Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: 9880 Romance Over  (Read 10927 times)
Farmer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1630


WWW
« Reply #20 on: December 21, 2007, 07:12:00 PM »
ReplyReply

I'll take your word for it, John.  In good conscience, I can't download what I know to be a copyright document that Canon hasn't released publically.  Everyone will make their own choice in that regard and I'm not judging anyone else, just following my personal choice here.

It might be worth users requesting Canon make the information available or perhaps Canon are prepared to make a blanket statement that within the specified life of the head you should never run out of remaps.  That would be a strong statement and position (and obviously very welcomed).
Logged

John Hollenberg
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 763


« Reply #21 on: December 21, 2007, 08:00:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
It might be worth users requesting Canon make the information available or perhaps Canon are prepared to make a blanket statement that within the specified life of the head you should never run out of remaps.  That would be a strong statement and position (and obviously very welcomed).
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I believe that is true by definition.  In other words, when you run out of remaps is when the head life is over and you will get a message that you have to replace the printhead.      They are guaranteeing each printhead for one year or 10 trillion ink drops, whichever comes first.  The guarantee is about 30% of the expected printhead life.  You can find the data on "expected printhead life" here:

[a href=\"http://canonipf.wikispaces.com/Printhead+Expected+Life]http://canonipf.wikispaces.com/Printhead+Expected+Life[/url]

Edit:  Figuring that the printhead is effectively a "consumable", the cost to run the printhead per ml of ink used for printing is approximately 24 cents if you use the warranted figure above, and 7.5 cents per ml if you use the "expected printhead life".  In other words, on average (expected printhead life) the cost of the printhead will be a fairly small fraction of the cost of ink, which is about 58 cents per ml.

--John
« Last Edit: December 21, 2007, 08:07:16 PM by John Hollenberg » Logged
godtfred
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 293



WWW
« Reply #22 on: December 22, 2007, 08:28:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
My 9800 was having bad nozzle checks last week. Humidity level in the studio and it was at 20%.  Way too dry so I went out a purchased a humidifier to bring the level up to 35-40%.  Has solved the problem.  Could be a coincidence but I don't think so.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162031\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I can verify this. After we got aircon in the studio for the summer, and i blocked out all the windows with white background paper, the humidity has gone up, and the clogging has essentially stopped. My Epson 9800 clogged about every second time i would use it (about every second day.) And now it has not clogged since we got the temperature/humidity problem fixed. Going strong for 1/2 year without clogging...

-axel
Logged

Axel Bauer
godtfred.com
H2|M679CS|P45+
med007
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 110


WWW
« Reply #23 on: December 22, 2007, 03:51:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Just when it looked like it was safe to go back in the (Epson) water:

http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forum...read.php?t=4670

Brings back bad memories of exactly the same clogging problems I had with my Epson 9600.  Fits with my experience that the larger Epsons are worse for clogging than the smaller ones (Epson 3800 and smaller), which don't seem to be too much of a problem.

Quote
John,

The link you gave takes you to a page where you need to register before being able to see the article, just an FYI
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162019\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Quote
Just an FYI John. I have even registered on that forum but still am told I do not have privileges to access that page. I am working with it.
Carl
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162336\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Denny and Claskin,

We need all the collective experience of users of competing printers to get round the advertizing hype. There are huge gaps between all claims and actual function. So it's important that URL links should work for us!

I apologise for OPF to have been user-unfriendly to you on this occaision. OTOH I appreciate learning of this issue which is caused  the particular URLs with a number,  requiring the OPF search engine! That's how it works. I will PM both of you here and try to make things easy for linking to any OPF url!

The intention is to only block spammers from getting access to photographers' private info in their profiles. We'll try to separate the different permissions if we can! OPF want's to be an open resource that works flawlessly and your report will help us do better!

I'm particularly interested in this topic since I'm about to replace my LF printer so every report is valuable.

Asher
Logged

[span style='color:blue']Journeys to the Masterpiece[/span]
claskin
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 68


« Reply #24 on: December 22, 2007, 05:18:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Denny and Claskin,

We need all the collective experience of users of competing printers to get round the advertizing hype. There are huge gaps between all claims and actual function. So it's important that URL links should work for us!

I apologise for OPF to have been user-unfriendly to you on this occaision. OTOH I appreciate learning of this issue which is caused  the particular URLs with a number,  requiring the OPF search engine! That's how it works. I will PM both of you here and try to make things easy for linking to any OPF url!

The intention is to only block spammers from getting access to photographers' private info in their profiles. We'll try to separate the different permissions if we can! OPF want's to be an open resource that works flawlessly and your report will help us do better!

I'm particularly interested in this topic since I'm about to replace my LF printer so every report is valuable.

Asher
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162556\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Asher,
Thank you for your concern. Clearly you have fixed the problem since I can now log on without difficulty.
Carl Laskin
Logged

Carl Laskin
Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2826



WWW
« Reply #25 on: December 22, 2007, 08:20:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
You're correct, Wayne, that the Canon uses remapping to deal with clogs.  Not that this is a bad solution (users obviously love it), but eventually you run out of nozzles.  Then, it's a replacable head so if it has enough remap space within the expected life all is good.  You just have to factor in the replacement cost.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162393\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I agree it's not a bad solution, but that perspective is usually overlooked. One challenge with remapping of nozzles is you don't know when it happens, and if enough are remapped you need to re-calibrate the printer (which you can't do on the 5000, which requires you to re-profile it).  It could be the printer re-calibrates itself when that happens ... haven't had mine but a few months, so hopefully not that many nozzles are clogged.

Given John's perspective of the projected cost of the heads, the fact that Canon ink is more expensive to start with, and considering the printer still uses a fair amount of ink keeping nozzles clear (more than most will admit), the Epson may actually cost less.  (My calculations for ink costs are about .51/ml for 9880, vs .65/ml for canon, .58 plus John's conservative estimate of 7.5 cents for the head).  Granted the canon may require less ink to print because of the primaries .. I don't know.  But it seems to me the cost of ink between the two is not clear, and there is enough variables that neither can claim superiority in ink costs.

I have no axe to grind ... I own both a 6100 and an 11880, like both, and use both.  But to me the only real clear advantage a Canon has over an Epson 4880 or 9880 is strictly in the on board pk/mk inks.  Other than that I don't see either printer as obviously superior.
Logged

John Hollenberg
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 763


« Reply #26 on: December 22, 2007, 09:15:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Granted the canon may require less ink to print because of the primaries .. I don't know.  But it seems to me the cost of ink between the two is not clear, and there is enough variables that neither can claim superiority in ink costs.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162602\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I believe the Canon does use less ink to print, for me it has averaged around 1.2-1.3 ml per square foot.  This is a lot higher than Michael Reichmann's experience, but lower than the figures I have seen for Epson, which tend to come in around 2 ml per square foot.  However, the 220 ml cartridges for Epson cost around 36-40 cents per ml, quite a bit cheaper than Canon.  I am not convinced of a cost superiority for either in terms of ink costs, but in my experience (again, yours may vary) the convenience/time factor of not having to hassle with any clogs on the Canon is significant.

Another factor is the maintenance cartridges, which some have re-used on the Epson printers using paper towels, etc. and a reset of the counter.  On the Canon printers, no workaround has been found to buying a new cartridge.

--John
« Last Edit: December 22, 2007, 09:17:06 PM by John Hollenberg » Logged
John Hollenberg
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 763


« Reply #27 on: December 22, 2007, 09:31:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
But to me the only real clear advantage a Canon has over an Epson 4880 or 9880 is strictly in the on board pk/mk inks.  Other than that I don't see either printer as obviously superior.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162602\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Wayne,

You commented in another thread:

"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.earlier that the 11880 had a better gamut than the 6100."

Have you had a chance to compare the 7880 or 9880 to the 11880 to see if the gamut is the same?  I ask because apparently they have slightly different inksets.

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

Posts: 1630


WWW
« Reply #28 on: December 22, 2007, 09:36:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Wayne - do you have local costs there for 11880?  It should be considerably less than for the 9880 if it follows the Australian pricing model which have the 11880 carts (700ml) at roughly 60% of the price per ml of the 220ml carts.

The amount of ink being used will depend on driver settings or RIP settings (particularly if using aggressive ink limiting - this can even lead to banding problems if it's too aggressive) and the media type etc.  What *doesn't* have much of an impact is the output DPI setting even though that would seem counter intuitive to some.

I think John's point is very valid in terms of convenience factor.  Again, competition has brought a new technology to the 11880 to automatically detect clogged nozzles and deal with it.  More competition = better products.  Can't complain about that!
Logged

Farmer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1630


WWW
« Reply #29 on: December 22, 2007, 09:39:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Have you had a chance to compare the 7880 or 9880 to the 11880 to see if the gamut is the same?  I ask because apparently they have slightly different inksets.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162609\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

John I'm curious about this.  I'm quite sure this is not the case.  the 11880 has a new head design and new half-toning and other reasons that would affect gamut but not the ink.

Would it be valid to compare canned profiles for 11880 vs 9880 on the same paper type?  Or are you looking for first hand spectro results?
Logged

John Hollenberg
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 763


« Reply #30 on: December 22, 2007, 10:26:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
John I'm curious about this.  I'm quite sure this is not the case.  the 11880 has a new head design and new half-toning and other reasons that would affect gamut but not the ink.

[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I got this (? fact) from:

[a href=\"http://www.josephholmes.com/news-epson11880.html]http://www.josephholmes.com/news-epson11880.html[/url]

The quote from Joe's review of the 11880 is:

"*This paragraph was updated 10-23-07: In the 11880 but probably not the other new machines, all six primary colors in the raw state of the printer are quite a bit different from those of the 9800 with the original K3 inkset. All six look darker and seem more saturated, portending a gamut on photo papers which includes noticeably more of the darker colors, historically the realm of dye gamuts. Coupled with the improved gloss of the new Luster (260), the effect is one of quite luscious-looking test forms and prints. The magenta, blue and red primaries will obviously be quite improved with the 9880 family of printers due to the new magenta pigment, but the other three primaries will almost certainly look the same as the last generation."

Of course, I have no way of knowing if this statement is accurate.  Whether the printers produce roughly the same gamut and dmax (even if there are differences in the inksets) is a separate question.  It would be interesting to examine profiles made for both 9880 and 11880 using Colorthink, assuming they were made with the same profiling package and the same media type setting for the printers.

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

Posts: 5468


WWW
« Reply #31 on: December 22, 2007, 10:40:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
It would be interesting to examine profiles made for both 9880 and 11880 using Colorthink, assuming they were made with the same profiling package and the same media type setting for the printers.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

PixelGenius made profiles (available free) for the Epson EFP for both the 11880, 9880 and 9800 printers. You can download them and see for yourself...

See: [a href=\"http://pixelgenius.com/epson/]Epson Exibition Finber Paper profiles[/url]

And yes, Joe is right...the 11880 DOES have better D-Max and total volume of color compared to the other 880 series printers.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2007, 10:41:48 PM by Schewe » Logged
Farmer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1630


WWW
« Reply #32 on: December 22, 2007, 11:01:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Ah, John, the original author compared the 9800, not the 9880, and he supposes that's not the case in the other 880 series but I'm quite sure it is.  Of course the inksets between 800 and 880 are different.  Regular Magenta K3 compared to Vivid Magenta K3.

Other differences for the 11880 I would ascribe to differences in head technology and half-toning etc.

Here's a view of 9800 vs 11880 on EFP_PK_2880 based on the Pixel Genius profiles (attached - 9880_11880_EFP_PK_2880.jpg) and profile information courtesy of http://back.iccview.de/index_eng.htm .  The 11880 is shown in wireframe and the 9880 in solid colour.

Description:
SP9880_EFP_PK_2880

Tags: AToB1 (Colorimetric)
Calculation: LUT with 35937 grid points

Header:
size = 2930500 bytes
CMM = 'APPL'
Version = 2.4.0
Device Class = Output
Color Space = RGB
Conn. Space = Lab
Date, Time = 2 Oct 2007, 18:36:29
Platform = Macintosh
Flags = Not Embedded Profile, Use anywhere
Dev. Mnfctr. = 0x0
Dev. Model = 0x0
Dev. Attrbts = Reflective, Glossy
Rndrng Intnt = Perceptual
Illuminant = 0, 1, 0 [Lab 100, 0, -0]
Creator = 'LOGO'

Total volume of gamut is 747498 cubic colorspace units

Copyright by LOGO GmbH, Steinfurt


 
Description:
SP11880_EFP_PK_2880

Tags: AToB1 (Colorimetric)
Calculation: LUT with 35937 grid points

Header:
size = 1798568 bytes
CMM = 'APPL'
Version = 2.4.0
Device Class = Output
Color Space = RGB
Conn. Space = Lab
Date, Time = 1 Oct 2007, 18:41:36
Platform = Macintosh
Flags = Not Embedded Profile, Use anywhere
Dev. Mnfctr. = 0x0
Dev. Model = 0x0
Dev. Attrbts = Reflective, Glossy
Rndrng Intnt = Perceptual
Illuminant = 0, 1, 0 [Lab 100, 0, -0]
Creator = 'LOGO'

Total volume of gamut is 758396 cubic colorspace units

Copyright by LOGO GmbH, Steinfurt
Logged

John Hollenberg
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 763


« Reply #33 on: December 22, 2007, 11:06:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
And yes, Joe is right...the 11880 DOES have better D-Max and total volume of color compared to the other 880 series printers.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162622\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Comparing the profiles for the Epson Exhibition Fiber paper in Colorthink Pro:

9880 has dmax of L* 3.7
11880 has dmax of L* 3.2

Gamut volume in colorthink pro:

9880 - 734,000
11880 - 756,000

Gamut volume about 2.9% greater for 11880.

Assuming they use the same media type this would be a valid comparison.  There is a note on the Pixel Genius web site to use Premium Luster or Premium Luster (260) "depending on your printer".

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

Posts: 763


« Reply #34 on: December 22, 2007, 11:09:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Ah, John, the original author compared the 9800, not the 9880, and he supposes that's not the case in the other 880 series but I'm quite sure it is.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162624\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Joe is anything but a casual observer, so if he thought they were different, he probably had a very good reason.  Still, it would be nice to know for sure.

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

Posts: 1630


WWW
« Reply #35 on: December 22, 2007, 11:17:18 PM »
ReplyReply

I don't doubt he saw differences in the output, John, I've read his commentary for some time and find it insightful.

My contention is over producing two different inks of minor variation being the reason for the differences versus differences in head technology, half-toning, drivers etc.  The cost of producing a difference inkset between the 11880 and the other 880 series printers would seem absolutely prohibitive.

I'll make a point of sending some emails to ask the question :-)
Logged

Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2826



WWW
« Reply #36 on: December 22, 2007, 11:17:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Wayne - do you have local costs there for 11880?  It should be considerably less than for the 9880 if it follows the Australian pricing model which have the 11880 carts (700ml) at roughly 60% of the price per ml of the 220ml carts.

The amount of ink being used will depend on driver settings or RIP settings (particularly if using aggressive ink limiting - this can even lead to banding problems if it's too aggressive) and the media type etc.  What *doesn't* have much of an impact is the output DPI setting even though that would seem counter intuitive to some.

I think John's point is very valid in terms of convenience factor.  Again, competition has brought a new technology to the 11880 to automatically detect clogged nozzles and deal with it.  More competition = better products.  Can't complain about that!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162610\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

A checked ink prices a couple of weeks ago from two local suppliers (inkjetart.com an pictureline.com) and arrived at the .51/ml price.  However, you are right, after checking again a few minutes ago, its seems inkjetart.com has lowered the price, and now the ink is at .40/ml.

I suppose the Canon is slightly more convenient - that is assuming the clogging has not improved on the new 48/78/9880 printers.  My limited experience on those printers has shown otherwise, but it's still too early.  (it certainly not an issue with my 3800 or my 11880).
Logged

Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2826



WWW
« Reply #37 on: December 22, 2007, 11:21:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
John I'm curious about this. I'm quite sure this is not the case. the 11880 has a new head design and new half-toning and other reasons that would affect gamut but not the ink.

Would it be valid to compare canned profiles for 11880 vs 9880 on the same paper type? Or are you looking for first hand spectro results?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You may want to look at an earlier thread about the 11880.
[a href=\"http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=21642]http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=21642[/url]

In that thread, Jeff Schewe explains the different between the 11880 inks vs the other x880 series printers.

My own experience with the 11880 has mirrored that of other users.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2007, 11:22:37 PM by Wayne Fox » Logged

John Hollenberg
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 763


« Reply #38 on: December 22, 2007, 11:37:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
My contention is over producing two different inks of minor variation being the reason for the differences versus differences in head technology, half-toning, drivers etc.  The cost of producing a difference inkset between the 11880 and the other 880 series printers would seem absolutely prohibitive.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162629\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

My assumption is that the K3+VM of the 11880 is more advanced, but can't be used in the 9880 series due to differences in the head design.  My guess is that the K3+VM of the 9880 is more of an "interim step" that can work OK with the older head design of the 9880 series.  Of course, I have zero inside knowledge here, just speculating.  Once Epson brings the technology to the "smaller" large format printers they will probably bring the new K3+VM inkset from the 11880 along.

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

Posts: 1630


WWW
« Reply #39 on: December 22, 2007, 11:55:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Reading Schewe's earlier post *appears* to me to be comparing K3 with K3+Vivid Magenta, not K3+Vivid Magent 4880/7880/9880 with K3+Vivid Magenta 11880, but I agree it could be read either way.

If you look at part numbers, there are new K3 inkset part numbers.  So the new Cyan, for example, works in the 9880 and 9800 but the old Cyan only works in the 9800.

Suggests to me there was more to Vivid Light Magenta than the change in the magentas, but not that the 11880 uses a different subset again.

Having said that, if you look at the new head technology it could certainly be that changes were made to the pigment encapsulation to work/take advantage of the new design.

Of course, I feel a bit dumb speculating on the meaning of something posted by someone here...I'm sure Schewe will correct my assumption subject to any restrictions on his commenting imposed by Epson :-)
Logged

Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad