Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: IPF5000 vs R3800 color Gamut  (Read 9068 times)
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5532


WWW
« Reply #20 on: December 20, 2007, 12:37:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162067\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Print head technology...the recent Epson printers have variable droplet size (down to 1.5 microliters) and can form VERY precise round drops. At a micro-level, the HP's and Canon's droplets look like paint gun splatters...as a result, the Epsons can form more accurate dither patterns and end up resolving greater detail in prints whose paper will hold the detail. Watercolor, not so much. But fine coated gloss (not really even super glossy) can hold a LOT more detail.

But then the other factor is how the images have been sharpened to extract that detail and print it. In that regard, I still see the Epson 3800 as being a superior printer than either Canon or HP–if you print on the right type of media.
Logged
Scott Martin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1312


WWW
« Reply #21 on: December 20, 2007, 01:01:48 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]
Nonetheless, take your favorite paper, Epson, HP and Canon printers, profile them all the same way, make prints with perceptual and see which print you prefer taking under consideration all of these things (color saturation, fine detail, appearance of neutrality, bronzing, metamerism, etc) and see which one you like best. We can debate details until we are blue in the face but viewing prints is more valuable, IMO. I don't see enough people doing this and I think the results might surprise you.
Logged

Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5532


WWW
« Reply #22 on: December 20, 2007, 02:01:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
make prints with perceptual and see which print you prefer taking under consideration all of these things (color saturation, fine detail, appearance of neutrality, bronzing, metamerism, etc)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162085\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Uh, you should learn to get over that knee-jerk reaction to using  a perceptual rendering intent. First off, the intent will be VERY different between different profile making software. Second, it not always the correct intent for an image. In the "old days" some people were claiming that perceptual should be the default rendering for photography, then a guy named Thomas Knoll decided to have relative colormetric as the default rendering intent in Photoshop and those same people came to realize, particularly in these days of wide-gamut inkjet printers, that more often than not, the best rendering intent for an image may well be relcol. But the ONLY way to determine that with any degree of accuracy is soft-proofing.

And therein is the problem with trying to compare apple to oranges...you would need to tweek an image depending on the exact output printer profile and paper. You can't just print out using a custom profile with perceptual as the intent and then pass judgement over the printers. You must OPTIMIZE the images for each printer and THEN make a comparison. People tend to shy away from the extra work involved in that–or don't have the knowledge & experience to tell them that they must.

Ain't nothing simple and easy...if you really know and care about what you are doing.
« Last Edit: December 20, 2007, 02:02:31 PM by Schewe » Logged
Scott Martin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1312


WWW
« Reply #23 on: December 20, 2007, 02:30:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Uh, you should learn to get over that knee-jerk reaction to using  a perceptual rendering intent. First off, the intent will be VERY different between different profile making software.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162099\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I have made a huge pile of prints profiling the same printer and paper with nearly every profiling software on the market testing each and every intent and perceptual option for making those profiles. And I have repeated that test on a variety of printers. I have spent a significant chuck of my life doing extensive testing like this so, belive me, there is no knee jerk reaction here.

GMB's PMP profiles show trades off between RelCol and Perceptual that might cause you to use one intent or the other depending on the image content. Adobe's press profiles have such poor perceptual rending that RelCol is pretty universally the way to go there. MonacoProfier's Perceptual rending is IMO, the best game in town and offers the best of many worlds in one profile with one intent for fine art printing (when the profile is made properly - there are other details to discuss there that's I'd rather not get into).

So yes I know extremely well that there are significant differences with Perceptual rending and I also know from my own experience that extremely picky print makers *always* choose MonacoProfiler profiles when shown these differences or when they do their own comparisons. So when I talk about making fine art prints with MP Perceptual I am doing so with this background.

Jeff I like your point about needing to optimize images for different printers. It may be technically impossible to come up with a totally unbiased evaluation image for comparison as some images may unintentionally or otherwise favor one printer or another. Nonetheless, I don't think any attempt to do so is futile. Quite the contrary.
Logged

Abdulrahman Aljabri
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 260



WWW
« Reply #24 on: December 22, 2007, 10:28:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Thank you all for posting all of this useful information.


The fact that I have no way to check both printers before choosing one made me more inclined to relay on specs.

Most of you agree that Canon's higher specs, namely 12 inks, do not mount to better prints than Epson's 9 inks.

Under those circumstanses I am inclined to go with the Epson, but I still have one question.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/...n-ipf5000.shtml

The review above compares the IPF5000 and 4800 color output, which leads me to ask, was the 3800 color out put an improvement over the 4800? Can I expect the 3800 to produce a better blue, like the Canon produces in this review?


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
dealy663
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 57


« Reply #25 on: December 22, 2007, 01:08:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Unless you print a lot of one specific color that one of the big 3 does better than the other 2 I don't see why how a printer produces one particular shade of any color should be a true determinant.

One produces less than stellar reds, the other less than perfect greens, the third's blue is slightly lacking in one instance. All of these printers are capable of making good prints. There is no one brand that is demonstrably better in all circumstances than the others.

If you can't get to a place to examine prints from all 3, you'll just have to do the research and figure out for yourself which set of shortcomings is most negative for your particular needs. All of the big 3 printers have their own problems, and all of them also have their own positives.

I personally wouldn't be concentrating on which has the best all around image quality (because the IQ of all 3 brands is excellent). I would look more closely at which size, cost, operational/reliability factors and 3rd party support best met my needs.


Derek


Quote
Thank you all for posting all of this useful information.
The fact that I have no way to check both printers before choosing one made me more inclined to relay on specs.

Most of you agree that Canon's higher specs, namely 12 inks, do not mount to better prints than Epson's 9 inks.

Under those circumstanses I am inclined to go with the Epson, but I still have one question.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/...n-ipf5000.shtml

The review above compares the IPF5000 and 4800 color output, which leads me to ask, was the 3800 color out put an improvement over the 4800? Can I expect the 3800 to produce a better blue, like the Canon produces in this review?
Thanks
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162491\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 2925



WWW
« Reply #26 on: December 22, 2007, 07:39:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Thank you all for posting all of this useful information.
The fact that I have no way to check both printers before choosing one made me more inclined to relay on specs.

Most of you agree that Canon's higher specs, namely 12 inks, do not mount to better prints than Epson's 9 inks.

Under those circumstanses I am inclined to go with the Epson, but I still have one question.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/...n-ipf5000.shtml

The review above compares the IPF5000 and 4800 color output, which leads me to ask, was the 3800 color out put an improvement over the 4800? Can I expect the 3800 to produce a better blue, like the Canon produces in this review?
Thanks
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162491\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


As far as your first question, I personally feel my 3800 exceeds the 4800 and 9800 printers (that I no longer own) in many areas, although as with any other comparison of these top end printers,  it takes side by side comparison of a pretty varied test print to see differences.

As far as the second question, the comments you are referring to in that article about the canon blues being "more" blue, while interesting, I do not believe have a bearing in a good color managed workflow.  Both Epson and Canon printers can produce terrific blues, and side by side prints are virtually identical in the blues when using good profiles, even in an artificially created color ramp.

Interestingly enough, even though the ipf6100 has primary blue ink, the Epson 11880 has a larger gamut in the blues and the greens.  I say this not in criticism, because the 6100 is a terrific printer.  It just surprised be when I profiled my 6100 and 11880.
Logged

Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5532


WWW
« Reply #27 on: December 22, 2007, 10:34:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Interestingly enough, even though the ipf6100 has primary blue ink, the Epson 11880 has a larger gamut in the blues and the greens.  I say this not in criticism, because the 6100 is a terrific printer.  It just surprised be when I profiled my 6100 and 11880.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162597\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Not at all surprising...when printing ink on paper, you're living in the subtractive primaries world and that's where the quality and refinements of cyan, magenta and yellow ink tells all.

Epson found out themselves that simply adding a red and blue ink won't do a lot for much for total VOLUME of colors when they released the R800/R1800 that added red and blue inks with a gloss optimiser instead of light magenta. light cyan inks. Total volume of color went up a whopping 1-1.5% (at the expense of loosing some important highlight textural gradients).

That's why Epson concentrates on improving their cyan, magenta and yellow inks instead of playing around with adding red, green and blue inks–which really, seriously don't offer a lot when you factor everything in. The fact is, it takes Canon and HP 12 inks to basically match the total volume of color of Epson (K3 with Vivid Magenta) and that's because the real differences in the purity of cyan, magenta and yellow inks are what allow you to create the additive primaries of red, green and blue colors. It's pretty hard to fight physics...

The purity of the subtractive primaries plus the densities of the deep color (dark magenta and dark cyan) play a much larger role in total gamut of color than adding relatively wimpy red, green and blue inks.

Epson tried that route and discovered that additive primaries ain't gonna get you much. So, they've concentrated in other directions...we'll see those results in the future (but the 11880 is just the tip of the iceberg).

:~)
« Last Edit: December 22, 2007, 10:36:33 PM by Schewe » Logged
Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 2925



WWW
« Reply #28 on: December 22, 2007, 10:54:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Epson tried that route and discovered that additive primaries ain't gonna get you much. So, they've concentrated in other directions...we'll see those results in the future (but the 11880 is just the tip of the iceberg).

:~)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162621\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Wow... what a tip it is.  I can't wait to see what's coming.
Logged

dealy663
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 57


« Reply #29 on: December 23, 2007, 02:44:23 AM »
ReplyReply

Hey, that is a great post, and does a lot to help answer the questions that have been rolling around in my mind for a while now regarding the efficacy of the 12 ink printers vs the Epson 8 color printers. I never quite understood why the 12 ink printers weren't able to eclipse the 8 ink Epsons before.

Quote
Epson found out themselves that simply adding a red and blue ink won't do a lot for much for total VOLUME of colors when they released the R800/R1800 that added red and blue inks with a gloss optimiser instead of light magenta. light cyan inks. Total volume of color went up a whopping 1-1.5% (at the expense of loosing some important highlight textural gradients).
:~)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162621\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

Scott Martin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1312


WWW
« Reply #30 on: December 23, 2007, 11:15:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Interestingly enough, even though the ipf6100 has primary blue ink, the Epson 11880 has a larger gamut in the blues and the greens.  I say this not in criticism, because the 6100 is a terrific printer.  It just surprised be when I profiled my 6100 and 11880.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162597\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The chromaticity diagrams led me to the same conclusion and surprised me as well when I initially compared these printers. But when I profiled them both the same way and made prints with PMP's Colorful and MP's perceptual intent I visually saw something that contradicts the chromaticity diagrams. Prints from x100 printers made this way show superior reds, greens, blues and magentas as well as smoother transitions in the granger rainbow. These results seem to suggest that the additional RGB inks do have a positive influence in final print quality that the chromaticity diagrams do not suggest. I have done this comparison over and over at various fine art printing shops. Wayne are you seeing the same thing? Chromaticity diagrams can actually be misleading when it comes to determining fine art print quality and color saturation characteristics.

HP's primary inks - especially the red and green aren't very saturated at all and along with the driver's poor ink mixing don't contribute to expanded gamut as well as Canon's solution. HP has a real asset with the market's only large format gloss enhancer though.

And kudos to Epson for doing more with less. Epson's route does translate into being able to have an extra set of inks around for less initial cost which helps cash flow. That should also help keep their manufacturing costs down. Although I know some R1800 owners that have longed to see that inkset go to large format, I think Epson has a made a a smart decision to more forward with a single 9 color inkset.

Again, I don't think this should be a brand vs brand debate - more a celebration and *evenly balanced recognition* of the differences. The marketplace is diverse and each of these solutions have advantages to different types of users.
Logged

marcmccalmont
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1729



« Reply #31 on: December 23, 2007, 11:23:08 AM »
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 bought 2 (iPF 5000's) for this reason
Marc
« Last Edit: December 23, 2007, 11:23:58 AM by marcmccalmont » Logged

Marc McCalmont
normkoren
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


WWW
« Reply #32 on: December 24, 2007, 09:08:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks to Scott Martin for informing me about this thread.

The Gamutvision program (which I wrote) can answer many of the questions in this thread about printer color response and color gamut. I can only touch on its many features now. There is far more detail in http://www.gamutvision.com .

Essentially, printer color gamut and response is a function of the RGB working color space, the rendering intent, and the printer ICC profile, assuming that the profile correctly represents printer response. And profiles tend to be quite good in that regard; if they don't represent printer response correctly prints look awful; such profiles are quickly rejected.

Rendering intents, on the other hand, don't always perform according to the textbook explanations. I wrote Gamutvision in part to explore how they really work. You can quickly change from Perceptual to Rel Col & back and see the precise differences.

Gamutvision lets you explore the effects of all three factors-- working color space, rendering intent, and printer profile. It has a staggering number of displays that allow you to view not only the color gamut (the extreme boundary of color response), but the response of unsaturated colors and color differences (Delta-E, Delta-E 94, and many more). Displays are in 2D and rotatable 3D L*a*b*, xy, and uv spaces. (Tonal response is also displayed.) "Chromaticity diagram" usually refers to the 2D xy "horseshoe" curve, which is an extremely limited and distorted representation of color response. Despite its popularity it doesn't come close to characterizing printer color response.

By examining profiles, you should see that going from 8 to 12 inks may have only a minor effect on gamut (Gamutvision calculates the L*a*b* volume)-- it may have more effect on highlight tonality, which is an important (and underappreciated) aspect of digital print quality.

About the only limitation of Gamutvision is that it doesn't work in native Macintosh mode. (It would be rather complex.) It runs very well on Intel Macs that have Windows installed.
Logged

digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9225



WWW
« Reply #33 on: December 25, 2007, 08:38:40 AM »
ReplyReply

If you want to get a bit geeky about profiles and talk about gamut's, its important to understand that the output profile has to make a guess about the source color space for this mapping. That is, by the time most profiles (all Version 2) get the data to convert into an output color space, they are handed (usually) Lab data. They don't know if the actual source data was sRGB or ProPhoto RGB (anything in between). The individual creation profile software does place this assumption of a space in the profile and each company does these conversions using their own idea of what's an ideal mapping of colors. You could plot two profiles to two identical printers (Canon and Epson) but use two different software products to build the profiles and get quite different results. And in some packages, there are various settings to build a Perceptual table (again, altering many of the assumptions about the source as well as building in special alterations to the gamut mapping). V4 profiles should hopefully make this a little more clear to the profiles but that's far from widespread in use today.

Looking at gamuts is sometimes useful. But today, I suspect more users are getting caught up in looking at geek stuff, putting far too much emphasis on these plots. This is happening with Histograms too. In the old days, few users knew or cared about histograms, now some are downright anal about them, even when they think what they are looking at what represents the data when its not. Like Gamut plots, a histogram can be useful. But sometimes, just looking at two prints from two printers (of the same RGB original) tells you far more in far less time with far less geek speak.
« Last Edit: December 25, 2007, 08:39:21 AM by digitaldog » Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
jpgentry
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 197


« Reply #34 on: December 25, 2007, 08:00:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Interesting info on this thread.  Not quite sure what to believe and who's talking from a brand loyalty perspective vs. observation.

Wondering if Schewe has actually worked with the new 5100/6100 Canons or just the older models as he seems quite confident in Epsons superiority.

Personally I am quite aware of the superiority of Epson's deeper warm tones especially a wonderful red that I used to get from my 9600 vs my current ipf8000 (on canvas.)  Not that the ipf is lacking in reds like the HP but Epson has deep reds covered.  That happens to be a color that really adds to an image when done right and Epson does it so well with mixing instead of primaries.  Cool.

That said I will never buy an Epson that forces me to change inks.  I wont buy the 9800 or the 9880 or even the 3800.  I just don't have that kind of paitence to deal with what I feel was the worst decision in printer history (ink swaps.)  That said the 11880 seems like a really great printer, but Epson I'm sure, will hold to their extreemly rigid and high pricing as Canon with it's 9100 in my opinion offers a better value in the 60+ category.

I don't want to hear about ink heads as a reason not to go with Canon as my ipf8000 has done 8000sq/ft with not an issue out of the heads.  I doubt anyone with the 5100/6100 line will do that much before desiring a new technology.

I am very interested in the point regarding color graidents and the possible advantage of 12 inks.  I would bet an advantage in this area would be very slight and hard to detect?

I use the R1800 with MIS bulk inks for some rough proofing work etc and I can say first hand that the dithering pattern (size of dots) is much better than the ipf5,6,8,9000 line, however this only matters on small prints like 4x6, 5x7 where very close examination is made.  So I am also very interested in the improvement of the 5,6,8,9100 series of printer in this regard, as it sounds like there has been an improvement.  

I'm just blown away by the value of the Canon printers with the discounts they offer to customers with their LF upgrade discounts.  I can't think of a better printer to have in the 16-17 inch range than the ipf5100 and there is no way I would buy a Epson 3800 over it.  3800 over the 5000?  Only for it's better drop size but I personally wouldn't buy a printer without a roll feed.  That's like removing the blades from a swiss army knife.

If the OP is making profit from his prints ink prices may not matter but I'm thinking the edge has to go to Canon here.  Also can you say "Canon Heavyweight Photo Satin" anyone?  For the money has anyone found something better?  I'll take it over Epson luster any day.  Cheaper, thicker and better IMO.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2007, 03:55:25 PM by jpgentry » Logged
Abdulrahman Aljabri
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 260



WWW
« Reply #35 on: December 25, 2007, 10:16:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Interesting info on this thread.  Not quite sure what to believe and who's talking from a brand loyalty perspective vs. observation.

Wondering if Schewe has actually worked with the new 5100/6100 Canons or just the older models as he seems quite confident in Epsons superiority.

Personally I am quite aware of the superiority of Epson's deeper warm tones especially a wonderful red that I used to get from my 9600 vs my current ipf8000 (on canvas.)  Not that the ipf is lacking in reds like the HP but Epson has deep reds covered.  That happens to be a color that really adds to an image when done right and Epson does it so well with mixing instead of primaries.  Cool.

That said I will never buy an Epson that forces me to change inks.  I wont buy the 9800 or the 9880 or even the 3800.  I just don't have that kind of paitence to deal with what I feel was the worst decision in printer history (ink swaps.)  That said the 11880 seems like a really neat idea but Epson, I'm sure will hold to their extreemly rigid and high pricing as Canon with it's 9100 in my opinion offers a better value in the 60+ category.

I don't want to hear about ink heads as a reason not to go with Canon as my ipf8000 has done 8000sq/ft with not an issue out of the heads.  I doubt anyone with the 5100/6100 line will do that much before desiring a new technology.

I am very interested in the point regarding color graidents and the possible advantage of 12 inks.  I would bet an advantage in this area would be very slight and hard to detect?

I use the R1800 with MIS bulk inks for some rough proofing work etc and I can say first hand that the dithering pattern (size of dots) is much better than the ipf5,6,8,9000 line, however this only matters on small prints like 4x6, 5x7 where very close examination is made.  So I am also very interested in the improvement of the 5,6,8,9100 series of printer in this regard, as it sounds like there has been an improvement. 

I'm just blown away by the value of the Canon printers with the discounts they offer to customers with their LF upgrade discounts.  I can't think of a better printer to have in the 16-17 inch range than the ipf5100 and there is no way I would buy a Epson 3800 over it.  5000?  Only for it's better drop size but I personally wouldn't buy a printer without a roll feed.  That's like removing the blades from a swiss army knife.

If the OP is making profit from his prints ink prices may not matter but I'm thinking the edge has to go to Canon here.  Also can you say "Canon Heavyweight Photo Satin" anyone?  For the money has anyone found something better?  I'll take it over Epson luster any day.  Cheaper, thicker and better IMO.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163117\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


The printer will be for personal use. You make very good points, and you are absolutely correct on pricing. Specs wise, Canon offers much more for much less than Epson.

That's the type of information I was hoping to read before making a decision. One question though. What is the the LF discount system that you refrenced half way through your replay?

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
jpgentry
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 197


« Reply #36 on: December 26, 2007, 03:48:27 PM »
ReplyReply

LF=Large Format.  Canon offers discounts to people who can provide the serial number of any large format printer (over 16 inches I think) as verification that they are upgrading.  They sometimes offer a thousand or thousands of dollars off of their printers with this program.

For example I think the ipf8100 (44 inch printer) is available for $3800/free shipping from one vendor I know of.  This is an incredible price!  I don't think there is a better value to be had anywhere.  

-Jonathan

Quote
What is the the LF discount system that you refrenced half way through your replay?

Thanks
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163136\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
« Last Edit: December 26, 2007, 03:50:12 PM by jpgentry » Logged
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad