New HP Z2100 and Z3100 printers

[ronno]

  A RIP allows you to print outside of an image processing program.  Besides the fact that a RIP can use your custom profiles, there is no crossover between the two.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=79628\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

So people buy $1500 RIPs just so they can print outside of photoshop using profiles? No other advantages??

[JPrimgaard]

I'm bumping this thread in the hopes that A) there will be more discussion on these printers and B ) so that someone may answer the last question as I am vague as to the purpose of a RIP as well as ronno.

[BernardLanguillier]

So people buy $1500 RIPs just so they can print outside of photoshop using profiles? No other advantages??
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=79655\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Looking at the feature set of a RIP like ImagePrint should show that RIP programs offer other advantages besides good profiles:

0. Fine tuning of the printing parameters often going beyond the native printer OS drivers,
1. More control on the way the image colorspace is converted to the printer/paper profile space,
2. Better B&W printing,
3. Top class upsizing algos,
4. Paper surface optimization algos that make it possible to layout automatically smaller images on a larger paper in an optimal way,
5. Good queue mgt,
6. ...

The problems I have always had with ImagePrint are its interface and poor quality on my windows system, but the feature set is great and the images - when they come out - are great on my Epson 4000.

Cheers,
Bernard

[chilehead]

You no longer need to talk about the Z2100 in "future" tense.

It is available on the HP website:
HP Large Format Printers

IT Supplies also lists it as available:
IT Supplies Z2100

-Mark

[ronno]

I'd love to know how much different the z2100 prints look from the z3100 prints. Anyone seen prints from both?

Best,
-ron

[neil snape]

I'd love to know how much different the z2100 prints look from the z3100 prints. Anyone seen prints from both?
The Z 2100 is pretty similar to the A3+ (B size) 9180. The 9180 has some high bit depth scrrening for smaller print size that make a difference on glossy and Satin.
The advantages of the Z3100 obviously start with an extended gamut. But if your images are in gamut for the Z2100/9180 the appearance is exactly the same outside the great gloss and bronzing control, Gloss Enhancer.
I've been printing a lot of side by sides. One thing I do see better on the Z3100 is shadow detail on matte media. Yet I only have an early prototype, so maybe that has changed since.

[ronno]

Thanks for the info Neil. What is meant by the below:

"The 9180 has some high bit depth scrrening for smaller print size that make a difference on glossy and Satin."

[JeffKohn]

Looking at the feature set of a RIP like ImagePrint should show that RIP programs offer other advantages besides good profiles:

0. Fine tuning of the printing parameters often going beyond the native printer OS drivers,
1. More control on the way the image colorspace is converted to the printer/paper profile space,
2. Better B&W printing,
3. Top class upsizing algos,
4. Paper surface optimization algos that make it possible to layout automatically smaller images on a larger paper in an optimal way,
5. Good queue mgt,
6. ...

The problems I have always had with ImagePrint are its interface and poor quality on my windows system, but the feature set is great and the images - when they come out - are great on my Epson 4000.

Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=80445\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Of course, QImage will give you items 1, 3, 4, and 5 for 1/10th the price, and some would argue that 2 is pretty much a non-issue with inksets that include one or more grays (There's also a $50 option for B/W printing with Epsons - Quadtone RIP). The reason ImagePrint is so popular with Epson users is because the Epson Print Driver is pretty poor and makes getting good linearity very difficult. I guess we'll have to wait and see if the HP's have similar problems.

[neil snape]

Of course, QImage will give you items 1, 3, 4, and 5 for 1/10th the price, and some would argue that 2 is pretty much a non-issue with inksets that include one or more grays (There's also a $50 option for B/W printing with Epsons - Quadtone RIP). The reason ImagePrint is so popular with Epson users is because the Epson Print Driver is pretty poor and makes getting good linearity very difficult. I guess we'll have to wait and see if the HP's have similar problems.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=80864\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That's the whole point of having a built in spectro. It calibrates for each paper within a assumed tolerance range and inking. Years ago I did a lot of work on rip's and it was never fun to linearise for optimum results. The Z printers do all of it in the background. Can it be fooled? Probably. Will it be right most of the time. Yes.

Now on to rips. They offer things like placing multiple color formats into one document, keeping things like black channels for black text independent, correctly rendering vector art work, page layouts, not transforming shadows to composite, Pantone matching, excellent tiling functions, saving out of ripped files. Much more, but I'm never going to discount the value of Qimage as a before driver printer tool that is not only complete but of great value for it's quality of sizing, sharpening, but also the layout packages, splined panoramics.

[neil snape]

Thanks for the info Neil. What is meant by the below:

"The 9180 has some high bit depth screening for smaller print size that make a difference on glossy and Satin."
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=80718\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Just as all desktop printers higher resolution is a plus for small print viewing. No one stands 12" in front of a 24" print so the need for high resolution printing is unnecessary.
The 9180 has >16 bit screening and masking in the driver that make nice differences for smaller prints , yet you'd likely not see the difference without a loupe on larger prints. Due to the nature of matte prints the effects of the fuzziness of the media negate the higher resolution anyway.
Why do I say you might or might not see a difference is I rely on others now for sharpness reporting as I don't see up close like I used to. I also do a lot of colour checks with girls as viewers to limit the male gender differences. Sometimes it's surprising to hear others opinions!

[Mark D Segal]

the Epson Print Driver is pretty poor and makes getting good linearity very difficult. I guess we'll have to wait and see if the HP's have similar problems.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=80864\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The Epson print driver for the K3 inkset is not ¨pretty poor ¨. I and many others get stunning results with it - if you know how to use Photoshop and the printer -

[neil snape]

The Epson print driver for the K3 inkset is not ¨pretty poor ¨. I and many others get stunning results with it - if you know how to use Photoshop and the printer -
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=81008\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

True Epson improved which was a poor linearisation with the K3 drivers, corrected for a mushy red black, etc. It's still not as good as it could be , which is where some rips can improve the image quality which is already good to a slightly higher level. Most images you may need need better linearisation, in fact sometimes the slightly contrasty linearisation covers up image processing defects that you wouldn't find pleasing.

[wilsonrob]

The reason ImagePrint is so popular with Epson users is because the Epson Print Driver is pretty poor and makes getting good linearity very difficult. I guess we'll have to wait and see if the HP's have similar problems.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=80864\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Since QIMAGE actually uses the Epson printer driver I can't see why that is the reason that people buy QIMAGE.

The printer driver itself does not do upscaling, sharpening or page placement. The first two you can do in Photoshop and get just as good results as QIMAGE using the same Epson printer driver that is used by QIMAGE.

The only way to actually avoid the Epson printer driver is to use a RIP such as imageprint.

I have both imageprint and QIMAGE. I use both. QIMAGE is a heck of a lot faster if I am not looking for custom sharpening etc (and of course it supports any windows printer).

If you want to roll your own so to speak there are better sharpeners than those in QIMAGE (since you may not want to sharpen all of the image) and photozoom pro 2 will do a better job of uprezing your image if you are really blowing it up (my opinion, others would differ).

However QIMAGE  gives you just about as good a job as speciallized tools and does it in a convenient and quick fashion. It is also very inexpensive for what it does.

[JeffKohn]

The Epson print driver for the K3 inkset is not ¨pretty poor ¨. I and many others get stunning results with it - if you know how to use Photoshop and the printer -
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=81008\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Maybe they have improved linearity of the "pro" printers more than the desktop models, because there is most definitely still a linearity problem with the 2400 when printing on matte/rag papers. I know how to use Photoshop, the printer, and profiling software so to imply that's it's simply a matter of user error is BS. I can assure you that the 2400 drivers in "ICM - No Color Adjustments" does a lousy job on matte papers, putting way too much ink in the shadow tones. I avoid ICM mode altogether when creating profiles for matte papers because of this. I get much better results using Color Controls mode (but a truly linear ICM mode would be ideal).

[JeffKohn]

Since QIMAGE actually uses the Epson printer driver I can't see why that is the reason that people buy QIMAGE.

The printer driver itself does not do upscaling, sharpening or page placement. The first two you can do in Photoshop and get just as good results as QIMAGE using the same Epson printer driver that is used by QIMAGE.

I didn't say people buy QImage to bypass the Epson driver. I said that's why many of them buy ImagePrint. My point was that if the HP driver is good enough, there wouldn't be any reason to purchase ImagePrint for most people because QImage's layout capabilities are more than enough for most people.

If you want to roll your own so to speak there are better sharpeners than those in QIMAGE (since you may not want to sharpen all of the image) and photozoom pro 2 will do a better job of uprezing your image if you are really blowing it up (my opinion, others would differ).

For large prints, I prefer to do my own interpolation and sharpening, because no completely automated sharpening routine is going to be able to match what I can do in Photoshop. But I still like QImage's layout and profile/driver settings management. For smaller prints I'm fine letting QImage handle interpolation and sharpening though.

[wilsonrob]

I didn't say people buy QImage to bypass the Epson driver. I said that's why

Sorry Jeff, my bad. I have to stop trying to read messages and work at the same time.

[Arhaeus]

I am printing manager at a design firm in Romania, we work with HP printers and ploters and we whant to buy Z3100. If anybody knows if Z3100-44” is $6,295 with the hardware RIP or not, please tell me.
Middleman, if you know, what is the diferece between the Z3100 printings and the Durst-Lambda and Theta, or Oce lightjet 500xl printings?
I have seen the samples from HP division form Eastern Europe, and I`m impressed. If the printer is as realiable as the HP said it will be an incredible money-making machine!
Did anybody know if at her fastest mode 2 minutes an A1, you see the head marks? At HP 2500 and 3500 series on fast, there are visible head marks.

[Mark D Segal]

True Epson improved which was a poor linearisation with the K3 drivers, corrected for a mushy red black, etc. It's still not as good as it could be , which is where some rips can improve the image quality which is already good to a slightly higher level. Most images you may need need better linearisation, in fact sometimes the slightly contrasty linearisation covers up image processing defects that you wouldn't find pleasing.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=81032\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

As I said, the results I get with the Epson driver are fine and they have been well received by professional peer review.

[Mark D Segal]

Maybe they have improved linearity of the "pro" printers more than the desktop models, because there is most definitely still a linearity problem with the 2400 when printing on matte/rag papers. I know how to use Photoshop, the printer, and profiling software so to imply that's it's simply a matter of user error is BS. I can assure you that the 2400 drivers in "ICM - No Color Adjustments" does a lousy job on matte papers, putting way too much ink in the shadow tones. I avoid ICM mode altogether when creating profiles for matte papers because of this. I get much better results using Color Controls mode (but a truly linear ICM mode would be ideal).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=81064\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Jeff, All I can tell you is that I´m using an Epson 4800, it does not lay down too much ink, and it delivers great prints. Definitely choice of paper affects DMax - deep shadow detail is better with Innova Gloss than with Enhanced Matte for example.

[Mark D Segal]

Jeff, All I can tell you is that I´m using an Epson 4800, it does not lay down too much ink, and it delivers great prints. Definitely choice of paper affects DMax - deep shadow detail is better with Innova Gloss than with Enhanced Matte for example.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=81202\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Jeff, I should add to this that I did do a test for several images where quartertone detail was important to me - i.e. the bottom quartile of the luminosity scale. I printed them on my Epson 4800, took the same files to one of our premier prographics shops in Toronto where they sell ImagePrint and demonstrate it. We ran the same files using ImagePrint on their test set-up, the dealer and I were agreed that it was very hard to see ANY significant difference in image quality between my results and theirs. I´m not knocking ImagePrint - I think it facilitates certain kinds of workflow that numerous professionals would find very efficient and useful to have. It will be less useful to others who don´t need those features. All I´m saying is that one should not dismiss the Epson printer driver and profiles out of hand. They can yield very, very good results.