Testing PRO-1000

[keithcooper]

Yay! - Canon have sent me a PRO-1000 for a review :-)

If anyone has any specific questions, please do let me know (here or email me at Northlight), since they are much easier to address whilst I've actually got the printer here - that and it makes sure I don't forget stuff ;-)

Testing paused for the moment while I wait for more ink to turn up.

Initial thoughts are that print quality is very good - I'm still testing what differences the gloss coat has, but for lustre papers I'm choosing the 'coat the whole sheet' option, especially for B&W.

BTW I've asked for official comment on the page length issues, and will include any reply I get.

Oh and once again I'm glad two people delivered it, it's not something I'd want to lift out of the box on my own...

[paulbk]

Thanks Keith, looking forward to your review. And while you're at it, please give us the benefit of your bottom line (it's subjective. we all know that. we want it anyway.). Would you be satisfied with the printer as mission-critical professional tool in your workflow?

[iCanvas]

Could you do some tests on canvas? If Canon left you any canvas samples to test out that would be great. Would like to know about shadow detail. Thanks

Gar

[keithcooper]

Thanks Keith, looking forward to your review. And while you're at it, please give us the benefit of your bottom line (it's subjective. we all know that. we want it anyway.). Would you be satisfied with the printer as mission-critical professional tool in your workflow?

After some initial profiling and a few test prints (not that much - someone sent it out with rather low ink levels) it's surpassing some aspects of my old iPF8300 - enough to make me even more keen to try out a PRO-2000 later in the year ;-)

Given the solidity of paper feeding, I'm puzzled by Canon's choice of max page length.

This reminds me of the margin issues with the previous PRO printers, which fortunately have been removed (with a driver checkbox) in the PRO-1000.

So, yes for my smaller prints, this one is definitely hits my quality mark (as does the P800).  I've lots more I want to test, but I like it rather more than I did the PRO-1.

[keithcooper]

Could you do some tests on canvas? If Canon left you any canvas samples to test out that would be great. Would like to know about shadow detail. Thanks

Gar

Not a printer I'd choose for canvas myself, but I chopped of a length of Innova Bright white matte canvas off a 17" roll and loaded it via the main feed.

Printed off a profiling target - looks fine using the Canvas media setting (well fine for a matte canvas ;-)

[GrahamBy]

It would certainly be nice to have some more discussion of the degree of advantage of using the "all over" vs "where needed" CO options on different paper types. While I agree with your general "just deal with it" philosophy for ink costs, it's still interesting to know if one needs to deal with it...

[keithcooper]

It would certainly be nice to have some more discussion of the degree of advantage of using the "all over" vs "where needed" CO options on different paper types. While I agree with your general "just deal with it" philosophy for ink costs, it's still interesting to know if one needs to deal with it...

The web server for the printer keeps job information. For several profiling targets I've printed two versions one with auto gloss coat and one with 'full' coating. The only change is in gloss coat usage - I'll try a few more of these and be sure to include the info.

The gloss coat seems at its best for lustre papers, but gloss differential is one of those 'problems' that becomes more and more visible to you once you start testing for it, and generally invisible once the print is on a wall ;-) I know it takes some effort to get clear photos of it for reviews - something I draw attention to, lest it gets overplayed as a problem.

[Mark D Segal]

The web server for the printer keeps job information. For several profiling targets I've printed two versions one with auto gloss coat and one with 'full' coating. The only change is in gloss coat usage - I'll try a few more of these and be sure to include the info.

The gloss coat seems at its best for lustre papers, but gloss differential is one of those 'problems' that becomes more and more visible to you once you start testing for it, and generally invisible once the print is on a wall ;-) I know it takes some effort to get clear photos of it for reviews - something I draw attention to, lest it gets overplayed as a problem.

As I may have mentioned in my review of this printer on this website some weeks ago, the CO only works for PK papers. When you choose MK papers the printer driver turns it off. On the question of which option to use - full coat or the "Auto" option, which coats where there is density of ink, Canon recommends the full coat for optimum quality; however I found the CO cartridge drains pretty fast using that option. I think users need to test both options on the same photo and decide which they can live with.

As for the length limitation issue, I think the best you will likely find out is also what I said there. If any one hears any more from a reliable source, that would be useful to know; but I expect there will be no official word on this matter unless or until Canon decides on something they want to make public.

[GrahamBy]

Another CO related thought: since Canon calls it Chroma Optimiser and not Gloss Optimizer, and claims it's about extending gamut, it would be interesting to know if there is any apparent difference in its use when you use the printer's B&W mode. Obviously not for MK compatible papers, but on gloss/perle/baryta types.

[Czornyj]

Another CO related thought: since Canon calls it Chroma Optimiser and not Gloss Optimizer, and claims it's about extending gamut, it would be interesting to know if there is any apparent difference in its use when you use the printer's B&W mode. Obviously not for MK compatible papers, but on gloss/perle/baryta types.

CO is also expanding contrast - depth of black reaches L*=1, so there's apparent difference in B&W mode as well.

[GrahamBy]

Then there is the issue of the cleaning cycle: MHMG noted that the Pro-1 initiated a cleaning cycle if it went more than 60 hours without use, or if the printer was unplugged and then re-connected.

Quantifying the amount of ink used for the pro-1 required long-term averaging, but maybe the web-server monitors also ink use during cleaning cycles?

[keithcooper]

Another CO related thought: since Canon calls it Chroma Optimiser and not Gloss Optimizer, and claims it's about extending gamut, it would be interesting to know if there is any apparent difference in its use when you use the printer's B&W mode. Obviously not for MK compatible papers, but on gloss/perle/baryta types.

Although I'm printing profiling targets with and without full page coverage, there is not an option to turn off the coating completely that I can see?

So, any difference I'll see is probably going to be confined to changing paper white and low ink areas. The profiles I make will include measurement data, so if anyone wants to experiment let me know when the review is done?

[keithcooper]

Then there is the issue of the cleaning cycle: MHMG noted that the Pro-1 initiated a cleaning cycle if it went more than 60 hours without use, or if the printer was unplugged and then re-connected.

Quantifying the amount of ink used for the pro-1 required long-term averaging, but maybe the web-server monitors also ink use during cleaning cycles?

Just the ink used for print (no need to scare the horses ;-)  )

Here are two entries from the web log - A large profiling target printed on a lustre finish paper with full and auto CO  (A3 paper ~2300 i1iSis target)

underlaying colour ink usage seems similar, although for some paper types it seems to vary a bit (need to check this though) - when more ink turns up...

[iCanvas]

Not a printer I'd choose for canvas myself, but I chopped of a length of Innova Bright white matte canvas off a 17" roll and loaded it via the main feed.

The 1000 printhead appears to be the same in the 2000 (24" printer) and the 4000 (44" printer) so the quality on canvas or any media should be the same. The inks should be the same also. The nice thing about this 1000 printer is that the media is fed by suction, rather than the pizza wheels on the P800. I mainly print on canvas so I would like to see the quality on canvas, especially how the printer handles shadow detail. I am leaning toward the P10000 because of the 4 levels of black. I would guess that give more shadow detail. So, any feedback you can give on shadow detail on canvas would be much appreciated with this printer.
Gar

[Mark D Segal]

The 1000 printhead appears to be the same in the 2000 (24" printer) and the 4000 (44" printer) so the quality on canvas or any media should be the same. The inks should be the same also. The nice thing about this 1000 printer is that the media is fed by suction, rather than the pizza wheels on the P800. I mainly print on canvas so I would like to see the quality on canvas, especially how the printer handles shadow detail. I am leaning toward the P10000 because of the 4 levels of black. I would guess that give more shadow detail. So, any feedback you can give on shadow detail on canvas would be much appreciated with this printer.
Gar

Based on the extensive amount of testing and print preparation I've done of real world photographs for my own work, as well as for the reviews of the Epson 4900, P800, Canon Pro-1000 and Epson Legacy papers, I am of the view that the most important determinants of shadow detail are the kind of paper you use and your skill at image editing in the shadow tones. As Marcin mentioned and my own tests also demonstrated, you can get down to about L*1 with the Canon Pro 1000 (in fact I got below 1 using their B&W mode and Pro Luster paper). The advantage of this of course is that it stretches the gamut a bit in the deep quartertones, making it easy to eek out a bit more shadow detail.

And Keith, no - as far as I could determine there is no way to completely shut off CO (except to use MK paper, where it doesn't get applied by default). It is the Auto or Full coat option on PK papers.

[keithcooper]

Not much I can add from this test I'm afraid.

The only canvas I ever use (and rarely at that) is one of the Innova glossy ones (if a 36 or 56 iirc) which profiles like a lustre photo paper.
All the matte samples i have would need varnish/coating which I don't have here.

[GrahamBy]

underlaying colour ink usage seems similar, although for some paper types it seems to vary a bit (need to check this though) - when more ink turns up...

Am I the only one surprised to see non-zero use of both MK and PK ?? Admittedly the quantity of MK used was tiny...

[keithcooper]

Am I the only one surprised to see non-zero use of both MK and PK ?? Admittedly the quantity of MK used was tiny...

I have not yet decided which aspects of this printer surprise me ;-)

[Mark D Segal]

Just the ink used for print (no need to scare the horses ;-)  )

Here are two entries from the web log - A large profiling target printed on a lustre finish paper with full and auto CO  (A3 paper ~2300 i1iSis target)

underlaying colour ink usage seems similar, although for some paper types it seems to vary a bit (need to check this though) - when more ink turns up...

At the time I was preparing my review this kind of detailed ink consumption information was not yet available, at least through the OSX version of the driver/firmware. I am glad you published it here and find it most interesting in two respects: firstly, between about 27~30% of total ink use per print is the CO alone; secondly, apart from CO the printer uses only a modest amount of ink considering the size of the sheet and the likelihood that most of it is filled with the target. But beyond those observations, I would just like to add that the overhead involved in maintenance (under the hood cleaning cycles) does need to be accounted in order to fully understand the cost of ink. This cannot be done on a print by print basis because it is circumstantial, depending mainly on printer usage characteristics which vary a lot from user to user. So it is necessary, over time, to estimate this using the inventory approach method, which requires careful record keeping. I should also add that while many tend to be focused primarily on the cost of ink, again depending on several variables, it is often the paper that turns out to be the single biggest cost element per print - and then of course the value you put on your time for doing the work in the first place.

[keithcooper]

At the time I was preparing my review this kind of detailed ink consumption information was not yet available, at least through the OSX version of the driver/firmware.
...

It's still not via the OS X driver afaik - the examples are from the built-in web server of the printer.

It took 6 months of use of my iPF8300 to come up with an ink cost - it was about half my initial business guesstimate (the one for costing) I kept the larger cost to cover incidentals and ink lost in head swaps.  My main cost is paper. I generally work on the basis that if doubling my ink costs made much of a difference to my profitability, then it says I'm working too cheaply and not charging enough for my time...

The nice thing about doing the reviews is that it lets me run through half a box of paper just to test an idea or see if a setting when editing is important - not something I'd be so keen to do if it was my own printer/ink ;-)