Comment on the better blues of the iPF5000

[beamstream]

Hi all,
here is a little comment on the blue values of the iPF 5000 vs the 4800:

Epson 4800: R=58, G=42 and B=149

Canon iPF5000: R=0, G=44 and B=177

at first glance the Epson seems to have a haevy red cast, but since there is also a green component it is more of a neutral component wich results in less saturation. To come closer to reality you can substract the smalest value from all three components (as we did in the old days in the wet Darkroom when filtering color prints) resulting in:

Epson 4800: R=16, G=0, B=102

Canon iPF5000: R=0, G=44 and B=177

Still it remains a fact that the Epson tends towards red, wile the Canon is somewhat greenish.
What i like to point out is the teh fact that the Epson is closer to theoretical blue (in terms of hue) as the Canon. Theoretrical perfect blue is more a sort of violett.

Nevertheless Michels conclusions still hold true, since the saturation of the Canon exeeds thus of the Epson by far.

beamstream.

[michael]

And....

It also looks bluer.  

Michael

[MBenny]

And....

It also looks bluer.   

Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68899\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi All,

Ive actually printed the correct blue on the Epson 4800. The blue is extremely close to the Canon blue. A simple difference of printing the blue in Perceptual instead of Relative Colormetric is required. This will remove the purple look.

I have to ask now , is if I was able to fix this blue problem quite simply are the color gamuts that were produced comparing the ipf5000 and the 4800 correct? Probably not.

Another point about the  Canon is that its print volume is extremely low, 11,500 A3's, in a production environment thats a couple of years before you have issues and forking out for print heads, $600 US I here. I know this from from experience. The 4800 is rated at 40,000 A3's. A huge difference in engineering quality.

Mark
Tech Support
L&P Digital Photographic

[David Anderson]

Mark,
What's the difference in price between the two ?
And the cost of the ink sets ?

There's not much in it, but IMO the prints I've seen from the Canon have the edge over the stuff from the 4800.

I don't think I would ever get near 11,000 prints, so how do the running costs compare on a print by print basis ?

[MBenny]

Mark,
What's the difference in price between the two ?
And the cost of the ink sets ?

There's not much in it, but IMO the prints I've seen from the Canon have the edge over the stuff from the 4800.

I don't think I would ever get near 11,000 prints, so how do the running costs compare on a print by print basis ?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=69303\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi David
At this stage the only price Ive seen around the place is about $3690, now Im not sure if that includes the roll fed option, as this may not be standard on the Canon. Im not sure of the price of the inks, however what concerns me about the Canon is that it automatically and continually will do head cleans. I've seen a Canon W8200 go through cartridge after cartridge becuase of this feature. I can even give you the clients name if you would like. The printers probably now at the bottom of the harbour.

The images you have seen from the iPF5000, are they yours or Canons? If there yours, we would more then be happy to run them on the 4800 for you with the Canon's image on hand as guide of what you want to achieve and to compare.

David, although you might not do 11,000 prints, this is the Print Volume for the life of the machine, which means your more then likely be replacing heads in this time. Thats why they make them user replaceable or a consumable item, it amazes me that they think this is a feature. Wouldnt you buy a car that never needed its tyres replaced over one it did.

Cheers
Mark
Tech Support
L&P Digital Photographic

[David Anderson]

Hi Mark,

The prints I've seen from the Canon and the Epson are made with my own files, but I don't know what adjustments were made to them for the prints as I did not do them myself.

I'm interested in getting (for a while now) an A2 printer like the 4800 or 5000, and I'm looking for the best results with the minimum of fuss.

[michael]

Mark,

I don't wish to come across as an appologist for Canon (which I am clearly not, given how I've slammed them for how badly they've screwed up some aspects of the introduction of the 5000). But, you've stated a few things as fact, which clearly aren't. I don't know what relationship you may have with Epson, but to set the record straight.....

At this stage the only price Ive seen around the place is about $3690, now Im not sure if that includes the roll fed option

The iPF 5000 has a list price in the US of $1,995. The roll paper attachment is optional at $250. The printer comes standard with a LAN interface card, which is extra cost on the 4800.

A huge difference in engineering quality. (In reference to the replacable head design)

This is a silly statement. It has nothing to do with engineering quality. It has to do with engineering philosophy and design intent. The heads on the Canon printer use a completely different technology than those on the Epson. Good arguments can be made both ways. Unless one has a soilid background in print head engineering the argument is specious.

although you might not do 11,000 prints, this is the Print Volume for the life of the machine

This is not a factual statement. That is the life of the heads, as stated by Canon. Period. How can one say it's the life of the printer itself? The plastic case? The tubes and lines? The transport mechanism?  Since this is a brand new machine, only on the market for a few weeks, it seems a bit disingenious of you to make such a catagorical not to mention patently absurd statement.

A simple difference of printing the blue in Perceptual instead of Relative Colormetric is required. This will remove the purple look.

Sorry, maybe this is something that will fool the casual reader, but not anyone who has actually done the comparison. Neither several of the industry's leading printing and colour experts who have seen this first hand.

Finally, though I don't wish to make any accusations, your postings appear to be the fear and doubt mongering that companies do to bad mouth a competitor's new product. I'm not accusing you of this, just observing that your comments have a certain familar odour.

If I'm off base, I appologise. But in that case I would add that instead of knocking another product with misinformation and conjecture, you simply state the advantages that you see in one vs the other.

Otherwise I'd suggest that you take your comments to one of the other web forums where such misinformation and unsubstantiated posturing is permitted.

Thanks,

Michael

[Stephen Best]

A simple difference of printing the blue in Perceptual instead of Relative Colormetric is required. This will remove the purple look.

Sorry, maybe this is something that will fool the casual reader, but not anyone who has actually done the comparison. Neither several of the industry's leading printing and colour experts who have seen this first hand.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Download any one of Bill Atkinson's profile "bouquets" for the Epson 7800/9800 from:

[a href=\"http://homepage.mac.com/billatkinson/FileSharing2.html]http://homepage.mac.com/billatkinson/FileSharing2.html[/url]

and compare the perceptual rendering of some real world blues using the profiles built from different profiling packages. The effect is more noticeable for the GM1 (LOGO Colorful) and FF1 (FujiFilm ColorKit) variants. When you're looking at blues on screen, it may be helpful to monitor their LAB coordinates. Adobe RGB "blue" has a fair magenta component ... its hue angle is somewhat different to the blue for most (non colour-managed) monitors. You can easily compare the two with the ColorSync Utility.

Canon's blue ink is obviously there for a reason, but how close you can get with Epson for real world subjects will depend a lot on the profile and rendering technique. If you want to do a definitive comparison, you should take this into account.

[dlashier]

At this stage the only price Ive seen around the place is about $3690, now Im not sure if that includes the roll fed option

The iPF 5000 has a list price in the US of $1,995. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=69316\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I suspect the $3690 is AUD given that Mark is in Australia.

AFA blue, I don't have the Canon so can't do a direct comparision, but can confirm that a good profile and proper rendering intent can make a hugh difference in how blues are rendered on an Epson. But that said I can't help but see that having a true blue ink is bound to make things easier, particularly without the benefit of custom profiles.

- DL

[David Anderson]

I've been informed that the price here (OZ) will be under $ 3000. or about the same as the 4800 sells for..

[MBenny]

Hi Michael,

I apologise if I've come over to strong. David, who i was responding to is a local I know.

The price i have given is for Australia,

As for the life of the printer, Im sure i read somewhere, that 11,500 A3's were the Total Print Volume of the printer, I spent the last half hour trying to find that again. Epson, HP, e.t.c or give a expected printer volume of the printer before its had its day. Not saying the printer is going to stop dead when it reaches this point, but this is when you expect things to start going wrong.
And if based on printer volume of 11,500 vs 40,000, would it not be fare to say that the engineering quality or piezo technology of the printer is better. Even if the 11,500 was only the head life.

The blue was achievable very simply, with no smoke and mirrors. Basic canned profile. Also im not saying that you wont achieve better Blues on the Canon, I am saying that you can produce much better blues on the Epson then what was shown.
The Canon is not a bad printer, actually the prints off it are quite good.

I respect the guys at Luminous-landscape and their knowledge, however im not new to this industry. I have over 16 years experience in wide format and have worked for two of the major manufactures.

Cheers
Mark

[MBenny]

I've been informed that the price here (OZ) will be under $ 3000. or about the same as the 4800 sells for..
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=69374\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

HI David
Do you know if this includes the Roll Option?
The price I quoted was from Canon,  interesting to see it drop so much.
Cheers
Mark

[jclacherty]

HI David
Do you know if this includes the Roll Option?
The price I quoted was from Canon,  interesting to see it drop so much.
Cheers
Mark
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=69381\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi Mark,

I've been told $3300 without the roll option and $330 for the roll option, I believe this is the RRP.  I know of someone who has ordered one for $3300 with the roll paper option.  All these prices are inc GST.  That's only $300 more than you guys have on your website for the 4800, but the Canon comes with ethernet (big plus in my books).

Still deciding myself.

Justin.

[jclacherty]

I've been told $3300 without the roll option and $330 for the roll option, I believe this is the RRP.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=69384\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Sorry, just checked my emails.  The RRP was $2995 for the printer and $225 for the roll feeder (ex tax) so $3542 for them both including GST.

Justin.

[David Anderson]

Mark,
I don't know what they include with that price and what's an option..

Price is not my main concern here, if either of these printers requires a PHD to make the sky blue
forget it..

[aussiephil]

Justin, David, Mark

I have mine delivered to the door WITH roll feed option for $3300 AUS Inc GST.


David: I bet that $3000 was Ex GST without roll feed.

Considering the reported need to use the Epson regularly and the lack of standard Network interface the Canon offered me good value at this price.

Slight shame about the 90ml starter carts but with around 80-100 sq meters of coverage available this was again not a deal breaker.

I plan to track and report on Ink usage for everyone so the coverage estimates will get better with time.

I have to profile all my papers before being willing to comment on output quality except to say on the couple of prints i did on my matte paper that no visible dots could be seen.

david: my skys look blue, water looks blue without profiling so to me this is again a non issue.

I have an image of Byron Bay lighthouse that has a really dark blue sky courtesy of the polarising filter and the freshly painted white lighthouse.
I had this printed on an Epson 7600 and it looked wonderful but the sky was darker than expected, still nice and no one else notices, the same print from the canon is of the same quality just slightly lighter.

[MBenny]

Thanks for all the feed back on pricing.
Cheers
Mark

[nigeldh]

....
Another point about the  Canon is that its print volume is extremely low, 11,500 A3's, in a production environment thats a couple of years before you have issues and forking out for print heads, $600 US I here. I know this from from experience. The 4800 is rated at 40,000 A3's. A huge difference in engineering quality.

Mark
Tech Support
L&P Digital Photographic
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=69301\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Mark,
While the Epson 4800 etc. may have a longer print head life, I have been told that it is foolish not to buy the extended service contract for the Epsons. One ink head replacement and the service contract is more than paid for.

Nigel