Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: 11880 and iPF6100  (Read 3992 times)
Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2808



WWW
« on: February 18, 2008, 05:29:53 PM »
ReplyReply

I have spent a considerable amount of time, ink, and paper in a feeble attempt to quantify how these two printers compare in throughput speed.

The conclusions are difficult, because the printers have completely different characteristics and both have multiple settings that trade quality for speed ... although most of the time the quality difference is minimal bordering on imperceptible.

As I tried to write up my conclusions, it turned into more of an "article", and I am uncomfortable posting the full text in a message.  It's pretty long.

Instead, I have attached a pdf file

I'm sure many of you will find fault with my methods.  So be it.  This is the best I can do.  My curiosity is completely satisfied, and as you will see if you read the pdf, I stand by the claim that the Epson is indeed the faster printer at the quality settings I'm comfortable with.
Logged

John Hollenberg
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 762


« Reply #1 on: February 18, 2008, 05:42:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Wayne,

Fantastic research!  May I make this PDF available on the Canon iPF Wiki (with attribution, of course)?

Thanks.

--John
Logged
Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2808



WWW
« Reply #2 on: February 18, 2008, 05:44:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Wayne,

Fantastic research!  May I make this PDF available on the Canon iPF Wiki (with attribution, of course)?

Thanks.

--John
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=175790\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Certainly.
Logged

Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5415


WWW
« Reply #3 on: February 18, 2008, 05:58:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The conclusions are difficult, because the printers have completely different characteristics and both have multiple settings that trade quality for speed ... although most of the time the quality difference is minimal bordering on imperceptible.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=175787\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Wayne...

This subject points to a recent post here complaining about Michael's "review" of the Canon iPF6100 printer.

That simple fact is that all three printer manufactures have converged at a point where the actual technology is pushing the limits of reality...between the nozzle sizes, print head speed, ink gamut and image quality, it's becoming very much a question of other aspects of the printers that becomes more subjective realities. 1-5% larger total volume of color will simply not plot reasonably in gamut projections. Print speed depends entirely on the printer settings and since there is no EXACT setting that can be set to produce EXACTLY the same output results, speed is a subjective result. Once you get down to 3.5 4 picoliters, dot size is another factor that requires specialized equipment to measure...but even then the printing of photographic images will likely be more impacted by improper output sharpening than printer limitations.

Canon, Epson and HP are all pushing the envelope, hard!

So, while somebody might LIKE to have qualitative, scientific tests and results, it ain't gonna happen cause the differences between printers are really now more based upon things like usability, cost of operation, service support, easy of access to supplies and inks.

Thanks for doing the speed tests...but the results are pretty much what I expected...it's pretty hard to nail down EXACTLY what the results actually mean.

The "marketing document" produced by Canon is a typical sort of "comparison" you expect (or should expect) from marketing people. They tell you what they want you to think and use number to make it appear to be reasonable, and people will tend to believe the line of bull they write.

The simple fact is that between the top three printers from each company, the differences are VERY hard to nail down. Add to that is the fact that technology is a moving target...the iPF6100 is the most recent printer to be released...but is it the best? It may be if the other factors fall in line for what a user may need.

Also, don't expect Epson and HP to quit making changes...what will happen is anybody's guess (well, some of us may know more than others but are unable to say anything due to NDAs)

:~)
Logged
Brian Gilkes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 431


WWW
« Reply #4 on: February 18, 2008, 06:07:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks Wayne,
Your efforts are very much appreciated . I has a sneaking feeling by the whole tone of the Canon blurb that all was not right. Pity, the Canons are obviously good printers and it does them no good in the long term to mislead people.
Did you offer this as a lead article to Michael?
Cheers.
Brian
www.pharoseditions.com.au
Logged
jpgentry
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 197


« Reply #5 on: February 18, 2008, 07:39:47 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm the guy who's been stiring the pot lately by questioning everything from reviews to print speed to...  whatever.

I realize that some may not think conclusons can be made about these printers but Wayne's research is proof that asking questions can result in better understanding.  I know Wayne now knows more about the Canon and Epson print driver than he probably ever wanted to.  The particular setting I use on the Canon is a good bit faster than the equivolent on the Epson, however photographers will find the advantage to the Epson side.

I greatly, greatly appreciate his hard work on this!  He has given me an understanding of how the settings stack up between the Epson and Canon that will mean shorter work nights for me.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2008, 07:45:57 PM by jpgentry » Logged
Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2808



WWW
« Reply #6 on: February 18, 2008, 07:52:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Thanks Wayne,
Your efforts are very much appreciated . I has a sneaking feeling by the whole tone of the Canon blurb that all was not right. Pity, the Canons are obviously good printers and it does them no good in the long term to mislead people.
Did you offer this as a lead article to Michael?
Cheers.
Brian
www.pharoseditions.com.au
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=175803\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thank you.

As far as offering it to Michael, while I certainly have no problem with this if he was interested,  I'm not sure there is broad enough interest, and I'm not sure my writing skills are up to the standards of those that contribute to this site.
Logged

Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2808



WWW
« Reply #7 on: February 18, 2008, 07:55:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
(well, some of us may know more than others but are unable to say anything due to NDAs)

:~)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=175797\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks for your comments ... well stated.

And I must admit I'm envious of that NDA of yours ... (and all the cool inside stuff you get to hear about first because of it)
Logged

nickdavis
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 12


« Reply #8 on: February 18, 2008, 08:47:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Wayne, thank you so much for taking the time to write this up and make it available to us. This is the kind of thing that makes the internet so amazing.
Logged
Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2804


« Reply #9 on: February 19, 2008, 04:12:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I have spent a considerable amount of time, ink, and paper in a feeble attempt to quantify how these two printers compare in throughput speed.

The conclusions are difficult, because the printers have completely different characteristics and both have multiple settings that trade quality for speed ... although most of the time the quality difference is minimal bordering on imperceptible.

As I tried to write up my conclusions, it turned into more of an "article", and I am uncomfortable posting the full text in a message.  It's pretty long.

Instead, I have attached a pdf file

I'm sure many of you will find fault with my methods.  So be it.  This is the best I can do.  My curiosity is completely satisfied, and as you will see if you read the pdf, I stand by the claim that the Epson is indeed the faster printer at the quality settings I'm comfortable with.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Wayne,

Good job done. Thank you.

The Epson wide format models got profiles that suit every resolution etc since the 3800. It was one of the advantages mentioned in the 3800 docs.

>>Compensates for various ink densities between resolutions allowing
for a single ICC profile to be used per media type<<

It probably means the media presets are adapted per resolution to make that possible or is a result of the new ditheringweaving methods as Epson indicates. Before the 3800 every resolution needed another profile.

The HP Z models have the same one profile per media for all resolutions system. Makes a lot of difference in profile creation and maintenance. I think the HP B9180 has it too. It could well be the same breakthrough in dithering technology that is the base for this. Both the 3800 and Z models were introduced at the Photokina 2006.


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 #10 on: February 19, 2008, 08:11:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Great to have your Report.
It would be even better to have print outs on the Z the same image, and settings to round up all the LFP photo printers.
I would like to know if you could time spool times too. Maybe just for the most used settings.
According to HP engineers, there Epson have a huge advantage over Canon and HP as their instructions sent to the Asics (black box calculations) are processing more in the printer. HP has to do much of this up front so the spooling times should be longer, same for Canon. I don't know how much, I don't have any of the printers to do the tests.

Ernst: the 9180 screening is not the same as the Z.

Jeff: you nailed it as usual: changes between past and present leave nothing of the old technology to be carried forward without careful examination. For example before perhaps two series ago Epson printers had a large difference in print image quality depending on settings. No longer the case . Changes in current and future models can also as you said modify any of the historic specs and output qualities. Happy to see the chase of volume of droplet size was put aside in favour of other issues that forward printing.

Overall one would have to see their images on all three printers something which is only available to a very few. So as individuals those with one or the other have been posting here, adding to the pot, yet we need to rely on those few indeed who have all three (or two at least) to share their insights.
Logged
neil snape
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1432


WWW
« Reply #11 on: February 19, 2008, 08:15:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Oh I forgot; on NDAs, there is really neat stuff to learn, to see, for which you then cannot speak about. So a bit frustrating in ways.
Worse is knowing things that could be under the cover of NDA , then they are dropped for whatever reason. The companies are not going to tell you anything why where when they changed things but in your head the lollipops are still there.
Logged
Scott Martin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1311


WWW
« Reply #12 on: February 19, 2008, 10:37:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
According to HP engineers, there Epson have a huge advantage over Canon and HP as their instructions sent to the Asics (black box calculations) are processing more in the printer. HP has to do much of this up front so the spooling times should be longer,...[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=175912\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Right, that is one of the reasons HPs are so slow, but Canon iPF printers also have a "L-COA" chip that processes the screening on-board and on-the-fly as well.

Per square foot print speed numbers don't quite tell the whole picture. The time it takes to get a massive high res image (60"x84" @ 300ppi for example) to the printer is also worth looking at. Windows and Apple's legacy Tioga printing APIs aren't ideal and have certain limitations that all printer manufacturers struggle with. There are two ways of getting around these APIs and one of the benefits can be much greater speed. One way is to use an application plug-in. Canon's Photoshop plug-in for example uses a fast, custom rendering engine that splits up the work between the host computer and the printer's L-COA chip and this offers speed and workflow benefits that one sees when sending huge files.

Apple's 10.5 Leopard OS allows for a full implementation of the new CUPS printing architecture. One of the many advantages of CUPS is that an OEM can choose to use a custom rendering engine. Canon's new CUPS drivers, like the Photoshop plug-ins, are using Canon's own rendering engine that works in conjunction with the on board chip for optimal speed. Canon seems quick to jump on board with this tech but I'm sure it's just a matter of time until the other players do too.

As someone who works with and likes all three brands I hate to sound like the "Canon guy" here. For the record, I'm not a Canon guy, I just feel that the iPF printers have certain advantages that aren't getting their fair share of attention.

These driver level speed differences are probably not significant to most users printing images at or smaller than 11x17 but are significant to those working with grand format 60"+ printers. Therefore it would be fun to see speed tests that incorporate driver rendering times.

And to be fair, one should compare all three brands at the same width. Comparing similarly priced 44" printers would be interesting and the results and implications would be quite different when comparing the 60"+ printers that have different features and greatly varying price tags.
Logged

neil snape
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1432


WWW
« Reply #13 on: February 19, 2008, 11:41:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
As someone who works with and likes all three brands I hate to sound like the "Canon guy" here. For the record, I'm not a Canon guy, I just feel that the iPF printers have certain advantages that aren't getting their fair share of attention.

These driver level speed differences are probably not significant to most users printing images at or smaller than 11x17 but are significant to those working with grand format 60"+ printers. Therefore it would be fun to see speed tests that incorporate driver rendering times.

And to be fair, one should compare all three brands at the same width. Comparing similarly priced 44" printers would be interesting and the results and implications would be quite different when comparing the 60"+ printers that have different features and greatly varying price tags.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=175957\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You're not sounding like a Canon guy at all. It's good that you post info on these details that most of us are not really aware of.
I know that when I printed some 18' prints on the Z the spool time was very long. I really have no idea at all how long a full res 18' x 44" on another printer. I can say that the Z does handle the comm port well once spooled with a true Gigabit Ethernet card, linked to a n router/switch.
There are some interesting things onboard the Z in any case, like a easily changed hard drive that can be accessed from host computers. Hasn't been exploited enough, let's see what the future holds there....
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad