Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: keith_cooper on August 24, 2012, 11:04:11 am
-
I see that Canon Japan have launched the new iPF LF printers on their web site.
12 Colors – Lucia EX with a 20% larger gamut
9400 with 60 inch print area
25% faster print speed
Better black performance
Price: 1,998,000 yen
http://cweb.canon.jp/imageprograf/lineup/ipf8400/index.html
As with the x300 launch I see that the printer division isn't quite so keen on coordinating announcement info around the world ;-)
Anyway, now it's been let out, I'll keep any updated info I find in one place
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/printers/canon6400-8400.html
Looking forward to checking out the new EX inks in an x400 compared to my 8300 :-)
-
Keith,
The 6300 and 8300 have Lucia EX ink. I believe this announcement will result in the additional reported 20% gamut increase to the 9300, bringing it up to the level of the 6300 and 8300. I don't see any change in the ink for the 6400 and 8400.
-
Dang! I just bought mind about 8 months ago!
Its time to look for a trade in
Aaron
-
Keith,
The 6300 and 8300 have Lucia EX ink. I believe this announcement will result in the additional reported 20% gamut increase to the 9300, bringing it up to the level of the 6300 and 8300. I don't see any change in the ink for the 6400 and 8400.
Thanks - in my haste, I copied the 9400 info, forgetting that there was't a 9300.
I guess the changes will be a bit more subtle then ;-)
-
The 6400 gets 300ml ink tanks which is nice for heavy users.
-
I just did a Google Translate on the 6400 info, and it too reports 20% larger gamut and enhanced black.The Lucia EX ink is also described somewhat differently from its description on the 6300/8300. The new 20% HAS to be in comparison to the 6300/8300 generation, or it's misleading. The only other significant change I can find on the 6400 is that it can now take 300 ml ink tanks (note the hump on the left side of the body in the pictures). Since the 8300 already takes 330 and 700 ml tanks, the 8400 would be an 8300 if the inks weren't improved. They claim another 20% speedup on glossy photos, but I tend to read that as a new print mode, rather than a faster engine -since they are so specific to glossy photos. Interestingly, the stand is optional on the 6400 in Japan, but it was on the 6300 as well!
The change from the x000 to x100 lines was similar - an improvement in gamut without a renamed ink line. It was actually possible to fit the new heads and inks (as I recall, only a couple of inks changed) to an older printer. If that is true this time, there will be a "hack" printer that has no real Canon equivalent, because a 6300 running 6400 ink and heads (assuming the heads are new) will still lack the 300 ml capability. If the (expensive) heads are the same and there are only a couple of new inks (almost certainly one or more of the blacks - could they have tweaked something in the magentas and reds as well, to deal with Epson's orange?), a 6300 running 6400 ink becomes a very interesting option for a lot of lower-volume users - buy a deeply discounted 6300 (the 6400 is the same price as a 6300 in Japan, so they'll have to put big discounts on the 6300 to move them) and 130 ml versions of the 2-3 new cartridges, then install most of the starter cartridges, but the purchased cartridges for the changed colors. If there are more than 2-3 new cartridges, or the heads are different, it is probably too expensive to be worth doing unless you could sell the 6300 heads (or 6300s are going for a ridiculously low price).
The lack of a 5400 suggests that the 17" printer has moved to the Pixma line, and we may see a 17" Pixma Pro-1.
-
So looks like the 9400 will be placed about 3x the price of the 8400. But consider this..."Realized in large-format photo-quality art print is also 60 inches of power." I love it when Chrome translates dirty!
Will be interesting to see if Canon is gonna continue taking the "first one is free" attitude on this new series, or stick it to us.
Hard to decipher bit on the 8400 page..."Adjust the paper printing (one) 36 in. × 5m (mouth coated paper thickness)." Does that mean better sheet handling, or something?
Also it appears the 8400 does indeed use the new EX Lucia ink variation, which apparently improves the blacks somehow, which I always though were plenty good enough.
-
Let me just say that there are a lot of false assumptions floating around out there (and here) and that we should wait until the embargo has lifted so that those in the know can actually talk.
-
Exactly, never assume when marketing types are speaking. Or better yet, assume they want your money and will fib to get it.
I clicked the button below the statements about 20% larger gamut, and it took me to http://www.microsofttranslator.com/bv.aspx?from=&to=en&a=http%3A%2F%2Fcweb.canon.jp%2Fimageprograf%2Flineup%2Fipf6400%2Ffeatures.html%23luciaex (http://www.microsofttranslator.com/bv.aspx?from=&to=en&a=http%3A%2F%2Fcweb.canon.jp%2Fimageprograf%2Flineup%2Fipf6400%2Ffeatures.html%23luciaex)
Where it is comparing the 6400's gamut to that of the 6100, and not the 6300. It sounds like it is just a statement about Lucia EX vs Lucia.
Less clear what the improved blacks are about, but the translated statement sounds like they are (again) just comparing Lucia EX to Lucia.
Also on the page: the 20% speedup refers specifically to glossy, this time comparing to the 6300. Makes no mention of matte, though.
Looking forward to reviewers like Keith getting these so that we can learn more about them.
-
Let me just say that there are a lot of false assumptions floating around out there (and here) and that we should wait until the embargo has lifted so that those in the know can actually talk.
Sure - that's where you are located, but other Canon locations -were- happy to talk about it
Looks as if the dates vary all over the place, so let the fun continue, until you can join in ;-)
BTW, I've also seen another Canon announcement slated for 12th September - but that's from Canon Rumors ;-)
-
Sure - that's where you are located, but other Canon locations -were- happy to talk about it
Looks as if the dates vary all over the place, so let the fun continue, until you can join in ;-)
BTW, I've also seen another Canon announcement slated for 12th September - but that's from Canon Rumors ;-)
Well, we're now 25 days from the start of Photokina 2012. I'm pretty sure we'll know for sure by then ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
Sure - that's where you are located, but other Canon locations -were- happy to talk about it
Leave it to Japan to spill the beans early...
Looks as if the dates vary all over the place, so let the fun continue, until you can join in ;-)
I'm gonna join in now...
BTW, I've also seen another Canon announcement slated for 12th September - but that's from Canon Rumors ;-)
Canon USA and Europe announcements should come on Sept 12th.
-
The x400 series is, for the most part, an incremental update - nothing earth shattering this time around. The inks are the same as in the x300 and most the parts are the same (button, screens, paper handling parts) etc. Naturally, there are a number of small improvements hardly worth mentioning - a lot of stuff in the firmware. TheMCT tool is getting expanded so one can monitor the calibration state and profiles on a network, etc.
The big deal with this series is that it implements new screening technology that they've been working on for a long time. It simultaneously allows for faster printing and better dot placement.
And the 64x0 now accepts 130ml and 300ml ink cartridges. The spectro option (6450) will be attractive to some proofing environments. The boxes added for the larger ink tanks and spectro are, let's say, not particularly sexy.
And of course a 9300 never came out so the 9400 will be nice to see for the 60" crowd.
So, 24", 44" and 60" printers with faster printing and better dot placement. That's what this new series really means to most of the crowd here at LuLa.
Personally, I think the Lucia EX inkset is the best one on the market and clearly an improvement over Epson's HDR inkset. I think they could improve it even further if they ditch the bronzy blue for a gloss optimizer and maybe the red for another gray. But it's the hardware platform that's getting long in the tooth. I'd like to see a whole new iPF line of printers resigned from the ground up that resembles something modern like the Pro-1 ... or an Epson 9900, iPad, Mini Cooper, Porsche or something along those lines! A printer with super fast paper loading and unloading, a touch sensitive color screen, careful paper handling and less noise. It takes a few years for big change like that to happen at Canon.
-
And no iPF5400. It would be nice to see competition in the 3880 or 4900 category. Or on the iPF6400 a kind of sheet cassette as available on the iPF615 etc CAD models, loading the next sheet while the printer is already printing a sheet. Some information around whether Canon is still interested in the 17" sheet printer market ?
--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
Dinkla Grafische Techniek
Quad,piëzografie,giclée
www.pigment-print.com
-
And no iPF5400. It would be nice to see competition in the 3880 or 4900 category. Or on the iPF6400 a kind of sheet cassette as available on the iPF615 etc CAD models, loading the next sheet while the printer is already printing a sheet. Some information around whether Canon is still interested in the 17" sheet printer market ?
I agree and all of this has been discussed at high levels for several years now. But we're not going to see anything this time around. It takes years for big change to happen.
-
I agree and all of this has been discussed at high levels for several years now. But we're not going to see anything this time around. It takes years for big change to happen.
Yikes, a 5400 or some lighter smaller footprint to better compete against the Epson 3880/4890/4900 units seems like kind of a no-brainer. But what do I know ;D
-
Yikes, a 5400 or some lighter smaller footprint to better compete against the Epson 3880/4890/4900 units seems like kind of a no-brainer. But what do I know ;D
Boy do I hear you! A 17" Pro-1 would be sweet right?
-
I just did a Google Translate on the 6400 info, and it too reports 20% larger gamut and enhanced black.The Lucia EX ink is also described somewhat differently from its description on the 6300/8300. The new 20% HAS to be in comparison to the 6300/8300 generation, or it's misleading.
or written by a marketing type who didn't realize they 9400 is finally catching up to the 8300. If they ink's were improved that much, they'd give them a new name. I think they just wrote the piece wrong implying the 9100-9400 gamut gain applied to all the x400 models.
-
...I think they just wrote the piece wrong implying the 9100-9400 gamut gain...
Yes, that's exactly right.
-
Boy do I hear you! A 17" Pro-1 would be sweet right?
Yup, that would be nice, too, but how about a 17 incher with the exact same 8400/9400 ink set, so photographers could prep files to their liking in the comfort of a small office or studio not wide-format friendly, and job the "perfectly proofed" image file out to a calibrated service provider owning an 8400 or 9400, thus having complete confidence in how the print would come out?
-
Yup, that would be nice, too, but how about a 17 incher with the exact same 8400/9400 ink set, so photographers could prep files to their liking in the comfort of a small office or studio not wide-format friendly, and job the "perfectly proofed" image file out to a calibrated service provider owning an 8400 or 9400, thus having complete confidence in how the print would come out?
I can only think that Canon must not have felt the 5100 was successful enough to continue development on, or they probably would have updated it by now. The 5100 was a great printer, the only real downside was that it was substantially larger/heavier than other 17" printers. But I have no idea how successful it was sales-wise (at least, before they started practically giving them away with the discounts and rebates).
-
I've talked to several people from the canon management group, and feels like non of them has an interest on 17" wide printer.
aaron
-
Ink sales probably never were like the ink sales of the larger models. The printer's price had to fit the 17" market that already had two competing models and the price of the two exchangeable heads was sometimes pretty close to the iPF5000-iPF5100 price. It still had to get service and heads had to be exchanged in warranty. Probably the results were in red numbers all the time.
I think a model based on the Pro 1 but with the iPF8300/8400 ink set would make a better chance. Improved sheet feeding on one of the larger models would then be nice too.
--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
Dinkla Grafische Techniek
Quad,piëzografie,giclée
www.pigment-print.com
-
I've talked to several people from the canon management group, and feels like non of them has an interest on 17" wide printer.
Canon management group? What's that? Canon is interested in re-inventing the 17" printer. Takes time though.
-
Canon management group? What's that? Canon is interested in re-inventing the 17" printer. Takes time though.
Can't say too much who they are, but they are Japanese. Anyway, when we had a conversation about the 17, they said they don't really know what's the purpose for them to make one in that size.
24 and 44 are much more reasonable to sell since output company can buy 4-10+ printers in one of a time, even press printing company would need at least a 24" machine for digital proofing use.
17" machine might be just for a low usage photographer in they eyes.
aaron
-
I agree. Never understood why anyone would buy a 17" printer in this day and age. Just buy at least a 24". Seems like a no brainer.
-
For me it does not have to be a 17" inkjet printer but it would be nice to have a printer that feeds from a stack of sheets. If possible 70x100 cm sheets with dual sided coating. If not asked too much then auto duplex printing would be nice too. The only printers that came close were 17¨ models.
--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
340+ paper white spectral plots:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
update july 2012: Moab changes, paper sorting by name
-
I think you guys have it all wrong. 17inch printers are the new 13inch. When Epson had the 3000 out 10 years ago, its primary market was prepress and small workgroups. Dot size was HUGE by comparison with these modern printers. Then the 4000 came out and it did very very well in the market. Then all of a sudden after the 4800 and 4880 units were out there the 3800 showed up. Guess what? The UPS guy could now do deliveries and not a freight company that had to put the larger units on a palette.
The 3880 with rebates often goes for around $1000. I am just using round numbers, but $1200 is more likely on a daily basis. If the R3000 sells for $800, and the 3880 ships with around $400 worth of ink, it is easy to defend buying the 3880 for $200 to $400 more.
The 17 inch market is rather large, to be honest. There is a huge gap between 13inch models and 24" floor standing models. Don't always think that high volume, prepress or some other business environment always drives sales. Look at the history of the 17" format. It originated from 17x22" sheets, which is 4-up of 8.5x11. This allows somebody to proof 4 letter size pages at a time before publication. It's a pretty awesome format, actually. 12x18 prints on 17x22 or A2 sheet sizes is a very nice looking fine art print with ample what around the edges.
We will see more 17inch printer offerings. It just takes time, and Canon *is not* ignoring this market.
-
I'd say that 17" is an important market, as shown by Epson's products - the "I'd just get 24 inch" misses the point that printers like the 3880 are about as big as many people want to fit in their offices/homes/budget.
This gap in Canon's range is an interesting one, and having chatted with lots of people from the consumer imaging and LF printing parts of Canon, I'm of the opinion that there is a bit of a cultural gap between the groups back in Japan, particularly when marketing are involved...
With the consumer print side we get the Pro-1 (and below) and a very different approach to marketing printers, compared to the large format side of the business, which is corporate sales minded and has a solid dealer network and supply chain that if not entirely set in aspic, doesn't show the flexibility you see in the 'consumer' chain (which includes pro camera kit) - people that sell photocopiers and office print solutions tend to have different customer and business relationships.
It's this corporate setup that puts the 5100 at the bottom of one range, and just outside another. Compare with Epson, where at one level there is a more homogeneous feel to the range (or at least the gap isn't so obvious).
Note, that I'm in the UK, so I'm just reflecting my own thoughts on what I've found in Europe ;-)
-
17 inch printers will always be the best option for those of us with limited space and who are not doing printing as a full time business. My 3880 sits right on top of a nice Ikea cart with drawers that hold 13x19 inch paper. One of my friends has a 24 inch Epson and it is huge by comparison. I really don't see any need to print beyond 17x25 (I cut sheets from roll paper which isn't too difficult since the papers I like to print on don't come in this size here in the US) and if I did, I would outsource the job. I have a couple of artist friends that I have printed for and they have never needed anything bigger. As Andy notes, printers such as the 3880 are easy enough to move around and for a single person to set up.
-
I agree with all of you guys, as a photographer, I always like to have a 17" printer sitting right next to me when I need to do my small proofs and my book printing.
But how many photographers are buying these machines right now.
Epson has already took the market with 2 different models and if this market is not as big as Alan said, how much money would be wasted into R&D and production.
Canon is not a stupid company but we all know that to ask a giant to take one step forward is always not a easy thing to do.
Just like their camera line, if they are already making good money with a good market sharing, why would they take a risk to provide something extremely new to the market.
Personal usage in photo printing market it's small, compare to the industrial field, 24 and 44, or even 60 can do a much better job in that field.
Canon acquired OCE and they just announced their LPF and OCE with merge together, feels like Canon does want to become another HP.
Kodak rather sell their digital and film pattern and keep the digital printing as their new major business.
As we can see, printing market is huge, still and everyone still wants to have a bit on this big pie.
Aaron
-
If you're talking about budget, 17" really doesn't make sense. Sure, it's a little cheaper buying it initially, but now you're locked into printing on sheets. Any money you save on the initial purchase price is quickly burned up in buying sheets. Rolls of media are much more economical than sheets. And when your customer asks for a 20x24, or 24x30, of that shot they like, you can deliver it. If you don't have the space for a wide format printer, you don't have the space. But I don't think it's cheaper to run a 17" than a 24". I think it's probably more expensive.
-
huh? A 17" printer for $1000 to $1200 is smaller, easier to operate and cheaper than 24" printers. There are many people who print on cut sheets and cut sheets only. I own many many different printers, and even though I have the budget for many printers I have an enormous need for a desktop printer that can print small stacks of paper.
-
Smaller? Yes. Cheaper to operate? Don't see how. Mainly because for the most part you're stuck printing on sheets, or a few 17" rolls that are available, and sheets are almost always more expensive than rolls. For example, 50 sheets of 17"x22" Hahnemuhle Baryta is $305.68 from IT Supplies. That's $2.35 / sq. ft. But a 24"x39' roll of the same paper is only $151.68. That's only $1.94 / sq. ft. The roll is significantly cheaper than the sheets. That adds up to big $$$ over the life of the printer. But the main reason I would encourage anyone who is going to spend $1300-$1500 on a 17" to spend an extra $1,000 for at least a 24" is you only have to sell a few 20"x24" or 20"x30" or 24"x30" prints and you more than pay the difference. At the end of the day, though, it is each to his own. If you're happy, that's all that matters.
-
You are completely missing my point. But that's ok. $1200 is much less expensive than buying a $3,000 printer. Simple math. Yes, operation is less expensive if using roll paper, but many people, myself included, do not like the inherent curl of cut sheets for fine art prints. When I print big I prefer to print on LARGE cut sheets, like Moab Entrada Bright 300gsm 36x48" cotton sheets. And printing on a 24" printer for cut sheets is a pain in the butt, especially if a print job involves anything more than 1 sheet.
The conversation is really about 17" printers. I do consulting for Moab Paper, help out with their customer support and let me tell you that 17" printers are much more popular than 24" or 44" printers from people who email in for some assistance. I probably have a good pulse on what goes on in the printing industry across both consumer and professional users. I go out to professional studios all of the time to do color / output consulting and I see quite a bit.
-
As long as we do not get printers that can print images simultaneously at both sides of dual side coated paper transported from rolls, there will be a need for sheet printers working from paper stacks. The 17" models did at least cover that kind of jobs. I would not object to a printer that can use larger sheets doing the same jobs but they are not common either.
Whether it is economic or not I know enough photographers that are happy with a 17" running sheets only. Their need for larger prints is not happening every week and the ease of handling sheets + the system of fixed prices for their sizes makes the economy of larger roll media prices far less important.
--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
Dinkla Grafische Techniek
Quad,piëzografie,giclée
www.pigment-print.com
-
I have been talking around what I really would like to see in the marketplace. Something like an enlarged iPF5100 that can handle 24" rolls, as well as a removable paper cassette that mounts to the front. Heck, sell the cartridge for $1000. Whoa cares. It would consolidate 2 printers into one, it would up sell many 17" printer customers and save space for those who need both types of printers.
-
A few more details about the x400 printers:
All of the x400 printers are designed to print closer to one another out of the box. The "Calibration Link" feature in the MCT tool allows you to monitor this across a network of x400 printers. Although they are advertising accuracy within a Delta E of 2.0, they are internally seeing 0.6 consistently. The new MCT tool is a little more friendly about allowing you to perform the calibration on any paper type, not just a few of their paper types. This is intended to allow 3rd party paper companies to make profiles that can be used with any of the x400 printers. All 3 printer widths now have the same carriage, carriage speed and print speeds. So all of the printers are faster but the 6xx0 printers are faster by a larger margin.
Although the inks are the same as in the x300 printer, the ink cartridges are physically different and backwards compatible with the x300 printers. X300 ink cartridges are not compatible with x400 printers, however.
The LUTs for each paper type are a little different than with the x300 printers. This allows for even greater smoothness, linearity and gamut - all by modest amounts.
The MCT tool will allow for a proprietary profiling process with the 6450sp using the spectrophotometer (which is basically an i1Pro2 - newer than what Epson and HP are using). These profiles are not ICC profiles and can be used with any of the x400 printers. Naturally you can make your own profiles externally as use them as you always have.
Nice to see all these refinements. Seems like they're really focusing on improving final print quality with the current generation hardware. They've come along way since the x000 printers. Now that the Pixma, iPF and Oce groups have all been merged I'm excited to see what might come next. Although we won't see anything for a while, I suspect having all their inkjet technology under one roof will lead to good things.
-
Canon acquired OCE and they just announced their LPF and OCE with merge together,
Canon's talented PIXMA group swallowed up both Oce and the iPF group. An exciting time over there with lots of talent coming together under one roof. Big changes to happen not soon but down the line.
-
Canon's talented PIXMA group swallowed up both Oce and the iPF group. An exciting time over there with lots of talent coming together under one roof. Big changes to happen not soon but down the line.
Speaking of PIXMA - by any chance, do you happen know what's the PIXMA Pro-1 ink formulation? Is it LUCIA EX with LGY, CO instead of G,B or maybe the whole inkset is reformulated?
-
Canon's talented PIXMA group swallowed up both Oce and the iPF group. An exciting time over there with lots of talent coming together under one roof. Big changes to happen not soon but down the line.
This is only happening in USA.
Canon Asia Pacific is not.
They are only merging LPF and OCE together.
And Pixma still under controlled by the small format printer department.
Aaron
-
Speaking of PIXMA - by any chance, do you happen know what's the PIXMA Pro-1 ink formulation? Is it LUCIA EX with LGY, CO instead of G,B or maybe the whole inkset is reformulated?
Excellent question. It's Lucia EX with the blue replaced by a gloss optimizer. The extra gray replaces either the red or green - I forget! I'm on the road and don't have that info in front of me. I'm excited about that inkset. 5 blacks and grays is pretty cool...
-
Excellent question. It's Lucia EX with the blue replaced by a gloss optimizer. The extra gray replaces either the red or green - I forget! I'm on the road and don't have that info in front of me. I'm excited about that inkset. 5 blacks and grays is pretty cool...
Thanks for the information, it makes Pro-1 an appealing supplement to a 24-44" printer.
It also makes me wonder if (at some point in future) we could swich B,G<>LGY,CO inks in larger printers and Pro-1 (in an old Epson x880 MK<>PK ink swich fashion)...
-
This is only happening in USA.
Canon Asia Pacific is not.
They are only merging LPF and OCE together.
And Pixma still under controlled by the small format printer department
That's not what I'm hearing from the horses mouth. PIXMA, iPF and OCE are all merged in Japan and all R&D going forward is being done together. Total unification of technologies for devices small to big. They aren't the separate groups that they once were. Canon USA doesn't even do R&D.
-
OCÉ still has R&D in Venlo NL to my knowledge. I could ask though. The solvent and UV curing flatbeds etc with their industrial piëzoheads are very much outside the range of Canon's thermal head technology. So is the OCÉ "marbles" inkjet printer that squirts heated resin through piëzoheads.
--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
Dinkla Grafische Techniek
Quad,piëzografie,giclée
www.pigment-print.com
-
I couldn't agree with you more.
If Canon ( or HP in the past ) had ditched that blue channel for a light light gray then you would have the 100% state of the art killer oem printer/inkset that could do anything anytime on any media at the drop of a hat and fast. I guess it is the pre-press match people they are trying to please, as always.
I just don't understand them. Yes, with True Black and White the monochrome is totally neutral with No color inks used ( a tri tone) exceptionally permanent with 0 metamerism failure, but it is still a tri-tone. I'm doing a lot of it and it is impressive thanks to BowHaus. With one more gray ( this is damn 12 ink system by the way) you have it all in one printer, with linearization in TBW with an Eye One. the final nail in the coffin of the analogue darkroom. Good enough is nice but good enough is not excellence. I'm really sad they didn't do that. I just don't have the stomach to do it myself by diluting their light gray.
The new 60" er is a welcome addition though. Good for you Canon. It must take 10 men to move that sucker.
John
Personally, I think the Lucia EX inkset is the best one on the market and clearly an improvement over Epson's HDR inkset. I think they could improve it even further if they ditch the bronzy blue for a gloss optimizer and maybe the red for another gray. But it's the hardware platform that's getting long in the tooth. I'd like to see a whole new iPF line of printers resigned from the ground up that resembles something modern like the Pro-1 ... or an Epson 9900, iPad, Mini Cooper, Porsche or something along those lines! A printer with super fast paper loading and unloading, a touch sensitive color screen, careful paper handling and less noise. It takes a few years for big change like that to happen at Canon.
[/quote]
-
The simplest solution would be to offer the light light black as an alternative channel for those who would prefer it over the blue in that slot. Just make new profiles and your ready to go. No new printer needed just one more ink option.
-
The simplest solution would be to offer the light light black as an alternative channel for those who would prefer it over the blue in that slot. Just make new profiles and your ready to go. No new printer needed just one more ink option.
I believe that a firmware update, bunch of profiles and two ink cartridges is all that's necessary for such conversion. We could choose between larger gamut or better neutrality and gloss optimization.
-
And Epson could have easily done the same with the 9900 and or 11880.
-
It's impossible for the 8300 or 9100 since they have the second tank, if you want to flush the ink, you will have to lose whole lot of ink, not just the one in the tube.
-
You just put in the ink cart and print out a purge charge of pure blue until it becomes light gray. Done it for years with Epson printers and monochrome inks.
-
Seems that Canon in the US have announced the x400 series, but as yet I've not seen anything here in the UK.
Ah well, it took several months to catch up when the x300 range appeared.
The 6450 spectro attachment certainly isn't going to be winning any design elegance awards
I've updated the info at
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/printers/canon6400-8400.html
-
Does anyone know whether it still has a curved printing path? My 9900 has been a bear and the print head is now dying as its grand finale; I'm looking into jumping ship and going with Canon but we do occasionally print on non-traditional thick media so I'd really like to keep that option open to our customers. Thank you very much for your help :)
Lis Russell
-
Pretty sure they are using the same chassis as the previous units, so will have the same paper path.
-
Exactly, it's the same as iPF8300.
-
Thank you!
-
So... Not being familiar at all with Canon, how does its color gamut compare to the Epson 9900? I understand the Canon has red and blue vs green and orange, just wondering if it's substantially better than the Epson 9900 overall, or just excels in different areas but has a similar gamut volume.
-
I understand the Canon has red and blue vs green and orange, just wondering if it's substantially better than the Epson 9900 overall, or just excels in different areas but has a similar gamut volume.
The gamuts are similar in volume but not exactly the same in specific areas. Epson has a slight edge on matte papers in gamut and dithering, while I think Canon has an slight edge in DMax for photo-black. But they're both excellent. Honestly for photo-black printing on gloss/semi-gloss papers, the gamut of both printers is good enough to not really be a concern.
-
IIRC, the gamut was very similar, but with minor shifts: in the Canon it was bigger towards the darker shades, the Epson in the lighter ones. or was it the other way around? there are gamut maps about somewhere... very close in any case. Canon's Yellow is more fade resistant, and that color is Epson's Achilles Hell in Aardenberg fade tests, again, iirc.
Strangely, the curled paper path in the Canon seems to handle scratch sensitive media better than Epson. EEF in roll form does not work in my Epson LF machines (minor surface scratches that Epson themselves confirmed were not fixable) but DO work on the Canon. Go figure.
I own both LF Epsons and Canons, so no bias. I do love the Canons 100 job memory built into the machine, so that basically you can re-print something without even turning your computer on. Epson needs to get on that. But I do love buying my 700ml Epson carts on eBay for much less $ when someone is selling their personal overstock. Canon LF ink you almost never see - not enough users.
-
try here for your answer:
http://canonipf.wikispaces.com/Downloadable+Colorthink+Movie+of+3D+Gamuts+
but remember a little extra Gamut can be traded for longevity as the manufacturer sees fit.
-
From what I was told is the the newer models are updated on the software and hardware, but they have the same colors and cartridges the the x300 series have. Only difference is that the chip for those models are unique and won't work in the other series models. x300 inks won't work in x400 and vice versa, but same exact inks. The color gamut should be cleaner and better resolution-even though it's the same inks.
We actually started selling the x400 series starting on 10/1. Prices will show on our site as well as discounts available for each.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact us for more information. We are located in IL but have warehouses around the US.
sales@atlex.com
-
The color gamut should be cleaner and better resolution-even though it's the same inks.
sales@atlex.com
can you explain what you mean by this?
same inkset = gamut is unchanged, whatever 'cleaner' may mean, I don't know.
Yes the dither might have the tiniest edge, but basically anyone who bought an ipf8300 would notice almost no difference in updating.
One good thing is the 60" machine finally moving up from 9100 to 9400. It needed that, as it was lagging behind.
-
From what I was informed on from our purchasing person is that the colors from the IPF8300 are the exact same colors in the IPF8400. Same cartridge but different chip so you couldn't use an ink from the 8300 in the 8400 and vise versa. I'm just stating from what I heard. Our company had a training session with our Canon rep, but I was out of the office that day. I will know more about it next week when I get my training on the new series. I wish I could be of more assistance now, but will know more next week.
Cleaner meant better quality. I know I put that in weird terms. It was the best way of stating it while trying to think of a word to describe it at the moment.
-
So far Canon's advertisement has been confusing. It talks about improved dither for better quality and higher speed, but if you read more details in the brochure or listen to this interview
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4YBzgwevF0&feature=plcp (fast forward and the real interview is in English)
It seems that what the new algorithm does is achieve the same quality as 8300 but at faster speed (16-pass is now same as 32-pass). The brochure is contradictory. Under the heading of 8400 it talks exceptional quality and smoother gradations. However there is a footnote on this sentence saying "as compared to 9100"!
Canon also claims easier media configuration for third party papers. However I don't really see any difference. The Media Configuration Tool has gone from 4.12 to 5.0, so this is just a software change and the new software may even work with 8300 as well.
Actually, can someone who owns 8300 download the new version of Media Configuration Tool and see if it works with the 8300? It can be downloaded from Canon USA's website if you go 8400 page.
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/printers_multifunction/professional_large_format_inkjet_printers/imageprograf_ipf8400#DriversAndSoftware
-
From what I was informed on from our purchasing person is that the colors from the IPF8300 are the exact same colors in the IPF8400. Same cartridge but different chip so you couldn't use an ink from the 8300 in the 8400 and vise versa. I'm just stating from what I heard. Our company had a training session with our Canon rep, but I was out of the office that day. I will know more about it next week when I get my training on the new series. I wish I could be of more assistance now, but will know more next week.
From what I've heard from Scott Martin & others, the inks now come in a new cartridge that is backwards compatible with x300 machines. I suspect the reason for the new cartridge is to accommodate using 300ml cartridges in the 6400.
So you can't use the old cartridges in the new printers, but you can use the new cartridges in the old printers. It only makes sense; putting the same ink in two cartridges would be a silly waste of money as far as manufacturing costs.
As for the dithering and other improvements, it's really hard to tell from the marketing materials how much of the improvements only apply to the 9400 relative to the 9100. Even if there have been changes to the dithering across the entire model line, I think it will be a small change considering that the heads and pretty much all the other hardware remain unchanged from the x300's.