Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Down

Author Topic: Upgrading from HPZ3100 to iPF6400  (Read 21256 times)

Robert Ardill

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 658
    • Images of Ireland
Re: Upgrading from HPZ3100 to iPF6400
« Reply #20 on: October 13, 2014, 12:12:29 pm »

Another question, Geraldo or Marcin,

I've just done a print using a roll of Canson Platine 310gsm and I'm getting ink marks at the sides of the paper. 

I have set up the paper using the Canson Platine media configuration file.  Looking at the media settings it shows the correct paper, with the Standard Paper showing as Canon Photo Pro Platinum and the Head Height as Auto (Low).

It would seem that the head height is too low, which is surprising as I would have thought the .am1 file would have the correct setting.  The Platine is a very thick paper - there's no info on the thickness from Canson, but I measure it at 0.55mm.

I've changed the head height to High and I'll try again, but I was wondering if this is a problem you've come across.  If so, is there some way of determining what the head height should be if we know the paper thickness?  The manual seems to suggest a trial-and-error approach.

Robert
Logged
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. - George Santayana

Geraldo Garcia

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 470
    • Personal blog
Re: Upgrading from HPZ3100 to iPF6400
« Reply #21 on: October 13, 2014, 01:57:10 pm »

The paper that came along with mine (and with every other that I know of) is the "Canon Heavyweight Coated Paper", photo of the label below.
It is a crappy paper to be honest, but what matters is that it is one of the 'genuine' papers, papers the printer has a reference, so the printer can perform a common calibration with it and extrapolate the results to all other media. Page 833 of the manual has a list of the genuine papers that accept common calibration. Any of those paper would serve.

Here in Brazil we have a weird situation: We have Canon printers available but we do not have Canon paper on the market, so I treasure this crappy sample roll to perform the printer calibration. Sure I can import some other genuine paper when this roll ends, but it means paying an absurd price+tax.

Ink marks on the sides... you mean on the top (print side) of the paper along the edges? That can be head strikes due to paper curl. You may try to increase the vacuum strength. I never had that with Canson platine, though. Another weird thing is that the .am1 file I used has set mine with the base paper being 'Canon Premium Glossy Paper 2 280', head 'auto', vacuum 'auto'.
Maybe try downloading the media file for the 8400 as they are interchangeable.

As a side note, platine and all Canson papers have spectral data on the .am1 files, so you can perform paper specific calibration for those papers. Another reminder: Always perform paper feed adjustment when you install/add a new paper. It substantially improves the print quality.     
Logged

Robert Ardill

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 658
    • Images of Ireland
Re: Upgrading from HPZ3100 to iPF6400
« Reply #22 on: October 13, 2014, 05:53:34 pm »

The paper that came along with mine (and with every other that I know of) is the "Canon Heavyweight Coated Paper", photo of the label below.
It is a crappy paper to be honest, but what matters is that it is one of the 'genuine' papers, papers the printer has a reference, so the printer can perform a common calibration with it and extrapolate the results to all other media. Page 833 of the manual has a list of the genuine papers that accept common calibration. Any of those paper would serve.

Here in Brazil we have a weird situation: We have Canon printers available but we do not have Canon paper on the market, so I treasure this crappy sample roll to perform the printer calibration. Sure I can import some other genuine paper when this roll ends, but it means paying an absurd price+tax.

Ink marks on the sides... you mean on the top (print side) of the paper along the edges? That can be head strikes due to paper curl. You may try to increase the vacuum strength. I never had that with Canson platine, though. Another weird thing is that the .am1 file I used has set mine with the base paper being 'Canon Premium Glossy Paper 2 280', head 'auto', vacuum 'auto'.
Maybe try downloading the media file for the 8400 as they are interchangeable.

As a side note, platine and all Canson papers have spectral data on the .am1 files, so you can perform paper specific calibration for those papers. Another reminder: Always perform paper feed adjustment when you install/add a new paper. It substantially improves the print quality.    


Many thanks Geraldo.  

I've updated all the software to the latest versions.  I've also checked both the Platine configurations for  the 6400 and the 8400 and they both use the Canon Photo Paper Pro Platinum (so I guess they must have updated the files since you downloaded them).

The settings are
Head Height: Auto(lowest);
Vacuum Auto (weak)

I did a paper feed adjustment as you suggested (after changing the Vacuum to Strong).  After the adjustment the vacuum was set back to weak, so in the following steps in the Media Configuration I changed it back to Strong.  It seems strange that the vacuum setting comes after the paper feed adjustment.

I then did a calibration on the Platine.  Everything now seems to be fine with no more marks on the edges of the paper, so it seems the vacuum change has done the job.

I'm still a little confused about the need for a Genuine Canon paper for calibration.  I take it that you need this to calibrate a paper that doesn't come with an .am1 file (so you don't have the spectral data for it)?  

So I assume you set up the paper media settings for this custom paper based on an existing paper type (like the Canon Photo Paper Pro Platinum, say) and then use the calibration from the Genuine Paper (say HW Coated) for this paper ... is that correct?  

If that's the case, could you not use, for example, the calibration on the Platine just as well as the calibration from one of the Genuine Canon papers?

I take it I'm missing a vital link in the process!

Robert
« Last Edit: October 13, 2014, 05:55:34 pm by Robert Ardill »
Logged
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. - George Santayana

Geraldo Garcia

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 470
    • Personal blog
Re: Upgrading from HPZ3100 to iPF6400
« Reply #23 on: October 13, 2014, 06:31:58 pm »

I'm still a little confused about the need for a Genuine Canon paper for calibration.  I take it that you need this to calibrate a paper that doesn't come with an .am1 file (so you don't have the spectral data for it)?  
That is right. Actually anyone can make a .am1 file, but only the .am1 files made on the IPF6450 with the coupled spectro will have spectral reference data allowing paper specific calibration.

Quote
So I assume you set up the paper media settings for this custom paper based on an existing paper type (like the Canon Photo Paper Pro Platinum, say) and then use the calibration from the Genuine Paper (say HW Coated) for this paper ... is that correct?
You do not need to select manually the genuine paper used for calibration. Every time you calibrate a genuine paper (any) the printer will use that info to update it's internal calibration and it will be applied to all paper that is not using paper specific/unique calibration.
 
Quote
If that's the case, could you not use, for example, the calibration on the Platine just as well as the calibration from one of the Genuine Canon papers?
No, as it is not a genuine canon paper the printer will not use it this way, even when you have the spectral data. Probably a way to push the sales of Canon papers.
Tomorrow, when I get back to the studio, I will download again the settings and compare.
Well, at least you got rid of the marks on the edge.
Logged

samueljohnchia

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 498
Re: Upgrading from HPZ3100 to iPF6400
« Reply #24 on: October 13, 2014, 09:15:48 pm »

It seems strange that the vacuum setting comes after the paper feed adjustment.

Hi Robert, that is a very good question. I thought about it myself too until I worked with the SU-21 spectro on a iPF6460. I noticed that when creating unique calibration data for new media, it runs the paper feed adjustment again. So I figured, one should skip this step during the new media build. The MCT will warn you of problems but just skip it first, determine your vacuum strength and head height and create the .am1 file. After it is created, then click on edit, and run the paper feed adjustment. That is the way it should be done. or else the adjustment may be wildly inaccurate, because the MCT may pick different head height and vacuum strength settings. It is easy to check if you have a pocket microscope. Not many know about doing it this way!

Don't forget to export your .am1 files when you are done creating the new adjustment data, and back them up.

Quote
I've just done a print using a roll of Canson Platine 310gsm and I'm getting ink marks at the sides of the paper. 

The paper path of the iPF64XX may be to blame. Testing extensively with my dealer's demo printer, I always get head strikes at the beginning of the roll, because the natural curl of the paper raises the front end just slightly too high as it passes over the platen. After the first bit of the roll has gone through, it prints just fine. Sometimes the lowest head height is ok, but I find it safer to keep it at 'low'. I still had head strikes, again only for the intial three inches or so, after which it was fine. Vacuum strength should be strong or strongest (I prefer the latter). The vacuum is able to hold down the paper more in the center so that's why the marks are only on the sides.

A simplified drawing:


Do beware the pizza wheels at the ejection point of the paper path. If the paper is too curly, it will impact the pizza wheels. While they are there to guide the paper, it marks glossy media like Patine with tiny perforated markings. Watch out for that. Again it only happens for the initial portion of paper. Guiding it with your fingers as it passes out is how I worked around the problem.

Quote

Quote
If that's the case, could you not use, for example, the calibration on the Platine just as well as the calibration from one of the Genuine Canon papers?

No, as it is not a genuine canon paper the printer will not use it this way, even when you have the spectral data. Probably a way to push the sales of Canon papers.
Tomorrow, when I get back to the studio, I will download again the settings and compare.
Well, at least you got rid of the marks on the edge.

Scott Martin has advocated calibrating on your favorite (high quality) paper that you always have lying around, not genuine Canon media, especially if that is hard to get where you are. (Same problem here in Singapore Geraldo!) The point is that when you next need to recalibrate, you will have that paper in stock and you don't have to re-do all your profiles, which you will need if you calibrated to a different paper. He explained to me that the calibration process is in fact a simple linearizing function, no matching to any reference data. The printer measures paper white and dmax, and adjusts all the patches in between to fall in regular steps. He claimed to have spoken with Canon engineers who first explained it to him said it is ok to use third party high quality papers for calibration.

As Geraldo pointed out, these new iPFX4XX have media files associated with "common calibration" or "unique calibration" properties. Common calibration applies calibration information across all media types after calibration is performed once. It is highly recommended that you do this - no in fact it must be the first thing you do when setting up the printer. I'm less sure if unique calibration is useful. Imagine a print head swap down the road - instead of performing one common calibration and be done, you will have that to do that plus all your third party papers unique calibrations. A lot of additional paper and some ink to be wasted.

I have performed common calibration on third party papers with no problems. It is best to use very high quality media, and keep the same roll around for re-calibrations in the future, in case the paper formula is changed down the road and a new roll invalidates all your profiles.

My own experiments also indicate that common calibration on glossy media yields better gamut performance than matte media. Profiles for matte media are about 4 - 6% larger, comparing to calibration made on matte paper. The improvement on glossy is only 1-2% larger, within ColorThink Pro's margin of error in gamut calculations so no conclusions there.

Coming back to if calibrations should be done on genuine paper - I'm not 100% sure if it will be better or you will see no difference, or perhaps it might be worse. Worse perhaps because calibrating to your favorite glossy paper might set up the printer more optimally (my guess is that's most likely the case). But perhaps looking at the way the unique calibration spectral data is built using the SU-21 spectro and the iPF64XX printer might reveal something - the MCT advises to perform common calibration on genuine paper before printing out the color target - implying that the printout of the color target is affected by the calibration - hmmm.

Geraldo, my own tests on unique calibration vs common calibration shows minimal differences just as you reported in a different thread. Again matte media shows more significant differences than glossy media, though only slightly. Certain ranges of color are affected more than others, but there is also a tiny improvement in deepest black separation, which is always nice. On glossy it almost seems not worth the effort, but I do it anyway. Now that I have an iSis, it is much easier to re-profile whenever I need to. Plus I have also noticed that sometimes re-calibrations shift the printer behavior enough to warrant re-profiling. Still, perhaps it is always better to have unique calibration for the paper you are using, to account for any special (subtle) differences.
Logged

Geraldo Garcia

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 470
    • Personal blog
Re: Upgrading from HPZ3100 to iPF6400
« Reply #25 on: October 13, 2014, 11:15:38 pm »

Hi Samuel,

Scott Martin has advocated calibrating on your favorite (high quality) paper that you always have lying around, not genuine Canon media, especially if that is hard to get where you are.

And how you do that? According to the manual and as far as I managed to test, the printer does not accept a common calibration on any other paper than genuine canon paper. Do you simply fool the printer, loading your favorite paper as if it was a genuine?
Logged

samueljohnchia

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 498
Re: Upgrading from HPZ3100 to iPF6400
« Reply #26 on: October 14, 2014, 01:22:30 am »

Hi Samuel,

And how you do that? According to the manual and as far as I managed to test, the printer does not accept a common calibration on any other paper than genuine canon paper. Do you simply fool the printer, loading your favorite paper as if it was a genuine?

Yes, Geraldo, you simply feed your favourite paper in and select a media setting suitable for that paper, then hit auto calibration.

I don't see why genuine paper must be used since many media settings are actually the same, just different names, plus some Canon paper is just rebranded, like Museum Etching. My feeling is that it is just simple linearizing going on.

Also interesting to note is that the printer prints both matte and glossy black when calibrating, which led me to raise the question - is calibrating on matte or glossy better? The behavior of matte black on glossy paper and glossy black on matte paper is somewhat unpredictable, and does seem to affect calibration.
Logged

Geraldo Garcia

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 470
    • Personal blog
Re: Upgrading from HPZ3100 to iPF6400
« Reply #27 on: October 14, 2014, 01:54:55 am »

I don't see why genuine paper must be used since many media settings are actually the same, just different names, plus some Canon paper is just rebranded, like Museum Etching. My feeling is that it is just simple linearizing going on.

Hummm... I have to test that. At first I thought It would not be a good idea as different papers, although similar, may have slightly different white points and tint and that different reading could mess the common calibration. But it may not be the case. I will give it a try on the next calibration.

Curiously, the IPF8400 manual advises using glossy papers for the common calibration preferably, but they ship the printer with a matte roll.

The HPZ3200 printers actually print with both blacks (matte and glossy) on matte papers, but only with the glossy black on glossy papers. The glossy black remains matte on matte papers and with a slightly better DMax, so the Z3200 has actually four blacks/grays when working with matte paper. I don't think Canon uses this trick.
Logged

Ernst Dinkla

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4005
Re: Upgrading from HPZ3100 to iPF6400
« Reply #28 on: October 14, 2014, 03:53:45 am »

Geraldo,

The Z3100/Z3200 have some matte media presets that use the quad inkset but not all matte media presets have all 4 inks in use, usually the PK is taken out then. There is a document describing the variety of inks used per media preset + the ink limit figure. On thinner ordinary matte papers for example one of the grey inks may not be used either to reduce the inkload.

There are several 230 gsm papers around that have a spectral plot similar to the Canon Heavyweight Matte Coated. Rebrands of the original made by Felix Schoeller. Their spectral plots indicate a slightly higher OBA content.  Could as well be caused by fresher samples with less OBA deterioration.

--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
September 2014, 650+ inkjet media white spectral plots.
Logged

JRSmit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 922
    • Jan R. Smit Fine Art Printing Specialist
Re: Upgrading from HPZ3100 to iPF6400
« Reply #29 on: October 14, 2014, 04:49:02 am »

Another question, Geraldo or Marcin,

I've just done a print using a roll of Canson Platine 310gsm and I'm getting ink marks at the sides of the paper. 

I have set up the paper using the Canson Platine media configuration file.  Looking at the media settings it shows the correct paper, with the Standard Paper showing as Canon Photo Pro Platinum and the Head Height as Auto (Low).

It would seem that the head height is too low, which is surprising as I would have thought the .am1 file would have the correct setting.  The Platine is a very thick paper - there's no info on the thickness from Canson, but I measure it at 0.55mm.

I've changed the head height to High and I'll try again, but I was wondering if this is a problem you've come across.  If so, is there some way of determining what the head height should be if we know the paper thickness?  The manual seems to suggest a trial-and-error approach.

Robert

Robert, i recently had a job where i used the 6450. Had similar headstrikes, turned out the paper thickness was not set properly. In my case is should have been 0.6mm, but the canon setting was 0.1mm. After adjusting things went fine.
Logged
Fine art photography: janrsmit.com
Fine Art Printing Specialist: www.fineartprintingspecialist.nl


Jan R. Smit

samueljohnchia

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 498
Re: Upgrading from HPZ3100 to iPF6400
« Reply #30 on: October 14, 2014, 05:10:45 am »

Robert, i recently had a job where i used the 6450. Had similar headstrikes, turned out the paper thickness was not set properly. In my case is should have been 0.6mm, but the canon setting was 0.1mm. After adjusting things went fine.


How do you see the head height in mm? I only see Super Low, Lowest, Low, Standard, High and Highest.
Logged

samueljohnchia

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 498
Re: Upgrading from HPZ3100 to iPF6400
« Reply #31 on: October 14, 2014, 05:16:13 am »

The HPZ3200 printers actually print with both blacks (matte and glossy) on matte papers, but only with the glossy black on glossy papers. The glossy black remains matte on matte papers and with a slightly better DMax, so the Z3200 has actually four blacks/grays when working with matte paper. I don't think Canon uses this trick.

Canon glossy black ink prints with lower dmax on matte papers than their own matte black, the opposite of the HP. I don't think it uses any glossy black when printing on matte papers.

Quote
Curiously, the IPF8400 manual advises using glossy papers for the common calibration preferably, but they ship the printer with a matte roll.

Interesting point. Probably partly because highly textured matte papers mess up the measurement step.

The standard calibration patches are also super tiny. And printed with the print mode set to Highest, bidirectional. Very coarse output, not high quality at all. The patches for what Canon calls "high quality calibration" on printers with the SU-21 prints far larger patches, but still not using the highest quality print mode.
Logged

samueljohnchia

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 498
Re: Upgrading from HPZ3100 to iPF6400
« Reply #32 on: October 14, 2014, 05:49:00 am »

There are several 230 gsm papers around that have a spectral plot similar to the Canon Heavyweight Matte Coated. Rebrands of the original made by Felix Schoeller. Their spectral plots indicate a slightly higher OBA content.  Could as well be caused by fresher samples with less OBA deterioration.

Thank you Ernst, that is valuable information. Another reason the Canon calibration cannot be too reliant on reference data, if it is at all. White points will always shift from batch to batch and there is OBA burnout to consider.
Logged

fetish

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 154
Re: Upgrading from HPZ3100 to iPF6400
« Reply #33 on: October 14, 2014, 05:54:49 am »

How do you see the head height in mm? I only see Super Low, Lowest, Low, Standard, High and Highest.

Was digging around a bit and I see such an option in the canon calibration link software package manual.
Logged

Robert Ardill

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 658
    • Images of Ireland
Re: Upgrading from HPZ3100 to iPF6400
« Reply #34 on: October 14, 2014, 06:04:28 am »

Thanks all!

Regarding common calibration with a non-genuine paper, I did this (by mistake) when I first calibrated the printer, because the roll shipped with the printer was an Oce 190gsm glossy paper and I didn't have any genuine Canon paper.  So I picked the Canon 170gsm glossy paper and sure enough, all of the paper calibrations were then set to the Canon 170gsm (obviously the printer isn't smart enough to know that you've fooled it :)).

Still ... I don't like doing this because the Oce paper is certainly going to be different to the Canon 170gsm genuine paper: different white, different amount of optical brighteners etc., so unless the calibration is super-dumb (in which case why bother printing different color patches?) and doesn't reference the spectral data, the calibration is going to be wrong.  If we profile the paper after the 'cheat' calibration, then the profile will correct for the wrong calibration, so we'll be OK, but if we use the manufacturer profile then we might have problems.

Which brings me onto the subject of optical brighteners.  It would seem to me that calibrating a paper with a lot of OBA and then using this calibration on a paper that has none, is most likely not a very good idea.  So I wonder if a solution would be:
  • 1. For common calibrations use a paper that has a low amount of OBA so it will be somewhere in between the two extremes
  • 2. Use unique calibrations for papers for which we have the media configuration files (with spectral data)
  • 3. For papers for which we do not have the spectral data, do a cheat unique calibration using a paper close to the target paper (so, for example, use a matte genuine paper with no OBA if the target paper is a matte paper with no OBA)
  • 4. Profile the papers in all cases and do not use the supplier icc file except for 2. (but even then, better to produce a custom profile).

I would think that it would be OK to recalibrate on new rolls without having to reprofile (even for common calibrations), providing the papers are high quality papers.

What do you think?

Robert
Logged
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. - George Santayana

Robert Ardill

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 658
    • Images of Ireland
Re: Upgrading from HPZ3100 to iPF6400
« Reply #35 on: October 14, 2014, 06:06:25 am »

Was digging around a bit and I see such an option in the canon calibration link software package manual.

Could you tell me how to set the paper thickness in mm?  I can't find this.

Robert
Logged
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. - George Santayana

samueljohnchia

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 498
Re: Upgrading from HPZ3100 to iPF6400
« Reply #36 on: October 14, 2014, 06:15:27 am »

Was digging around a bit and I see such an option in the canon calibration link software package manual.



This is all I could find.

Could you tell me how to set the paper thickness in mm?  I can't find this.

Neither can I. I have some evidence of what the low, standard, high etc head settings correspond to in mm, but it is not clear. For Super low the head is already over 1mm above the platen.
Logged

samueljohnchia

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 498
Re: Upgrading from HPZ3100 to iPF6400
« Reply #37 on: October 14, 2014, 06:30:12 am »

Hi Robert,

Have you looked carefully at the LEDs used during measurement when performing calibration? Green is used to measure paper white, and the blue LED is used for the first set of patches, and then red for the second set of patches - I may have gotten that mixed up slightly.

The printer is not able to measure anything other than density unless you have the SU-21 spectro unit. I believe Scott Martin is right in saying it is just a straightforward linearizing step, nothing else. No reference data would be needed if the printer indeed performs that way.

We don't know the SPD of the LEDs and exactly how the calibration is performed so it is difficult to say how OBAs will affect the measurements. Test and let us know?

I would think that it would be OK to recalibrate on new rolls without having to reprofile (even for common calibrations), providing the papers are high quality papers.

What do you think?

I don't think so. Hahnemuhle Photo Rag 308 has been reformulated, as an example.

Calibrate once, print out a profiling target, calibrate again, print out a profiling target and compare measurements. You will see that it varies enough. Usually if the printer warrants a re-calibration, it should be re-profiled. The re-calibration is heaven sent for less fussy uses, or uses who have profiles made by others for them.

Quote
  • 2. Use unique calibrations for papers for which we have the media configuration files (with spectral data)
  • 3. For papers for which we do not have the spectral data, do a cheat unique calibration using a paper close to the target paper (so, for example, use a matte genuine paper with no OBA if the target paper is a matte paper with no OBA)
  • 4. Profile the papers in all cases and do not use the supplier icc file except for 2. (but even then, better to produce a custom profile).

2. My question here is if the spectral data was produced with the printer properly calibrated before the target was printed. I'm not sure if the manufacturer's .am1 files were all optimally produced that way. In addition, they usually have chosen suboptimal settings for their papers.
3. That is definitely not a good idea at all. You are much better of using the common calibration here and just re-profiling. And if you really want to do this, create another version of this media type or else when you want to use the paper it was originally created for, the calibration data is wrong.
4. The supplier profiles are really not good at all. I see all sorts of problems. Even the best of them do not render the skin tones properly. These printers still don't print as close as you would think.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2014, 06:32:20 am by samueljohnchia »
Logged

Robert Ardill

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 658
    • Images of Ireland
Re: Upgrading from HPZ3100 to iPF6400
« Reply #38 on: October 14, 2014, 06:36:13 am »

Hi Robert, that is a very good question. I thought about it myself too until I worked with the SU-21 spectro on a iPF6460. I noticed that when creating unique calibration data for new media, it runs the paper feed adjustment again. So I figured, one should skip this step during the new media build. The MCT will warn you of problems but just skip it first, determine your vacuum strength and head height and create the .am1 file. After it is created, then click on edit, and run the paper feed adjustment. That is the way it should be done. or else the adjustment may be wildly inaccurate, because the MCT may pick different head height and vacuum strength settings. It is easy to check if you have a pocket microscope. Not many know about doing it this way!

I used an .am1 file from Canson, which seemed to have wrong head height/vacuum settings (but it could be the paper path/start of roll problem you mention).  I changed the vacuum, then did a paper feed adjustment by going through the edit and this seemed to reset the vacuum to auto ... so I reset it back to Strong before doing a calibration.  But it's possible I made a mistake somewhere, so I'll try again.

So it would seem that with existing .am1 files, we should do an edit, skip the paper feed and set the other parameters like head height and vacuum, then go back and to the paper feed adjustment before doing a calibration, profiling.  Is that correct?

If we don't have an .am1 file, then create one and go through the same procedure as above.

Quote
The paper path of the iPF64XX may be to blame. Testing extensively with my dealer's demo printer, I always get head strikes at the beginning of the roll, because the natural curl of the paper raises the front end just slightly too high as it passes over the platen. After the first bit of the roll has gone through, it prints just fine. Sometimes the lowest head height is ok, but I find it safer to keep it at 'low'. I still had head strikes, again only for the initial three inches or so, after which it was fine. Vacuum strength should be strong or strongest (I prefer the latter). The vacuum is able to hold down the paper more in the center so that's why the marks are only on the sides.

Yes, it seems that the head strikes were only after the initial paper load.  But this was not a new roll, actually it was near the end of the roll (where there's going to be even more curling).  Also I hadn't tied down the paper (but did have in in plastic), so the leading half meter might have been even more curled than it would normally be.  That's a problem with rolls of these heavy papers!

I take it the .am1 should have things like head height and vacuum settings?  Seems strange then that Canson would have the settings at Auto(lowest) and Auto(weak) for a thick curly paper like the Platine (must try the Baryta and see what the settings are for that).
[/quote]

Quote
Do beware the pizza wheels at the ejection point of the paper path. If the paper is too curly, it will impact the pizza wheels. While they are there to guide the paper, it marks glossy media like Patine with tiny perforated markings. Watch out for that. Again it only happens for the initial portion of paper. Guiding it with your fingers as it passes out is how I worked around the problem.

I haven't seen this problem, but I would be interested in how you guide the paper with your fingers.  I don't suppose there's any risk of getting the fingers cut off is there? :)

Quote
I'm less sure if unique calibration is useful. Imagine a print head swap down the road - instead of performing one common calibration and be done, you will have that to do that plus all your third party papers unique calibrations. A lot of additional paper and some ink to be wasted.
Yes, that's certainly a good point, especially if one uses many different papers (or 15m rolls of expensive papers like the Canson Platine/Baryta/Photo HiGloss papers ... by the time you've done a paper feed adjustment and a calibration you would need to put in a new roll!).
Quote
Plus I have also noticed that sometimes re-calibrations shift the printer behavior enough to warrant re-profiling.

That's worrying and would indicate that the calibration process is not accurate.
Logged
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. - George Santayana

Robert Ardill

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 658
    • Images of Ireland
Re: Upgrading from HPZ3100 to iPF6400
« Reply #39 on: October 14, 2014, 06:55:42 am »

Hi Robert,

Have you looked carefully at the LEDs used during measurement when performing calibration? Green is used to measure paper white, and the blue LED is used for the first set of patches, and then red for the second set of patches - I may have gotten that mixed up slightly.

The printer is not able to measure anything other than density unless you have the SU-21 spectro unit. I believe Scott Martin is right in saying it is just a straightforward linearizing step, nothing else. No reference data would be needed if the printer indeed performs that way.

We don't know the SPD of the LEDs and exactly how the calibration is performed so it is difficult to say how OBAs will affect the measurements. Test and let us know?

I don't think so. Hahnemuhle Photo Rag 308 has been reformulated, as an example.

Calibrate once, print out a profiling target, calibrate again, print out a profiling target and compare measurements. You will see that it varies enough. Usually if the printer warrants a re-calibration, it should be re-profiled. The re-calibration is heaven sent for less fussy uses, or uses who have profiles made by others for them.

2. My question here is if the spectral data was produced with the printer properly calibrated before the target was printed. I'm not sure if the manufacturer's .am1 files were all optimally produced that way. In addition, they usually have chosen suboptimal settings for their papers.
3. That is definitely not a good idea at all. You are much better of using the common calibration here and just re-profiling. And if you really want to do this, create another version of this media type or else when you want to use the paper it was originally created for, the calibration data is wrong.
4. The supplier profiles are really not good at all. I see all sorts of problems. Even the best of them do not render the skin tones properly. These printers still don't print as close as you would think.

So then really, from what you say, the best solution is to do a common calibration (for all papers) using a good quality paper (preferably a Canon paper, but this isn't essential) and then profile all the papers after the initial common calibration (so that the profile will correct for the slightly dodgy calibration) and never use manufacturer profiles. 

The calibration is putting the printer into a reasonable good known state, and providing we use the same roll to recalibrate, the calibration will keep the printer in this reasonable good known state (so that we don't keep having to reprofile the papers).

If we add a new paper then we should run the common calibration again before profiling the new paper.

I would be interested to know if the calibration/profiling using a 6450 is as good as doing it this way?  The reason I ask is that with the Z3100 the profiling target uses very few patches, so it would be very unlikely to do as good a job as an i1Pro/2 with a good-sized target.  I assume the calibration of the 6450 would be better (than the 6400/8400), but that the profiling might be worse (but I've no idea how many patches the 6450 uses for profiling).

Robert



Logged
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. - George Santayana
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Up