Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 17 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: ipf5000  (Read 377424 times)
Martin Phillips
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 20


« Reply #20 on: June 16, 2006, 10:13:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Has anyone in the UK receivied their printer?

I've had one on order for what seems like ages and every two weeks or so since the end of April I've been told it will be shipping "the end of next week"
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68226\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes Jamie, me too! Canon had withdrawn them from the distributors at the 11th hour, apparently to install new software (it's rumoured that this first batch of 40 had mistakenly shipped with Japanese software!).

They were promised to land again this week and then be shipped same day, but it is now Friday and my dealer still cannot get a definite date from Canon. However I am reassured that we will still all get the special 'early adopters' price.

Here's hoping...

Martin
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6945


WWW
« Reply #21 on: June 17, 2006, 03:42:14 AM »
ReplyReply

I just got word that dealers in Canada who have signed-up for them will start receiving a limited supply very soon.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Gary Damaskos
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 116


« Reply #22 on: June 17, 2006, 09:23:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I have not used the plug-in yet, but I will try it, if it makes things easier. IMHO the regular printer driver has to many screens that need to be changed. I am a total novice with this driver and it will take some time to get it right, especially in the area of paper selection. You get errors on the printer if the paper size is not the same on the printer and the driver

As for ink remaining after the initial fill there was about 75% left, The meter reads what is left in the carts, not whats in the lines, so I suspect there is really about 90%  left
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=66183\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I posted (thought I did anyway) yesterday - but it is not in here. I also just acquired the iPF5000. I do not have a lot of extra time as I work and then I learn this machine, so I will share as I am able. It is so advanced over any of the Epsons I have had. You can get prints from Inkjetart from this and x800 Epson to allow some comparison. I did that. That satisfied me that quality comparison was going to be a non issue (how good can good be to the eye anyway?). I think we are at the point now where the issues forward are to be about archiviability and flexibility and other issues - not perceptual quality (in other words how can it get better?). The options and software and plugin - are a lot of learning for me. I did try the plug in and it does much better on the image I printed than printing direct from PS did. I have done glossy and Summerset velvet uncoated test so far. Everything so far is so good. Other issues - need time to know. I heard there are only about 80 released in USA so far. I am wondering if a user group (like on Yahoo groups) will be formed? The EpsonWideFormat group showed little interest recently when asked about including this printer as part of the allowed topics. In summary as you can see I choose this - over the 4800 or anything HP offers (or will actually for the time being). At this point I am having Zero second thoughts about that. I suspect the Canon - if no bumps show up - will be very popular. And about the price - it comes with ethernet card, the 4800 does not. I wanted that card so actually the list price considering those, is pretty close.
Chow,
Gary
Logged
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4875



« Reply #23 on: June 17, 2006, 12:37:21 PM »
ReplyReply

My review of the iPF5000 and a comparison with the Epson 4800 will be published here next Wednesday (June 21).

I found clear and visible image quality advantages as well as operational ones.

Stay tuned.

Michael
Logged
Gemmtech
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 526


« Reply #24 on: June 17, 2006, 01:08:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
My review of the iPF5000 and a comparison with the Epson 4800 will be published here next Wednesday (June 21).

I found clear and visible image quality advantages as well as operational ones.

Stay tuned.

Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68400\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Thank GOD, well thank Michael    I've been waiting to order the Canon (I use both matte and gloss papers) but have put it off since the other "reviews" have stated that it's NOT continuous tone and the samples certainly show the pixels.

G
Logged
Peter McLennan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1692


« Reply #25 on: June 17, 2006, 03:11:08 PM »
ReplyReply

I love the idea of user-replacable heads.
Logged
Gary Damaskos
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 116


« Reply #26 on: June 17, 2006, 04:49:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Even though I have one, I am looking forward the review.

I do not understand how anyone arrived at thinking or saying it is not continious tone after seeing even  - not the highest and best settings-- prints results. I just was able to get one Summerset Velvet RW uncoated print (out of paper now) and the mat black ink and the other colors - all are nice and vibrant.

SVRW paper black measured 1.39 dmax. Epson hvy wt matte paper gave 1.54 dmax. I do not have ready references so I am not sure how these stack up - or even if I could extract better blacks than these. More time and experimenting will have to pass to answer that. More reason to look forward to Michaels review!
Gary


Quote
Thank GOD, well thank Michael    I've been waiting to order the Canon (I use both matte and gloss papers) but have put it off since the other "reviews" have stated that it's NOT continuous tone and the samples certainly show the pixels.

G
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68401\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
Gary Damaskos
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 116


« Reply #27 on: June 17, 2006, 05:24:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Koday Ultima hi-gloss - photo black (of course) 2.4 dmax.
Gary

Quote
Even though I have one, I am looking forward the review.

I do not understand how anyone arrived at thinking or saying it is not continious tone after seeing even  - not the highest and best settings-- prints results. I just was able to get one Summerset Velvet RW uncoated print (out of paper now) and the mat black ink and the other colors - all are nice and vibrant.

SVRW paper black measured 1.39 dmax. Epson hvy wt matte paper gave 1.54 dmax. I do not have ready references so I am not sure how these stack up - or even if I could extract better blacks than these. More time and experimenting will have to pass to answer that. More reason to look forward to Michaels review!
Gary
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68415\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
Gemmtech
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 526


« Reply #28 on: June 17, 2006, 08:38:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Even though I have one, I am looking forward the review.

I do not understand how anyone arrived at thinking or saying it is not continious tone after seeing even  - not the highest and best settings-- prints results. I just was able to get one Summerset Velvet RW uncoated print (out of paper now) and the mat black ink and the other colors - all are nice and vibrant.

SVRW paper black measured 1.39 dmax. Epson hvy wt matte paper gave 1.54 dmax. I do not have ready references so I am not sure how these stack up - or even if I could extract better blacks than these. More time and experimenting will have to pass to answer that. More reason to look forward to Michaels review!
Gary
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

"Photographic quality is lacking a little if you are up close. We did not see what could be called continuous tone in our prints. However, virtually impossible to tell that Prograf prints are not from a traditonal photo lab when viewed at normal distance."

[a href=\"http://www.redrivercatalog.com/infocenter/articles/canonprografipf5000.html]http://www.redrivercatalog.com/infocenter/...rafipf5000.html[/url]

"The output from the iPF5000 looks pretty good. My initial review said that the prints were grainy, I'm going to rescind that. Comparing prints from the Epson 7800, 4000 and R2400; the iPF5000 looks almost the same in my opinion. Sure the prints are a bit grainy but all of the prints are if you zoom in far enough."

http://www.inkjetart.com/canon/wide/iPF5000.html#review

Granted I believe they only used Red River paper (I don't care for) but when you click on their samples the Canon shows much more grain IMO.

I've been waiting for Michael's review since I know it will be the best review available.  I can't believe one of the BIG 3 can't come up with the "Holy Grail" of color printers (13x19 in 10 seconds, able to print matte or gloss without ink change, true continuous tone, 2000 year archival prints, perfect color accuracy, waterproof prints, self calibration, etc.)  I'm NOT asking for much  

I've been using Epson for many years now, it'll be weird buying a Canon, but then again it was weird buying my 1st Canon DSLR after shooting with Nikon for 25+ years.

G
« Last Edit: June 17, 2006, 08:39:29 PM by Gemmtech » Logged
David White
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 272



WWW
« Reply #29 on: June 17, 2006, 08:38:17 PM »
ReplyReply

The non-continuous tone thing probably came from the review at InkJetArt where they took a 0.25" x 0.375" section of an 8 x 10 print and blew it up to 4.167" x 5.931" @72dpi.

I've got a test print from them and looking at it with a 4X loupe, I am hard-pressed to see anything that looks like grain let alone what they show on their review.  I would have to say that it is very continuous tone.
Logged

David White
Gemmtech
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 526


« Reply #30 on: June 17, 2006, 08:41:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The non-continuous tone thing probably came from the review at InkJetArt where they took a 0.25" x 0.375" section of an 8 x 10 print and blew it up to 4.167" x 5.931" @72dpi.

I've got a test print from them and looking at it with a 4X loupe, I am hard-pressed to see anything that looks like grain let alone what they show on their review.  I would have to say that it is very continuous tone.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68422\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That's one, but Red River review also stated something similar.

"When viewed at the proper distance relative to the size of the print, the iPF5000 produces high quality photo reproductions. 9 out of 10 people could probably not tell they were looking at an inkjet print.

When viewed up close, prints off our Prograf 5000 showed a visible dot structure. We were suprised that they did not have a continous tone appearance. The dot pattern was present even at the top 2400x2400 quality setting (see left) and was more pronounced when we used resin coated photo glossy and luster papers. Dots were visible to a lesser extent on matte and art media. Under a loupe, the dot structure is revealed further, with dots overlapping far less often than on a competitive printer like the Epson 4800."

Canon 5000


Epson 4800


G
« Last Edit: June 17, 2006, 08:44:14 PM by Gemmtech » Logged
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4875



« Reply #31 on: June 17, 2006, 09:02:22 PM »
ReplyReply

It's impossible to know what settings they used or whether of not their printer was properly alligned.

I can report that on the iPF5000 that I have this is definately not the case. These prints have been viewed by a number of very experienced and knowledable observers, and none see anything other than continious tone.

It's time to put this issue to bed once and for all.

Michael
Logged
Gemmtech
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 526


« Reply #32 on: June 17, 2006, 09:09:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
It's impossible to know what settings they used or whether of not their printer was properly alligned.

I can report that on the iPF5000 that I have this is definately not the case. These prints have been viewed by a number of very experienced and knowledable observers, and none see anything other than continious tone.

It's time to put this issue to bed once and for all.

Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68424\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Agreed.  My father had many old sayings that he instilled in me, one was, believe 1/2 of what you see and none of what you hear.  Michael your opinion I value and I'm sure your review will be complete and accurate.  It was interesting to read the initial "reviews" in regards to the Canon IPF5000, because I thought I would be reading that this printer was going to set the standard by which all others would be judged.

G
Logged
John Mason
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10


« Reply #33 on: June 18, 2006, 06:50:18 PM »
ReplyReply

There is no dot pattern.  I don't know the methodologies others are using, but I'm in unidirectional 16 pass mode using Qimage and re-printing wedding prints I already did on my Epson R1800 on the IPF5000 and the IPF5000 pics look just as smooth even examined as close as you can get.  This is true whether I print on Epsons premium luster or (what should tell if there would be a difference) on Epson Photo Glossy.

In addition, the color range difference is quite noticable in the shadows or in greens and blues not even in the shadows.

I printed some lake tahoe shots I did 2 weeks ago on both printers and they are just outstanding on the Canon.  All the pics I've been printing where I've printed before, lay people and my graphics artist son prefer the Canon.

I have not played with the lower settings or bi-diretional yet to see if I can modify my workflow to produce dots.  I'm not in a hurry anyway.  I just wanted trouble free printing with a lower per page cost and a wider gamut.  At this point, I'm getting exactly what I wanted.

My roll feeder addition is on order.  I still can't print borderless yet.  Also, the printer driver requires some careful print paper choices or the driver will not let you use the cassette tray, but that's just a learning curve issue and then a re-profile issue once you find a paper type that works.

Gone are the cartoony greens and the blues - just outstanding.

Here are the two specific pics where I noticed quite an improvement over what I had gotten from the Epson (and both printers are calibrated the same with Eye-one):

http://www.fototime.com/3E8A57AF6B5A338/orig.jpg

(that's the ones where the greens look very cartoony on my Epson R1800)

http://www.fototime.com/03E002F1A9A2CBC/orig.jpg

that's the one where the blues are outstanding on the Canon

Sorry - both pics are sRgb online.  Printing aRGB on the Canon look better.

(edited to fix broken picture links)
« Last Edit: June 19, 2006, 09:36:21 PM by John Mason » Logged
Gary Damaskos
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 116


« Reply #34 on: June 18, 2006, 08:18:16 PM »
ReplyReply

There is a challange I am having with the ipF. I have been making profiles, so I am in the habit from Epson days of chosing usually gloss paper and heavywt (for heavier ink lay down) for printer media choices. So I do that, print targets, go to printing images - with the selected media choices - on 8.5x11 paper. Images are 8.1"x10.1". They are all clipped to about 8.1"x~8.8". This is using the top tray as so far these media choices I am using (and described) can not pull paper from the cassette - either top tray or roll (same as top tray anyway). There is a way around this of course, but at what quality cost? Also at the moment it is confusing as I have found no references to tell me about this - and Friday Canon CS actually said I was the problem - but I am certain it is not me - it is indeed features of the media choices and related settings. All I really want to do is put a lot of glossy paper in the cassette (8.5x11) and print at a high quality, photo images at 8.1x10.1. So far I have not been able to achieve that using sheets. Will review w/ Canon CS Monday - but like I said they don't seem to be up to speed about this either - at least not James (there are only 2 reps for this printer at this time I was told).

If you John have discovered anything please share or email me direct if open to it. Or any other of us new adaptors.

Gary



Quote
There is no dot pattern.  I don't know the methodologies others are using, but I'm in unidirectional 16 pass mode using Qimage and re-printing wedding prints I already did on my Epson R1800 on the IPF5000 and the IPF5000 pics look just as smooth even examined as close as you can get.  This is true whether I print on Epsons premium luster or (what should tell if there would be a difference) on Epson Photo Glossy.

In addition, the color range difference is quite noticable in the shadows or in greens and blues not even in the shadows.

I printed some lake tahoe shots I did 2 weeks ago on both printers and they are just outstanding on the Canon.  All the pics I've been printing where I've printed before, lay people and my graphics artist son prefer the Canon.

I have not played with the lower settings or bi-diretional yet to see if I can modify my workflow to produce dots.  I'm not in a hurry anyway.  I just wanted trouble free printing with a lower per page cost and a wider gamut.  At this point, I'm getting exactly what I wanted.

My roll feeder addition is on order.  I still can't print borderless yet.  Also, the printer driver requires some careful print paper choices or the driver will not let you use the cassette tray, but that's just a learning curve issue and then a re-profile issue once you find a paper type that works.

Gone are the cartoony greens and the blues - just outstanding.

Here are the two specific pics where I noticed quite an improvement over what I had gotten from the Epson (and both printers are calibrated the same with Eye-one):

http://www.fototime.com/3E8A57AF6B5A338/orig.jpg;

(that's the ones where the greens look very cartoony on my Epson R1800)

http://www.fototime.com/03E002F1A9A2CBC/orig.jpg;

that's the one where the blues are outstanding on the Canon

Sorry - both pics are sRgb online.  Printing aRGB on the Canon look better.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68471\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
John Mason
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10


« Reply #35 on: June 18, 2006, 10:43:59 PM »
ReplyReply

I ended up using the Photo Paper set of choices so that I could profile paper and use the cassette.  The two I have profiled and set up so far are the Epson Premium Luster and the Epson Premium Glossy.

As you ran into, if I pick the choices closest to those it would only let me load in the manaul tray.

Well, forget that.  I want to have a stack to work with, not one at a time.

Picking the Photo Paper 'prefix' in the paper names allowed me to use the cassette and the profiles that I got were good with complete ink lay down.

I'm not sure the technical limitations on paper thickness etc, that make so many of the choices be forced to be the manual top tray.  But the work around above worked fine for those 2 specific paper choices.
Logged
jclacherty
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 42


« Reply #36 on: June 19, 2006, 03:57:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
There is no dot pattern.  I don't know the methodologies others are using, but I'm in unidirectional 16 pass mode using Qimage...

I went and had a look at one today.  It's pretty big.  There was a definite dot pattern in the prints I saw.  I had them print out in 16 pass mode on a gloss paper.  Not sure if it was uni or bi-directional.  Given both you and Michael are seeing continuous tone it suggests it's not the printer that's the problem.  Which only leaves the image or user error.  The image they were printing was an 8-bit tiff given to them by Canon.  They didn't have profiles for the paper they were using though as they'd only opened up the printer yesterday.  I think they were still learning how to use it.

They should have profiles done by next week so I'll take an image of my own in to be printed on the new Innova Gloss Michael just reviewed.

Someone mentioned that the Photoshop plugin allows you to print 16-bit.  I was wondering if that was the problem.  Given you are using Qimage I guess it probably isn't...

BTW your links didn't seem to work for me.

Justin.
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6945


WWW
« Reply #37 on: June 19, 2006, 06:09:58 AM »
ReplyReply

The several prints I've seen have ZERO dot pattern - NADA - NONE - on either matte or glossy prints.

I'm not saying people who see dots have vision problems. Perhaps there is a particular set of circumstances which can cause this phenominon, and those who haven't seen it simply haven't printed under those specific conditions. We have no way of knowing yet, without directed testing.

I'm very interested in questions about paper feed and centering. I'm wondering whether any who own the printer have tried to print with Epson Enhanced Matte 8.5*11 and A3 sheets in the tray and cassette and been able to stack the paper and produce centered prints.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
aussiephil
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 15


« Reply #38 on: June 19, 2006, 07:55:58 AM »
ReplyReply

I have 5 images printed from a demo model today and there is just NO visible dots, Ziltch.

four of the images were printed used the Standard Quality 4 pass setting on gloss paper and still no dots visible and the areas of large colour were what i would call continuous tone.

Now having said that a 1600dpi scan i did of one of the standard quality images does show what looks like dots, remember this is a 1600dpi scan though.


Just waiting on MR to post the review before pulling the credit card out.
cheers
Phil
Logged
Gary Damaskos
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 116


« Reply #39 on: June 19, 2006, 09:15:32 AM »
ReplyReply

I have printed even on plain paper - no dots. I am wildly guessing maybe the actual paper?? Anyway (not that I want to) I have NOT discovered how to have dots or other than continious tones.
Gary

Quote
I went and had a look at one today.  It's pretty big.  There was a definite dot pattern in the prints I saw.  I had them print out in 16 pass mode on a gloss paper.  Not sure if it was uni or bi-directional.  Given both you and Michael are seeing continuous tone it suggests it's not the printer that's the problem.  Which only leaves the image or user error.  The image they were printing was an 8-bit tiff given to them by Canon.  They didn't have profiles for the paper they were using though as they'd only opened up the printer yesterday.  I think they were still learning how to use it.

They should have profiles done by next week so I'll take an image of my own in to be printed on the new Innova Gloss Michael just reviewed.

Someone mentioned that the Photoshop plugin allows you to print 16-bit.  I was wondering if that was the problem.  Given you are using Qimage I guess it probably isn't...

BTW your links didn't seem to work for me.

Justin.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68514\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 17 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad