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

[MHMG]

Bad news.

With firmware 2.050 I started a print today and was asked to change the maintenance cart (MC) after that there was about 6 min different noises and I got 58grams in the MC.

Men that hurts!!

I also experienced power loss for several hours as the power grid went off two days ago for the whole night and my USP run out of battery.

So the questions are: Do we get this cleaning activated on every new MC? Do we get this cleaning after power loss, because of reset of internal timers? Will this cleaning happen if we change the MC before requested by the printer?

Next things to test:

1. is to unplug the printer from the wall socket for one night and see if it will get the 58 grams and if not maybe we can add 58g ink price to the price of the MC.

2. Change MC before it is full.

So after all maybe it's not about days off...

I just posted the following comments in reply to a similar thread over on DPReview:

I don't think the Pro-1000 gets any cue from the maintainance tank to start a cleaning cycle. It only tracks whether the tank is empty enough to accommodate the amount of ink it plans to dump once it starts a new cleaning cycle. Your printer did what mine did. It began to initiate a print, then decided on a cleaning, then found the maintanence tank was full, then asked you to replace the tank (and in my case a few ink cartridges as well), then completed its already initiated cleaning cycle. And you got 58 grams dumped into the new tank on that round just like I did, but I'm pretty sure that same 58 grams would have gone into the old tank if it had had enough capacity to take it. The printer might even be able to split a large purge cycle across an old and new tank since a fresh maintainence tank appears to have about a 230gm capacity for waste ink.

The Pro-1000 maintenance function which calls for ink consumption before and perhaps after each print (see the recent LULA thread on Chroma optimizer consumption even for matte prints) is probably not super sophisticated, but it does have a number of iterative steps based among other things on how long it has been since last print, how much image area has been printed (i.e., the amount of ink consumed over the given time period), and probably a system reset of this maintenance function whenever the printer plug gets pulled or a power failure occurs). The "off" state of this printer is probably like many other modern appliances, ie., there is still a very small amount of electricity needed to keep certain parts like the clock chip energized.

Lastly, I think it's challenging to totally reverse engineer the Canon printer maintenance cycle in order to figure out what big cycles might be avoidable, and I finally concluded it's better just to track the complete amortization schedule of the printer if one truly wants to arrive at a valid cost per print. That is what I'm doing. More on that in a moment:-) Weighing the maintenance tank when new and then when full will indeed allow one to derive the amount and cost of the waste tank ink. However, that value is only truly worth knowing if you also know how many prints you actually made during that period of time. Hence, an amortization schedule is the key.

From my amortization study of the Pro-1000: My Pro-1000 has now been online for 340 days, and during that time, I have made only 70 8x10 "equivalent-size borderless prints" meaning I'm dividing my total square inches of printed image area by 80 sq. inches, i.e., the equivalent of having made seventy 8x10 inch borderless prints even though I rarely actually use borderless printing, and numerous prints were at bigger sizes. During this time I replaced the first maintenance tank which held 229 grams of waste ink after 308 days of the printer coming online, and my new tank is now at 80 grams of waste ink, so a total of 309grams ink that never hit the print surface since the day I fired up this printer for the first time. One gram is approximately equal to 1ml, therefore, in my low use condition with my Pro-1000 309 ml per 340 days total run time = .9 ml per day of "cleaning" or 309/70 8x10 prints = 4.4ml per 8x10 equivalent print not including the ink that formed the actual image. For users printing more total image area on a more regular basis, I doubt the .9ml "daily" consumption value would rise (it might even go down), so It's pretty obvious that making more prints more frequently will really drive the final cost per print down. The Pro-1000 is a printer that begs to be used!!!

kind regards,
Mark

http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

[jrsforums]

I got a Pro-1000 a few months ago.  I contacted Mike Chaney, who has both the 1000 and 4000.

His advice was, "Some of the new Canon printers do a mini cleaning cycle if they have not been used for
some period (usually 2-3 days).  That does work to keep nozzles clog free but it is better to
let Qimage Ultimate print an unclog pattern every 2 days.  That prevents the mini cleaning
cycles that can waste a lot more ink than just printing a small half page unclog pattern every
2 days."

[MHMG]

I got a Pro-1000 a few months ago.  I contacted Mike Chaney, who has both the 1000 and 4000.

His advice was, "Some of the new Canon printers do a mini cleaning cycle if they have not been used for
some period (usually 2-3 days).  That does work to keep nozzles clog free but it is better to
let Qimage Ultimate print an unclog pattern every 2 days.  That prevents the mini cleaning
cycles that can waste a lot more ink than just printing a small half page unclog pattern every
2 days."

The Canon Pro-1000, 2000, 4000 models don't auto initiate that 2-3 day cycle. They initiate increasingly aggressive mini clean cycles only if they haven't been used for x number of days and the user then starts to print.  In contrast, the Hp Z3200 also does something exactly like the Qimage scheduled nozzle check cycle every day, a daily nozzle "refresh" if you will, i.e it wakes up from a "sleep/off" mode and sends a little ink every day through the nozzles, so little that the HP Z3200 doesn't even require a maintenance tank. Very frugal on ink and reliably ready to print at all times. This begs the question: if the Qimage scheduled unclog pattern does the trick, and HP uses a similar trick but without having to load any paper, why is Canon so much more conservative and dumping so much more ink in a non preemptive manner yet still on a sequenced timer clock basis?  Curious minds would like to know.

cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

[sabin]

What is the price of the HP Z3200 printer?

Pro-1000 is much cheaper printer, but it is not cheaper technology if not more expensive.
We pay the difference in ink with time.

I do not regret getting it and my research is only to optimize the waste.
I really have no need to print every day/week.

[MHMG]

What is the price of the HP Z3200 printer?

Pro-1000 is much cheaper printer, but it is not cheaper technology if not more expensive.
We pay the difference in ink with time.

The Z3200 comes in 24 and 44 inch versions only, as such, should be compared on initial price only to the Canon Pro-2000 and 4000 models or the Epson P6000, P7000, P8000, and P9000 models. The Pro-1000 is a 17 inch desktop model and is priced accordingly. What's interesting if one reads this entire thread is that the Pro-1000's maintenance routine, specifically the use of the Chroma Optimizer for cleaning purposes, varies somewhat from its bigger siblings, the PRO-2000 and 4000. I only have the Pro-1000 in house along with a 44 inch Z3200PS,  a 44" Canon iPF8300 and a few other desktop photo printer models. Therefore, I can't speak to the operational costs of the PRO-2000 and PRO-2000, and it seems we should not extrapolate our findings for the PRO-1000 to head maintenance cycle on those two bigger Canon models even though the inks and the print heads are identical.

cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

[Mark D Segal]

The Z3200 comes in 24 and 44 inch versions only, as such, should be compared only to the Canon Pro-2000 and 4000 models. The Pro-1000 is a 17 inch desktop model and is priced accordingly. What's interesting if one reads this entire thread is that the Pro-1000's maintenance routine, specifically the use of the Chroma Optimizer for cleaning purposes, varies somewhat from it's bigger siblings, the PRO-2000 and 4000. I only have the Pro-1000 in house along with a 44 inch Z3200PS,  a 44" Canon iPF8300 and a few other desktop photo printer models. Therefore, I can't speak to the operational costs of the PRO-2000 and PRO-2000, and it seems we should not extrapolate our findings for the PRO-1000 to head maintenance cycle on those two bigger Canon models even though the inks and the print heads are identical.

cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

This is correct Mark - as Canon explained it to me - one main relevant difference between the 24/44 models and the Pro-1000 is that with the two very wide format models the platen is user-reachable for cleaning whereas for the Pro-1000 it is not (I suppose most likely a design constraint), and that is why they developed this internal mechanism for keeping it clean. While the inks and the print heads are identical other things are not, for example there are differences in the transport speed and ink laydown technicalities between the larger ones and the Pro-1000, in the interest of maintaining adequate throughput speed of the large models, which is one reason why they issued separate profiles for the 24/44 versus the Pro-1000. And indeed I found in my testing that profiles made for the Pro-1000 weren't great performers with the Pro-2000. Devils always in details. :-)

[MHMG]

This is correct Mark - as Canon explained it to me - one main relevant difference between the 24/44 models and the Pro-1000 is that with the two very wide format models the platen is user-reachable for cleaning whereas for the Pro-1000 it is not (I suppose most likely a design constraint), and that is why they developed this internal mechanism for keeping it clean. While the inks and the print heads are identical other things are not, for example there are differences in the transport speed and ink laydown technicalities between the larger ones and the Pro-1000, in the interest of maintaining adequate throughput speed of the large models, which is one reason why they issued separate profiles for the 24/44 versus the Pro-1000. And indeed I found in my testing that profiles made for the Pro-1000 weren't great performers with the Pro-2000. Devils always in details. :-)

Right. So, the Chroma Optimizer issue on the Pro-1000 is part of a larger and much more obscure Canon head maintenance algorithm if we compare Canon's approach to head maintenance on the Pro-1000 to the only directly competing printer model, the Epson SC P800. Both the Epson SC P600 and 800 models are proving to be fairly clog-free printers. They can sit for over a month and more often than not still pass a nozzle check with no further need to induce a cleaning cycle.  That leaves the much maligned Epson PK/MK ink switching issue as the most easily known and quantifiable source of ink wastage (i.e ink not ending up in a real print) on the P800. Based on both Sabin's and my own experience with the Pro-1000, I have to say, it's far easier for the end user to avoid ink wasting on the P800 because one can easily manage this very knowable PK/MK switching frequency and the costs associated with it. The Pro-1000 is much more mysterious. It's incredibly challenging to reverse-engineer where the Pro-1000 invokes its biggest gulps of ink to maintain itself (not that Sabin and I aren't trying to figure it out!). That said, my copious records indicate to date that for low frequency users, plan on at least a dollar a day for the convenience of having a Pro-1000 in your home or studio. This begs the next question: "Are any active photographers high frequency users, i.e., daily or every-other-day users of a Pro-1000?".  If you print daily, perhaps even weekly, I would argue that you are a printmaker first, and a photographer second. If you print once a week, or only once a month, I'd argue you are likely a photographer first and printmaker second

My own read on all of this comes down to a simple recommendation. If you print primarily on glossy/luster media and will spare no expense to get the very best image quality including freedom from bronzing and differential gloss without having to resort to post coating sprays, the Pro-1000 is a wise choice in this 17 inch printer class. On the other hand, if you print primarily on fine art matte papers where bronzing and differential gloss are not an issue, then the Epson P800 is your best bet both in terms of excellent image quality and lower ongoing costs of ownership.

For Pro-1000 owners like Sabin and myself, I think we still have some experiments to run in order to figure out how and under what conditions we can best manage the Pro-1000 ink consumption issues under low use conditions. It's not nearly as easy as figuring out how to best avoid ink wastage on an Epson SC P800. Canon could help its Pro-1000 customers out big time by publishing more facts about the Pro-1000 maintenance cycles, but my guess is hell will freezer over first Please don't misunderstand. I think the Pro-1000 is a fantastic printer, and Canon tech support is also impressive. It's just that a better handle on the Pro-1000 maintenance cycles would be highly useful to all of us Pro-1000 owners in order to better manage our ongoing costs of operation.

cheers,
Mark

http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

[Mark D Segal]

Right. So, the Chroma Optimizer issue on the Pro-1000 is part of a larger and much more obscure Canon head maintenance algorithm if we compare Canon's approach to head maintenance on the Pro-1000 to the only directly competing printer model, the Epson SC P800. Both the Epson SC P600 and 800 models are proving to be fairly clog-free printers. They can sit for over a month and more often than not still pass a nozzle check with no further need to induce a cleaning cycle.  That leaves the much maligned Epson PK/MK ink switching issue as the most easily known and quantifiable source of ink wastage (i.e ink not ending up in a real print) on the P800. Based on both Sabin's and my own experience with the Pro-1000, I have to say, it's far easier for the end user to avoid ink wasting on the P800 because one can easily manage this very knowable PK/MK switching frequency and the costs associated with it. The Pro-1000 is much more mysterious. It's incredibly challenging to reverse-engineer where the Pro-1000 invokes its biggest gulps of ink to maintain itself (not that Sabin and I aren't trying to figure it out!). That said, my copious records indicate to date that for low frequency users, plan on at least a dollar a day for the convenience of having a Pro-1000 in your home or studio. This begs the next question: "Are any active photographers high frequency users, i.e., daily or every-other-day users of a Pro-1000?".  If you print daily, perhaps even weekly, I would argue that you are a printmaker first, and a photographer second. If you print once a week, or only once a month, I'd argue you are likely a photographer first and printmaker second

My own read on all of this comes down to a simple recommendation. If you print primarily on glossy/luster media and will spare no expense to get the very best image quality including freedom from bronzing and differential gloss without having to resort to post coating sprays, the Pro-1000 is a wise choice in this 17 inch printer class. On the other hand, if you print primarily on fine art matte papers where bronzing and differential gloss are not an issue, then the Epson P800 is your best bet both in terms of excellent image quality and lower ongoing costs of ownership.

For Pro-1000 owners like Sabin and myself, I think we still have some experiments to run in order to figure out how and under what conditions we can best manage the Pro-1000 ink consumption issues under low use conditions. It's not nearly as easy as figuring out how to best avoid ink wastage on an Epson SC P800. Canon could help its Pro-1000 customers out big time by publishing more facts about the Pro-1000 maintenance cycles, but my guess is hell will freezer over first Please don't misunderstand. I think the Pro-1000 is a fantastic printer. It's just that a better handle on the Pro-1000 maintenance cycles would be highly useful to all of us Pro-1000 owners in order to better manage our ongoing costs of operation.

cheers,
Mark

http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

I have a very clear, reliable impression that we will NOT be learning more from Canon about ink use for maintenance with the Pro-1000 - even if hell doesn't freeze over :-) So whatever you and Sabin can come up with - reliably - on this matter will be a contribution to knowledge. I agree with you - it would be helpful to people for production planning.

My experience with the Epson P800 is that if it goes for more than 8 days unused, it will need a cleaning cycle to clear all the nozzles. Other people have reported longer intervals, but this is clearly sensitive to environmental conditions. My office/studio humidity is in the range of 22%-35% depending. I keep my office/studio unheated - i.e. the only "heater" is the MacPro.

Looking at the prints correctly, I don't think bronzing or gloss differential are an issue with either printer for all the PK papers I've tested, but I know this is a controversial issue - different people look at prints differently and see different things - that's fine.

According to Keith Cooper, ink switching round-trip on the P800 uses about 6.2 ml of ink. In the US in USD that would be about $4 and change round-trip. Not clear this is a huge-big deal for a commercial enterprise, but would add-up depending on how often. The biggest nuisance about it is the time it consumes - about 6 minutes; this could be concerning for a high-pressure, high-volume enterprise, but this printer wasn't intended or built for that kind of usage.

One gets this question very frequently - what's preferable to buy - a P800 or a Pro-1000. I've thought long and hard about it, working with both printers, making quite a large number and variety of prints from each and lots of paper testing; in the final analysis I think it boils down to cost and features. Cost is difficult because it's a function of up-front investment and long-term usage. Epson won't provide data on ink usage for prints - there is nothing in the firmware or software allowing this. Canon does provide the Accounting Manager tool for ink laid on paper, so at least we have that insight. So cost comparison is very difficult. Features is easier - if you need a roll holder and a flat pass through for thick, stiff media you buy a P800. Otherwise, either will make superb prints. The colour gamuts are pretty close - the Pro-1000 a tad larger depending on the paper, but except for very limited areas of the spectrum relevant to some photos, based on the blind tastings I've conducted with seasoned print people, the outcomes are pretty much awash.

[MHMG]

Looking at the prints correctly, I don't think bronzing or gloss differential are an issue with either printer for all the PK papers I've tested, but I know this is a controversial issue - different people look at prints differently and see different things - that's fine.

If by "looking at the prints correctly" you mean viewing at near normal (i.e. perpendicular) axis to the print surface with illumination either very diffuse or coming in from track lights at 45 degree angles, I agree with you. However, off-axis viewing under less than optimal lighting is a very real part of print viewing as well, IMHO, even in museums and galleries that take great pains to give the viewer an optimal viewing experience. So, yes, I'm one of many discriminating printmakers who takes bronzing and differential gloss under consideration in my overall assessment of image quality, but I also agree with you that some experienced print makers believe bronzing and differential gloss are now reasonably well controlled with all of the most recent OEM ink sets.

That said, just last week I helped the mother of a close friend of mine set up a new Epson P600 in her office.  She's 81 years old, an avid photographer with traditional darkroom printing experience, and wanted to set up a new "digital darkroom".  I brought some traditional color chromogenic and B&W prints plus numerous inkjet media sample swatch books along with me, and we had a nice conversation about the tactile and visual differences between traditional silver gelatin prints and modern microporous inkjet media.  In the very first prints made from some of her digital files onto a semi-gloss RC inkjet photo paper, she immediately observed the bronzing and gloss differential issues. I then offered her a can of Premier Print Shield, and said to her "if these aspects of your modern pigmented ink jet prints bother you, then here's the fix"!  We sprayed a few prints, so that she could master the spraying technique. She got the message. Just sayin...

Best,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

[Mark D Segal]

That's remarkable!

I suppose much depends on viewing angle, illumination angle and the media. I think very smooth reflective surfaces would be more susceptible for this kind of effect to show compared with the moderately textured ones (such as the luster look-alikes) that I normally use.

[sakharov.alexander]

Today we with Canon engineer have found out one interesting issue of CO usage:
replacing the paper from one type (satin) to the other (matt) without any changes in driver (Extra Heavyweight Fine Art Paper, print quality Highest) dramatically change CO usage. The same test image was printed on A3 paper.
CO usage for satin paper was 0.023ml.
CO usage for matt paper was 0.46m.
Difference is 20 times.
Looks like the printer detects the actual type of inserted paper an changes CO consumption.

[Geraldo Garcia]

Today we with Canon engineer have found out one interesting issue of CO usage:
replacing the paper from one type (satin) to the other (matt) without any changes in driver (Extra Heavyweight Fine Art Paper, print quality Highest) dramatically change CO usage. The same test image was printed on A3 paper.
CO usage for satin paper was 0.023ml.
CO usage for matt paper was 0.46m.
Difference is 20 times.
Looks like the printer detects the actual type of inserted paper an changes CO consumption.

If you did just one print on each paper I would credit this difference to a random auto maintenance before printing (the printer does that sometimes). Now, if you repeated the test and got similar results... then it is a solid piece of info.

[Mark D Segal]

Geraldo, I think you're right. The appearance of CO for matte is explained in my article about CO usage on this website. In Alexander's case, it had to be coincidental with maintenance usage, otherwise something is really working incorrectly with his printer.

Alexander: the printer knows what kind of paper is being used because of the settings YOU give it in the printer driver and on the LCD. It does not use CO for matte paper unless it is also performing a maintenance. The amount used for maintenance does not vary with paper type or size.

[sabin]

Is it possible that the printer "observes" how ink looks at the paper and decides to use CO dynamically after "seeing" something it do not like? We know that there is some optical elements that the printer uses for colour calibration.

Also, when did the printer started to show maintenance ink usage in the account manager? I'm I mistaken that this information is not included?

Geraldo, what is the firmware of your printer? Firmwares before 2.040 had problems with excessive use of CO.

[Mark D Segal]

Is it possible that the printer "observes" how ink looks at the paper and decides to use CO dynamically after "seeing" something it do not like? We know that there is some optical elements that the printer uses for colour calibration.

Also, when did the printer started to show maintenance ink usage in the account manager? I'm I mistaken that this information is not included?

Geraldo, what is the firmware of your printer? Firmwares before 2.040 had problems with excessive use of CO.

The CO treatment in a Canon Pro-1000 depends on three things: (1) the kind of paper the user specifies as the Media Type, (2) whether the user specifies that the coverage should be Full Sheet or "Auto", and (3) CO required for maintenance of the platen (see my article). CO does not coat matte paper. If the CO setting is Full Sheet, the whole page is covered; if CO setting is "Auto", CO covers those areas where there is ink laydown.

The Accounting Manager application does not show maintenance usage of CO apart from total usage of CO.

You are correct that only the most recent firmware should be used in order for the printer to manage CO appropriately.

[GrahamBy]

You are correct that only the most recent firmware should be used in order for the printer to manage CO appropriately.

So has anyone else been able to download v2.050? I've looked on both the French and US sites and 2.040 still appears to be current for manual download.

[Mark D Segal]

As long as it dates from late February it should be OK.

[sabin]

So has anyone else been able to download v2.050? I've looked on both the French and US sites and 2.040 still appears to be current for manual download.

Connect the printer to internet using the RJ45 connector (lan connector) and then in the menu there is an option to check for firmware update. It downloads and installs automatically the latest 2.050 firmware.

[sabin]

Here are some new findings.

In the menu of the printer there are tree setting regarding auto cleaning.

1. Auto nozzle check, which checks the nozzle after every print and performs a little clean whenever it wants without any visible problem with the nozzles. I have not confirmed wasted quantity, but judging from the different time to clean it must be variable from 0.05 to almost a gram...guessing. I have disabled mine and printed hundreds of prints without problems with nozzles clogging ... so far.

2. System cleaning frequency: cannot be disabled, I set mine on standard.

3. Ink maintenance. This setting is responsible for time related maintenances! After disabling it the printer does not perform the time related ink waste that I described in my previous posts!! I'm using this mode from 27th of may without any problems with biggest pause between prints 2 weeks. After this two weeks on first print the printer wasted only 2.5 grams and did agitation of the inks. After several days inactivity I'll repeat this conditions to see if it is time related or just print volume related.

There were some posts that the printer uses small amount of ink on regular bases if left ON, but I cannot find any evidence of that and I seriously doubt it. In fact every time the printer performs some cleaning it make specific sounds, but I have never heard the printer do even a slightest move on it's own while staying on all the time.

So, with 1 and 3 maintenance settings off, the printing waste looks something like this.

Small prints 10x15cm about 0.07g per print fixed. This includes small maintenance on every 4-5 prints. Without this maintenance with firmware 2.050 the amount dropped from 0.05 to 0.03 grams.

A3+ size wastes about 0.12 grams on every sheet.

There is one more waste that is not included in the above numbers as I have not found out when it appears. It is about 4.8 grams on every 80-100 10x15cm prints. I have not found out on other media sizes yet, but I'm watching for the next waste to try to find something to relate it.

And finally some of us has suffered the system clean of about 58grams that happens at least once per ink set. So calculating this huge waste I will not be surprised of 0.3 grams (as suggested by other knowledgeable fellas) per print is even less than the reality...

All this testing unfortunately require time and having something to print

I will report when I have new info...

[henrikolsen]

That said, just last week I helped the mother of a close friend of mine set up a new Epson P600 in her office.  She's 81 years old, an avid photographer with traditional darkroom printing experience, and wanted to set up a new "digital darkroom". 

How that warms my heart and soul . How absolutely wonderful to hear, amidst the otherwise annoying technicalities of ink waste (also with you there on my own Pro-1000). Printing at 81 isn't waste, that's for sure! I hope I'm also still rockin' the darkroom by then.