Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: IPF5000 vs R3800 color Gamut  (Read 9077 times)
Abdulrahman Aljabri
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 260



WWW
« on: December 19, 2007, 06:20:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Based on specs the IPF5000 should offer better color and a wider gamut, hence 12 inks vs 8 inks in the R3800.


Nonetheless, one must ask, is there a tangible difference between the two printers? Higher specs don't always translate into better performance and that's why I am wondering.


I am well aware of all the pros and cons of each printer, and if the IPF5000 offers better and wider color gamut I would go with it over the lighter and more compact R3800.


Please share your experience, thanks
Logged

MY SITE: ALJABRI MEDIA PRODUCTION

Abdulrahman - and yes its a long name but has a meaning "servant of the merciful". you can also call me abdul
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9225



WWW
« Reply #1 on: December 19, 2007, 08:20:33 AM »
ReplyReply

I would submit that wider color gamut doesn’t equate into better color.

Then you need to define what you mean by wider color gamut. By total volume? What if one color area is wider in on one printer, narrower elsewhere?
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Abdulrahman Aljabri
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 260



WWW
« Reply #2 on: December 19, 2007, 08:33:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Then you need to define what you mean by wider color gamut. By total volume? What if one color area is wider in on one printer, narrower elsewhere?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161722\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Yes total color volume.

Individual colors gamut can significantly vary from one printer to another. Green can be huge in Canon, where as yellow in the shadows can be limited vs. Epson for example.

I would be happy to learn about those details if they are available, but I was looking for the overall difference to be able to make a final decision.

Thanks
« Last Edit: December 19, 2007, 08:35:56 AM by abdul10000 » Logged

MY SITE: ALJABRI MEDIA PRODUCTION

Abdulrahman - and yes its a long name but has a meaning "servant of the merciful". you can also call me abdul
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9225



WWW
« Reply #3 on: December 19, 2007, 08:39:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Best way to do this would be to compare the same paper (and driver settings ideally) and view the profiles in ColorThink. I used to have an IPF 5000 but gave it a way and while I have a 3800, I don't know that I have profiles of the same papers from each.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Abdulrahman Aljabri
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 260



WWW
« Reply #4 on: December 19, 2007, 09:02:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Best way to do this would be to compare the same paper (and driver settings ideally) and view the profiles in ColorThink. I used to have an IPF 5000 but gave it a way and while I have a 3800, I don't know that I have profiles of the same papers from each.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161726\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


ahh perfect!

How did your IPF5000 compare to the 3800 you have now?
Logged

MY SITE: ALJABRI MEDIA PRODUCTION

Abdulrahman - and yes its a long name but has a meaning "servant of the merciful". you can also call me abdul
John Hollenberg
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 770


« Reply #5 on: December 19, 2007, 09:07:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Best way to do this would be to compare the same paper (and driver settings ideally) and view the profiles in ColorThink.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I have an iPF5000, with a custom profile I made for Epson Premium Luster using Eye One Pro and Profilemaker 5.  The size of the gamut on this paper as measured in Colorthink Pro is virtually identical to a similar profile made for the Epson 2400 on the same paper.  There is about 1% difference in the total gamut volume.

However, the shapes are different, with the Epson better in the darker colors and also in the warmer & lighter colors (lighter reds/yellows).  The Canon is better in the darker blues and the medium greens.   This is a very rough summary of the differences, as these profiles have irregular shapes.

There are a couple of views of gamut plots for Inkjetart Luster on the Wiki:

[a href=\"http://canonipf.wikispaces.com/Gamut+Plots]http://canonipf.wikispaces.com/Gamut+Plots[/url]

While these plots are interesting, I think the best way to evaluate the differences is to print real images with problem colors on both printers using perceptual rendering intent and then compare those prints to the original image on the monitor to see which produces the most faithful rendering.  Unfortunately, this is not a trivial task, and the results may vary depending on the particular images selected.

--John
Logged
Scott Martin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1312


WWW
« Reply #6 on: December 19, 2007, 12:08:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I would submit that wider color gamut doesn’t equate into better color.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161722\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well said! IMO, the best way to judge printer differences is by looking at side by side print samples made with the same profile technology and on the same paper. I take a stack of print samples with me everywhere I go to show my clients. This visual analysis is more valuable then simple chromaticity diagram comparisons, IMO.
Quote
Best way to do this would be to compare the same paper (and driver settings ideally) and view the profiles in ColorThink. I used to have an IPF 5000 but gave it a way and while I have a 3800, I don't know that I have profiles of the same papers from each.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161722\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Chromaticity diagrams indicate the results one might see when printing with Relative Colorimetric, but they don't indicate what kinds of results you might see when printing with the intent that most of us here use: Perceptual.

At the workshop I taught with Andy Biggs in Moab last week I showed everyone print samples from Epson K3+vm, Canon 8100 and HP Z3100 on various papers. All of the profiles were made the same way with Monaco Profiler and the prints were printed with Perceptual. We also examined the corresponding chromaticity diagrams. The Epson and Canon iPF comparison was particularly interesting because the chromaticity diagrams suggested that some colors might appear more saturated on the Epson but the visual comparison contradicted this and clearly showed more favorable results on the Canon prints. I'd like to encourage whoever is interested to repeat this test. As far as educating people to make knowledge decisions about printers and papers, I find this to be more valuable than anything else.
Logged

Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2929



WWW
« Reply #7 on: December 19, 2007, 02:31:50 PM »
ReplyReply

It's easy to make an assumption that primary inks increase gamut, but it's a little more complex than that.  One reality is you can increase gamut in colors that really aren't important.

I've used or still use a canon 5000,6100, epson 3800, 9800 and 11880.  Personally I believe the 3800 has better output than the 5000 and the 9800.  Output of the 6100 and 3800 are very close,  and it will depend on image type and needed color gamut.  Most likely you will have areas in prints that are better on each printer, with neither being obviously superior.  Thus it comes down to features, such as mk/pk switching, paper handling (roll?), etc. In my case, I would give the edge to the 6100 (the 5100 should produce identical output), but the difference is so slight it takes side by side images of the right type with some very close scrutiny to see differences.

However, you asked about the 5000, and here I believe there is a difference.  When using the 5000 you may have problems with grain in some regions (that's why I quit using it), as well as metamerism and gloss differential.  I felt the black improvement by canon as well as the screening improvements in the newer canon x100 printer series are pretty significant.  The ability for the printer to calibrate itself and maintain a baseline is extremely valuable as well to account for the drift as nozzles clog and are remapped, keeping profiles more accurate over time.  Calibration also makes it possible to get better profiles from 3rd parties such as paper manufacturers.

Don't misunderstand .. the 5000 can produce great prints, but if final print quality is your main consideration, the extra cost of the 5100, or a 3800 would be a better choice IMO.
Logged

jerryrock
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 570



WWW
« Reply #8 on: December 20, 2007, 11:05:14 AM »
ReplyReply

This Luminous Landscape review of the Epson 3800 gives a pretty good comparison  with the Canon iPF5000. It gives the print quality edge to the Canon (which is the printer I own).

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/...pson-3800.shtml

There are many other reasons to choose one over the other (the major being roll feed unit) and it all boils down to personal preference.
Logged

Gerald J Skrocki
skrockidesign.com
Abdulrahman Aljabri
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 260



WWW
« Reply #9 on: December 20, 2007, 11:23:23 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
There are many other reasons to choose one over the other (the major being roll feed unit) and it all boils down to personal preference.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162029\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

True, and with the great price available now, I think the IPF5000 has the edge.
Logged

MY SITE: ALJABRI MEDIA PRODUCTION

Abdulrahman - and yes its a long name but has a meaning "servant of the merciful". you can also call me abdul
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5532


WWW
« Reply #10 on: December 20, 2007, 11:44:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
True, and with the great price available now, I think the IPF5000 has the edge.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162036\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Right up till you factor in the head cost for replacement if you print alot...the Canon has two $600 print heads that will need to be replaced at some point in time after a certain number of prints. So, when doing the math, be sure to factor in an extra $1,200 for the cost of ownership over time.
Logged
John Hollenberg
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 770


« Reply #11 on: December 20, 2007, 12:02:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Right up till you factor in the head cost for replacement if you print alot...the Canon has two $600 print heads that will need to be replaced at some point in time after a certain number of prints. So, when doing the math, be sure to factor in an extra $1,200 for the cost of ownership over time.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162046\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I agree that this is a significant issue with the Canon iPF printers.  On the other hand, you have to factor in the time/hassle to keep the Epson printers free of clogs.  For me, the potential extra cost is worth the lack of hassle with clogs, but I am sure this will vary from person to person, amount of printing done, etc.  Also, if you print a combination of PK/MK the the cost of switching inks has to be factored in (or you have to buy a second printer to dedicate to the other black ink).

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

Posts: 473


« Reply #12 on: December 20, 2007, 12:05:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Right up till you factor in the head cost for replacement if you print alot...the Canon has two $600 print heads that will need to be replaced at some point in time after a certain number of prints. So, when doing the math, be sure to factor in an extra $1,200 for the cost of ownership over time.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162046\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The problem with these threads is that they can get to be a bit partisan - it used just to be canon or nikon (now it's leica too!) - I will declare now that I run an IPF5000:)

If image quality is your first concern you must compare all the options, ideally as used by people who know how to get the best from them. There are then other factors to consider which may include some or all of the following - availability of roll feed, costs of black switching, cost of printer, possible future cost of print heads/clearing clogged heads, ease of use etc etc

I bought the 5000 because I wanted roll feed and the ability to switch blacks without pouring lots of ink into the maintenance cartridge. The roll feed has needed repairing twice (at Canon's expense), but otherwise it has performed in an exemplary manner. I don't print so much that I'd expect the heads to have failed yet anyway.

I have a couple of issues with the output centred around bronzing when printing black and white or some coloured images on RC lustre paper. These issues are much reduced on Hahne Photo Rag Pearl. Otherwise I like it. I suspect that if I'd bought the 3800 I'd have liked that as well - any current generation printed would have improved on my previous epson 2100 with Lyson inks I suspect.

At the time, I would have liked to buy an HP Z3100, but couldn't afford the step up to a 24 inch printer. If I had I would more than likely be happy, but there are an awful lot of threads about them on here! Now when I go for a 24 inch printer it will probably be an IPF6100, if only because I know the interface etc.


So, if it is really about output quality then check them all out, but there are other considerations that may be more important - particularly as they are all capable of delivering nice pictures. Whatever you buy, use it and enjoy it.

Mike
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5532


WWW
« Reply #13 on: December 20, 2007, 12:13:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Also, if you print a combination of PK/MK the the cost of switching inks has to be factored in (or you have to buy a second printer to dedicate to the other black ink).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162052\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

But, the OP was talking about the 3800 which has all nine inks of board and only does a black nozzle switch not a black line switch. That only takes a couple of minutes and about 1-1.5 ML of ink. Not NEARLY the cost factor of replacing two $600 heads. And the 3800 track record on clogging is WAY down over earlier printers which tends to negate that as an issue.

Considering that it takes Canon 12 inks to meet (or very slightly exceed) Epson's 9 ink offering should tell you something about the value of having REAL GOOD cyan, magenta and yellow inks.

You can add red, green and "blue" till you're blue in the face, but the purity of the subtractive primaries is far more important than trying to glom onto the gamut by using alternative ink colors. Epson learned that lesson back when they did the R800 with red and blue inks replacing the light magenta and light cyan. They ended up with only about a 1% gain in total ink volume but at the expense of the highlight gradations in colors.

The only real major factor between the IPF5000 and the 3800 is the lack of the roll feed for the 3800. If you want to print from rolls, that's pretty much game over. Course, correct me if I'm wrong, but that's an additional cost on the Canon?
« Last Edit: December 20, 2007, 12:14:04 PM by Schewe » Logged
abiggs
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 555



WWW
« Reply #14 on: December 20, 2007, 12:15:20 PM »
ReplyReply

I have to say that there isn't a single printer on the market that is the silver bullet for inkjet printing. All printers have their positives and negatives, and it is up to the buyer to be educated on all of the differences between them.

As far as output quality goes, I believe that we are at a point where most pigment based printers 17-inch and larger have such similar output that the differences are fairly minor. When you start to factor in size, roll paper options, what media you usually print on, black and white quality and overall usability, this is where the differences begin to show up.

At this moment I could be convinced to have an Epson 3800 for my everyday cut sheet printing, a Canon IPF 6100 for moderately sized rolls, and an Epson 11880 for ultra large format. It just depends.

Scott and I had a great workshop a few weeks ago, and seeing the same exact evaluation image printed on different papers was quite valuable for me and for our workshop participants. All profiles were made with the same hardware and software, eliminating variables. And some black and white prints were printed using the supplier's black and white mode, as well as a straight RGB print using their standard printer driver.

What amazed me was how well a custom profile would do on a printer, printing through the RGB driver. There is considerable variability between different media options if you choose to use the supplier's 'Advanced Black and White' mode or equivalent. Huge density shifts from paper to paper.
Logged

Andy Biggs
http://www.andybiggs.com
Africa Photo Safaris | Workshops | Fine Art Prints
sojournerphoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 473


« Reply #15 on: December 20, 2007, 12:19:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The only real major factor between the IPF5000 and the 3800 is the lack of the roll feed for the 3800. If you want to print from rolls, that's pretty much game over. Course, correct me if I'm wrong, but that's an additional cost on the Canon?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162058\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Only cut out part of your post to save space, but I think that you're right. The main deciding factor between 5000/5100 and 3800 is the roll feed. If you want it you either buy the canon or a 4800 and pay a lot to switch blacks. If not you pays your money and takes your choice.

As to paying extra for the roll feed, I didn't and it does seem to depend on where and when you buy whether canon want you to pay for the unit. It isn't that expensive in any case.
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5532


WWW
« Reply #16 on: December 20, 2007, 12:23:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Scott and I had a great workshop a few weeks ago, and seeing the same exact evaluation image printed on different papers was quite valuable for me and for our workshop participants.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162060\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

At this stage, it's down to the paper being the single biggest factor in image quality...that and final print sharpening to achieve optimal print detail. Ironically, the head dither is now still a point in favor of the Epson printers. The 3800 (and the 880 series updates) have substantially improved the dither to the point where Epson can outprint the HP and Canons (which use a single droplet size which is larger and less well formed) in the image detail area of evaluation. The Canon and HP are much softer printers when it comes to detail. Which won't be a huge factor printing on watercolor papers but will make a big different in print sharpness in a paper such as the Exhibition Fiber Paper (EFP) from Epson.
Logged
adion
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 28


WWW
« Reply #17 on: December 20, 2007, 12:27:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Jeff, for the dither of the prints, is this a limitation of the print head or is this managed by the driver/firmware of the printer?
Logged
abiggs
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 555



WWW
« Reply #18 on: December 20, 2007, 12:28:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
At this stage, it's down to the paper being the single biggest factor in image quality...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162066\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I totally agree.
Logged

Andy Biggs
http://www.andybiggs.com
Africa Photo Safaris | Workshops | Fine Art Prints
sojournerphoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 473


« Reply #19 on: December 20, 2007, 12:36:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
At this stage, it's down to the paper being the single biggest factor in image quality...that and final print sharpening to achieve optimal print detail. Ironically, the head dither is now still a point in favor of the Epson printers. The 3800 (and the 880 series updates) have substantially improved the dither to the point where Epson can outprint the HP and Canons (which use a single droplet size which is larger and less well formed) in the image detail area of evaluation. The Canon and HP are much softer printers when it comes to detail. Which won't be a huge factor printing on watercolor papers but will make a big different in print sharpness in a paper such as the Exhibition Fiber Paper (EFP) from Epson.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162066\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Jeff, I've never run side by side tests of the impact of droplet size on dither and image sharpness. I had understood that the intent of the variable droplet size was to improve tonal gradation, but if the dither algorithm is able to use this to improve sharpness, or perhaps I should really refer to resolved detail, that would be a positive. On the other hand, it's the full chain including capture that determines the level of detail you can print and that is likely limited by the camera as much as the printer for bigger prints? I would be interested in your experience and view?

I also agree that paper has the biggest impact on image look and quality, and this turns up one of the problems. I use both matte and glossy paper for different images and so the ability to switch is important. Epson really does need to address this issue in it's larger printers and then they will be able to stand fully on their merits.

Mike.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad