Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: keithcooper on May 13, 2016, 06:04:48 am
-
Just while I'm writing up a longish PRO-1000 review (should be done in a few days), Canon UK have called and told me they are looking to send me the (even bigger) PRO-2000 in a couple of weeks (this will need to be discussed with house management at an opportune moment ;-) )
It will be a pre-production unit, but pretty much what should ship (maybe not for a couple of months here in the UK). If anyone has any specific questions, please let me know, since I may only have it here for a couple of weeks at the most?
-
Please verify that the internal hard disk is standard now instead of a different printer/part-number.
Ease of cut sheet loading.
Ask them why they cheaped out on the PRO-4000 ink :D
Will it fit through a 36" American door without gymnastics?
Controllability of gloss opt. application
Obviously a comparison of usability and quality between old x[34]00 series and new (you have the 8300, right?)
-
Can you please get some more information about the ink longevity numbers? They seem to be some confusion as to whether those numbers are worse than the prior inkset. Thanks
-
- Please verify that the internal hard disk is standard now instead of a different printer/part-number.
Seems to be, but I'll be sure to check
- Ease of cut sheet loading.
Compared to? I have an 8300 and don't find any trouble with sheets, nor with the 6100/6300/6450 when I looked at them ;-)
- Ask them why they cheaped out on the PRO-4000 ink :D
Sorry ... "cheaped out" ??
- Will it fit through a 36" American door without gymnastics?
Certainly hope so, since I'm in the UK, where in my 1880's home doors are 30" wide, and it's got to got through to my test lab (or kitchen as some have spotted)
- Controllability of gloss opt. application
I'm feeling it's going to be pretty much the same as the PRO-1000, but yes, I'll definitely have a look at this
- Obviously a comparison of usability and quality between old x[34]00 series and new (you have the 8300, right?)
Yes, and the PRO-1000 that I had here for a few weeks...
-
I had heard that the x[34]00 series was fairly finicky w/ cut sheet and was challenging to get it loaded w/o tons of load errors.
re: ink, it was an aside since they are shipping the new -4000 w/ only 160mL carts instead of 330's so that's a major $$ hit but the 2000 actually picks up a bunch from 90 -> 130
-
I had heard that the x[34]00 series was fairly finicky w/ cut sheet and was challenging to get it loaded w/o tons of load errors.
re: ink, it was an aside since they are shipping the new -4000 w/ only 160mL carts instead of 330's so that's a major $$ hit but the 2000 actually picks up a bunch from 90 -> 130
The iPF6xxx was PITA in this regard IMO. The iPF8xxx works flawlessly.
-
- I had heard that the x[34]00 series was fairly finicky w/ cut sheet and was challenging to get it loaded w/o tons of load errors.
I've heard this about the 6xxx printers before, but looking again at my own testing, I just never had any issues with sheet feeding? I'll be sure to give it a thorough testing though
- re: ink, it was an aside since they are shipping the new -4000 w/ only 160mL carts instead of 330's so that's a major $$ hit but the 2000 actually picks up a bunch from 90 -> 130
I see - that is a bit mean. The 330ml R/G/B inks of my 8300 lasted a long time - so long that I only replaced them with 330's when they ran out.
-
On our 6100 we could load rigid media of significant length by pulling it out from the wall and using the thick media load port. We used it to print on wood veneer which we then put on thicker timbers.
Do the new Canons have that thick media load possibility? Thanks.
-
Would like to know the speed of the prints and quality at different DPI settings. I am sure it will be similar to the PRO 1000 but a comparison would be great.
Thanks,
Gar
-
Hi Keith, do you mind looking to see if the paper path design is the same as that of the iPF83/400 printers?
The pinch rollers that clamp down the paper onto the feed drive shaft with the grippy friction material were exerting too much pressure (on four printers I personally tested, iPF8400 (2), iPF8100 (1) and an iPF8300S) and causing ripples to be visible in very soft papers like Canson Rag Photographique (Rag PQ) and Platine as the paper gets crushed or "steamrollered" as they pass under the rollers. Feeding the paper back and forth multiple times exacerbates the problem to a very severe degree. I sometimes have to do such a thing as I let the printer unroll the first two feet or so of paper to check for surface defects before printing (too unwieldy and dangerous to do by hand without damaging the ridiculously fragile paper surface). I wonder if Canon made any design changes to these parts. Please see the image attachments for illustrations of the parts in question.
I'm also wondering what the gamut volumes are like now for i1Profiler profiles of the new inkset. I'm also very interested in the dmax it is now capable of on Canson Rag PQ or the Epson Hot Press papers. The Epson Ultrachrome HDX inkset has move forward in that regard, able to hit L*14 easily on Rag PQ. I would suppose the overall gamut volume could be down a bit since it's lacking that green ink, but it could be more in other regions because of the higher density pigment loads and actually give us more useful gamut, since it's exceedingly rare to find such intense greens in nature that will require the old green ink. I'm hoping that it will cover more of the light yellows, oranges and yellow-greens, which the Ultrachrome HDX inkset does, a very important region of color for landscape photographers like myself.
We can only hope the print permanence didn't take a hit for any improvements in the inkset!
While I'm pretty sure that the Chroma Optimizer is only available for glossy media printing, I do wonder if there's a way to cheat the driver to use it for matte media. Or maybe just use a glossy setting to print on a matte paper, so see the effect of the CO on matte. I moved from preferring semi-gloss Baryta papers to matte papers from Canson, specifically Rag PQ, primarily because the real world visible gamut and contrast range of glossy is totally obscured by glare and reflections on the print surface, making matte prints invariably more brilliant in almost all lighting conditions. My hope was that the CO could be a way to saturate and somewhat seal the hydrophyllic coatings of these aqueous inkjet papers so we can avoid spraying them. Breathing the fumes over time may cause encephalopathy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encephalopathy)! Not to mention the near-vicinity air pollution, more global warming contributing aerosols, runoff into the ground and having to throw away cans, plus the huge cost and effort. I can't imagine having to spray 40 x 60 inch prints with cans of Printshield! It would be so great if the printer could coat the prints for us.
-
- Hi Keith, do you mind looking to see if the paper path design is the same as that of the iPF83/400 printers?
It's a 24" P2000 they are sending, so 6xxo series.
I will look for roller issues, but in general a box or roll of paper that marks easily stays in my sample collection until I have one of my regular clearouts and give stuff away to local clubs ;-)
- I'm also wondering what the gamut volumes are like now for i1Profiler profiles of the new inkset.
I'll make any profiles I produce available (incl. measurement data) for anyone who wants to look. It's not a figure I ever check myself.
- We can only hope the print permanence didn't take a hit for any improvements in the inkset!
I asked and was only referred to Canon published info, when I had the PRO-1000 here
- While I'm pretty sure that the Chroma Optimizer is only available for glossy media printing, I do wonder if there's a way to cheat the driver to use it for matte media.
Making a custom media type -may- be one route, but I suspect no CO for MBK
- Or maybe just use a glossy setting to print on a matte paper, so see the effect of the CO on matte. I moved from preferring semi-gloss Baryta papers to matte papers from Canson, specifically Rag PQ, primarily because the real world visible gamut and contrast range of glossy is totally obscured by glare and reflections on the print surface, making matte prints invariably more brilliant in almost all lighting conditions.
Not something I find - I have relatively few (colour) landscape images that I prefer on a matte paper. My matte papers are invariably used for B&W
- My hope was that the CO could be a way to saturate and somewhat seal the hydrophyllic coatings of these aqueous inkjet papers so we can avoid spraying them.
It doesn't - my PRO-1000 prints smell just like my iPF8300 ones. I don't ever spray my 8300 prints.
-
We can only hope the print permanence didn't take a hit for any improvements in the inkset!
We can hope.... or we can find out for ourselves :)
cheers,
mark
http://www.aardenburg-imagng.com
-
Ink longevity is still being verified by Wilhelm Research, but it's still very close to the x400 series; could be better. The inks are completely revamped/updated to match the updated body, head and functionality. They started fresh on the Pro series with everything down to the processing core (comes with 3 instead of 1 in the x300/x400).
All models will carry a 320GB Hard Drive. Only the ipf6400 didn't have it and the 6450 did.
Not sure on sheet loading (reps didn't mention that function at the training), but we are receiving our Pro-4000 this next week and we can test everything that way.
Canon didn't necessarily cheap out on the inks. Since they added the 190ml to the options, it is a full set still of the smallest ink (just like the 8400 was the 330ml). They are still providing more ink than Epson's starter set and you will actually use ALL of the ink (without wasting money).
On the S version (8 colors), they provide 190ml for the PBK, PC, PM and G while 330ml for the MBK, C, M, Y as they use ALL 12 channels in this model, which the main colors will use 2 channels instead of one and that's the reason for the larger upfront cartridges. You're still getting more ink than an Epson LFP.
We were able to fit an 8400 through standard size doors at our office and the Pro series is just slightly smaller, but a little heavier.
We were told there is a selection in the settings to turn off the Chroma Opt since it's defaulted to print automatically on all media with sheen (make an even layer of ink across the print).
Hopefully between us and Keith, we will both have much to write about :)
Canon Training was very awesome on the features.
Atlex.com
-
...
They are still providing more ink than Epson's starter set and you will actually use ALL of the ink (without wasting money).
...
That is perhaps just a little disingenuous in that there will always be that much ink in the machine right up to the day it goes for scrap. So whilst technically, all the ink that is loaded from the initial carts does get used, the cost of the 'fill ink' is just deferred until EOL.
I don't have a problem with this, but prefer to call it as it is, not as a marketing department might phrase it ;-)
Thanks though for the extra info on the 4000.
Testing the PRO-1000 has definitely made me even more interested in trying that PRO-2000
-
the cost of the 'fill ink' is just deferred until EOL.
Actually no, you pay it up front, as every subsequent ink purchase comes that bit earlier than if the sub-tanks hadn't needed to be filled.
So you pay in today's currency units, not those at EOL. Not that it makes much difference with todays inflation rate, but still...
-
Actually no, you pay it up front, as every subsequent ink purchase comes that bit earlier than if the sub-tanks hadn't needed to be filled.
So you pay in today's currency units, not those at EOL. Not that it makes much difference with todays inflation rate, but still...
Yes, I see :-) You still end up paying fr it somewhere...
-
It's a 24" P2000 they are sending, so 6xxo series.
I will look for roller issues, but in general a box or roll of paper that marks easily stays in my sample collection until I have one of my regular clearouts and give stuff away to local clubs ;-)
Not something I find - I have relatively few (colour) landscape images that I prefer on a matte paper. My matte papers are invariably used for B&W
- My hope was that the CO could be a way to saturate and somewhat seal the hydrophyllic coatings of these aqueous inkjet papers so we can avoid spraying them.
It doesn't - my PRO-1000 prints smell just like my iPF8300 ones. I don't ever spray my 8300 prints.
Thanks! Looking forward to it. Based on product images of the exterior of the new Pro-2000, it looks to share the same paper feed and path design as the Pro-4000, which makes sense from a manufacturing point of view. If they are the same, the observations should carry on to the Pro-4000.
I know what you mean about not preferring matte paper. I was like that until only very recently. It's a different taste. I've not seen any glossy papers that can remain effectively glare-free except when displayed in a room where the ground, walls and ceiling are painted very dark, and there is only one spotlight illuminating the print, at 45 degrees.
I don't spray my prints either. It's too much of a pain in so many ways. The smell of the prints has nothing to do if the ink receptive coating is sealed off or not...
-
We can hope.... or we can find out for ourselves :)
Yes to the second part!!
-
Ink longevity is still being verified by Wilhelm Research, but it's still very close to the x400 series; could be better. The inks are completely revamped/updated to match the updated body, head and functionality. They started fresh on the Pro series with everything down to the processing core (comes with 3 instead of 1 in the x300/x400).
Atlex.com
Do you have first hand knowledge that WIR is testing the new LUCIA Pro ink set? I keep hearing second hand trade show rumors, but I have been unable to find any published statements from either WIR or from Canon that this testing is ongoing. If true, it seems a little strange that Canon wouldn't be more forthcoming about it given that WIR and Epson issued a joint press release with longevity forecasts for the new Epson HD and HDX inks over a year ago.
What I have seen published in the PRO-2000 specs is Canon internal test results giving 45 and 60 year "Display life" estimates for two Canon RC photo media. Those figures suggest the new inks are worse than the older LUCIA EX set, and dramatically worse than the Epson/WIR 200+ year forecast for the HD and HDX inks on select Epson media if all of this information is taken at face value.
All that said, still no completed test reports available on the WIR website for any of these new ink sets as far as I can see. However, I will be publishing a year long study of the Epson HD inks versus the older K3 ink on the Aardenburg website by the end of this week. The results are impressive. I'd like to rinse and repeat with a head-to-head comparison of the LUCIA Pro versus HD ink sets, but I have not yet been able to purchase a new Canon printer that uses the LUCIA Pro ink set.
kind regards,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
What I have seen published in the PRO-2000 specs is Canon internal test results giving 45 and 60 year "Display life" estimates for two Canon RC photo media. Those figures suggest the new inks are worse than the older LUCIA EX set, and dramatically worse than the Epson/WIR 200+ year forecast for the HD and HDX inks on select Epson media if all of this information is taken at face value.
This is perhaps the question that I'm most curious to clear up. Living in NYC, the physical size of the new PRO-2000 is great for a 24 inch printer. But this print longevity question lingers.
-
Just while I'm writing up a longish PRO-1000 review (should be done in a few days), Canon UK have called and told me they are looking to send me the (even bigger) PRO-2000 in a couple of weeks (this will need to be discussed with house management at an opportune moment ;-) )
It will be a pre-production unit, but pretty much what should ship (maybe not for a couple of months here in the UK). If anyone has any specific questions, please let me know, since I may only have it here for a couple of weeks at the most?
Keith,
Could you check the difference in gamuts on glossy media (like a Hahnemühle Baryta quality) for the Canon Pro-2000 and a Canon iPFx4xx model? I got an expert's comment that the difference is huge between the Pro 1000 and iPF 8400, partly as a result of the gloss enhancer. The Pro 1000 reviews do not mention a dramatic difference though.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
January 2016 update, 700+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
Could you check the difference in gamuts on glossy media (like a Hahnemühle Baryta quality) for the Canon Pro-2000 and a Canon iPFx4xx model? I got an expert's comment that the difference is huge between the Pro 1000 and iPF 8400, partly as a result of the gloss enhancer. The Pro 1000 reviews do not mention a dramatic difference though.
As I was reading your question I decided to check Hahnemühle's website and found the profiles for the pro 1000. Comparing their profiles for the pro 1000 and the ipf 8400 I noticed a gamut reduction, mostly on the green/yellow area. Sure it is not a controlled experiment, but the reduction is consistent on every paper. Then I decided to check Canson profiles for the pro 1000 and found exactly the same issue.
Looks like the new inkset really imposes a gamut reduction when compared tho the 12 ink Lucia EX. On average it is something like 7 or 8% less volume, but mostly on greens and yellows.
-
As I was reading your question I decided to check Hahnemühle's website and found the profiles for the pro 1000. Comparing their profiles for the pro 1000 and the ipf 8400 I noticed a gamut reduction, mostly on the green/yellow area. Sure it is not a controlled experiment, but the reduction is consistent on every paper. Then I decided to check Canson profiles for the pro 1000 and found exactly the same issue.
Looks like the new inkset really imposes a gamut reduction when compared tho the 12 ink Lucia EX. On average it is something like 7 or 8% less volume, but mostly on greens and yellows.
Geraldo, thank you.
Was that profile search aimed at the glossy papers?
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
January 2016 update, 700+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
Looks like the new inkset really imposes a gamut reduction when compared tho the 12 ink Lucia EX. On average it is something like 7 or 8% less volume, but mostly on greens and yellows.
Makes sense given that the green ink channel in the Lucia EX ink set was traded for the CO ink channel in the Lucia Pro ink set. Canon undoubtedly felt somewhat less gamut when reproducing some vivid greens was a reasonable trade-off for less bronzing and differential gloss (and perhaps some increase in abrasion resistance?). As for any subtle increases in gamut pertaining to other colors or darker tones when printing on glossy/luster media that would be afforded by the CO, I'm pretty sure one can achieve the same result by applying some Premier Print Shield, HN protective spray, etc. I see time and time again with Premier Print Shield applied to "traditional fiber" papers like HN photo Rag Baryta, that Print Shield noticeably increased Dmax which in turn extends total gamut. Also, unless one has full control over the amount of CO being applied or is willing to trick the printer into a second pass, my personal experience has been that printers with GO or CO have clear coat thicknesses optimized for RC photo papers. They can often fall short on the optimal amount necessary when applied to third party non RC media like all the baryta papers. It will be interesting to hear Kieth's comments on CO effectiveness when used on non RC glossy/luster media.
best,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
(just back from a break - no printer testing for a week!)
I'll be making any profiles (which include measurement data) available from my PRO-2000 testing for anyone wanting to give them a good going over - I'll try and do some that match ones I've got for the iPF8300 as well.
I looked at some prints from the 8300 and my feeling was more of everything looking a bit better except greens - I'd currently be quite happy to swap my green cart for CO. Whilst I do make quite a lot of detailed measurements during reviews, I rarely publish them, since they only ever act as a general guide to my print evaluation, and I personally think too many people pay too much attention to any numbers you publish. I don't have a rigorous testing and evaluation methodology from printer to printer, so any numbers are mostly for internal use ;-)
If you look at the accounting data downloadable in the PRO-1000 review you can get an idea for CO usage, but any detailed settings for it don't exist (nor in the MCT for making custom media)
See also http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/reviews/paper/hahn_baryta.html
Loved the results on the HM papers...
The results on the HM Satin Baryta I tested look good, although I'd suggest looking at the QTR linearising curves in the pro-1000 review for Pinnacle silk baryta 310 (Pk ink full and auto coating) for the subtle change in highlights (this is using BW print mode).
As to whether the CO is optimised, the lack any controls put such considerations well beyond the scope of the review (it's long enough already!) I'll have another look when the PRO-2000 turns up.
-
Was that profile search aimed at the glossy papers?
Both glossy and matte, but the results are a bit different.
On glossy media the gamut volume of the new inkset seems to be smaller on the greens and greenish yellows, the rest is about the same and the total volume is 7 or 8% smaller depending on the paper.
On matte paper the same thing happens with the greens and greenish yellows, but the gamut increases a bit on the red/orange side and also a bit on the darker tones, so the total gamut volume is about the same on matte papers.
Let me just state again that I am drawing this conclusions based on the profiles provided by Hahnemühle and Canson for the Pro 1000 and for the IPF 8400. Obviously they used different printers, different measuring devices and, possibly, different softwares. Sure it is not a controlled experiment, but, on the other hand, when different sources produce similar results we identify a trend.
I am sure the new inkset renders beautiful and colorful prints, more than enough tho satisfy most users, but I will pay special attention to de greens on foliage when testing the new printers.
-
Is that graph from the ColorThink package?
-
Is that graph from the ColorThink package?
Yes it is, but I can't say for sure the version as I did it on a client's computer while waiting for a training meeting (they pay by the hour, so I don't mind waiting and being paid to read LULA forum! :P).
-
A van turned up this morning with a new PRO-2000 for me to test... I noticed that they were also delivering an iPF8300 (44") to someone else
The printer was to be removed from the stand and brought round the side of the house (the same way a large sofa and grand piano were moved in place). The printer couldn't be moved through the house because of a 90 degree turn through a doorway (it would need tipping on its end, like the Epson P7000 I had here in March)
Unfortunately, the PRO-2000 was already loaded with ink, so could not be tilted on its side or back (if removed from the stand).
Width required if moved as-is ~740mm
Width required if taken off stand and rotated 90 degrees along long axis ~620mm
Whoops, it seems that we need a brand new printer - which does at least mean I can write a 'set-up' article as well as the review...
Now, it may be that once the delivery people have more experience of moving the new printers, they will know how far and in what way you can -really- tilt them, but at the moment they are sticking exactly to what Canon says.
Now waiting for a completely new printer...
However I did touch it, so I believe this is the first 'Hands-on review' of the PRO-2000 ;-)
--
bye for now
Keith Cooper
-
Just a random thought: the pro-2000 and the 5DS are about the same price, but the difference in size & weight is rather staggering...
-
Just a random thought: the pro-2000 and the 5DS are about the same price, but the difference in size & weight is rather staggering...
As is their ability to move around my house...
-
They should have just left the van w/ printers in the driveway and run a power extension cord to it. ;)
-
Whoops, it seems that we need a brand new printer - which does at least mean I can write a 'set-up' article as well as the review...
Cool... but, ummm, how will they remove it once you've finished?
-
Cool... but, ummm, how will they remove it once you've finished?
Very carefully...
You can of course empty such printers for transport if you have a pile of maintenance carts.
There is a 'do not press this button' option on the PRO-1000
(http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/content_images_2/pro-1000/do-not-press-this-button.jpg)
"Prepare to transportation" ...another Canon gem of a display message, although not quite up to "The maintenance cartridge becomes almost full" ;-)
-
Hey Keith,
Would like you to try printing and comparing the prints at different resolutions. 600x600, 1200x1200 and 1200x2400 to see if there is any visual difference in quality, especially on canvas. These resolutions sizes don't seem to be in the PRO-1000. I think that there is "standard" and "highest quality".
Did you get the printer yet?
Gar
-
Hey Keith,
Would like you to try printing and comparing the prints at different resolutions. 600x600, 1200x1200 and 1200x2400 to see if there is any visual difference in quality, especially on canvas. These resolutions sizes don't seem to be in the PRO-1000. I think that there is "standard" and "highest quality".
Did you get the printer yet?
Gar
I'll add it to the list - no ETA yet though for a printer :-(
-
On Sunday, Adorama in NYC had a street fair in front of their store. Canon was in attendance with the Pro-2000. I asked about the ink permanence numbers. He said Canon is always very conservative with their numbers and that the large Pro printers are currently in testing at Wilhelm with the data expected to be announce in Aug/Sept.
-
Any notion of the street price of the -2000 ?
-
We've been pretty busy ourselves with the updates on the Pro series, but we got out Pro-4000 production unit put together and working last week. It's really cool and very simple to use. Driver installation is a breeze (takes a few minutes for basic drivers) and has MANY free features. The Photoshop plug-in is no longer available, BUT, it's been updated to be the software linked into Photoshop as a printing program. So, you can either print from Photoshop or Canon's software called Print Studio Pro.
Attached some pics of the new printer (next to the 8400). It is about 11" narrower than the iPF, but a bit more sturdy (heavier), so will take about 3-4 people to move the printer onto the stand (1 person to guide the body on the stand).
Since the shipment of the printers came in late last week/early this week, Wilhelm received their unit (or just getting it) to start testing the longevity.
We've tested an image from standard quality and max quality on a metallic paper and could barely tell a difference, but the print looked great! We did print it from a USB drive which is nice. And the other great feature is all Pro printers are no WiFi capable.
Pricing should be available soon.
IT Supplies
-
Did the Pro-4000 seem to print faster than the 8400?
-
I'm told that a PRO-2000 has been found for me to test, and that this time it will be shipped uninitialised.
Not until next Monday (20th) I'm afraid, but at least I get to install and assemble one from scratch (I'll cover this in an article of its own)
As to the matter of getting it out of my test lab/kitchen, I believe it will be the first time the suppliers will have tested the shipping option (they will be sending me 'several' maintenance carts).
Looking forward to testing two new art papers with this one amongst the 'usual suspects'... ;-)
-
I'll be real interested in the black density, especially on matte papers, since Epson seems to have an advantage in the department now. I'd trade GLOP for better blacks any day. But I haven't seen any press in regards to that, so probably not going to happen.
-
I'll be real interested in the black density, especially on matte papers, since Epson seems to have an advantage in the department now. I'd trade GLOP for better blacks any day. But I haven't seen any press in regards to that, so probably not going to happen.
Plus one here.
-
I'll be real interested in the black density, especially on matte papers, since Epson seems to have an advantage in the department now. I'd trade GLOP for better blacks any day. But I haven't seen any press in regards to that, so probably not going to happen.
Did you look at the performance of the (same IIRC) ink set in the PRO-1000 review I wrote? The curves towards the end show performance in the B&W print mode.
Is there any particular measure of 'blackness' you would find useful, since those measurements for the PRO-1000 are about as far as I usually go in measuring it in any of my printer reviews.
-
Did you look at the performance of the (same IIRC) ink set in the PRO-1000 review I wrote? The curves towards the end show performance in the B&W print mode.
Is there any particular measure of 'blackness' you would find useful, since those measurements for the PRO-1000 are about as far as I usually go in measuring it in any of my printer reviews.
Thanks for the PRO-1000 info, Keith. I'm not sure how those measurements compare to my iPF 8400, or for the latest Epson printers, and that's what I want to see before plunking down my "spare" change for a new printer. I know I've lost at least one printing client to a competitor who gets deeper blacks on an Epson 9900.
I find Canon's instructions for testing and creating custom media types too confusing to employ for the twenty or so papers I stock, so I end up picking ones from the supplied options that seem to produce good results, but it's hard to know if there might be a better setting I could use.
In any case, your reviews of past printers have always been insightful and worth poring over before taking the plunge.
-
I've provided a slew of such measurements for Canon Pro-1000 printing performance in both my Canon Pro-1000 and Epson Legacy Papers reviews (published on this website).
-
Fortunately it stopped raining before it arrived.
Dismantled in the street, and it definitely needs two people to move.
Note how it won't go through a UK doorway (from the 1880's) the right way up, so don't think of moving or buying one with inks in it if you want it at home...
It took about an hour to install heads and ink and do the head alignment.
Now to start some testing... (OK not till Wednesday, since I'm out all of tomorrow as part of the negotiated deal to get it in the kitchen ;-)
-
That is a big printer for seven more inches of print size compared to the Pro-1000. Come to think of it, the Pro-1000 is not exactly petite either.
F.
-
I've thought of many things to move heavy kit across the floor. Piano wheels, skateboards etc have sprung to mind (and to hand). But I never thought of inverting blue slippers to slide units across the floor.
Inverted, so the velvet slides, whilst the sole of the slipper lovingly grips the body of the machine.
With the print plug in gone, is there still a direct way to ensure no colour adjustment for profile targets?
-
I've thought of many things to move heavy kit across the floor. Piano wheels, skateboards etc have sprung to mind (and to hand). But I never thought of inverting blue slippers to slide units across the floor.
Inverted, so the velvet slides, whilst the sole of the slipper lovingly grips the body of the machine.
With the print plug in gone, is there still a direct way to ensure no colour adjustment for profile targets?
Having someone else deliver it makes moving easier ;-)
PS, the slippers are where I normally leave them by the front door - good idea though!
I print targets via the OS X ColorSync Utility - it has a 'print as target' mode.
-
Printing targets with ACPU works well too.
-
The question I hvae is how does the new Canon compare with the old Canon. I see comparisons between Epson and Canon (e.g. P800 verse Pro-1000) but I don't see comparisons between the new Canon and the old; in this case, the iPF6450.
The other question I have is how does the color gamut of the printer (or any printer) compare to various displays gamuts (sRBG, Adobe 98, and P3).
Thank you for your time,
Perry
-
The question I hvae is how does the new Canon compare with the old Canon. I see comparisons between Epson and Canon (e.g. P800 verse Pro-1000) but I don't see comparisons between the new Canon and the old; in this case, the iPF6450.
The other question I have is how does the color gamut of the printer (or any printer) compare to various displays gamuts (sRBG, Adobe 98, and P3).
Thank you for your time,
Perry
Sheet loading is now the same as with my 8300, so single sheet lined up with the orange lines at the front, rather than a slot at the top as the 6450.
After making several A3+ and A2 prints, I can confirm that the 40-50 seconds delay between printing finishing and lock being released to remove the print, gets quite irksome ;-)
The dual roll feed is very nifty - I've not tried the second roll unit as a take-up though.
The pro-2000 is much bigger and heavier.
As to gamut comparisons, take a profile and view it in your favourite profile analyser/viewer.
I say this, since it's not really something I look at when checking printers (I don't do comparative reviews).
The question is from a personal POV not one that has much connection with my print work - The print is the print and works within the gamut of whatever paper I choose. Now, I know that Canon and Epson marketing love things like 98% Pantone coverage, but that's graphicy print type stuff, and prone to the vagaries of marketing ;-)
One quick difference from the PRO-1000 is that when making custom media profiles, there are media options that have to CO switched off. I'm still testing this, but the CO does seem to make quite a difference to gloss differential and bronzing.