Observations on Chroma Optimizer (“CO”) Usage Canon Pro-1000 Printer

[Panagiotis]

I fully understand. I just don't understand the ongoing purpose of this exercise. I have owned many photo printers. My pro-1000 cost per page doesn't seem any different than it was for my previous printers.

So all your other printers for any ml of ink they put on paper sent another one or more to the waste tank? Do you have any data to support that?

Moreover, isn't it possible that either there was a problem with earlier manufacturer dates, or perhaps a specific issue with yours?

No it's not only mine. The participants in this thread are affected also and most probably your printer is the same too.

It's clear that the maintenance tank fills up quicker than my Epson, but I am not sure if they are the same capacity. 

If you are not sure then you can't compare them.

Again, I just want to understand what is the end goal of this thread.  Thank you.

Goals:
1. Make Canon notice the issue. Don't forget that during this thread Canon posted a firmware (2.040) addressing the excessive consumption of the "CO" ink.
2. Inform potential buyers of the printer.
3. Calculate as precisely as possible the printing costs with this printer. You cannot rely only on data reported by the Accounting Manager application. Maybe this isn't important for you but it is for me and I will continue to track it and report it here for anyone interested.

[Mark D Segal]

Goals:

3. Calculate as precisely as possible the printing costs with this printer. You cannot rely only on data reported by the Accounting Manager application. Maybe this isn't important for you but it is for me and I will continue to track it and report it here for anyone interested.

There was a time when I focused a lot on this question of how much it costs to make a print. This is useful to some people but not others. For people selling prints that customers pay hundreds of dollars for, it's insignificant whether the ink costs 2 dollars or 4 dollars. For service bureaux and hobbyists on a budget, it's a much bigger deal and worthwhile knowing.

The problem is, however, that the printer manufacturers - all of them - have ensured that we cannot know this with any precision unless we go the trouble of keeping careful records matching the square footage (or square meters) of printing with the weight of the waste tank and using a specific gravity factor for converting that weight into fluid ml. It is good that some such as yourself are doing this, because if the companies themselves are not willing to be transparent on this matter, the customers will be transparent with each other. This of course is a lose-lose proposition for the printer manufacturers because they lose control or influence over this information that affects the public perception of their products. That they seem unwilling to understand this and find ways of dealing with it never fails to amaze me, but that's where we are with it. I would add that whether we are dealing with Epson or Canon printers, they all consume lots of ink for maintenance. Unfortunately so far there is no other way. Best to admit it and be open about it. When one discusses this with the companies, they do correctly point out that maintenance consumption varies widely depending on a number of factors they don't control, so there is no one number that will be true for all users and they don't want to publish information that will mislead a large number of customers. I agree with them about the obvious existence of this issue. The way to deal with it is to publish ranges (from "this" to "that" depending on X, Y and Z) and educate consumers that these are estimates they won't be hung-out to dry on. At least it would provide a ballpark within which to begin knowing how to improve on waste and whether the printer is performing roughly according to normal expectations for the conditions at hand.

[Panagiotis]

There was a time when I focused a lot on this question of how much it costs to make a print. This is useful to some people but not others. For people selling prints that customers pay hundreds of dollars for, it's insignificant whether the ink costs 2 dollars or 4 dollars. For service bureaux and hobbyists on a budget, it's a much bigger deal and worthwhile knowing.

The problem is, however, that the printer manufacturers - all of them - have ensured that we cannot know this with any precision unless we go the trouble of keeping careful records matching the square footage (or square meters) of printing with the weight of the waste tank and using a specific gravity factor for converting that weight into fluid ml. It is good that some such as yourself are doing this, because if the companies themselves are not willing to be transparent on this matter, the customers will be transparent with each other. This of course is a lose-lose proposition for the printer manufacturers because they lose control or influence over this information that affects the public perception of their products. That they seem unwilling to understand this and find ways of dealing with it never fails to amaze me, but that's where we are with it. I would add that whether we are dealing with Epson or Canon printers, they all consume lots of ink for maintenance. Unfortunately so far there is no other way. Best to admit it and be open about it. When one discusses this with the companies, they do correctly point out that maintenance consumption varies widely depending on a number of factors they don't control, so there is no one number that will be true for all users and they don't want to publish information that will mislead a large number of customers. I agree with them about the obvious existence of this issue. The way to deal with it is to publish ranges (from "this" to "that" depending on X, Y and Z) and educate consumers that these are estimates they won't be hung-out to dry on. At least it would provide a ballpark within which to begin knowing how to improve on waste and whether the printer is performing roughly according to normal expectations for the conditions at hand.

Thank you for your input.
Let's not forget that the printer in question is a relative affordable desktop printer which is going to be purchased by a big number of people including hobbyists. If someone eg prints only 4-5 prints a month most of the ink will be eventually end in the waste tank. This information IMO must be known before the purchase. I cannot imagine that there is not a way for Canon (or any other company) to statistically calculate and present it in an official document. After all they are collecting data from every individual printer. I see it in my PC from time to time when the relevant application is sending usage data...

[Mark D Segal]

I would go further and suggest that with the extensive amount of testing they do before any new printer model is released to market they know just about everything there is to know about how it consumes ink for whatever purpose under just about whatever operating conditions. The problem for them is how to publish this information in a manner that won't end-up in them being taken to court. Staying out of legal trouble is a prime mover of much corporate behaviour. I think there must be ways to do it safely, but I'm not a corporate lawyer. The other reason for not publishing of course is fear of the competition, but it is exactly here where publishing the information may just be a good commercial move. It builds trust and gives them a hand in how the product is perceived in this respect. And if they had to compete with each other on ways to see consumers minimizing waste, that is good for us and good for the environment.

[loganross]

Fully understood, and your efforts are appreciated. I am still wondering how wide spread the issue is.

Mark,
Given your affiliation with LL, isn't it possible for you to reach out to Canon?  It seems that after more than a year of testing, either there is a problem, or there isn't (I think the printer model is almost 2 years old?); And if there is, there should be a focus on convincing Canon (unless we think observations will change going forward).

I still think "RELATIVE" cost per print is the right metric.  That should be what everyone is concerned about.  Most processes have waste, and there are too many variables to know whether measuring waste tank content is relevant at all.  Canon has their own ink set and print tech. Perhaps greater amounts of ink are intended to go to the waste cartridge, but less ink is needed for the page than would be for competitors.  Yes, both Epson and Canon use 80ml cartridges priced about the same, but that might be driven by sales/marketing strategy on the part of Canon.  My point is this: I am not sure any metric other "RELATIVE" ink cost/ per page matters in the end.  For technological reasons, focusing on the waste tank may be a red herring.  BTW, by "RELATIVE", I mean relative to competitive products.

I would go further and suggest that with the extensive amount of testing they do before any new printer model is released to market they know just about everything there is to know about how it consumes ink for whatever purpose under just about whatever operating conditions. The problem for them is how to publish this information in a manner that won't end-up in them being taken to court. Staying out of legal trouble is a prime mover of much corporate behaviour. I think there must be ways to do it safely, but I'm not a corporate lawyer. The other reason for not publishing of course is fear of the competition, but it is exactly here where publishing the information may just be a good commercial move. It builds trust and gives them a hand in how the product is perceived in this respect. And if they had to compete with each other on ways to see consumers minimizing waste, that is good for us and good for the environment.

[Mark D Segal]

Logan,

I reached the end of the road discussing this with both companies quite some time ago. Waste of time raising it with them yet again. They know the issues and it's up to them. You and I and a number of others on this website may think it would be a good idea to publish this information, but if there isn't traction for it amongst the broader customer base, they have no incentive to invest in the resources, which could be considerable in terms of peoples' time, to make it happen. They will certainly not publish comparisons with other companies' products - that is playing with fire. The best one could expect is that they will do their own. Other people may then be able to make comparisons if the eventual data would be comparable.

For any one wanting to know the comprehensive cost of ink for making a print, one needs to include for both the ink that goes onto paper and the ink that goes into the tank, because I know from the testing I and others have done that the amounts for the latter are considerable.

[loganross]

BTW, I do want to make clear that the work done in the past relating to this thread is really appreciated. It may be a case of both sides are right. IOW, the waste tanks do fill up fast, but that is by design and not relevant to cost/print.

What I do think is fair game, is the question of cleaning cycles wasting ink for low volume periodic printing.  In the end, that too may be a management issue for customers.  For example, making sure to print one page per week (even if automated via QImage or the like) and not turning off the printer. 

Considering that a tolerable trade-off given the quality of the output, I think that is a reasonable work around.  Let's not forget that this printer is definitely not targeted to causual end users.  The competitors have there quirks as well, including Epsons.

[Mark D Segal]

What goes into the waste tank definitely IS relevant to the cost per print. And it should not be left to discussion forums to know how to minimize maintenance waste. The printer manuals should lay out these considerations in enough detail for customers to be able to manage their printing habits accordingly. And yes agreed, all of them consume ink for maintenance - the technology requires it.

[loganross]

Thanks.  For me personally,  it is straight forward: "About how many prints do I get between cartridge changes? And am I happy with the answer I get?".  So far, my experience is about the same or more than when I was using my Epsons.

So it's like fuel for a car. Back when no cars were fuel efficient, or when the fuel efficient ones didn't meet my driving/transport needs, I had three choices: pick from available options, drive less, or don't drive at all.   But once fuel efficient options appeared that also met my requirements, I could have my cake and eat it too.

Logan,

I reached the end of the road discussing this with both companies quite some time ago. Waste of time raising it with them yet again. They know the issues and it's up to them. You and I and a number of others on this website may think it would be a good idea to publish this information, but if there isn't traction for it amongst the broader customer base, they have no incentive to invest in the resources, which could be considerable in terms of peoples' time, to make it happen. They will certainly not publish comparisons with other companies' products - that is playing with fire. The best one could expect is that they will do their own. Other people may then be able to make comparisons if the eventual data would be comparable.

For any one wanting to know the comprehensive cost of ink for making a print, one needs to include for both the ink that goes onto paper and the ink that goes into the tank, because I know from the testing I and others have done that the amounts for the latter are considerable.

[loganross]

I respectfully disagree. If I have an Epson printer and a Canon printer and both get about the same number of equal size prints out of their 80ml cartridge set, it is not relevant that one printer has more ink in the waste tank than the other.

However, I would agree that where it would be relevant is where the tank is filling up without printing (i.e., cleaning cycles).

What goes into the waste tank definitely IS relevant to the cost per print. And it should not be left to discussion forums to know how to minimize maintenance waste. The printer manuals should lay out these considerations in enough detail for customers to be able to manage their printing habits accordingly. And yes agreed, all of them consume ink for maintenance - the technology requires it.

[loganross]

I am not seeing massive depletion of ink due to maintenance.  Perhaps it warrants RMA for those people that are?

I respectfully disagree. If I have an Epson printer and a Canon printer and both get about the same number of equal size prints out of their 80ml cartridge set, it is not relevant that one printer has more ink in the waste tank than the other.

However, I would agree that where it would be relevant is where the tank is filling up without printing (i.e., cleaning cycles).

[Mark D Segal]

The main point of knowing how much ink is being expended for maintenance under what conditions is to understand how to minimize waste and how much the waste is costing. You don't get that insight comparing an Epson with a Canon or just knowing how many prints you make on how many cartridges, which is tough because they all empty at different rates anyhow.

[TonyW]

What goes into the waste tank definitely IS relevant to the cost per print. And it should not be left to discussion forums to know how to minimize maintenance waste. The printer manuals should lay out these considerations in enough detail for customers to be able to manage their printing habits accordingly. And yes agreed, all of them consume ink for maintenance - the technology requires it.

Absolute agreement, it would be a wonderful if manufacturers were upfront about maintenance waste, and ways to minimise safely.

Recently purchased an Epson P800 after much weighing pros and cons of this system vs Canon Pro 1000.  I have to say a difficult call to make with two main things swinging it for me.  First the panoramic option and the offer roll holder and secondlly feeling that I may have better control of maintenance cycles and control of ink waste.  Only time will tell if this decision is a sound one

[loganross]

Thanks for your reply. I still don't understand your analysis though. Let's set the maintenance cycle waste aside as I have already agreed that could be an issue (although it has not been an issue in any way for me).  What else matters other than cost per print?

Lets assume that the ink cartridges for PRINTERS 1 and 2 cost about the same.  If by design, PRINTER 1 uses X% of a cartridge for prints, and Y% to excess, and PRINTER 2 uses Y% of a cartridge for prints, and X% to excess, but both printers print about the same number of prints from a cartridge, why would we care as photographers about which percentage goes where? 

Of course we can say that printers should be more efficient, just as we say for cars.  That is different than saying there is a defect.

 Likewise if there are management solutions for dealing with cleaning cycles waste, we could focus on giving definitive guidance in a concise manner to people on this forum.  I have followed the guidance here and I am not seeing any issues whatsoever.

The main point of knowing how much ink is being expended for maintenance under what conditions is to understand how to minimize waste and how much the waste is costing. You don't get that insight comparing an Epson with a Canon or just knowing how many prints you make on how many cartridges, which is tough because they all empty at different rates anyhow.

[Panagiotis]

Thanks for your reply. I still don't understand your analysis though. Let's set the maintenance cycle waste aside as I have already agreed that could be an issue (although it has not been an issue in any way for me).

How long do you own the printer? How many maintenance tanks? Have you ever encounter a cleaning event like this shown in the following video? In this particular case the printer sent to the maintenance tank 58gr of ink. Mine did this three times until now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVz0dA9Lz9E

[Mark D Segal]

If an algorithm can be (and is) designed to tell you how much ink is being sprayed onto paper, it can also be designed to tell you how much ink is going into the maintenance tank. You only know with certainty how much is being wasted by knowing how much is being wasted, and you only know how much waste can be reduced if the manufacturer tells you what's being wasted and also tells you how to manage the printer to minimize it. Both companies are not doing either and both companies are capable of doing both. In fact back in the days of the Epson 4000 you got total ink used on each nozzle check printout, so you could subtract the latest one from the immediately previous one and easily see how much ink for all purposes was used for what you printed between nozzle checks. But they disabled that information by the time the 4800 came out (maybe because I made public use of it on this website - who knows). And if I remember correctly what I was told about CO use in the Canon Pro-1000, for this one "ink" only, the Accounting Manager reports total consumption, not just the amount sprayed on paper. If so, why not provide it for the other inks? There's been no technical explanation I've seen or received from either company about why all usage can't be reported.

As I've said, this may not be a big deal for some people, it may be a bigger deal for others. It's quite OK for you if you're happy just knowing total ink consumption for both purposes and you are willing to set up an accounting framework for doing that, recognizing that the cartridges expire at different times as you create more prints, making it necessary to do stock-flow inventory accounting - I know because I've gone that route. Other people may prefer a more direct route to the information that makes printer management more transparent and easier. That said, it's obviously not a burning issue to the larger user base, otherwise the manufacturers would have most likely addressed it by now. I'm leaving it at that, because I think we know the issues at play and we've kind of exhausted them.

[loganross]

Thanks.
I have owned the 1000 for a few months. Although the low ink notice has appeared, I am still printing away with the original cartidges.  I leave the printer on, set the maintenance settings as previously recommended on this forum.  I don't have any long cleaning cycles like that. The cycles I see are those that are similar in during to what I had on Epson. I did just get a notice that I should replace the maintenance cartridge.  I normally print 8.5x11 and up with a mix of glossy and matte.  I have recently made custom media types for each paper I use and I don't know whether that had any impact on ink usage.  I print exclusively through QImage. I found Canon PSP to be cumbersome.

I am not sure how long you have had yours, but it does make me wonder if they had an issue early on, and then fixed the issue for subsequent manufacturing runs.

How long do you own the printer? How many maintenance tanks? Have you ever encounter a cleaning event like this shown in the following video? In this particular case the printer sent to the maintenance tank 58gr of ink. Mine did this three times until now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVz0dA9Lz9E

[Panagiotis]

Thanks.
I have owned the 1000 for a few months. Although the low ink notice has appeared, I am still printing away with the original cartidges.  I leave the printer on, set the maintenance settings as previously recommended on this forum.  I don't have any long cleaning cycles like that. The cycles I see are those that are similar in during to what I had on Epson. I did just get a notice that I should replace the maintenance cartridge.  I normally print 8.5x11 and up with a mix of glossy and matte.  I have recently made custom media types for each paper I use and I don't know whether that had any impact on ink usage.  I print exclusively through QImage. I found Canon PSP to be cumbersome.

I am not sure how long you have had yours, but it does make me wonder if they had an issue early on, and then fixed the issue for subsequent manufacturing runs.

I bought mine on January 2017. The low ink warning is very conservative. I believe that a long cleaning cycle is about to happen sooner or later. Please report here any different behavior. Thanks.

[Panagiotis]

Update on PRO-1000 ink consumption. I just replaced the fourth maintenance tank. I calculated the ink consumption from the beginning 18 months ago. I printed a total of 91 m2/ 980 feet2 with 1900ml of ink (1000ml on paper and 900 ml in the four waste tanks). The consumption depends on the usage. The worst I managed is 17m2 of printed surface between the second and the third maintenance tank and the best 29m2 between the third and the fourth.  The average printed surface is 20 prints A2 (16" x 24") per month. If the costs of the 80ml cartridge is 60$ the cost of ink for every A2 (16" x 24") is 4$.

[henrikolsen]

Replaced a full maintenance cartridge today, as it demanding it when starting a print job (4 A4 pages). Total ink consumed in Accounting Manager jumped from 924ml before print start to 1020ml after maintenance cartridge replacement and the four pages. Yep, that's roughly 100ml. Just a data point.
I didn't weigh the cartridge. If someone is super excited to have that done, I might do it though.