology-delivers-the-highest-print-permanence-ratings-ever-achieved-for-epson-ultrachrome-inks-300065987.html
There are a lot of factors into testing this stuff, one of the most important being what determines a point of failure which is quite subjective, but as long as the testing is consistence between printers/papers/inks, then the relative merits of “this vs. that” are of some meaning. I’ve never gotten too concerned with all of this but it appears Epson is finally competitive and maybe actually the leader (only time will tell that, we’ll see what Mark comes up with).
-
My question is will this replace the 4900 or will there be a new replacement for the 4900. My main concern with the p800 is the 80ml ink cartridges. I much prefer the larger 200ml of the 4900.
-
My question is will this replace the 4900 or will there be a new replacement for the 4900. My main concern with the p800 is the 80ml ink cartridges. I much prefer the larger 200ml of the 4900.
I have no insider knowledge on this, but I would suspect the 4900 design as well as the larger printers will stay. I haven’t heard any rumors that he HDR inkset with orange and green will not be continued. It appears the current heads handle the inks which means the other printers could be upgraded without redesign and retooling in manufacturing, mechanically they are of more recent design and pretty robust, where the p800 was base on the aging 3800 chassis but with some improvements which required manufacturing changes.
Hopefully a few design tweaks can make it into these printers as they are upgraded to the new inks (improved wipers nozzle maintenance) but I for one would buy a new version of the 9900 immediately even if the only change was the new inks. A little discouraging to be using the 9900 when superior inks are available in it’s smaller siblings.
-
I have no insider knowledge on this, but I would suspect the 4900 design as well as the larger printers will stay. I haven’t heard any rumors that he HDR inkset with orange and green will not be continued. It appears the current heads handle the inks which means the other printers could be upgraded without redesign and retooling in manufacturing, mechanically they are of more recent design and pretty robust, where the p800 was base on the aging 3800 chassis but with some improvements which required manufacturing changes.
Hopefully a few design tweaks can make it into these printers as they are upgraded to the new inks (improved wipers nozzle maintenance) but I for one would buy a new version of the 9900 immediately even if the only change was the new inks. A little discouraging to be using the 9900 when superior inks are available in it’s smaller siblings.
Could they not just offer the newer ink to existing 9900's? They need orange and green to be added. Is the head on the P800 a different droplet size than the existing 3880? I can't afford a new 9900, as I would have nowhere to put my current one and selling a used 9900 in my location is not going to be easy or even possible. I was hoping that they could just upgrade the inks to existing 9900's to allow the 30% or so less bronzing, which I for one would love to see. Of course it will be interesting to see if the P800 really has significantly less bronzing.
Paul
-
Is there reason to believe the new ink formulation will, in and of itself, affect nozzle drop outs due to clog, air or any other fault?
-
I was hoping that they could just upgrade the inks to existing 9900's to allow the 30% or so less bronzing, which I for one would love to see. Of course it will be interesting to see if the P800 really has significantly less bronzing.
Paul
I've been looking at prints on Epson Premium Luster and HN Photo Rag Pearl made on both a new P600 printer I purchased about ten days ago and my older Epson 3880 using the same batches of paper. Initial print quality is very close for both printers, but I can see and have measured with instruments very real Dmax differences favoring the new HD ink set. Regrettably so far, I can't convince myself there is any improvement to the bronzing or differential gloss performance. Epson shows a fairly convincing "raking light" photo of what they claim to be a 40% reduction in bronzing, but geez, I'm trying hard to replicate that result, and so far I haven't been able to do so. I guess if and when I finally can document some improvement in some images, at the end of the day, if you are like me and simply want to make glossy or luster prints with essentially no bronzing, then the new HD ink set can't get you there. You will need to use a dye-based printer or a pigmented ink printer with a gloss optimizer channel (typically much much better but not always perfect, definitely better than the HD inks on their own), or lastly, you can spray coat the final pigment print (a real PITA, but it does effectively eliminate bronzing and gloss differential).
As for retrofitting the new HD ink formulation into older Epson K3 or K3VM printers, I suspect it is technically possible without incurring insurmountable R&D and manufacturing expenses, and that for some users they'd even be willing to pay premium for an alternate set of ink cartridges for their older machines. I also firmly believe Epson would generate a lot of customer good will by doing so, but I've already been told, even chastised by various Epson technical representatives, it's never going to happen >:( We are beating a dead horse if we take that discussion any further, IMHO ;D
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
Could they not just offer the newer ink to existing 9900's? They need orange and green to be added. Is the head on the P800 a different droplet size than the existing 3880? I can't afford a new 9900, as I would have nowhere to put my current one and selling a used 9900 in my location is not going to be easy or even possible. I was hoping that they could just upgrade the inks to existing 9900's to allow the 30% or so less bronzing, which I for one would love to see. Of course it will be interesting to see if the P800 really has significantly less bronzing.
Paul
I’ve been told it’s the same head ... whether that means it’s virtually identical (i.e. same part number) or if it means it’s the same basic head but slight modifications I’m not sure. However, I think the issue with upgrading older machines is probably more about firmware and some of the internal hardware. The new printer prints faster than the 3880 so something changed other than minor cosmetics. And certainly screening/dithering processes improve with every generation of printers as well, and the new blacks will certainly require some major tweaks in the those processes. I’m not sure those are easily “upgradeable”.
-
Could they not just offer the newer ink to existing 9900's?
If they could, would they? I'm pretty sure Epson, or any other manufacturer, would rather see their customers buy new printers than develop retrofits to keep older printers around for as long as possible. It's just the nature of business, IMO.
-
Dean they might is this case if the folklore is true: That the printer is simply the (money loosing) package in which inks are sold.
John-
-
John, it makes total sense to me that Epson would expect to be paid for the next incremental step in their research and development. Yes, they want to sell ink, but you can be certain that they would like to sell more equipment as well. There have been many passionate complaints about Epson's shortcomings in these pages but I'm still amazed at what I can produce on my old 3800. :) Blows my mind. Epson deserves the praise (and the profits).