Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Down

Author Topic: Best 44" printer currently available  (Read 18840 times)

Abdo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 146
    • Abdo Abdala - Photography
Re: Best 44" printer currently available
« Reply #20 on: December 26, 2016, 06:25:13 pm »

This review is for killing !!!!

On glossy papers iPF PRO is so much better that it's not even funny - do yourself a favour, get a sheet of Canon Platinum Pro, make a test. CO does wonders, offering OLED like black impression and vividness of Cibachrome:
http://www.designsupply.co.uk/blipdfs/Canon%20PRO-4000%20vs%20Epson%20SC%20P9000.pdf

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Best 44" printer currently available
« Reply #21 on: December 26, 2016, 06:49:42 pm »

Maybe the new Epson P 10K which is a totally redesigned 44". but there is no one out there reporting on it on this site.

john

John, the Epson SCP-10000 is quite a specialized printer, to quote from Epson: "Designed for high-production photographic, fine art and indoor display graphics printing..." The OP says he doesn't print often, so that tells me this is probably not the printer for him. Once Epson defines it that way, for prudence I would take that not only as information that it is built for continuous operation, but also as a suggestion not to buy it for infrequent use.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

Ken Doo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1070
    • Carmel Fine Art Printing & Reproduction
Re: Best 44" printer currently available
« Reply #22 on: December 26, 2016, 11:24:51 pm »

This review is for killing !!!!

I wouldn't give much weight to the cited "test review" which was commissioned by Canon, no less.  There are so many other variables that can have an impact on print quality, including using custom ICC profiles over generic profiles. Image quality is close enough between the top printer manufacturers that the larger variable imho is selecting the equipment that suits your needs and personal tastes/workflow best.

ken

Czornyj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1873
    • zarzadzaniebarwa.pl
Re: Best 44" printer currently available
« Reply #23 on: December 27, 2016, 08:37:18 am »

I wouldn't give much weight to the cited "test review" which was commissioned by Canon, no less.  There are so many other variables that can have an impact on print quality, including using custom ICC profiles over generic profiles. Image quality is close enough between the top printer manufacturers that the larger variable imho is selecting the equipment that suits your needs and personal tastes/workflow best.

ken

I wouldn't give much weight to undermining the test without substantive arguments.

The test confirms many real world observations of Epson users that had switched to Canon - iPF PRO uses much less ink for printing, maintanance and black swiching, it's faster, more convenient and the amount of ink in the ink carts is not cheated.
Quality wise LUCIA PRO's Chroma Optimizer gives noticeable advantage over Ultrachrome HDX on photo papers, period.

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Best 44" printer currently available
« Reply #24 on: December 27, 2016, 09:19:22 am »

I wouldn't give much weight to the cited "test review" which was commissioned by Canon, no less. There are so many other variables that can have an impact on print quality, including using custom ICC profiles over generic profiles.

ken

There are certain scientific and methodological principles and procedures that need to be applied to the comparative testing of complex equipment whose performance could be affected by a variety of factors. To mention some key ones for clarity on what I mean, firstly, the object or objects of the test need to specified in objective terms. Secondly the testing procedure needs to be capable of replication and validation. Thirdly, it is most important to isolate, by neutralizing them or keeping them the same, all extraneous variables so that cause and effect can be isolated with confidence. This would take care of the "other variables" issue you mention above.

Regarding integrity, BLI has been in this business for over fifty years using a network of two labs and 40,000 professionals world-wide. They say they've tested 15,000 products in the digital imaging and document management fields. So I would be inclined to at least take them seriously regardless of who pays for their services and to examine their report on these printers for adherence to the basic principles and procedures that make for valid reporting. If they've done the work correctly, fine; if they haven't the report would be inadequate. I have downloaded this report but not examined it in detail yet. I intend to. My question to you is whether - before smearing this report - you have, and whether you have found specific methodological defects that would point to bias or inadequacy in their reporting. If you have, please let us know what you think they are.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11303
    • Echophoto
Re: Best 44" printer currently available
« Reply #25 on: December 27, 2016, 10:20:23 am »

Hi Mark,

Thanks for making those points. It is far to easy to shoot the messenger when you don't like the message.

Best regards
Erik

There are certain scientific and methodological principles and procedures that need to be applied to the comparative testing of complex equipment whose performance could be affected by a variety of factors. To mention some key ones for clarity on what I mean, firstly, the object or objects of the test need to specified in objective terms. Secondly the testing procedure needs to be capable of replication and validation. Thirdly, it is most important to isolate, by neutralizing them or keeping them the same, all extraneous variables so that cause and effect can be isolated with confidence. This would take care of the "other variables" issue you mention above.

Regarding integrity, BLI has been in this business for over fifty years using a network of two labs and 40,000 professionals world-wide. They say they've tested 15,000 products in the digital imaging and document management fields. So I would be inclined to at least take them seriously regardless of who pays for their services and to examine their report on these printers for adherence to the basic principles and procedures that make for valid reporting. If they've done the work correctly, fine; if they haven't the report would be inadequate. I have downloaded this report but not examined it in detail yet. I intend to. My question to you is whether - before smearing this report - you have, and whether you have found specific methodological defects that would point to bias or inadequacy in their reporting. If you have, please let us know what you think they are.
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Ken Doo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1070
    • Carmel Fine Art Printing & Reproduction
Re: Best 44" printer currently available
« Reply #26 on: December 27, 2016, 11:19:36 am »

It's not "smearing" the report---I am simply stating to take the report with a grain of salt. This is no different an expectation for any product that you intend to purchase with a purported review that has been sponsored, (as in paid for") by the manufacturer of the product being sold.  It's not a difficult concept here. I would take exactly the same type of approach had Epson or HP sponsored a test/review with similar results. I don't need to indict the source nor dig into the minutia of BLI's review further.

I simply find independent studies/tests/reviews much more compelling. And above all, subjective personal use/desires/requirements and experience should drive the investment decision. imo

It's not a novel approach.

Ken

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Best 44" printer currently available
« Reply #27 on: December 27, 2016, 11:25:10 am »

It's not "smearing" the report---I am simply stating to take the report with a grain of salt. This is no different an expectation for any product that you intend to purchase with a purported review that has been sponsored, (as in paid for") by the manufacturer of the product being sold.  It's not a difficult concept here. I would take exactly the same type of approach had Epson or HP sponsored a test/review with similar results. I don't need to indict the source nor dig into the minutia of BLI's review further.

I simply find independent studies/tests/reviews much more compelling. And above all, subjective personal use/desires/requirements and experience should drive the investment decision. imo

It's not a novel approach.

Ken

Telling the world to take such a report with a "grain of salt" reads pretty much to me like a smear, but I won't quibble over semantics. You seem unwilling to answer my question, but rather pivot around it by repeating your inference that the source of support necessarily renders the report unworthy of serious attention. What you're saying of course is not out of the question, but I'll choose to disagree by saying it deserves much more serious scrutiny than you are prepared to give it.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11303
    • Echophoto
Re: Best 44" printer currently available
« Reply #28 on: December 27, 2016, 12:19:33 pm »

Hi Ken,

The problem is that subjective test are, well, subjective. Testing by fanboys is far more subjective than testing by a lab.

I am pretty sure that Canon hast tasked BLI with the comparison test as they were fairly sure they would win. It is really easy, if you win you publish the results if you come in as number two than you analyse the findings, put the report in the archive and improve your product.

One very obvious difference was that the Canon used much less ink, that may have a significance regarding ink costs over the printers lifetime. The lab did not report on clogging issues on either. Canon's print heads are user changeable so that is probably a benefit.

The report also indicated that the Canon had less aliasing on fonts and fine detail, indicating that the Epson driver is not interpolating very well. But that is no new knowledge as we have been informed on that issue by Jeff Schewe many times.

Regarding photographic printing I think the impression was that they were quite close, with a small win for the Canon.

An area where canon came to advantage was speed. That may matter for a throughput oriented operation.

The executive summary was a bit single sided, I would say.

Best regards
Erik


It's not "smearing" the report---I am simply stating to take the report with a grain of salt. This is no different an expectation for any product that you intend to purchase with a purported review that has been sponsored, (as in paid for") by the manufacturer of the product being sold.  It's not a difficult concept here. I would take exactly the same type of approach had Epson or HP sponsored a test/review with similar results. I don't need to indict the source nor dig into the minutia of BLI's review further.

I simply find independent studies/tests/reviews much more compelling. And above all, subjective personal use/desires/requirements and experience should drive the investment decision. imo

It's not a novel approach.

Ken
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

tastar

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 77
    • http://www.tastarsupply.com
Re: Best 44" printer currently available
« Reply #29 on: December 27, 2016, 08:10:28 pm »

Specific criticisms of the BLI report (the items in quotes are from the report):

"...the Epson model's ink consumption is that some ink will be used in the process of changing from matte black to photo black inks (or vice versa), as they share the same printhead."
   -the matte black inks share the same printhead on both printers - and generally it didn't seem like the reviewers really understood printers.
"Both models produced excellent colour gamuts on photo paper, with the Canon delivering a slightly smaller (by 8.9%) gamut than that of the Epson model."
   -I would say that a gamut that is 8.9 percent smaller is pretty significant.
"quality set to Highest (1200 dpi) on the Canon model, and the Epson model set to Max Quality Level 5 (2880 x 1440 dpi)"
   -I don't know Canon printers - but does this mean that the Canon was printing at 1200 x 1200, and why wasn't it compared to Epson's 1440 x 1440 setting? Seems like more of a match to me, and ink consumption could be considerably different at a different resolution.
"the Canon PRO-2000 has the overall edge with its more vibrant colours, sharper detailing and crisper text and fine lines."
   -when they say the Canon produced more vibrant colors, why didn't they mention how the colors matched the original that was being printed. More vibrant, if it doesn't match the original is not a good thing. And, why didn't the report show the test images that were used?
"...measured using EFI Colour Verifier software, the Epson device delivered a much lower mean Delta E drift of 0.8 than the Canon unit's mean Delta E, which was 6.0."
   -They didn't mention that they were printing with the EFI RIP, but as far as I know, in order to use EFI's Color Verifier, printing needs to be done with the RIP. And, a Delta E of 6.0 is absolutely terrible, while 0.8 is incredibly consistent and stable.
"The Canon model exhibited very good, natural-looking skin tones in photographic images, while the Epson unit produced skin tones that were flat and pale in comparison."
   -But, did the Canon prints match the originals?
"Yet, Canon users can use the PPR-2000's standard calibration features will allow users to calibrate the printer not only with the manufacturer's own-brand or genuine paper, but other media brands as well, while administrators can control colour and monitor the calibration status across the PRO-1000/2000/4000 series via Canon's free Device Management Console utility to ensure colour consistency."
   From Northlight Images review on Canon's standard calibration: "This ensures that your printer is working at a known standard of performance. It is NOT the same as ICC paper profiling and the printer cannot do this." The Northlight Images review is here.

The review doesn't even mention the Chroma Optimizer - maybe it was turned off for the ink usage tests, and at 290.00 per 700ml cartridge, I would say that is a significant omission. Also, Epson 700ml ink is 21 percent less expensive than the Canon ink. This cost difference wasn't considered, and if Chroma Optimizer usage was ignored, the Canon's cost is probably on par with the Epson or even more expensive.

It really seems like the BLI review was done to please their customer (Canon) and wasn't at all objective. I just wouldn't trust it. But, after reading Northlight Images review, it does seem to be a decent printer, but absolutely not the best printer that was ever made.

Also, I'm just trying to make this discussion a little more factual. Please don't tear me apart!

thank you.

Tony
Logged

Abdo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 146
    • Abdo Abdala - Photography
Re: Best 44" printer currently available
« Reply #30 on: December 27, 2016, 09:15:54 pm »

Show where the report is inconsistent!

We can not accuse without proving something to the contrary.




It's not "smearing" the report---I am simply stating to take the report with a grain of salt. This is no different an expectation for any product that you intend to purchase with a purported review that has been sponsored, (as in paid for") by the manufacturer of the product being sold.  It's not a difficult concept here. I would take exactly the same type of approach had Epson or HP sponsored a test/review with similar results. I don't need to indict the source nor dig into the minutia of BLI's review further.

I simply find independent studies/tests/reviews much more compelling. And above all, subjective personal use/desires/requirements and experience should drive the investment decision. imo

It's not a novel approach.

Ken

Abdo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 146
    • Abdo Abdala - Photography
Re: Best 44" printer currently available
« Reply #31 on: December 27, 2016, 09:20:08 pm »

Exact,

I was an Epson user, the service is very bad all over the world.
The Matte Black and Photo Black swap system is terrible.
Consumption is fact is greater! This I have experienced.
The heads do not even have to say much, Epson is terrible!
In addition to the report buy everything I've tried with Epson.

Att


Hi Ken,

The problem is that subjective test are, well, subjective. Testing by fanboys is far more subjective than testing by a lab.

I am pretty sure that Canon hast tasked BLI with the comparison test as they were fairly sure they would win. It is really easy, if you win you publish the results if you come in as number two than you analyse the findings, put the report in the archive and improve your product.

One very obvious difference was that the Canon used much less ink, that may have a significance regarding ink costs over the printers lifetime. The lab did not report on clogging issues on either. Canon's print heads are user changeable so that is probably a benefit.

The report also indicated that the Canon had less aliasing on fonts and fine detail, indicating that the Epson driver is not interpolating very well. But that is no new knowledge as we have been informed on that issue by Jeff Schewe many times.

Regarding photographic printing I think the impression was that they were quite close, with a small win for the Canon.

An area where canon came to advantage was speed. That may matter for a throughput oriented operation.

The executive summary was a bit single sided, I would say.

Best regards
Erik

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Best 44" printer currently available
« Reply #32 on: December 27, 2016, 10:11:20 pm »

Exact,

I was an Epson user, the service is very bad all over the world.
The Matte Black and Photo Black swap system is terrible.
Consumption is fact is greater! This I have experienced.
The heads do not even have to say much, Epson is terrible!
In addition to the report buy everything I've tried with Epson.

Att

Have you tried Epson service all over the world?
I have used Epson service at one time or another for every Epson printer I've owned (Canada) and I can confirm that I received very good, correct service from Epson.
The MK/PK ink switching is a nuisance which I too wish they had designed out of a long time ago, but saying the system is "terrible" is a bit of a stretch.

When you say "consumption is greater", please explain how you have tested this, and whether it includes ink for both printing and maintenance.

I simply don't understand your last two lines. What did you mean to say?
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

jrsforums

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1163
Re: Best 44" printer currently available
« Reply #33 on: December 27, 2016, 10:30:12 pm »

Specific criticisms of the BLI report (the items in quotes are from the report):

"...the Epson model's ink consumption is that some ink will be used in the process of changing from matte black to photo black inks (or vice versa), as they share the same printhead."
   -the matte black inks share the same printhead on both printers - and generally it didn't seem like the reviewers really understood printers.
On Epson, photo and matteshare same nozzles, so lines must be purged and refilled
Quote
"Both models produced excellent colour gamuts on photo paper, with the Canon delivering a slightly smaller (by 8.9%) gamut than that of the Epson model."
   -I would say that a gamut that is 8.9 percent smaller is pretty significant.
"quality set to Highest (1200 dpi) on the Canon model, and the Epson model set to Max Quality Level 5 (2880 x 1440 dpi)"
   -I don't know Canon printers - but does this mean that the Canon was printing at 1200 x 1200, and why wasn't it compared to Epson's 1440 x 1440 setting? Seems like more of a match to me, and ink consumption could be considerably different at a different resolution.
They were just, using inaccurate terms, stating that they used each printers highest quality settings.
Quote
"the Canon PRO-2000 has the overall edge with its more vibrant colours, sharper detailing and crisper text and fine lines."
   -when they say the Canon produced more vibrant colors, why didn't they mention how the colors matched the original that was being printed. More vibrant, if it doesn't match the original is not a good thing. And, why didn't the report show the test images that were used?
"...measured using EFI Colour Verifier software, the Epson device delivered a much lower mean Delta E drift of 0.8 than the Canon unit's mean Delta E, which was 6.0."
   -They didn't mention that they were printing with the EFI RIP, but as far as I know, in order to use EFI's Color Verifier, printing needs to be done with the RIP. And, a Delta E of 6.0 is absolutely terrible, while 0.8 is incredibly consistent and stable.
"The Canon model exhibited very good, natural-looking skin tones in photographic images, while the Epson unit produced skin tones that were flat and pale in comparison."
   -But, did the Canon prints match the originals?
"Yet, Canon users can use the PPR-2000's standard calibration features will allow users to calibrate the printer not only with the manufacturer's own-brand or genuine paper, but other media brands as well, while administrators can control colour and monitor the calibration status across the PRO-1000/2000/4000 series via Canon's free Device Management Console utility to ensure colour consistency."
A slightly unclear way to say that consistency can be maintained across all printers if required.
Quote
   From Northlight Images review on Canon's standard calibration: "This ensures that your printer is working at a known standard of performance. It is NOT the same as ICC paper profiling and the printer cannot do this." The Northlight Images review is here.

The review doesn't even mention the Chroma Optimizer - maybe it was turned off for the ink usage tests, and at 290.00 per 700ml cartridge, I would say that is a significant omission. Also, Epson 700ml ink is 21 percent less expensive than the Canon ink. This cost difference wasn't considered, and if Chroma Optimizer usage was ignored, the Canon's cost is probably on par with the Epson or even more expensive.

It really seems like the BLI review was done to please their customer (Canon) and wasn't at all objective. I just wouldn't trust it. But, after reading Northlight Images review, it does seem to be a decent printer, but absolutely not the best printer that was ever made.

Also, I'm just trying to make this discussion a little more factual. Please don't tear me apart!

thank you.

Tony

The subjective pieces we consistent with many of the other Canon reviews and Epson comparisons.  You seems to want a scientific justification for their subjective jusgments, E.g good skin tone and vibrant color.

This is the only review where I have seen measurements of ink usage, so is quite valuable.  With more cartridges, assuming equivalent cost per, the Canon will have higher initial investment due to more carts.  However, if the usage is correct, the carts should last quite longer, so overall costs would be lower.

Obviously a lot of detail is missing from this high level report.  Not sure many of us would want to slog through the details.  The weight of the reviews I have read seem to say Canon has a winner.
Logged
John

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Best 44" printer currently available
« Reply #34 on: December 27, 2016, 10:37:01 pm »

Specific criticisms of the BLI report (the items in quotes are from the report):I HAVE ENTERED MY FEEDBACK IN BOLD BLACK WHERE THE MATTERS ARISE FOR EASE OF DISTINCTION FROM YOUR COMMENTS.

"...the Epson model's ink consumption is that some ink will be used in the process of changing from matte black to photo black inks (or vice versa), as they share the same printhead."
   -the matte black inks share the same printhead on both printers - and generally it didn't seem like the reviewers really understood printers. OR MAYBE IT WAS A SLIP AND THE WRITER MEANT TO SAY "CHANNEL".
"Both models produced excellent colour gamuts on photo paper, with the Canon delivering a slightly smaller (by 8.9%) gamut than that of the Epson model."
   -I would say that a gamut that is 8.9 percent smaller is pretty significant. NOT REALLY. IT DEPENDS ON THE COLOURS IN THE PHOTO. FOR MOST PHOTOS IT WOULD BE UNNOTICED.
"quality set to Highest (1200 dpi) on the Canon model, and the Epson model set to Max Quality Level 5 (2880 x 1440 dpi)"
   -I don't know Canon printers - but does this mean that the Canon was printing at 1200 x 1200, and why wasn't it compared to Epson's 1440 x 1440 setting? Seems like more of a match to me, and ink consumption could be considerably different at a different resolution. OBVIOUSLY THEY WERE COMPARING MAXIMUM DPI FOR BOTH PRINTERS, WHICH HAPPENS TO BE A BIT DIFFERENT, AND NO THIS NEED NOT AFFECT INK CONSUMPTION
"the Canon PRO-2000 has the overall edge with its more vibrant colours, sharper detailing and crisper text and fine lines."
   -when they say the Canon produced more vibrant colors, why didn't they mention how the colors matched the original that was being printed. More vibrant, if it doesn't match the original is not a good thing. COLOUR ACCURACY AND COLOUR APPEARANCE ARE TWO SEPARATE PHENOMENA AND NEITHER YOU NOR THE BLI REPORT SHOULD CONFUSE THEM.And, why didn't the report show the test images that were used?
"...measured using EFI Colour Verifier software, the Epson device delivered a much lower mean Delta E drift of 0.8 than the Canon unit's mean Delta E, which was 6.0."
   -They didn't mention that they were printing with the EFI RIP, but as far as I know, in order to use EFI's Color Verifier, printing needs to be done with the RIP. And, a Delta E of 6.0 is absolutely terrible, while 0.8 is incredibly consistent and stable.AND WHY DIDN'T YOU QUOTE THE REMAINDER OF THAT PARAGRAPH TO THE EFFECT THAT THEY WERE TESTING A PRE-PRODUCTION PRINTER HAVING A PRE-MATURED MECHANICAL STRUCTURE
"The Canon model exhibited very good, natural-looking skin tones in photographic images, while the Epson unit produced skin tones that were flat and pale in comparison."
   -But, did the Canon prints match the originals? AGAIN, SEPARATE QUESTION FROM COLOR APPEARANCE; THEY ARE TALKING APPEARANCE HERE, NOT ACCURACY.
"Yet, Canon users can use the PPR-2000's standard calibration features will allow users to calibrate the printer not only with the manufacturer's own-brand or genuine paper, but other media brands as well, while administrators can control colour and monitor the calibration status across the PRO-1000/2000/4000 series via Canon's free Device Management Console utility to ensure colour consistency."
   From Northlight Images review on Canon's standard calibration: "This ensures that your printer is working at a known standard of performance. It is NOT the same as ICC paper profiling and the printer cannot do this." The Northlight Images review is here.THIS COMMENT DOESN'T ADDRESS THE POINT BLI IS MAKING. BLI ISN'T TALKING ABOUT PROFILING, THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT CALIBRATION. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME. 

The review doesn't even mention the Chroma Optimizer - maybe it was turned off for the ink usage tests, and at 290.00 per 700ml cartridge, I would say that is a significant omission. Also, Epson 700ml ink is 21 percent less expensive than the Canon ink. This cost difference wasn't considered, and if Chroma Optimizer usage was ignored, the Canon's cost is probably on par with the Epson or even more expensive. CHROMA OPTIMIZER IS PART OF THE CANON INK SET AND WOULD/SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN INK COSTS. PERHAPS THEY ASSUME THIS AND THEREFORE NEED NOT SINGLE IT OUT FOR MENTION. AS FOR THE COMPARATIVE COST OF INK, THAT PROBABLY DEPENDS IN PART ON WHERE ONE BUYS IT, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY AND MORE RELEVANT - I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN A REPRESENTATIVE AVERAGE COST PER SQUARE FOOT OF INK COVERAGE INCLUDING MAINTENANCE OVER AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME, AND THAT KIND OF INFORMATION IS SIMPLY NOT AVAILABLE YET.

It really seems like the BLI review was done to please their customer (Canon) and wasn't at all objective. I just wouldn't trust it. But, after reading Northlight Images review, it does seem to be a decent printer, but absolutely not the best printer that was ever made.

Also, I'm just trying to make this discussion a little more factual. BUT THE FIRST SENTENCE OF THE PREVIOUS PARAGRAPH IS YOUR INFERENCE OR OPINION, NOT A FACT. Please don't tear me apart! OF COURSE NOT; BUT I WOULD HOPE YOUR READERS ARE PERMITTED TO POINT OUT SOME AREAS OF YOUR ATTEMPT TO BE FACTUAL THAT MAY NOT BE ENTIRELY "ON POINT"; THAT SAID, GOOD THAT YOU HAVE MADE THE EFFORT TO DIGEST THIS REPORT AND RAISE MATTERS THAT YOU CONSIDER TO BE PROBLEMATIC.

thank you.

Tony
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

John Hollenberg

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1103
Re: Best 44" printer currently available
« Reply #35 on: December 27, 2016, 11:30:24 pm »

Quote
"The Canon model exhibited very good, natural-looking skin tones in photographic images, while the Epson unit produced skin tones that were flat and pale in comparison."

So they compared the printers using different papers and (presumably, doesn't say) manufacturers profiles and found one was subjectively more pleasing than the other.

This tells me that if I use this specific Canon paper on the Canon printer and have exactly the same aesthetic taste as the reviewers I will be happier with the Canon than the Epson.  In other words, meaningless information for most of us, especially since we haven't seen the images, and would want a level playing field to do a comparison (same paper in each printer, high quality custom profiles for each printer/paper combination).  Not impressed by this "commissioned review"--and that is from a dyed in the wool Canon printer owner.

Logged

kevinmcdnyc

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 34
Re: Best 44" printer currently available
« Reply #36 on: December 27, 2016, 11:52:03 pm »

Has Canon ever released the ink longevity numbers for the Pro-2000 or 4000?  I had heard that the Wilhelm Research numbers would be released in September. Yet obviously that date has come and gone and still nothing.
Logged

deanwork

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1983
Re: Best 44" printer currently available
« Reply #37 on: December 28, 2016, 09:43:38 am »

Yea, Wilhelm hasn't released the numbers for the new Epson inkset either. Both companies want him to suggest things that he hasn't finished evaluating yet.  It seems to me Epson and Canon should have had these tests finished long before they released the printers, like HP did with the Z series a decade ago, that still out performs them on some media by a factor of 2x. Fade testing shouldn't be an after thought.

As to which 44' printer to buy, at this point no one knows. The new Canon and Epson printers haven't been around long enough to see what is up and the fade tests aren't in. I don't believe any preliminary results. If he knew he wouldn't have to test them.

1. The permanence of the new Canon Lucia Pro ink is in question, we just don't know. And the new head design hadn't been around long enough to see how it functions either, having one head instead of two. How long will the heads last and how much ink will they waste? We can speculate but we don't know.

2. As for Epson we don't know if their "new and improved" ( everything is always new and improved for Epson ) head designs are really cutting down on the horrible ink waste the 9900 series was exhibiting, along with all the ink pressure issues and over all bad quality control.  I hope they are greatly improved, if so I might buy one. Will the totally redesigned heads of the P10K show us a whole new capability of piezzo head reliability?  We don't know the answer to any of these questions.  We just have sales gossip so far. My strategy is to wait 1 year before buying anything that has been redesigned. Sometimes redesigning things is really a way to improve them in a minor way or a major way, and sometimes it is just a sales gimmic. I have always found the service people Epson uses at Decision One to be totally unreliable, going around replacing expensive parts with expensive labor until the problem might be solved. I always found the Canon and HP techs to be great and fast. But other parts of the country and the world may show the opposite experience.

The only printer out there now with a track record you can evaluate is the Z3200. They used to have fantastic warranty protection. I don't know about now.

John





Has Canon ever released the ink longevity numbers for the Pro-2000 or 4000?  I had heard that the Wilhelm Research numbers would be released in September. Yet obviously that date has come and gone and still nothing.
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Best 44" printer currently available
« Reply #38 on: December 28, 2016, 09:45:58 am »

So they compared the printers using different papers and (presumably, doesn't say) manufacturers profiles and found one was subjectively more pleasing than the other.

This tells me that if I use this specific Canon paper on the Canon printer and have exactly the same aesthetic taste as the reviewers I will be happier with the Canon than the Epson.  In other words, meaningless information for most of us, especially since we haven't seen the images, and would want a level playing field to do a comparison (same paper in each printer, high quality custom profiles for each printer/paper combination).  Not impressed by this "commissioned review"--and that is from a dyed in the wool Canon printer owner.

Hi John,

I've not delved into this report in detail yet (which I intend to do soon), however in skimming through it, that statement you pulled up struck me also as complete nonsense; Epson professional printers are capable of delivering fine skin tones; so much of this depends on the quality of profiling and the papers used, but more forcefully the profiling - and image editing. But then if you read further up the page they kind of contradict themselves, so no - that part of it (for starters) is "not brilliant".
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

John Hollenberg

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1103
Re: Best 44" printer currently available
« Reply #39 on: December 28, 2016, 10:19:36 am »

I've not delved into this report in detail yet (which I intend to do soon), however in skimming through it, that statement you pulled up struck me also as complete nonsense

It is that sort of nonsense that makes the entire review suspect.  There is no way an independent reviewer who was not paid by one of the manufacturers would make a statement like that, especially without any supporting evidence and detailed discussion of methods to insure a level playing field.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Up