Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Canon iPF5000 vs. Epson 11880 Gamut  (Read 27646 times)
John Hollenberg
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 765


« on: August 26, 2007, 08:19:29 PM »
ReplyReply

I got a look at the gamut of these two printers on Epson Premium Luster today.  Joe Holmes sent me his profile for Epson Premium Luster (260) using his best settings (Color Density +15), and I sent him the profile I made for Epson Premium Luster on the iPF5000 with Special 5 Media Type and target printed through the plugin.

Total gamut volume: 732,000 for Canon, 784,000 for Epson (7.2% larger)

Dmax: L* of 3.3 for Canon, L* 3.0 for Epson

Usefulness of gamut for colors that appear in nature.  Comments are by Joe Holmes:

--Canon gamut larger in pure green, which is of almost zero value
--Epson gamut significantly larger in the yellow to red range, which is very important
--royal blue to magenta gamut is still better with the Canon but not in the darkest blues and not in a way that is likely to show up in pictures as those colors are pretty rare too.

--John
Logged
jpgentry
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 197


« Reply #1 on: August 26, 2007, 11:22:17 PM »
ReplyReply

I would personally be more interested in hearing about this comparison on matt and canvas.  I realize most people here however print on photography paper...

Thanks for this...
Logged
Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2843


« Reply #2 on: August 27, 2007, 06:03:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I got a look at the gamut of these two printers on Epson Premium Luster today.  Joe Holmes sent me his profile for Epson Premium Luster (260) using his best settings (Color Density +15), and I sent him the profile I made for Epson Premium Luster on the iPF5000 with Special 5 Media Type and target printed through the plugin.

Total gamut volume: 732,000 for Canon, 784,000 for Epson (7.2% larger)

Dmax: L* of 3.3 for Canon, L* 3.0 for Epson
Usefulness of gamut for colors that appear in nature.  Comments are by Joe Holmes:

--Canon gamut larger in pure green, which is of almost zero value
--Epson gamut significantly larger in the yellow to red range, which is very important
--royal blue to magenta gamut is still better with the Canon but not in the darkest blues and not in a way that is likely to show up in pictures as those colors are pretty rare too.

--John
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Apart from the figures on the total gamut that can be quite objectively counted it must be harder to estimate the differences on the hues. How well they fit the user's color practice is another step to subjectivity I think. For landscape-, wedding-, product photography, computer art and art reproduction it may not be as uniform as sketched above. This does not deny the fact that I see more people struggle to make the right profile for their Canons with and without RIPs. For some it is the need or wish to create Epson alike color that makes it harder but underneath the complexity of N-color mixing as described in the media profiles should not be ignored. I know of at least one Canon user that got a RIP + the service of a color profiling company from Canon to meet his requests and it still isn't solved.

What I miss so far on the Vivid Magenta story is how different this ink is if compared to the Epson 9600 ink set. Remember that the 9800 K3 got a magenta that shifted to the yellow if compared to the 9600 UC ink set. Now it shifts back to the blue in the 11880 ink set. I presume that in the two steps chroma was gained but I wonder if that return to cooler magenta isn't also the main contribution to the 28% gain (below) in chroma for the blue to magenta range. It also will suit proof printing better. In other words isn't part of this gain not describing a flaw in the 9800 ink set. Joseph's 11880 page says the following on comparing to the 9800 inkset:

>>Together, on photo papers, these changes yield a considerable increase in gamut in the blue-to-magenta range (up to 28% more chroma), with a little spillover gain in the blue-to-cyan and magenta-to-red ranges, plus some surprising gain in the green range (around 3 or 4% at most) and a small loss in the red-to-yellow range (about 2%) with the default profiling/driver setup, or a slight gain in the setup I choose for Premium Luster (260) -- that being to use the Luster (260) driver table and to set the Color Density slider at +15. <<

>>The total gamut volume of the best profile for Luster (260) that I can make for the 11880 and the Vivid Magenta inkset is 7.6% better than the total gamut volume of my best profile for Luster (250) and the 9800. I suspect that if the paper were not a variable, the difference would be more like 9%, because this new paper is dimmer, even absent UV light in the measurement process (the new paper fluoresces far less, about 1/4 as much).<<

End of quotes.

If there's an "absolute deltaE numbers" 7.6% gain compared to the 9800 and a 7.2% gain compared to the iPF5000 profile you provided then I do not think this is a dramatic difference. The Epson 9800 scored lower in Dmax than the Epson 9600 (at least on matte papers and on film in the default setting) and it looks like there's no improvement between the 9800 and the 11880 on that aspect. One wonders if part of that gamut gain in the darker colors for the 9800 and 11880 is a result of a more transparent black. Would be interesting to compare the new Canon iPF5100 blacks with the iPF5000 black on that aspect and while at it check if they are a bit warmer too :-) Canon's comments on that new black are not in contradiction to a more transparent black.

Do you have access to a 9600 profile for Lustre (made by Atkinson for example) and could you compare that with the 11880 profile ? The 15% ink addition in Joseph's media profile is something that can be done with the 9800 and 11880 but not in the 9600 driver a far as I know but the 9600 default probably didn't need it.

Ernst Dinkla

try: [a href=\"http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/]http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/[/url]
« Last Edit: August 27, 2007, 06:33:31 AM by Ernst Dinkla » Logged
John Hollenberg
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 765


« Reply #3 on: August 27, 2007, 09:21:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
What I miss so far on the Vivid Magenta story is how different this ink is if compared to the Epson 9600 ink set. Remember that the 9800 K3 got a magenta that shifted to the yellow if compared to the 9600 UC ink set. Now it shifts back to the blue in the 11880 ink set. I presume that in the two steps chroma was gained but I wonder if that return to cooler magenta isn't also the main contribution to the 28% gain (below) in chroma for the blue to magenta range. It also will suit proof printing better. In other words isn't part of this gain not describing a flaw in the 9800 ink set?

Based on comparison with the Bill Atkinson profile for Epson Premium Luster for the 9600, I would say "Yes, part is, but most is not" to your question.  Stats for Bill's 9600 premium luster profile from Colorthink Pro:

Gamut volume:  674,000

Dmax:  L* 13.2

Here is a quick screengrab from Colorthink pro.  The green wireframe is the 11880, the solid is Epson 9600, both on Epson Premium Luster:

http://bigweasel.com/Epson11880.jpg

--John
« Last Edit: August 27, 2007, 09:21:33 AM by John Hollenberg » Logged
Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2843


« Reply #4 on: August 27, 2007, 10:06:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Based on comparison with the Bill Atkinson profile for Epson Premium Luster for the 9600, I would say "Yes, part is, but most is not" to your question.  Stats for Bill's 9600 premium luster profile from Colorthink Pro:

Gamut volume:  674,000

Dmax:  L* 13.2

Here is a quick screengrab from Colorthink pro.  The green wireframe is the 11880, the solid is Epson 9600, both on Epson Premium Luster:

http://bigweasel.com/Epson11880.jpg

--John
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135768\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It looks like that. So based on the screengrab the opposed orange and blue-violet parts increased + the dark area on all hues which probably is the main volume increase. 16% increase of the gamut in total between the 9600 and the 11880 (with the extra ink Joseph added).

Ernst Dinkla
Logged
Bruce Watson
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 92


WWW
« Reply #5 on: August 27, 2007, 04:09:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
If there's an "absolute deltaE numbers" 7.6% gain compared to the 9800 and a 7.2% gain compared to the iPF5000 profile you provided then I do not think this is a dramatic difference. http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135737\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Here's a question that bears on this situation perhaps. How does one compare gamut when one can't make profiles that take into account the inks available?

Another way to look at the question: is it fair to compare a CMYK profile for the Epson, which pretty much maxes out the gamut of its inkset, to a CMYK profile for the Canon, which doesn't fully account for the extra RGB inks in the Canon's inkset?

It just seems to me that the Canons may be able to produce more gamut than the existing profiles can show because of the high difficulty in making CMYKRGB profiles. But I have no way to check, so I have to ask questions like this on forums like this. Sigh... where did I put that winning lottery ticket???
Logged

John Hollenberg
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 765


« Reply #6 on: August 27, 2007, 04:22:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Another way to look at the question: is it fair to compare a CMYK profile for the Epson, which pretty much maxes out the gamut of its inkset, to a CMYK profile for the Canon, which doesn't fully account for the extra RGB inks in the Canon's inkset?

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135836\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Actually, both profiles are made treating the printer as an RGB device.  Any conversions are done by the driver (or in the case of Canon, the Export plugin).

Joe Holmes sent me another profile for Epson Premium Luster on the 9600, which has Color Density increased and has a much better dmax than the L* of 13.2 (which seemed awfully high to me, perhaps an error on my part?).  I will post more detail later tonite when I get home.

--John
Logged
madmanchan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2108


« Reply #7 on: August 27, 2007, 06:21:53 PM »
ReplyReply

John, 13.2 does sound high for Premium Luster, even with the older UltraChrome ink set.

As a point of comparison, when I printed on Ilford Smooth Pearl on my older 2200 using ImagePrint, a L* reading of 8 or 9 for the darkest patch was more normal.
Logged

John Hollenberg
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 765


« Reply #8 on: August 27, 2007, 09:32:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Updated info re: Epson 9600 profile for Epson Premium Luster.  Sent to me by Joseph Holmes, has Color Density set to +10.  This profile is for the Premium Luster (250), not the (260).

Gamut volume:  706,000

Dmax: L* of 8.2

Here is a quick screen grab from Colorthink Pro:

http://bigweasel.com/Epson11880-2.jpg

--John
Logged
neil snape
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1432


WWW
« Reply #9 on: August 28, 2007, 12:53:25 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm always surprised at what can be learned with synthetic plots, gamut boundaries, and volumes.
Thinking L8.2 was higher than what I see on HP printers I went to calculating the L max on different profiles with the Z3100 and 9180 printers (same inks different screening) and the older dye printers.

Opposite of what I measure on actual plots , running a 0 0 0 black in Prophoto RGB, absolute turns in between 6 and 7 for all photo media, the exception being ID Satin APs reporting L5 0 -1. The dye HP 13 turns in around 6-7 same as the pigment Vivera inks. These are non modified ink settings, and to be honest I've not been able to increase gamut with any overinking with HP drivers.
When you hand measure these black patches they are more realistic, the dye goes well below L5, and the pigments stay around or go slightly higher.

Trade offs in smoothness, graduations, and many other fine areas are outside of gamut volumes, which Joeseph is quick to point out by saying smoothness is exceeded in some areas including grey builds over precedent models. Gamut volumes are part of the story, actual repro the bigger part being rather subjective.
Logged
Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2843


« Reply #10 on: August 28, 2007, 03:31:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Updated info re: Epson 9600 profile for Epson Premium Luster.  Sent to me by Joseph Holmes, has Color Density set to +10.  This profile is for the Premium Luster (250), not the (260).

Gamut volume:  706,000

Dmax: L* of 8.2

Here is a quick screen grab from Colorthink Pro:

http://bigweasel.com/Epson11880-2.jpg

--John
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Which brings the gamut increase between 9800 (+ 15% ink) and 9600 (+ 10% ink) to 11% on two printer generations = 5% per generation.

My best guess on the effect of ink addition working for the Epson UC-K3-Vivid Magenta is the higher transparency of the inks while keeping chroma. More dye like behaviour. Compared to the Z3100 there is a compromise in fade resistance but the last doesn't gain the same gamut expansion with ink addition. It could of course also be the result of the N-channel RGB ink substitution in the Z3100 that dampens the effect, the Epsons have more color mixes which is visible if one compares a 9800 print against a Z3100 print. Less ink used with a Z3100 though.

Ernst Dinkla

try: [a href=\"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/[/url]
Logged
neil snape
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1432


WWW
« Reply #11 on: August 28, 2007, 09:38:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Yes Ernst, quite right as usual. The yellow ink being the most volatile, HP desinged around a very stable yellow. A choice was made to favour lightfastnessness over higher gamut. Same for magenta, yet the additional primaries are  not as stable as the nominal CMYK set, yet still chosen for their repsectable lightfastness. Different grinds, different pigments, even the writing system played into the tests while under dev , in an often surprising way even for their ink chemists.
Good news is, there are still gains to be had in tweaks with newer inks for all.
Logged
deanwork
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 712


« Reply #12 on: August 29, 2007, 08:56:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Did I miss something?

One big factor that I don't see anyone mentioning is that all these new inksets are being designed in concert with specific paper coatings. If they are to be at all fair in these tests they should comare the same file with Canon luster media on the Epson as well as the Canon. The same goes for HP.

In regard to permanece the yellow channel of the Z is most likely the culprit of holding down the mag/yellow/red gamut  slightly. With twice the permance, so be it.

My wonder is if both the new Epson inkset and the Canon  Lucia inks are putting a lot more dye in the mix as to achieve these gamuts. Did pigment gamut characteristics change over night?  Canon is not even publishing their test resuts done by Wilhelm on a varitey of media on his site, Why? On his site it takes you to their press release.

They are very selective about what they are revealing.  Also we don't have full results of Epson's new inks either. I think we know that the overall photo market is far larger than the fine art permanece market, and that ad photographers, especially the ones paying for this these huge prints off the 64" machines that are competing with C prints from Light Jet and Lamda. Isn't that the market they want, primarily?...... big bright prints, lots of ink and media used.

john







Quote
Yes Ernst, quite right as usual. The yellow ink being the most volatile, HP desinged around a very stable yellow. A choice was made to favour lightfastnessness over higher gamut. Same for magenta, yet the additional primaries are  not as stable as the nominal CMYK set, yet still chosen for their repsectable lightfastness. Different grinds, different pigments, even the writing system played into the tests while under dev , in an often surprising way even for their ink chemists.
Good news is, there are still gains to be had in tweaks with newer inks for all.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135957\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
John Hollenberg
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 765


« Reply #13 on: August 29, 2007, 09:24:08 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
One big factor that I don't see anyone mentioning is that all these new inksets are being designed in concert with specific paper coatings. If they are to be at all fair in these tests they should comare the same file with Canon luster media on the Epson as well as the Canon. The same goes for HP.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136172\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The reason I chose Epson Premium Luster is that I found it had a larger gamut on the Canon iPF5000 than the Canon Heavyweight Photo Satin (only other paper I looked at).  The Canon Photo Satin had a gamut volume of 714,000 in Colorthink Pro.  This is using the Canon selected Media Type of "Heavyweight Photo Satin", which may or may not correspond to the ink limits used for Special 5 (don't know).  

I haven't tested other papers, but looking at the profiles supplied by Canon I see that their Heavyweight Photo Glossy has a gamut volume of 742,000, which is the highest gamut volume I have seen from any Canon paper/Canon ink combination so far.  If someone wants to send me a profile for a Canon Luster paper made with an optimal Media Type for that paper, I will be glad to have a look at it and report the results.

--John
Logged
deanwork
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 712


« Reply #14 on: August 29, 2007, 10:32:10 AM »
ReplyReply

I don't know, to me generic profiles are not what I would use for strict gamut testing. I would want to generate custom ones for that particular machine and that batch of media. I also don't know how that smaller Canon compares to the larger Canons, eventhough they use the same ink. But, you may very well be correct in your conclusions.

john




Quote
The reason I chose Epson Premium Luster is that I found it had a larger gamut on the Canon iPF5000 than the Canon Heavyweight Photo Satin (only other paper I looked at).  The Canon Photo Satin had a gamut volume of 714,000 in Colorthink Pro.  This is using the Canon selected Media Type of "Heavyweight Photo Satin", which may or may not correspond to the ink limits used for Special 5 (don't know). 

I haven't tested other papers, but looking at the profiles supplied by Canon I see that their Heavyweight Photo Glossy has a gamut volume of 742,000, which is the highest gamut volume I have seen from any Canon paper/Canon ink combination so far.  If someone wants to send me a profile for a Canon Luster paper made with an optimal Media Type for that paper, I will be glad to have a look at it and report the results.

--John
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136179\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
John Hollenberg
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 765


« Reply #15 on: August 29, 2007, 10:56:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I don't know, to me generic profiles are not what I would use for strict gamut testing. I would want to generate custom ones for that particular machine and that batch of media.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136195\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I wouldn't expect significant differences in gamut between batches of paper or with different specimens of the printer.  As far as I can tell, paper, inkset and the Media Type used to print the targets are the main variables that would have a significant effect on gamut.  If you are using a RIP and setting ink limits, etc., the results might be different.

--John
Logged
Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2843


« Reply #16 on: August 29, 2007, 11:03:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Did I miss something?


In regard to permanece the yellow channel of the Z is most likely the culprit of holding down the mag/yellow/red gamut  slightly. With twice the permance, so be it.

My wonder is if both the new Epson inkset and the Canon  Lucia inks are putting a lot more dye in the mix as to achieve these gamuts. Did pigment gamut characteristics change over night?  Canon is not even publishing their test resuts done by Wilhelm on a varitey of media on his site, Why? On his site it takes you to their press release.


john
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

John,

The last days I have been busy to get the Wasatch SoftRip 6.2 + Z3100 working as an RGB device and for that I measured the chroma of the 6 hues aboard the Z3100. If there's one thing clear then it is that the yellow doesn't hold the rest back. Together with green and red the chroma climbs up to about 94% of raw ink output on the channels and 100% isn't dropping much either.  The single cyan ink channel holds quite well too at 88%. The magenta however could be improved but for red-orange mixes this isn't a problem as the nice red is available. The violet ink channel is reaching its chroma high at 69% of raw output but its use for good blues up to violet is perfect. It looks more like you have to throttle the yellow to get the balance, the Wasatch calibration for some papers cuts it at 55% to get that balance, throwing 40% of "usable" range overboard. Nothing wrong with the staining power of that ink. In what I see the Magenta could be improved. I'm not spending much more time on the Wasatch, I actually wonder whether they can get it right themselves as their paper configurations + profiles are not using the grey inks and even the RGV inks run up to the neutral spine. Nice to get a rough increase on the dark color gamut but with a terrible metamerism. I got a better and quite heavy profile with the driver's PremiumIDgloss media setting + a profile with the old Profiler Pro based on ProPhoto space. No extra ink density set. The standard HP profiles as delivered with the driver software are almost as nice but skin tone is a bit cold in my opinion. Subtle so can be improved easily in an editor.

John, you can not write that they put dye in the inks. There's a gliding scale between what a dye is and what the very related artificial pigments are. If the dye molecules are knotted up enough you get the pigments, to put it simple. Compromises are made and the encapsulation of the particles is used as a protection to allow a shift to less entangled pigments that have more chroma and transparency. The time that a muddy pigment ink got some dye added to make it more vivid is gone I hope.

Ernst Dinkla

try: [a href=\"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/[/url]
Logged
Fred Ragland
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 155


WWW
« Reply #17 on: August 29, 2007, 11:52:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
...I measured the chroma of the 6 hues aboard the Z3100...[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136202\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thank you for the excellent report Ernst.

Fred Ragland
Logged
deanwork
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 712


« Reply #18 on: August 29, 2007, 12:52:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Ernst,

I do hope you are right there. I don't know what they are putting in there.  It may be that this new direction in ink chemestry will give us the best of both worlds and continue to develop on both fronts, gamut and permanece. To me Ultrachrome of recent years is just plain not good for long term stability unless sprayed with uv coatings. I've seen it shift in real life situations when exposed to slightly more than ideal daylight intensity.

We'll know soon enough if these new formulas by Canon and Epson  will hold up or not.

john





John, you can not write that they put dye in the inks. There's a gliding scale between what a dye is and what the very related artificial pigments are. If the dye molecules are knotted up enough you get the pigments, to put it simple. Compromises are made and the encapsulation of the particles is used as a protection to allow a shift to less entangled pigments that have more chroma and transparency. The time that a muddy pigment ink got some dye added to make it more vivid is gone I hope.

Ernst Dinkla

try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136202\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
[/quote]
Logged
John Hollenberg
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 765


« Reply #19 on: August 30, 2007, 02:55:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Joe Holmes informs me that he has updated his article with QuickTime movies showing eight, 3D gamut comparisons.  These include the requested K3 VM vs. 9600 UltraChrome comparison.  He also added two JPEGs of the Epson vs. Canon comparison.

http://www.josephholmes.com/news-epson11880.html

--John
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad