Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: MabeHall on February 03, 2018, 12:33:43 pm
-
This has been talked about before by me and others but I have some new information. Today I witnessed my 2nd, 6 minute plus cleaning cycle--6 min 37 seconds to be exact (stop watch timed). According to the Canon accounting software, 0.667 ml of ink went on the paper and 92 ml. went into the waste ink tank or, if your counting, $69 worth at OEM ink cost. That is not a typo. I've gotten where I check ink usage before and after printing and total ink consumed went from 986 ml to 1078 ml. The one interesting thing is--(losing $69 of ink on one 8 1/2 X 11 print is not interesting to me), during my discussions with Canon over ink wastage, they informed me that the initial ink set contains more than 80 ml of ink per cartridge. Though I had my doubts, the software now shows me at 96 ml used on one cartridge, 95 and 94 on two others and none with less than 84 ml consumed. I wonder if my cartridges are empty and I'm using ink in the lines? I have yet to replace a cartridge.
Does anyone still think this Canon Pro-1000 is an economical choice for printing? Has anyone seen waste like this with the Epson Pro 800?
Mabe Hall
-
Of course it's not that 90ml of ink was wasted on one print. The printer's firmware determined that this cleaning was to be launched, based on an accumulation of printing sessions. The more interesting data would be the number of square feet you have printed since the last time you experienced this kind of purge.
-
Of course I was being a little sarcastic there--it helps when you're seeing $69 of ink go in the old waste tank. But the number you are looking for with regard to paper consumed since the last 6 min cycle is approximately 57 A4 equivalent sheets which is one of the ways the software keeps up with paper consumed. Sq. Meters are given at the bottom of the usage window but I didn't write this down. Paper consumed is now at 7.66 sq meters. I had used 54 equivalent sheets just after the first 6 min. purge--soooo--sq. meters could be calculated by ratio.
Mabe
-
Of course I was being a little sarcastic there--it helps when you're seeing $69 of ink go in the old waste tank. But the number you are looking for with regard to paper consumed since the last 6 min cycle is approximately 57 A4 equivalent sheets which is one of the ways the software keeps up with paper consumed. Sq. Meters are given at the bottom of the usage window but I didn't write this down. Paper consumed is now at 7.66 sq meters. I had used 54 equivalent sheets just after the first 6 min. purge--soooo--sq. meters could be calculated by ratio.
Mabe
OK, An A4 sheet is 93 square inches. Assuming you leave some borders on your prints, you may be covering about 62 square inches per sheet, or about 3530 square inches per 57 sheets, or 24.5 square feet of printing. This is peanuts and amounts to almost 3 dollars per square foot going into the waste tank - it seems beyond the pale and worth discussing with Canon.
-
Does anyone still think this Canon Pro-1000 is an economical choice for printing? Has anyone seen waste like this with the Epson Pro 800?
That's well known issue of some Pro-1000 units widely described in many places on the net and the reason I have chosen P800 over Pro-1000 1.5 years ago to accompany my Epson 3880.
Most of P800 I have seen including mine have no such a dramatic issue on maintenance ink drill like Pro-1000, just as much maintenance ink usage as needed but no more...
On the other hand, you need to know that Epson cheats on ink cartridge capacity - accessible ink amount is not 80ml but ~20% less. The rest remains in ended cartridge probably because of technology specificity since Epsons do not have intermediate sub-tank buffers inside the printer itself. The same states for 24" and 44" printers - also well known, described and measured issue for over a decade (10-20% usable ink than declared).
-
That's well known issue of some Pro-1000 units widely described in many places on the net and the reason I have chosen P800 over Pro-1000 1.5 years ago to accompany my Epson 3880.
Most of P800 I have seen including mine have no such a dramatic issue on maintenance ink drill like Pro-1000, just as much maintenance ink usage as needed but no more...
On the other hand, you need to know that Epson cheats on ink cartridge capacity - accessible ink amount is not 80ml but ~20% less. The rest remains in ended cartridge probably because of technology specificity since Epsons do not have intermediate sub-tank buffers inside the printer itself. The same states for 24" and 44" printers - also well known, described and measured issue for over a decade (10-20% usable ink than declared).
Nonsense. Having ink left is not an indication of percentage of ink used unless you measure the total ink first. Over thousands of ink carts, I've never seen that much ink left. What you're saying is that on a 600ml cart there's 60-120ml left. Complete rubbish. The carts are filled with more than the stated amount anyway.
As with all of the vendors, ink is left in every cart to avoid ever running dry to protect the print heads and avoid air in the lines. Also, the dampers in an Epson are effectively a small sub tank and work in a similar way, being a reservoir of ink between the carts and the print head. With all vendors, though, you don't want to introduce air into the lines prior to the reservoirs because when ink and air mix, ink dries - not a good move.
Frankly, the amount of ink used in cleaning cycles by any printer from any vendor doesn't matter. What matter is the total average ink usage over time for a given area of printed media. From there, you work out your total cost and, any way you look at it, ink is a small proportion of the cost compared to the media, capital depreciation of the hardware, and time (and there are other smaller costs, too, of course). Yes, you have to watch all costs, even when they're not the largest, but "waste" as such shouldn't be the focus - total cost of ownership is what's relevant, regardless of how ink is or isn't used.
-
This has been talked about before by me and others but I have some new information. Today I witnessed my 2nd, 6 minute plus cleaning cycle--6 min 37 seconds to be exact (stop watch timed). According to the Canon accounting software, 0.667 ml of ink went on the paper and 92 ml. went into the waste ink tank or, if your counting, $69 worth at OEM ink cost. That is not a typo. I've gotten where I check ink usage before and after printing and total ink consumed went from 986 ml to 1078 ml. The one interesting thing is--(losing $69 of ink on one 8 1/2 X 11 print is not interesting to me), during my discussions with Canon over ink wastage, they informed me that the initial ink set contains more than 80 ml of ink per cartridge. Though I had my doubts, the software now shows me at 96 ml used on one cartridge, 95 and 94 on two others and none with less than 84 ml consumed. I wonder if my cartridges are empty and I'm using ink in the lines? I have yet to replace a cartridge.
Does anyone still think this Canon Pro-1000 is an economical choice for printing? Has anyone seen waste like this with the Epson Pro 800?
Mabe Hall
As you noticed the total ink consumption calculation is untrustworthy. You are at the first set of cartridges which are total 960ml with a lot of ink still in them and the total ink consumed is 1078ml? That does not mean that the printer didn't throw in the maintenance tank a considerable amount of ink but that it's not 92 ml. Most probably it was around 60ml as reported elsewhere. If you want to have more accurate data you will have to weight the tank before and after the cleaning event. In any case the PRO-1000 wastes a lot of ink for maintenance. I measured mine (I am not going to continue measuring, I am tired) and the ratio is close to 1:1 (half on paper half in the trash) for my usage. I was also think about switching to P800 but the quality of the operation and the output of the Canon is excellent and also where I live the Canon inks are considerably cheaper than the Epson inks, so I keep the positive for now, I plan my printing costs based on the known consumption and I hope for a future firmware update to improve on the only negative of the PRO-1000 :).
-
During one of my many discussions with Canon, they told me the initial fill cartridges contain more than 80ml. They wouldn't say how much but that is why I question how much I have used. They also told me the accounting software can be off 10%. I'm indicating 96 ml used in one cartridge and the printer has not told me to stop printing yet.
I have checked Panagiotis's post where he listed how much he has printed and how much ink was consumed and I commented then that his use is true production, not hobbyist like me (though my plans for printing have been curtailed some by the ink waste). His 1:1 waste to print is nothing like what I am seeing. My waste to print ratio is more like 7:1 to 10:1 with the 1 being what is put on paper.
With regards to Mark's calculation for my waste, it is not just this one dump (or as Canon would say, cleaning cycle). Additional ink is wasted every time you wait more than 6 hours between prints. I've document 4.3 ml waste after only a 43 hour pause between prints. The total wasted since the 1st 6 min cycle is much more than the 92 ml single shot wasted today.
And one last note--make it two. 1. I have never requested a cleaning cycle of any kind--no need to, the prints are always perfect. 2. Canon thinks all of this is normal and will not comment on it except to say, "it only happens on the first fill".
-
.................
With regards to Mark's calculation for my waste, it is not just this one dump (or as Canon would say, cleaning cycle). ..............
And one last note--make it two. 1. I have never requested a cleaning cycle of any kind--no need to, the prints are always perfect. 2. Canon thinks all of this is normal and will not comment on it except to say, "it only happens on the first fill".
The purpose of my calculation wasn't aimed at your total waste, but to identify the amount of printing between the two major maintenance cleaning episodes you reported.
Regarding you note 1: that's right - users don't have much control over this, and the prints are perfect partly because of the maintenance the printer is doing under the hood. As for your note 2, in your case it appears to have happened twice in the life of the first fill, whereas they say once, so this would indicate that either the person you spoke to doesn't know what they were talking about, or there is something wrong with the behaviour of you printer. Both reasons to escalate the issue to a more senior support level. Advice I received from Canon for managing this behaviour while I still had that printer was to never switch it off and it would not re-occur. That worked.
-
Nonsense. Having ink left is not an indication of percentage of ink used unless you measure the total ink first. Over thousands of ink carts, I've never seen that much ink left. What you're saying is that on a 600ml cart there's 60-120ml left. Complete rubbish. The carts are filled with more than the stated amount anyway.
You can call "complete rubbish" the ink you've paid for Epson forces you to throw away...
No, they are not filled with significantly more amount of ink than stated - at least for 3880 and P800 for which I have measured and weighted it by myself. At the end the usable amount of ink is ~68 ml out of declared 80 ml (and initially filled with ~80 ml).
There is dozen of similar testimonials on the net, just have a look of two of them:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VivLHzHDIM (40 ml wasted out of measured total 225 ml for 220 ml cartridge)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M84u_8hAFzU&t=2s (160 ml wasted out of 700 ml cartridge)
etc, please do "nonsense/rubbish" math by yourself...
Anyway, I prefer it over Pro-1000 unpredictable behavior.
-
You can call "complete rubbish" the ink you've paid for Epson forces you to throw away...
....................I have measured and weighted it by myself. At the end the usable amount of ink is ~68 ml out of declared 80 ml (and initially filled with ~80 ml).
.............................
I'm curious to know exactly how you derived these measurements. Specifically, did you destroy a new 80ml P800 cartridge by prying it apart and emptying the contents of the bladder into a measuring cup and found exactly how many ml poured out? Or did you derive this in some less direct manner?
-
It is not very scientific, but I have printed a fair amount since I got my pro 1000 over a week ago. The main reason is that I want to see the difference against my p800, which I still own. Taking into account the 50% of the cartridges used for priming (but still ultimately available for prints), ink usage doesn't seem to be any worse than for my p800. I have printed about 25 8x11 prints and 2 11x17 prints. The former consumes an average of 0.7 ml of ink per print, with the latter consuming an average of 1.3ml of ink per print. This is according to Canon Accounting Manager. Unfortunately, the ink status bars aren't very specific, but I would read them as indicating anywhere from 35-41% ink left.
-For several of these prints, i selected full coverage clear coat.
-All but a few of the photos have been glossy, on a variety of papers from Canon, Ilford, Hahnemhule, and Moab.
-I print through imageprint for most prints, but some were through canon print studio pro (Imageprint uses the Canon XPS printer driver)
-in the ink maintenance settings, I turn off settings 1 and 3, while leaving setting 2 at Standard
-The printer is set to stay on, unless I turn it off.
-I am running the latest firmware (2.60)
-
........ Taking into account the 50% of the cartridges used for priming, ........
............
You know of course that most of this ink is used to fill the lines and remains available for printing.
-
You know of course that most of this ink is used to fill the lines and remains available for printing.
Yes. I should have been clear about that. This is why ink usage looks just fine to me compared to other printers I have owned.
-
You know of course that most of this ink is used to fill the lines and remains available for printing.
Yes but it's going to stay in there at the printer's end of life. So it's wasted anyway.
-
In the long run, yes. For now it's just a continuous flow.
-
Yes. I should have been clear about that. This is why ink usage looks just fine to me compared to other printers I have owned.
In the time that you own the P800 how many times did you changed the ink waste tank? In 13 months with the PRO-1000 I am on the 4th waste tank. Also it would be interesting to hear your opinion comparing the output of the two printers. Thanks.
-
I'm curious to know exactly how you derived these measurements. Specifically, did you destroy a new 80ml P800 cartridge by prying it apart and emptying the contents of the bladder into a measuring cup and found exactly how many ml poured out? Or did you derive this in some less direct manner?
for this specific case - the measurements were somehow mix of direct and indirect ways:
1) the full, new cartridge weights 143 g (average of 11 different cartridges +-2 g, weighted using two different devices, however not laboratory ones)
2) completely empty, with all ink manually removed from inside weights 63 g --> so, there was 80 g of ink inside (average of 11 measurements)
3) empty in Epson understanding, when needs to be removed weights 75 g (again, average)
4) today I have specifically opened "empty" VM cartidge to check, and there were 15 ml of ink left, that weighted 17 g what gives 1.13 g/cm3 of density (the weighting device resolution is 1 g so it could be also less or more; capacity measured with medical syringe, opened with blocked ending.
assuming even 1.1 g/cm3 (closer to widely used value of 1.08 g/cm3) those 80 g transfers to 73 ml of the TOTAL ink capacity including unused ink and 62 ml of usable capacity (even worse than I have written in previous post).
now, I wait for an occasion to buy cheaper, outdated cartridge for 3880 and open it unused and measure capacity in ml
I am ex-metrology guy, so have some understanding of potential sources of errors and measurement protocols
all the values for points 1)-4) are the same for 3880 and P800 cartiges including P800 starting ones (in that case, with except of 1))
-
Hi. I am still on my first ink maintenance cartridge with my p800, after 2 sets of cartridges. However I don't know how much this can be compared, as I wonder whether or not the maintenance cartridges are the same size.
Regarding comparison of the two printers, I am finding so far that it is more nuanced than anything else in terms of output. As well as a difference of features. The p800 has the roller and that is great for canvas. It has great glossy output as well, but there is no gloss Optimizer. My older 13" epson had gloss optimizer, not sure why Epson didn't continue the trend.
The Canon clearly is a more modernized design, but the Epson works just as well, including with respect to paper handling. Chrome Optimizer as well as the lack of auto ink switching were the main motivators for me giving the Canon a shot. Glossies on the Canon are exceptional. I do notice a hint more Canon ability in the Reds, particularly with respect to skin tones, lips, Etc. It is not night and day however. I haven't printed much Matt on the Canon yet. I am waiting for the image print profiles for Canon fine art smooth to be completed next week.
The paper has a lot to do with it as well. In other words, having the right paper to align with a particular image has a huge impact. That is a personal decision.
Profiles really make a difference. Canon profiles for Canon paper are really very good. Moab provided profiles not so much. Canon makes profiles for certain Hahnenuhle and canson papers, but I have not tried them. Nor have I tried Hahnenuhle profiles for their own paper. The ilford profiles are very good as well. In the end, I am using ImagePrint, so I am not reliant upon manufacturer profiles, but I have tested here and there. The benefit I get, is that by using all imageprint profiles, the profile making methodology is consistent, and it is more realistic to compare prints on the same paper on different printers.
In the time that you own the P800 how many times did you changed the ink waste tank? In 13 months with the PRO-1000 I am on the 4th waste tank. Also it would be interesting to hear your opinion comparing the output of the two printers. Thanks.
-
for this specific case - the measurements were somehow mix of direct and indirect ways:
...
The carts that came with the printer?
-
At the risk of getting a bit OT:
The p800 ... has great glossy output as well, but there is no gloss Optimizer. My older 13" epson had gloss optimizer, not sure why Epson didn't continue the trend.
AFAIK, Epson has been totally consistent on for which printers it does, and does not, provide gloss optimizer. Epson has always (since 2003) put gloss optimizer in the 8.5-inch and 13-inch 'bright colors' pigment-ink printers (R800, R1800, R1900, R2000, and P400). Epson has never put gloss optimizer in the 13-inch and 17-inch 'art' pigment-ink printers (2000P, 2200, R2400, R2880, R3000, P600, Pro 3800, Pro 3880, P800, Pro 4000, Pro 4800, Pro 4880, Pro 4900, and P5000).
-
And also OT:
The weight of a full P600 LK cartridge (with plastic wrapping) is 54g. I'll update this when I replace a cartridge and weigh the wrapping.
That of an empty LK cartridge is 27g. So the weight of the used ink (plus plastic wrapping) is 27g.
I pulled apart a cartridge and found very little ink, just in a little reservoir. I tried to remove the ink, but the difference was about the resolution of the digital scales 1g. I guess about 1ml remained.
Epson says that the cartridges hold 26ml (28g) of ink.
So this indicates that about 25/26ml is available. I'm okay with that.
-
The carts that came with the printer?
all kind of carts, that which came with the printer and the new ones. the same states for P800 and 3880.
-
all kind of carts, that which came with the printer and the new ones. the same states for P800 and 3880.
Right, the carts that come with the P800 are smaller in capacity than the normal carts. So your figures basically prove that they provide exactly the claimed yield. As Frodo showed with the P600 the same.
-
Right, the carts that come with the P800 are smaller in capacity than the normal carts. So your figures basically prove that they provide exactly the claimed yield. As Frodo showed with the P600 the same.
no, not the same (if I understand your post correctly)
in Frodo (best wishes :) ) case (P600), there is the same ml in the cart as declared and virtually all of it goes for print, what is a good point for P600
in my case (P800, 3880), there is around 80 g (not ml) what transfers to a bit more than 70 ml. 15 ml (sometimes a bit less) remains in the cart when it needs to be removed. all in all, usable amount of ink is around 60 ml out of declared 80 ml (also depending on cartridge color)
-
no, not the same (if I understand your post correctly)
in Frodo (best wishes :) ) case (P600), there is the same ml in the cart as declared and virtually all of it goes for print, what is a good point for P600
in my case (P800, 3880), there is around 80 g (not ml) what transfers to a bit more than 70 ml. 15 ml (sometimes a bit less) remains in the cart when it needs to be removed. all in all, usable amount of ink is around 60 ml out of declared 80 ml (also depending on cartridge color)
The P800 starter cart is NOT 80ml, it's 64, so the figure you have represents one of the starter carts exactly. Sorry, but it's simply not true that you are missing large amounts of ink.
-
The P800 starter cart is NOT 80ml, it's 64, so the figure you have represents one of the starter carts exactly. Sorry, but it's simply not true that you are missing large amounts of ink.
no, no, please read my previous post with measurements carefully. I have measured all kind of carts, starters for P800, regular for P800 and those for 3880. except of point 1) from my previous posts, all behaved the same (remained ink at the and. of course starters for P800 were lighter at the beginning.
-
no, no, please read my previous post with measurements carefully. I have measured all kind of carts, starters for P800, regular for P800 and those for 3880. except of point 1) from my previous posts, all behaved the same (remained ink at the and. of course starters for P800 were lighter at the beginning.
For somebody who is an "ex-metrology guy" I find your manner of presenting your findings to be confusing. One could get the impression that you are commingling apples and oranges and calling it all fruit - I hope that's not the case. Starter cartridges are 64 ML, replacement cartridges are 80 ML. Each size needs to be evaluated separately and the data presented separately. And please don't further muddy the discussion by introducing CM3 when only two variables are needed: grams and ML. Your data indicates that there are about 0.883 ML per gram - (because you say that 15ML weighs 17g)? That is what we need to know (if the information is correct) for including the specific gravity adjustment into the conversion between grams and ML. And you have found that an empty cartridge weighs 63g. So, how much does a FULL NEW 80g cartridge weigh? Could you please confirm that measurement, then subtract 63g for the empty shell, then multiply the difference by 0.883 and we should then have approximately the content of ink in ML, if you other measurements are correct.
-
For somebody who is an "ex-metrology guy" I find your manner of presenting your findings to be confusing. One could get the impression that you are commingling apples and oranges and calling it all fruit - I hope that's not the case. Starter cartridges are 64 ML, replacement cartridges are 80 ML. Each size needs to be evaluated separately and the data presented separately. And please don't further muddy the discussion by introducing CM3 when only two variables are needed: grams and ML. Your data indicates that there are about 0.883 ML per gram - (because you say that 15ML weighs 17g)? That is what we need to know (if the information is correct) for including the specific gravity adjustment into the conversion between grams and ML. And you have found that an empty cartridge weighs 63g. So, how much does a FULL NEW 80g cartridge weigh? Could you please confirm that measurement, then subtract 63g for the empty shell, then multiply the difference by 0.883 and we should then have approximately the content of ink in ML, if you other measurements are correct.
Dear Mark, pleas do not question someone competences, I feel all those "ifs", direct and indirect, are not needed in your reply. I am not questioning yours...
This forum is not for metrology experts, so it would be useless and time consuming to prepare full detailed report with error analysis etc, it is not my intention.
To the point: what is not clear for you in my previous post with measurement results? I think all needed data are there including the exception (starters for P800).
There were only two starter carts for P800 in the poll. I have not included them in the point 1) stating new cart weight (or rather mass, if you want t o be more precise) what I clearly written. I have written about 64 ml P800 starters to show that the same amount of ink remains in them at the end as for regular ones.
The full new regular cart weights 143 [g] (+-2 [g]) and it is the same for P800 and 3880.
So, 143 [g] - 63 [g] = 80 [g] of total ink in a new cart (EXCLUDING P800 starter carts).
Ink density is 1.13 [g/cm3] (or if you prefer 1.13 [g/ml], units don't matter). So, that gives 80 [g] / 1.13 [g/ml] = 70.8 [ml].
Because of possibility of not precise measurements of small numbers of mass (17 [g] in 1 [g] steps) the density might be a bit different. Common value, also repeated on this forum, is 1.08 [g/ml] but I think it can differ among manufacturers and ink types and colors.
I have 30 "empty" carts so I can measure average ink density more precisely if anyone gives me a trick to open plastics quickly.
And another information is that ~15 ml of ink remains in every "empty" cart, similar in proportion to the values presented on the first video I have pasted previously (40 ml remaining at the end, the new cart capacity is 225 ml, and nominal value should be 220 ml). Similar proportions are reported to all Pro Epson photo printers (not sure about Px0k series). From consumers point of view it is unfair, at least in Europe.
Any other questions?
-
I didn't question your competence. I told you I found the way your material was presented confused me. That could be my problem or your problem, I don't know - all I want to do is understand unambiguously what you're doing. You have now helped clarify a key aspect of it in the post above. Thank you. But anyhow, all this is OT relative to the topic, which is about the large clean-out of ink on a Canon Pro-1000.
-
I didn't question your competence. I told you I found the way your material was presented confused me. That could be my problem or your problem, I don't know - all I want to do is understand unambiguously what you're doing. You have now helped clarify a key aspect of it in the post above. Thank you. But anyhow, all this is OT relative to the topic, which is about the large clean-out of ink on a Canon Pro-1000.
Thank you, when I make more detailed measurements, I will open a new thread.
-
...which is about the large clean-out of ink on a Canon Pro-1000.
I believe that the big ink dump described here is a "System Cleaning" procedure. The one that can also be triggered by the user when a simple "Print Head Cleaning" or "Deep Head Cleaning" is not enough to clean a clogged head. The only thing the user can do about the "System Cleaning"s is to choose "Short" or "Standard" intervals between them. The user cannot disable them by a printer menu option. But maybe it is possible to do it indirectly. Take a look a the "What to do" section of the support code 1753 at the following link. Thoughts?
https://support.usa.canon.com/kb/index?page=content&id=ART163227 (https://support.usa.canon.com/kb/index?page=content&id=ART163227)
-
I believe that the big ink dump described here is a "System Cleaning" procedure. The one that can also be triggered by the user when a simple "Print Head Cleaning" or "Deep Head Cleaning" is not enough to clean a clogged head. The only thing the user can do about the "System Cleaning"s is to choose "Short" or "Standard" intervals between them. The user cannot disable them by a printer menu option. But maybe it is possible to do it indirectly. Take a look a the "What to do" section of the support code 1753 at the following link. Thoughts?
https://support.usa.canon.com/kb/index?page=content&id=ART163227 (https://support.usa.canon.com/kb/index?page=content&id=ART163227)
Haven't noticed that one before. Interesting find with this option to overrule/disable the system cleaning function with the stop button. How do you re-enable the cleaning again? And can the state of this feature be seen anywhere in menus, software, status print or?
I would be somewhat worried of the consequences regarding head longevity if infrequently used. But if someone is printing regularly (whatever that is, perhaps at least once a day), it could be very interesting to hear if the 1:1 ratio of ink on paper vs waste could improve dramatically (while maintaining print quality of course) - in case the printer is unnecessarily eager with it's normal cleaning functions.
-
Haven't noticed that one before. Interesting find with this option to overrule/disable the system cleaning function with the stop button. How do you re-enable the cleaning again? And can the state of this feature be seen anywhere in menus, software, status print or?
I would be somewhat worried of the consequences regarding head longevity if infrequently used. But if someone is printing regularly (whatever that is, perhaps at least once a day), it could be very interesting to hear if the 1:1 ratio of ink on paper vs waste could improve dramatically (while maintaining print quality of course) - in case the printer is unnecessarily eager with it's normal cleaning functions.
Pushing and holding the Stop button when the printer is in standby mode does nothing. I am thinking to try to trigger a 1753 support code by using a previously depleted ink cartridge and then push and hold the Stop button to see what is going to happen. But this is risky business and I have important print jobs scheduled for this month. So experimentation will have to wait :).
-
I believe that the big ink dump described here is a "System Cleaning" procedure. The one that can also be triggered by the user when a simple "Print Head Cleaning" or "Deep Head Cleaning" is not enough to clean a clogged head. The only thing the user can do about the "System Cleaning"s is to choose "Short" or "Standard" intervals between them. The user cannot disable them by a printer menu option. But maybe it is possible to do it indirectly. Take a look a the "What to do" section of the support code 1753 at the following link. Thoughts?
https://support.usa.canon.com/kb/index?page=content&id=ART163227 (https://support.usa.canon.com/kb/index?page=content&id=ART163227)
Yes, my thoughts are you shouldn't do it (press and hold the "Stop" button) and if you do it could impact print quality while voiding that aspect of your warranty. As I've suggested before:
(1) This system cleaning is a normal part of Canon's under-the-hood printer maintenance programming, and
(2) If it seems to be happening at intervals that are too short in terms of time or square footage printed, perhaps there is something wrong with the printer, so phone Canon for tech support.
In so doing, have the details of what happened between major cleaning cycles on hand so they can't just tell you nothing is abnormal - not to say they necessarily would, but in any support system you can run into lazy agents. The more details on usage you have on hand the better the quality of support is likely to be.
-
It is not very scientific, but I have printed a fair amount since I got my pro 1000 over a week ago. The main reason is that I want to see the difference against my p800, which I still own. Taking into account the 50% of the cartridges used for priming (but still ultimately available for prints), ink usage doesn't seem to be any worse than for my p800. I have printed about 25 8x11 prints and 2 11x17 prints. The former consumes an average of 0.7 ml of ink per print, with the latter consuming an average of 1.3ml of ink per print. This is according to Canon Accounting Manager. Unfortunately, the ink status bars aren't very specific, but I would read them as indicating anywhere from 35-41% ink left.
-For several of these prints, i selected full coverage clear coat.
-All but a few of the photos have been glossy, on a variety of papers from Canon, Ilford, Hahnemhule, and Moab.
-I print through imageprint for most prints, but some were through canon print studio pro (Imageprint uses the Canon XPS printer driver)
-in the ink maintenance settings, I turn off settings 1 and 3, while leaving setting 2 at Standard
-The printer is set to stay on, unless I turn it off.
-I am running the latest firmware (2.60)
To look at the accounting software for the amount of ink used for each print is meaningless. It doesn't show the waste. When you start the accounting software, 3 lines show in the window: Displaying Job Cost List, Pro-1000 series, and Not Displaying..... Highlight the line Pro-1000 series. Right click on it and a window comes up showing a lot of data including total ink and paper consumed and ink consumed for each color. If you record the total ink consumed, make a print, and check that figure again. You will get, within a rounding error, the total ink consumed--waste plus what is put on paper. You may have to click on View then refresh to make sure you're getting the latest data. And...a 2nd print immediately after a 1st print will not waste a recordable amount of ink. Wait a day, two or three and look at total ink consumed before and after a print. I just updated to firmware 2.060 and hope it solves or at least reduces my waste problem.
Mabe