Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Cannon IP5000 or Epson R300?

Last response: in Computer Peripherals
Share
February 22, 2005 4:41:49 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Really would like a FAST printer that also is great at photos.

Narrowed it down to either the R300 or IP5000 Any +- for either printer?


Thanks

Mikey
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 6:42:35 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

IP4000 is faster, maginally better on photos but not as good on business
documents.

Mikey wrote:

>Really would like a FAST printer that also is great at photos.
>
>Narrowed it down to either the R300 or IP5000 Any +- for either printer?
>
>
>Thanks
>
>Mikey
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 12:56:01 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Mikey wrote:
> Really would like a FAST printer that also is great at photos.
>
> Narrowed it down to either the R300 or IP5000 Any +- for either printer?
>

I have the iP5000, which I believe is the world's first 1 pl dot ink jet
printer. It's capable of 9600 dpi resolution which produces visibly
grander photos, something the iP4000 (really a reworked i860) with
its 2 pl dots can't match up close. I also have the i860 and know this.
Of course, looking at the photos from a distance they would appear
"identical". How fussy are you? :-). But looking close you see a
sharper, more detailed image. More focussed (because of the smaller
dots). This is really noticeable in graphics too. I was quite amazed as
I do a lot of printing at the highest resolution. Epson's Glossy Photo
Paper and Costco's Kirkland Professional Glossy Photo Paper work
beautifully.

I don't know the Epson R300 at all as I left the Epson organization" a
few years ago. I prefer the Canon line of printers and their user
friendly cartridge system, unlike Epson's electronic chip ones. If you
refill, or buy 3rd party cartridges, you're better off with the Canon
line. I run my iP5000 with 3rd party cartridges made in China/filled
with US Formulabs ink. One bonus the Epson R300 printer has (I believe
it has?...) is the capability of printing on special CDRs. The Canons in
North America have this capability removed - copyright reasons.

-Taliesyn
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 9:25:13 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Taliesyn wrote:

> Mikey wrote:
>
>> Really would like a FAST printer that also is great at photos.
>>
>> Narrowed it down to either the R300 or IP5000 Any +- for either printer?
>>
>
> I have the iP5000, which I believe is the world's first 1 pl dot ink jet
> printer. It's capable of 9600 dpi resolution which produces visibly
> grander photos, something the iP4000 (really a reworked i860) with
> its 2 pl dots can't match up close. I also have the i860 and know this.

All of the publications who do reviews (PCWorld, PC Mag, Cnet etc)
concurr that while the IP5000 is substantially better for business
documents it is marginally inferior on photos and somewhat slower.
Maybe you see what you want to see.

>
> Of course, looking at the photos from a distance they would appear
> "identical". How fussy are you? :-). But looking close you see a
> sharper, more detailed image. More focussed (because of the smaller
> dots). This is really noticeable in graphics too. I was quite amazed as
> I do a lot of printing at the highest resolution. Epson's Glossy Photo
> Paper and Costco's Kirkland Professional Glossy Photo Paper work
> beautifully.
>
> I don't know the Epson R300 at all

My friend is on his 3rd Epson R300 this year due to the feed system for
printing CDs. He prints a lot of them but after a while he notices
slippage. The R300 uses more ink and is more expensive to run than a
Canon IP4000, the best value in the Canon line.

> as I left the Epson organization" a few years ago. I prefer the Canon
> line of printers and their user friendly cartridge system, unlike
> Epson's electronic chip ones. If you refill, or buy 3rd party
> cartridges, you're better off with the Canon line. I run my iP5000
> with 3rd party cartridges made in China/filled with US Formulabs ink.
> One bonus the Epson R300 printer has (I believe it has?...) is the
> capability of printing on special CDRs. The Canons in North America
> have this capability removed - copyright reasons.
>
> -Taliesyn
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 9:25:14 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

measekite wrote:

>
>
> Taliesyn wrote:
>
>> Mikey wrote:
>>
>>> Really would like a FAST printer that also is great at photos.
>>>
>>> Narrowed it down to either the R300 or IP5000 Any +- for either printer?
>>>
>>
>> I have the iP5000, which I believe is the world's first 1 pl dot ink jet
>> printer. It's capable of 9600 dpi resolution which produces visibly
>> grander photos, something the iP4000 (really a reworked i860) with
>> its 2 pl dots can't match up close. I also have the i860 and know this.
>
>
> All of the publications who do reviews (PCWorld, PC Mag, Cnet etc)
> concurr that while the IP5000 is substantially better for business
> documents it is marginally inferior on photos and somewhat slower.
> Maybe you see what you want to see.
>

Marginally means very little. It prints photos any way I tell it to.
It's me who makes the final remastering adjustments. And "somewhat
slower" means nothing to me either, I'm home all day. If a print takes
10, 20, 30 seconds longer, so what, it's probably because it's printing
them at 9600 dpi instead of the i860/iP4000 dpi of 4800. Anyway, I have
the i860 and I don't find the iP5000 noticeably slower. I didn't buy it
for speed. You're obviously correct . . . I'm seeing what want to see -
virtually grain free printing.

As for printer reviews, I've seen a lot of malarkey printed in my time.
I take them all with a grain of dots ;-). There's only one reviewer I
like, and he hasn't reviewed it yet. And not that I could care anymore,
I married this printer and we're going to get along just fine. So far
the Honeymoon's been a happy one.

-Taliesyn
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 9:42:19 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Taliesyn wrote:
> Mikey wrote:
>> Really would like a FAST printer that also is great at photos.
>>
>> Narrowed it down to either the R300 or IP5000 Any +- for either
>> printer?
>
> I have the iP5000, which I believe is the world's first 1 pl dot ink
> jet printer. It's capable of 9600 dpi resolution which produces
> visibly grander photos, something the iP4000 (really a reworked i860)
> with its 2 pl dots can't match up close. I also have the i860 and know
> this. Of course, looking at the photos from a distance they would
> appear "identical". How fussy are you? :-). But looking close you see
> a sharper, more detailed image. More focussed (because of the smaller
> dots). This is really noticeable in graphics too. I was quite amazed
> as I do a lot of printing at the highest resolution. Epson's Glossy
> Photo Paper and Costco's Kirkland Professional Glossy Photo Paper work
> beautifully.
>
> I don't know the Epson R300 at all as I left the Epson organization" a
> few years ago. I prefer the Canon line of printers and their user
> friendly cartridge system, unlike Epson's electronic chip ones. If you
> refill, or buy 3rd party cartridges, you're better off with the Canon
> line. I run my iP5000 with 3rd party cartridges made in China/filled
> with US Formulabs ink. One bonus the Epson R300 printer has (I believe
> it has?...) is the capability of printing on special CDRs. The Canons
> in North America have this capability removed - copyright reasons.
>
> -Taliesyn

I really wonder why then ip4000 is found better than ip5000 on most
reviews(not just that famopus one you all mention).
And really...using Canon Photo Pro or Glossy plus paper you can't see any
dots or similar. and if you calculate 4800 or 9600 dpi, it's so much than
even with lower resolutions human eye can't see two dots so close together,
so that 9600 dpi is more add than real usefullness.
Anyway, this dpi is not mechanical but interpolated...
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 9:42:20 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

The IP8500 is Canon's flagship model being the narrow carriage Pixma
version of the award winning i9900. It came out after the IP5000. I
certainly would like to know why they did not go with a 1 picoliter drop
size. Maybe they are using the IP5000 to prove it in the field before
they use it in the remaining models.

Anyway, I certainly would like to know the answer.

SleeperMan wrote:

>Taliesyn wrote:
>
>
>>Mikey wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Really would like a FAST printer that also is great at photos.
>>>
>>>Narrowed it down to either the R300 or IP5000 Any +- for either
>>>printer?
>>>
>>>
>>I have the iP5000, which I believe is the world's first 1 pl dot ink
>>jet printer. It's capable of 9600 dpi resolution which produces
>>visibly grander photos, something the iP4000 (really a reworked i860)
>>with its 2 pl dots can't match up close. I also have the i860 and know
>>this. Of course, looking at the photos from a distance they would
>>appear "identical". How fussy are you? :-). But looking close you see
>>a sharper, more detailed image. More focussed (because of the smaller
>>dots). This is really noticeable in graphics too. I was quite amazed
>>as I do a lot of printing at the highest resolution. Epson's Glossy
>>Photo Paper and Costco's Kirkland Professional Glossy Photo Paper work
>>beautifully.
>>
>>I don't know the Epson R300 at all as I left the Epson organization" a
>>few years ago. I prefer the Canon line of printers and their user
>>friendly cartridge system, unlike Epson's electronic chip ones. If you
>>refill, or buy 3rd party cartridges, you're better off with the Canon
>>line. I run my iP5000 with 3rd party cartridges made in China/filled
>>with US Formulabs ink. One bonus the Epson R300 printer has (I believe
>>it has?...) is the capability of printing on special CDRs. The Canons
>>in North America have this capability removed - copyright reasons.
>>
>>-Taliesyn
>>
>>
>
>I really wonder why then ip4000 is found better than ip5000 on most
>reviews(not just that famopus one you all mention).
>And really...using Canon Photo Pro or Glossy plus paper you can't see any
>dots or similar. and if you calculate 4800 or 9600 dpi, it's so much than
>even with lower resolutions human eye can't see two dots so close together,
>so that 9600 dpi is more add than real usefullness.
>Anyway, this dpi is not mechanical but interpolated...
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 9:42:20 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

SleeperMan wrote:
> Taliesyn wrote:
>
>>Mikey wrote:
>>
>>>Really would like a FAST printer that also is great at photos.
>>>
>>>Narrowed it down to either the R300 or IP5000 Any +- for either
>>>printer?
>>
>>I have the iP5000, which I believe is the world's first 1 pl dot ink
>>jet printer. It's capable of 9600 dpi resolution which produces
>>visibly grander photos, something the iP4000 (really a reworked i860)
>>with its 2 pl dots can't match up close. I also have the i860 and know
>>this. Of course, looking at the photos from a distance they would
>>appear "identical". How fussy are you? :-). But looking close you see
>>a sharper, more detailed image. More focussed (because of the smaller
>>dots). This is really noticeable in graphics too. I was quite amazed
>>as I do a lot of printing at the highest resolution. Epson's Glossy
>>Photo Paper and Costco's Kirkland Professional Glossy Photo Paper work
>>beautifully.
>>
>>I don't know the Epson R300 at all as I left the Epson organization" a
>>few years ago. I prefer the Canon line of printers and their user
>>friendly cartridge system, unlike Epson's electronic chip ones. If you
>>refill, or buy 3rd party cartridges, you're better off with the Canon
>>line. I run my iP5000 with 3rd party cartridges made in China/filled
>>with US Formulabs ink. One bonus the Epson R300 printer has (I believe
>>it has?...) is the capability of printing on special CDRs. The Canons
>>in North America have this capability removed - copyright reasons.
>>
>>-Taliesyn
>
>
> I really wonder why then ip4000 is found better than ip5000 on most
> reviews(not just that famopus one you all mention).
> And really...using Canon Photo Pro or Glossy plus paper you can't see any
> dots or similar. and if you calculate 4800 or 9600 dpi, it's so much than
> even with lower resolutions human eye can't see two dots so close together,
> so that 9600 dpi is more add than real usefullness.
> Anyway, this dpi is not mechanical but interpolated...
>

I find photos from the iP5000 virtually grain free; not so from the
i860/iP4000 series.

I was always hoping for a printer that could one day deliver a photo
that up close would look like a photo lab print, that is, grain free.
I think this is as close as we're gonna get unless Canon invents one
with .5 picoliter dots. I'm sure there's one on the horizon...

-Taliesyn
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 11:20:30 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

measekite wrote:
> The IP8500 is Canon's flagship model being the narrow carriage Pixma
> version of the award winning i9900. It came out after the IP5000. I
> certainly would like to know why they did not go with a 1 picoliter
> drop size. Maybe they are using the IP5000 to prove it in the field
> before they use it in the remaining models.
>
> Anyway, I certainly would like to know the answer.

Yep, me too...i think it might be something regarding general Canon head
quality, since reporst of failures are not so rare.
Now, since they didn't even solve 2pl head problem, putting out 1pl one is
quite courageous step...
But, on the other hand, maybe mechanics is not yet so developed as drop
size, so it's useless to have 1pl drops if head is not able to have so small
step, so at the end you get very small color dot, then some very small white
space, another very small dot, another very small white space etc....result
is worse than if you have 2pl drops and no white space.

>
> SleeperMan wrote:
>
>> Taliesyn wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Mikey wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Really would like a FAST printer that also is great at photos.
>>>>
>>>> Narrowed it down to either the R300 or IP5000 Any +- for either
>>>> printer?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I have the iP5000, which I believe is the world's first 1 pl dot ink
>>> jet printer. It's capable of 9600 dpi resolution which produces
>>> visibly grander photos, something the iP4000 (really a reworked
>>> i860) with its 2 pl dots can't match up close. I also have the i860
>>> and know this. Of course, looking at the photos from a distance
>>> they would appear "identical". How fussy are you? :-). But looking
>>> close you see a sharper, more detailed image. More focussed
>>> (because of the smaller dots). This is really noticeable in
>>> graphics too. I was quite amazed as I do a lot of printing at the
>>> highest resolution. Epson's Glossy Photo Paper and Costco's
>>> Kirkland Professional Glossy Photo Paper work beautifully.
>>>
>>> I don't know the Epson R300 at all as I left the Epson
>>> organization" a few years ago. I prefer the Canon line of printers
>>> and their user friendly cartridge system, unlike Epson's electronic
>>> chip ones. If you refill, or buy 3rd party cartridges, you're
>>> better off with the Canon line. I run my iP5000 with 3rd party
>>> cartridges made in China/filled with US Formulabs ink. One bonus
>>> the Epson R300 printer has (I believe it has?...) is the capability
>>> of printing on special CDRs. The Canons in North America have this
>>> capability removed - copyright reasons. -Taliesyn
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I really wonder why then ip4000 is found better than ip5000 on most
>> reviews(not just that famopus one you all mention).
>> And really...using Canon Photo Pro or Glossy plus paper you can't
>> see any dots or similar. and if you calculate 4800 or 9600 dpi, it's
>> so much than even with lower resolutions human eye can't see two
>> dots so close together, so that 9600 dpi is more add than real
>> usefullness. Anyway, this dpi is not mechanical but interpolated...
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 2:27:06 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Mikey wrote:
> Really would like a FAST printer that also is great at photos.
>
> Narrowed it down to either the R300 or IP5000 Any +- for either printer?
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Mikey
>
>
I had the same "dilema" awhile back, I was leaning towards the IP5000
but then the R300 became available for C$80 less, which is what decided
it for me. The 2-sided printing was a feature that canon had that I
liked, but in retrospect I probably would not use it much in any case. I
like the cd/dvd printing option in the R300 but I have yet to try it. As
far as photo quality goes, I'm very happy with the R300's output, and
I'm quite fussy. The quality on the best setting is as close to lab
quality as I've seen on a printer. The 1 pico on the Canon impressed me,
but as other posters mentioned any review I read on it put the 4000 and
R300 ahead of it as far as print quality went.

I'm not sure what all this means in any case, I used to be meticulous
about such details, in my audiophile days I would purchase one piece of
equipment over another if it's total harmonic distortion was .001 better
than its competitor, when in reality the human ear (especially mine)
could not have told the difference anyway!
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 2:31:00 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

If you are using a digital camera all printers produce grain free photos
because there is only grain in film.

Taliesyn wrote:

> SleeperMan wrote:
>
>> Taliesyn wrote:
>>
>>> Mikey wrote:
>>>
>>>> Really would like a FAST printer that also is great at photos.
>>>>
>>>> Narrowed it down to either the R300 or IP5000 Any +- for either
>>>> printer?
>>>
>>>
>>> I have the iP5000, which I believe is the world's first 1 pl dot ink
>>> jet printer. It's capable of 9600 dpi resolution which produces
>>> visibly grander photos, something the iP4000 (really a reworked i860)
>>> with its 2 pl dots can't match up close. I also have the i860 and know
>>> this. Of course, looking at the photos from a distance they would
>>> appear "identical". How fussy are you? :-). But looking close you see
>>> a sharper, more detailed image. More focussed (because of the smaller
>>> dots). This is really noticeable in graphics too. I was quite amazed
>>> as I do a lot of printing at the highest resolution. Epson's Glossy
>>> Photo Paper and Costco's Kirkland Professional Glossy Photo Paper work
>>> beautifully.
>>>
>>> I don't know the Epson R300 at all as I left the Epson organization" a
>>> few years ago. I prefer the Canon line of printers and their user
>>> friendly cartridge system, unlike Epson's electronic chip ones. If you
>>> refill, or buy 3rd party cartridges, you're better off with the Canon
>>> line. I run my iP5000 with 3rd party cartridges made in China/filled
>>> with US Formulabs ink. One bonus the Epson R300 printer has (I believe
>>> it has?...) is the capability of printing on special CDRs. The Canons
>>> in North America have this capability removed - copyright reasons.
>>>
>>> -Taliesyn
>>
>>
>>
>> I really wonder why then ip4000 is found better than ip5000 on most
>> reviews(not just that famopus one you all mention).
>> And really...using Canon Photo Pro or Glossy plus paper you can't see
>> any dots or similar. and if you calculate 4800 or 9600 dpi, it's so
>> much than even with lower resolutions human eye can't see two dots so
>> close together, so that 9600 dpi is more add than real usefullness.
>> Anyway, this dpi is not mechanical but interpolated...
>
>
> I find photos from the iP5000 virtually grain free; not so from the
> i860/iP4000 series.
>
> I was always hoping for a printer that could one day deliver a photo
> that up close would look like a photo lab print, that is, grain free.
> I think this is as close as we're gonna get unless Canon invents one
> with .5 picoliter dots. I'm sure there's one on the horizon...
>
> -Taliesyn
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 2:31:01 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

measekite wrote:

> If you are using a digital camera all printers produce grain free photos
> because there is only grain in film.
>
> Taliesyn wrote:

HUH? . . .

I don't know what you call "grain free". To me, ink dots are the
"grains". And all printers are not equal by any means. I just visited
Vincent Oliver's review site of printers and you see a varied difference
in "grain" between magnified print samples. Any half decent pair of eyes
can see the difference without magnification. I've changed printers
several times in the last five years and can attest to that.

-Taliesyn
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 12:45:27 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

T- [Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:56:01 -0500]:
>[CD-printing] North America have this capability removed - copyright reasons

Something about a Philips patent, and Canon not wanting to
license, from what I read. It's not "copyright", in any
case.

--
40th Floor - Software @ http://40th.com/
iPlay : the ultimate audio player for PPCs
mp3,mp4,m4a,aac,ogg,flac,wav,play & record
parametric eq, xfeed, reverb: all on a ppc
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 12:45:28 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

hel@40th.com wrote:
> T- [Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:56:01 -0500]:
> >[CD-printing] North America have this capability removed - copyright reasons
>
> Something about a Philips patent, and Canon not wanting to
> license, from what I read. It's not "copyright", in any
> case.
>

Absolutely right, patent licence. Thanks.

-Taliesyn
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 2:17:06 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

In article Taliesyn says...
> As for printer reviews, I've seen a lot of malarkey printed in my time.
> I take them all with a grain of dots ;-). There's only one reviewer I
> like, and he hasn't reviewed it yet.
>
Perhaps Canon hasn't sent him a press kit to paraphrase yet.
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 2:23:37 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

In article measekite says...
> All of the publications who do reviews (PCWorld, PC Mag, Cnet etc)
> concurr that while the IP5000 is substantially better for business
> documents it is marginally inferior on photos and somewhat slower.
> Maybe you see what you want to see.
>
So far I regard Vincent Oliver's reviews on Photo-i as being the most
rigorous. He posts hi res scans of the printer output to back his
conclusions.
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 2:23:38 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

colinco wrote:
> In article measekite says...
>
>>All of the publications who do reviews (PCWorld, PC Mag, Cnet etc)
>>concurr that while the IP5000 is substantially better for business
>>documents it is marginally inferior on photos and somewhat slower.
>>Maybe you see what you want to see.
>>
>
> So far I regard Vincent Oliver's reviews on Photo-i as being the most
> rigorous. He posts hi res scans of the printer output to back his
> conclusions.


Okay, I just checked and Oliver has reviewed the iP5000. I didn't see
anything negative in his report. He indicated he'd buy it. So I think
that would be good enough for most people with high standards...

http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/printers/Pixma%205000/...

-Taliesyn
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 2:23:39 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 18:31:19 -0500, Taliesyn <taliesyn4@netscape.net>
wrote:

>> So far I regard Vincent Oliver's reviews on Photo-i as being the most
>> rigorous. He posts hi res scans of the printer output to back his
>> conclusions.

>Okay, I just checked and Oliver has reviewed the iP5000. I didn't see
>anything negative in his report. He indicated he'd buy it. So I think
>that would be good enough for most people with high standards...
>
>http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/printers/Pixma%205000/...

Thank you for the address. Saved for future reference.

Geo
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 6:08:47 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

measekite wrote:

> Why do you prefer Formulabs over MSI inks that were recommeded by Neil
> Slade?
>

Formulabs inks have a great reputation from experience and from what
I've read. I simply haven't tried MSI. I'd have to see if they even
ship to Canada and at what cost.

I tried to get Formulabs inks from Alotofthings. They couldn't be
bothered shipping to Canada. I got some nicer folk in Australia to ship
to me. It's a bad rap for Alotofthings when a much smaller outfit half
way across the known universe does a better job of Internet marketing
than a US major just a few hundred miles from me.

-Taliesyn
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 7:31:19 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

A few quick comments. Those white spaces you are speaking of between
the dots... they are called what allows printers to make all the color
density they do. Keep in mind even a 6 or 8 color printer can only
produce a couple of dozen of color combinations. The white of the paper
in between them creates the upper half of the lighter colors.

Secondly, the incremental locations that a printer can produce are
greater than the number of dots that could be contained in those spaces,
even at 1 picolitre.

The reason that printer with low dye load inks do not have smaller ink
dots is because they have no use for them. The reason for the 1
picolitre dot is not to create more detail. The detail is already
limited by the actual printer driver matrix used to create the image,
and in most places it's pretty darn good anyway. The reason for the 1
picolitre dot is to make a dot small enough not to be able to see the
discrete dots with a high dye load ink, making a matrix that looks
similar to that of using larger picolitre dots of lighter dye.

The concept of a 4 color printer with 1 picolitre dots is a very good
one. It is very economical on ink, since a lot of the light color is
made by lack of in and just paper white. The dots are actually more
archival than a 2 picolitre light dye load ink dots, the reason being a
higher concentration of dye in one location protects itself better from
"leaving" the paper, that a 2 or even 4 picolitre dot of very dilute dye
colorant in a watery dye ink on paper.

Art


SleeperMan wrote:


>
> Yep, me too...i think it might be something regarding general Canon head
> quality, since reporst of failures are not so rare.
> Now, since they didn't even solve 2pl head problem, putting out 1pl one is
> quite courageous step...
> But, on the other hand, maybe mechanics is not yet so developed as drop
> size, so it's useless to have 1pl drops if head is not able to have so small
> step, so at the end you get very small color dot, then some very small white
> space, another very small dot, another very small white space etc....result
> is worse than if you have 2pl drops and no white space.
>
>
>>SleeperMan wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Taliesyn wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Mikey wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Really would like a FAST printer that also is great at photos.
>>>>>
>>>>>Narrowed it down to either the R300 or IP5000 Any +- for either
>>>>>printer?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I have the iP5000, which I believe is the world's first 1 pl dot ink
>>>>jet printer. It's capable of 9600 dpi resolution which produces
>>>>visibly grander photos, something the iP4000 (really a reworked
>>>>i860) with its 2 pl dots can't match up close. I also have the i860
>>>>and know this. Of course, looking at the photos from a distance
>>>>they would appear "identical". How fussy are you? :-). But looking
>>>>close you see a sharper, more detailed image. More focussed
>>>>(because of the smaller dots). This is really noticeable in
>>>>graphics too. I was quite amazed as I do a lot of printing at the
>>>>highest resolution. Epson's Glossy Photo Paper and Costco's
>>>>Kirkland Professional Glossy Photo Paper work beautifully.
>>>>
>>>>I don't know the Epson R300 at all as I left the Epson
>>>>organization" a few years ago. I prefer the Canon line of printers
>>>>and their user friendly cartridge system, unlike Epson's electronic
>>>>chip ones. If you refill, or buy 3rd party cartridges, you're
>>>>better off with the Canon line. I run my iP5000 with 3rd party
>>>>cartridges made in China/filled with US Formulabs ink. One bonus
>>>>the Epson R300 printer has (I believe it has?...) is the capability
>>>>of printing on special CDRs. The Canons in North America have this
>>>>capability removed - copyright reasons. -Taliesyn
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>I really wonder why then ip4000 is found better than ip5000 on most
>>>reviews(not just that famopus one you all mention).
>>>And really...using Canon Photo Pro or Glossy plus paper you can't
>>>see any dots or similar. and if you calculate 4800 or 9600 dpi, it's
>>>so much than even with lower resolutions human eye can't see two
>>>dots so close together, so that 9600 dpi is more add than real
>>>usefullness. Anyway, this dpi is not mechanical but interpolated...
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 7:31:20 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Arthur Entlich wrote:
> A few quick comments. Those white spaces you are speaking of between
> the dots... they are called what allows printers to make all the color
> density they do. Keep in mind even a 6 or 8 color printer can only
> produce a couple of dozen of color combinations. The white of the paper
> in between them creates the upper half of the lighter colors.
>
> Secondly, the incremental locations that a printer can produce are
> greater than the number of dots that could be contained in those spaces,
> even at 1 picolitre.
>
> The reason that printer with low dye load inks do not have smaller ink
> dots is because they have no use for them. The reason for the 1
> picolitre dot is not to create more detail. The detail is already
> limited by the actual printer driver matrix used to create the image,
> and in most places it's pretty darn good anyway. The reason for the 1
> picolitre dot is to make a dot small enough not to be able to see the
> discrete dots with a high dye load ink, making a matrix that looks
> similar to that of using larger picolitre dots of lighter dye.
>
> The concept of a 4 color printer with 1 picolitre dots is a very good
> one. It is very economical on ink, since a lot of the light color is
> made by lack of in and just paper white. The dots are actually more
> archival than a 2 picolitre light dye load ink dots, the reason being a
> higher concentration of dye in one location protects itself better from
> "leaving" the paper, that a 2 or even 4 picolitre dot of very dilute dye
> colorant in a watery dye ink on paper.
>
> Art
>

And my comment on 1 and 2 picolitre dots. . .

I don't know where this all fits in, but prints made on the same paper -
Dollar Store Glossy - come out quite wet on my 2 pl Canon i860, yet are
quite dry on my 1 pl Canon iP5000. The i860's 2 pl prints used to look
"globby" when they came out, the iP5000's 1 pl not at all. In other
words, the prints are considered "dry" much sooner, though the
manufacturer suggests 24 hours.

-Taliesyn
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 7:37:22 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

I think he was speaking of the granularity of the ink on the print.

Grain simply means something that is made up of many fairly uniform dots
or repeated points. He didn't say "silver-grains".


Art

measekite wrote:

> If you are using a digital camera all printers produce grain free photos
> because there is only grain in film.
>
> Taliesyn wrote:
>


>>
>> I find photos from the iP5000 virtually grain free; not so from the
>> i860/iP4000 series.
>>
>> I was always hoping for a printer that could one day deliver a photo
>> that up close would look like a photo lab print, that is, grain free.
>> I think this is as close as we're gonna get unless Canon invents one
>> with .5 picoliter dots. I'm sure there's one on the horizon...
>>
>> -Taliesyn
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 8:14:46 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Taliesyn wrote:
> SleeperMan wrote:
>> Taliesyn wrote:
>>
>>> Mikey wrote:
>>>
>>>> Really would like a FAST printer that also is great at photos.
>>>>
>>>> Narrowed it down to either the R300 or IP5000 Any +- for either
>>>> printer?
>>>
>>> I have the iP5000, which I believe is the world's first 1 pl dot ink
>>> jet printer. It's capable of 9600 dpi resolution which produces
>>> visibly grander photos, something the iP4000 (really a reworked
>>> i860) with its 2 pl dots can't match up close. I also have the i860
>>> and know this. Of course, looking at the photos from a distance
>>> they would appear "identical". How fussy are you? :-). But looking
>>> close you see a sharper, more detailed image. More focussed
>>> (because of the smaller dots). This is really noticeable in
>>> graphics too. I was quite amazed as I do a lot of printing at the
>>> highest resolution. Epson's Glossy Photo Paper and Costco's
>>> Kirkland Professional Glossy Photo Paper work beautifully.
>>>
>>> I don't know the Epson R300 at all as I left the Epson
>>> organization" a few years ago. I prefer the Canon line of printers
>>> and their user friendly cartridge system, unlike Epson's electronic
>>> chip ones. If you refill, or buy 3rd party cartridges, you're
>>> better off with the Canon line. I run my iP5000 with 3rd party
>>> cartridges made in China/filled with US Formulabs ink. One bonus
>>> the Epson R300 printer has (I believe it has?...) is the capability
>>> of printing on special CDRs. The Canons in North America have this
>>> capability removed - copyright reasons. -Taliesyn
>>
>>
>> I really wonder why then ip4000 is found better than ip5000 on most
>> reviews(not just that famopus one you all mention).
>> And really...using Canon Photo Pro or Glossy plus paper you can't
>> see any dots or similar. and if you calculate 4800 or 9600 dpi, it's
>> so much than even with lower resolutions human eye can't see two
>> dots so close together, so that 9600 dpi is more add than real
>> usefullness. Anyway, this dpi is not mechanical but interpolated...
>>
>
> I find photos from the iP5000 virtually grain free; not so from the
> i860/iP4000 series.
>
> I was always hoping for a printer that could one day deliver a photo
> that up close would look like a photo lab print, that is, grain free.
> I think this is as close as we're gonna get unless Canon invents one
> with .5 picoliter dots. I'm sure there's one on the horizon...
>
> -Taliesyn

I made several photos with my ip4000, on canon photo paper pro...all of them
ARE grain free...
in fact, i sent some photos to a lab for developing and those came back
WORSE than my printed ones!!!
if you really can see two dots on 1/9600 th inch, then you're not from
earth...since NOONE with human eye can't see the difference between lower
than 4800 dpi...it's same like those idiots who claim that they can hear
digitalized CD sound on CD's----even if NONE human can hear the sound above
some 18000 Hz....some of them obviously can hear it above 20000 Hz...which
means they are NOT from earth...
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 9:05:27 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

What you are seeing (if the photo was created with a digital camera) is
either noise from the camera or dots from the printer, it is not grain.

Taliesyn wrote:

> measekite wrote:
>
>> If you are using a digital camera all printers produce grain free
>> photos because there is only grain in film.
>>
>> Taliesyn wrote:
>
>
> HUH? . . .
>
> I don't know what you call "grain free". To me, ink dots are the
> "grains". And all printers are not equal by any means. I just visited
> Vincent Oliver's review site of printers and you see a varied difference
> in "grain" between magnified print samples. Any half decent pair of eyes
> can see the difference without magnification. I've changed printers
> several times in the last five years and can attest to that.
>
> -Taliesyn
>
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 9:29:05 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Arthur Entlich wrote:
> A few quick comments. Those white spaces you are speaking of between
> the dots... they are called what allows printers to make all the color
> density they do. Keep in mind even a 6 or 8 color printer can only
> produce a couple of dozen of color combinations. The white of the
> paper in between them creates the upper half of the lighter colors.
>
> Secondly, the incremental locations that a printer can produce are
> greater than the number of dots that could be contained in those
> spaces, even at 1 picolitre.
>
> The reason that printer with low dye load inks do not have smaller ink
> dots is because they have no use for them. The reason for the 1
> picolitre dot is not to create more detail. The detail is already
> limited by the actual printer driver matrix used to create the image,
> and in most places it's pretty darn good anyway. The reason for the 1
> picolitre dot is to make a dot small enough not to be able to see the
> discrete dots with a high dye load ink, making a matrix that looks
> similar to that of using larger picolitre dots of lighter dye.
>
> The concept of a 4 color printer with 1 picolitre dots is a very good
> one. It is very economical on ink, since a lot of the light color is
> made by lack of in and just paper white. The dots are actually more
> archival than a 2 picolitre light dye load ink dots, the reason being
> a higher concentration of dye in one location protects itself better
> from "leaving" the paper, that a 2 or even 4 picolitre dot of very
> dilute dye colorant in a watery dye ink on paper.

Hmmmm..
i guess time will tell if you're right...
but...does a man can buy paper good enough not to absorb that ink so much
that from 1pl drop a huge, 2 or 3 pl sized would result on a paper? If paper
absorbs too much ink it's useless to have 1pl dots... i guess all the fun is
that paper abosorbs ink in that way that those small dots merge together to
create nice, smooth picture...so, if dot is too small, they won't merge
(therefore whit space), if it's too large, they will interfere each other...


>
> Art
>
>
> SleeperMan wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Yep, me too...i think it might be something regarding general Canon
>> head quality, since reporst of failures are not so rare.
>> Now, since they didn't even solve 2pl head problem, putting out 1pl
>> one is quite courageous step...
>> But, on the other hand, maybe mechanics is not yet so developed as
>> drop size, so it's useless to have 1pl drops if head is not able to
>> have so small step, so at the end you get very small color dot, then
>> some very small white space, another very small dot, another very
>> small white space etc....result is worse than if you have 2pl drops
>> and no white space.
>>> SleeperMan wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Taliesyn wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Mikey wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Really would like a FAST printer that also is great at photos.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Narrowed it down to either the R300 or IP5000 Any +- for either
>>>>>> printer?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I have the iP5000, which I believe is the world's first 1 pl dot
>>>>> ink jet printer. It's capable of 9600 dpi resolution which
>>>>> produces visibly grander photos, something the iP4000 (really a
>>>>> reworked i860) with its 2 pl dots can't match up close. I also
>>>>> have the i860 and know this. Of course, looking at the photos
>>>>> from a distance they would appear "identical". How fussy are you?
>>>>> :-). But looking close you see a sharper, more detailed image.
>>>>> More focussed (because of the smaller dots). This is really
>>>>> noticeable in graphics too. I was quite amazed as I do a lot of
>>>>> printing at the highest resolution. Epson's Glossy Photo Paper
>>>>> and Costco's Kirkland Professional Glossy Photo Paper work
>>>>> beautifully. I don't know the Epson R300 at all as I left the Epson
>>>>> organization" a few years ago. I prefer the Canon line of printers
>>>>> and their user friendly cartridge system, unlike Epson's
>>>>> electronic chip ones. If you refill, or buy 3rd party cartridges,
>>>>> you're better off with the Canon line. I run my iP5000 with 3rd
>>>>> party cartridges made in China/filled with US Formulabs ink. One
>>>>> bonus the Epson R300 printer has (I believe it has?...) is the
>>>>> capability of printing on special CDRs. The Canons in North
>>>>> America have this capability removed - copyright reasons.
>>>>> -Taliesyn
>>>>
>>>> I really wonder why then ip4000 is found better than ip5000 on most
>>>> reviews(not just that famopus one you all mention).
>>>> And really...using Canon Photo Pro or Glossy plus paper you can't
>>>> see any dots or similar. and if you calculate 4800 or 9600 dpi,
>>>> it's so much than even with lower resolutions human eye can't see
>>>> two dots so close together, so that 9600 dpi is more add than real
>>>> usefullness. Anyway, this dpi is not mechanical but interpolated...
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 9:40:05 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

People that have spoken of grain in photos for a long time infer that
the grain is from silver halide in film. It is like saying Scotch Tape
for cellophane tape of Coke when drinking a Pepsi.

Arthur Entlich wrote:

> I think he was speaking of the granularity of the ink on the print.
>
> Grain simply means something that is made up of many fairly uniform
> dots or repeated points. He didn't say "silver-grains".
>
>
> Art
>
> measekite wrote:
>
>> If you are using a digital camera all printers produce grain free
>> photos because there is only grain in film.
>>
>> Taliesyn wrote:
>>
>
>
>>>
>>> I find photos from the iP5000 virtually grain free; not so from the
>>> i860/iP4000 series.
>>>
>>> I was always hoping for a printer that could one day deliver a photo
>>> that up close would look like a photo lab print, that is, grain free.
>>> I think this is as close as we're gonna get unless Canon invents one
>>> with .5 picoliter dots. I'm sure there's one on the horizon...
>>>
>>> -Taliesyn
>>
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 9:53:44 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Try Costco Kirkland paper (?? Ilford glossy) and let me know what you think.

Taliesyn wrote:

> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
>> A few quick comments. Those white spaces you are speaking of between
>> the dots... they are called what allows printers to make all the
>> color density they do. Keep in mind even a 6 or 8 color printer can
>> only produce a couple of dozen of color combinations. The white of
>> the paper in between them creates the upper half of the lighter colors.
>>
>> Secondly, the incremental locations that a printer can produce are
>> greater than the number of dots that could be contained in those
>> spaces, even at 1 picolitre.
>>
>> The reason that printer with low dye load inks do not have smaller
>> ink dots is because they have no use for them. The reason for the 1
>> picolitre dot is not to create more detail. The detail is already
>> limited by the actual printer driver matrix used to create the image,
>> and in most places it's pretty darn good anyway. The reason for the 1
>> picolitre dot is to make a dot small enough not to be able to see the
>> discrete dots with a high dye load ink, making a matrix that looks
>> similar to that of using larger picolitre dots of lighter dye.
>>
>> The concept of a 4 color printer with 1 picolitre dots is a very good
>> one. It is very economical on ink, since a lot of the light color is
>> made by lack of in and just paper white. The dots are actually more
>> archival than a 2 picolitre light dye load ink dots, the reason being
>> a higher concentration of dye in one location protects itself better
>> from "leaving" the paper, that a 2 or even 4 picolitre dot of very
>> dilute dye colorant in a watery dye ink on paper.
>>
>> Art
>>
>
> And my comment on 1 and 2 picolitre dots. . .
>
> I don't know where this all fits in, but prints made on the same paper -
> Dollar Store Glossy - come out quite wet on my 2 pl Canon i860, yet are
> quite dry on my 1 pl Canon iP5000. The i860's 2 pl prints used to look
> "globby" when they came out, the iP5000's 1 pl not at all. In other
> words, the prints are considered "dry" much sooner, though the
> manufacturer suggests 24 hours.
>
> -Taliesyn
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 9:53:45 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

measekite wrote:

> Try Costco Kirkland paper (?? Ilford glossy) and let me know what you
> think.

I've been waiting for it to appear in Canada for over a year. Well,
it's here now. And I use it as my archival paper. It's excellent. It
looks and feels great. Prints right out of my iP5000 are dry to the
touch and won't leave fingerprints. Very affordable - 7 cents ($CDN)
a 4x6 sheet (when cut). The Dollar Store stuff is just for fun prints,
tests, and give-a-ways, etc.

I'm interested in seeing how it feels and looks for use as greeting
card paper when I design my Easter card soon. I'll glue in an insert
page (along the spine) for text, as I do with the Epson Glossy Photo
Paper.

-Taliesyn
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 2:32:27 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Isn't a messy pain in the ass filling your own carts. Don't the carts
wear out after a while or get gummed up and have to be replaced?

Taliesyn wrote:

> measekite wrote:
>
>> Why do you prefer Formulabs over MSI inks that were recommeded by
>> Neil Slade?
>>
>
> Formulabs inks have a great reputation from experience and from what
> I've read. I simply haven't tried MSI. I'd have to see if they even
> ship to Canada and at what cost.
>
> I tried to get Formulabs inks from Alotofthings. They couldn't be
> bothered shipping to Canada. I got some nicer folk in Australia to ship
> to me. It's a bad rap for Alotofthings when a much smaller outfit half
> way across the known universe does a better job of Internet marketing
> than a US major just a few hundred miles from me.
>
> -Taliesyn
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 2:32:28 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

measekite wrote:
> Isn't a messy pain in the ass filling your own carts.

No, I enjoy filling cartridges - especially Canon ones. It only takes a
few minutes once you've gotten the hang of it and have a system. The
first few times it will take longer. And it's only as messy as you want
it to be. In other words, if I really tried I could fill them without
getting one drop on my fingers. But I'm not that way, I stick my fingers
where they shouldn't be all the time. I like to get down, deep and
colorful ;-). The ink washes off (fades away) in a day or so. I don't
even wear gloves, I got a dozen pair stashed away somewhere.

> Don't the carts wear out after a while or get gummed up and have
> to be replaced?

Yes, they supposedly wear out (sponges deteriorate, etc) after a while.
Many sources indicate they can be refilled at least 8 times or more.
I've never counted. I've been using some of mine for a couple of years
now, my sister too in her i850. New blanks or empty 3rd party cartridges
can be used as replacements for genuine Canon cartridges. New blanks are
best, some come with screw top filling holes.

-Taliesyn
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 4:17:35 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

What brand of blank carts come with screw top fill holes. I assume they
have a rubber washer to seal them.

Taliesyn wrote:

> measekite wrote:
>
>> Isn't a messy pain in the ass filling your own carts.
>
>
> No, I enjoy filling cartridges - especially Canon ones. It only takes a
> few minutes once you've gotten the hang of it and have a system. The
> first few times it will take longer. And it's only as messy as you want
> it to be. In other words, if I really tried I could fill them without
> getting one drop on my fingers. But I'm not that way, I stick my fingers
> where they shouldn't be all the time. I like to get down, deep and
> colorful ;-). The ink washes off (fades away) in a day or so. I don't
> even wear gloves, I got a dozen pair stashed away somewhere.
>
>> Don't the carts wear out after a while or get gummed up and have
>
> > to be replaced?
>
> Yes, they supposedly wear out (sponges deteriorate, etc) after a while.
> Many sources indicate they can be refilled at least 8 times or more.
> I've never counted. I've been using some of mine for a couple of years
> now, my sister too in her i850. New blanks or empty 3rd party cartridges
> can be used as replacements for genuine Canon cartridges. New blanks are
> best, some come with screw top filling holes.
>
> -Taliesyn
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 4:17:36 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

measekite wrote:
> What brand of blank carts come with screw top fill holes. I assume they
> have a rubber washer to seal them.
>

You can view this unique cartridge at hobbicolors.com

Or view their eBay items for sale.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=...

I can't comment on the ink as I haven't really tested it outside of one
photograph. But I like the cartridges. And no, there is no rubber
seal/washer on the screw. I see no need. I have them sitting filled for
almost a couple of months and they do not leak. The cartridges are
nicely made, not cheap looking. I don't know if you can buy them separately.

-Taliesyn
February 24, 2005 8:06:19 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

For the price of the special deal on the hobbicolors kit - $16.95 plus
shipping - the price would be right for the empty cartridges alone. If the
cartridges seal as well as you said and function properly in the printer the
kit is so cheap that you could fill the carts with your own favorite ink (I
am using MIS) and not bother to try theirs! I use a separate syringe per
color and have a few spares besides. Using one syringe for all refilling
would be a nuisance for me as I would have to wash the syringe between
filling each cart. When one is in need of refilling I usually top off all
of them.

"Taliesyn" <taliesyn4@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:384peeF5d27stU1@individual.net...
> measekite wrote:
>> What brand of blank carts come with screw top fill holes. I assume they
>> have a rubber washer to seal them.
>>
>
> You can view this unique cartridge at hobbicolors.com
>
> Or view their eBay items for sale.
>
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=...
>
> I can't comment on the ink as I haven't really tested it outside of one
> photograph. But I like the cartridges. And no, there is no rubber
> seal/washer on the screw. I see no need. I have them sitting filled for
> almost a couple of months and they do not leak. The cartridges are
> nicely made, not cheap looking. I don't know if you can buy them
> separately.
>
> -Taliesyn
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 12:43:47 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Burt wrote:
> For the price of the special deal on the hobbicolors kit - $16.95 plus
> shipping - the price would be right for the empty cartridges alone. If the
> cartridges seal as well as you said and function properly in the printer the
> kit is so cheap that you could fill the carts with your own favorite ink (I
> am using MIS) and not bother to try theirs! I use a separate syringe per
> color and have a few spares besides. Using one syringe for all refilling
> would be a nuisance for me as I would have to wash the syringe between
> filling each cart. When one is in need of refilling I usually top off all
> of them.

I fully agree with you; I do not like their idea of one syringe as I
always refill all when one reads "low". I bought just the "beginner" kit
with 1oz ink bottles.

I'll have to investigate the MIS website.

-Taliesyn

>
> "Taliesyn" <taliesyn4@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:384peeF5d27stU1@individual.net...
>
>>measekite wrote:
>>
>>>What brand of blank carts come with screw top fill holes. I assume they
>>>have a rubber washer to seal them.
>>>
>>
>>You can view this unique cartridge at hobbicolors.com
>>
>>Or view their eBay items for sale.
>>
>>http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=...
>>
>>I can't comment on the ink as I haven't really tested it outside of one
>>photograph. But I like the cartridges. And no, there is no rubber
>>seal/washer on the screw. I see no need. I have them sitting filled for
>>almost a couple of months and they do not leak. The cartridges are
>>nicely made, not cheap looking. I don't know if you can buy them
>>separately.
>>
>>-Taliesyn
>
>
>
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 12:54:11 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

"Taliesyn" <taliesyn4@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:384669F5kqf0iU1@individual.net...
> measekite wrote:
>
>> Why do you prefer Formulabs over MSI inks that were recommeded by Neil
>> Slade?
>>
>
> Formulabs inks have a great reputation from experience and from what
> I've read. I simply haven't tried MSI. I'd have to see if they even
> ship to Canada and at what cost.
>
> I tried to get Formulabs inks from Alotofthings. They couldn't be
> bothered shipping to Canada. I got some nicer folk in Australia to ship
> to me. It's a bad rap for Alotofthings when a much smaller outfit half
> way across the known universe does a better job of Internet marketing
> than a US major just a few hundred miles from me.
>
> -Taliesyn

Who is the Australian supplier you are using?
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 12:54:12 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Caitlin wrote:

> "Taliesyn" <taliesyn4@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:384669F5kqf0iU1@individual.net...
>
>>measekite wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Why do you prefer Formulabs over MSI inks that were recommeded by Neil
>>>Slade?
>>>
>>
>>Formulabs inks have a great reputation from experience and from what
>>I've read. I simply haven't tried MSI. I'd have to see if they even
>>ship to Canada and at what cost.
>>
>>I tried to get Formulabs inks from Alotofthings. They couldn't be
>>bothered shipping to Canada. I got some nicer folk in Australia to ship
>>to me. It's a bad rap for Alotofthings when a much smaller outfit half
>>way across the known universe does a better job of Internet marketing
>>than a US major just a few hundred miles from me.
>>
>>-Taliesyn
>
>
> Who is the Australian supplier you are using?
>

I got mine in late December, benefiting from an introductory special
on their website, which was considerably lower than the current prices.

Here's the web page:
http://www.discountcartridges.com.au/

And I'd check their eBay offerings for price difference:
http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZdiscount_cartridgesQQh...

I've had no problems with the cartridges, they work great so far. I'm
almost out of ink in the first set I put in. I ordered 7 sets at the
time. Best price deal. I figured that would last me at least a year and
then some.

-Taliesyn
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 12:54:13 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

The price discountcartridges in Australia charges for formulabs ink
cartridges is $7.00. Costco charges $9.00 per color for the Canon
BCI6. To me, the savings of $2.00 per cartridge does not warrant taking
any risk with 3rd party. To print fotos on an IP4000 will only cost
$8.00 more per set. The BCI3eBK is only used on text.

Taliesyn wrote:

> Caitlin wrote:
>
>> "Taliesyn" <taliesyn4@netscape.net> wrote in message
>> news:384669F5kqf0iU1@individual.net...
>>
>>> measekite wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Why do you prefer Formulabs over MSI inks that were recommeded by
>>>> Neil Slade?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Formulabs inks have a great reputation from experience and from what
>>> I've read. I simply haven't tried MSI. I'd have to see if they even
>>> ship to Canada and at what cost.
>>>
>>> I tried to get Formulabs inks from Alotofthings. They couldn't be
>>> bothered shipping to Canada. I got some nicer folk in Australia to ship
>>> to me. It's a bad rap for Alotofthings when a much smaller outfit half
>>> way across the known universe does a better job of Internet marketing
>>> than a US major just a few hundred miles from me.
>>>
>>> -Taliesyn
>>
>>
>>
>> Who is the Australian supplier you are using?
>
>
> I got mine in late December, benefiting from an introductory special
> on their website, which was considerably lower than the current prices.
>
> Here's the web page:
> http://www.discountcartridges.com.au/
>
> And I'd check their eBay offerings for price difference:
> http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZdiscount_cartridgesQQh...
>
> I've had no problems with the cartridges, they work great so far. I'm
> almost out of ink in the first set I put in. I ordered 7 sets at the
> time. Best price deal. I figured that would last me at least a year
> and then some.
>
> -Taliesyn
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 12:54:14 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

measekite wrote:

> The price discountcartridges in Australia charges for formulabs ink
> cartridges is $7.00.

Those are Australian Dollars, not US. They don't trade at 1 per 1.

Costco charges $9.00 per color for the Canon
> BCI6. To me, the savings of $2.00 per cartridge does not warrant taking
> any risk with 3rd party. To print fotos on an IP4000 will only cost
> $8.00 more per set. The BCI3eBK is only used on text.

I got mine back in December, taking the savings package of 6 +1 free
for $25 AUS ($20 US), or $2.85 US per cartridge. With Air Mail shipping
to Canada and Customs fees they worked out to a very affordable $4.82
Canadian or $3.93 US for 28 cartridges. I only ordered the BCI-6 color,
not the BCI-3e black. My price was lower than the current offered since
I got the huge introductory special. You know, the early bird gets the
worm thingy . . .

That's $135 Canadian dollars for 28 cartridges. If I went to a depart-
ment store here and bought Canon brand cartridges, the price would have
been a whopping $700! Costco in Canada, in my area at least, does not
carry BCI-6 cartridges. The BCI-3e sets Costco sells are not exactly
cheap either - a set of 5 (3 color, 2 black BCI-3e) come to about $70
CDN with tax! So I think I got a lovely deal from Australia. I regret
not getting some BCI-3e blacks at the time.

-Taliesyn
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 3:42:23 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

You are speaking of what is referred to as "dot gain". The picolitre
measurement is not a size, per se, but a volume of ink. Therefore the
dot gain of the paper will determine the size of the "flat" dot. Plain
paper certainly has a fairly large dot gain, but specially coated inkjet
papers are designed to control dot gain. You are correct that some use
dot gain to "smooth" the edges of the dots, but they do not typically
"fill in" the whole area other than in darker areas. The dots typically
are found intermingled with one another and with some white paper
substrate.

Take a look as a print under a loupe and you'll see.

Dye inks tend to have higher dot gain than pigment color inks, because
they are designed to penetrate and spread in the fiber of the paper
which pigments sit on top of the paper for the post part. It all comes
down to careful control on the dot volume. They is in part why profiles
are created for different paper types.

There is a certain loss of color fidelity or accuracy with a four color
system (even one with low dye load inks). That is why many inkjet
manufacturers have added greens or blues, oranges or reds. The making
of blue from cyan and magenta, and red from magenta and yellow somewhat
limits the gamut available, so by adding a "true blue and red, or green
and orange, often allows for several advantages. Less dots have to be
laid down since, for instance, every blue dot is equivalent to several
cyan and magenta dots. That speeds up the printing process. Further,
the blue might be one that is out of gamut for a mix of magenta and
cyan. It is also more profitable for the inkjet company, since they
sell a lot more ink cartridges when the printer has 7 or 8 or more
involved. It also makes counterfeiting or 3rd party copies more
difficult, and makes the profiles more "ego-centric" to the specific
colors of the OEM inks.

Overall, for most applications, however, the idea of a simple four color
printer using a very small dot size and 4 full dye load inks, makes
sense in terms of use of raw materials, and fade resistance.

Art


SleeperMan wrote:


> Hmmmm..
> i guess time will tell if you're right...
> but...does a man can buy paper good enough not to absorb that ink so much
> that from 1pl drop a huge, 2 or 3 pl sized would result on a paper? If paper
> absorbs too much ink it's useless to have 1pl dots... i guess all the fun is
> that paper abosorbs ink in that way that those small dots merge together to
> create nice, smooth picture...so, if dot is too small, they won't merge
> (therefore whit space), if it's too large, they will interfere each other...
>
>
>
>>Art
>>
>>
>
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 3:49:30 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

The low dye load inks have at least twice the volume of liquid being
released per dot, and more of it is straight liquid that needs to evaporate.

However, the problem is you have a wrong profile for the paper you are
using on the 2 pl printer. You may have to print more lightly, or at
least with less saturation when using the 2pl printer.

Art


Taliesyn wrote:


>
> And my comment on 1 and 2 picolitre dots. . .
>
> I don't know where this all fits in, but prints made on the same paper -
> Dollar Store Glossy - come out quite wet on my 2 pl Canon i860, yet are
> quite dry on my 1 pl Canon iP5000. The i860's 2 pl prints used to look
> "globby" when they came out, the iP5000's 1 pl not at all. In other
> words, the prints are considered "dry" much sooner, though the
> manufacturer suggests 24 hours.
>
> -Taliesyn
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 3:49:31 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Arthur Entlich wrote:

> The low dye load inks have at least twice the volume of liquid being
> released per dot, and more of it is straight liquid that needs to
> evaporate.
>
> However, the problem is you have a wrong profile for the paper you are
> using on the 2 pl printer. You may have to print more lightly, or at
> least with less saturation when using the 2pl printer.
>
> Art
>

That's interesting, Art. Thanks, I'll have to experiment with this.

-Taliesyn
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 3:57:08 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

You are using the term in a very specific context that others are not.
My dictionary defines grain as:

1: a small hard seed...
2: the gathered seeds of those types of plants
3: the plants themselves
4: any small hard particle, as of sand
5: the smallest unit of weight
6: a tiny amount
7: the arrangement of fibers in wood
8: TEXTURE (As "sugar can be fine grain")
9: Natural character (going against one's grain)

Again, you are referring to "silver grain", which is fine, but it
doesn't preclude the use of the word grain as a descriptor for other
types of textures.

Art

measekite wrote:

> What you are seeing (if the photo was created with a digital camera) is
> either noise from the camera or dots from the printer, it is not grain.
>
> Taliesyn wrote:
>
>> measekite wrote:
>>
>>> If you are using a digital camera all printers produce grain free
>>> photos because there is only grain in film.
>>>
>>> Taliesyn wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> HUH? . . .
>>
>> I don't know what you call "grain free". To me, ink dots are the
>> "grains". And all printers are not equal by any means. I just visited
>> Vincent Oliver's review site of printers and you see a varied difference
>> in "grain" between magnified print samples. Any half decent pair of eyes
>> can see the difference without magnification. I've changed printers
>> several times in the last five years and can attest to that.
>>
>> -Taliesyn
>>
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 4:19:29 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Well, if you want to get technical, guess what? nearly all color film
has no silver halide grain. It has dye clouds, since the dye is formed
around the silver halide and the silver halide is removed through a
chemical bleaching and fixing process. Other than some very rarely used
processes these days, no color films or prints have "grain". Only B&W
film and prints have grain. Also, some color films used potato starch
grains which were dyed during processing. I guess that wasn't grain either.

So, now what you gonna do? Stop calling color film "grainy" if it has a
lot of tiny discrete spots on it? Feel free, call it "dye cloudy", but
I think most people would best understand the idea of the film being
"Grainy".

Art

measekite wrote:

> People that have spoken of grain in photos for a long time infer that
> the grain is from silver halide in film. It is like saying Scotch Tape
> for cellophane tape of Coke when drinking a Pepsi.
>
> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
>> I think he was speaking of the granularity of the ink on the print.
>>
>> Grain simply means something that is made up of many fairly uniform
>> dots or repeated points. He didn't say "silver-grains".
>>
>>
>> Art
>>
>> measekite wrote:
>>
>>> If you are using a digital camera all printers produce grain free
>>> photos because there is only grain in film.
>>>
>>> Taliesyn wrote:
>>>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> I find photos from the iP5000 virtually grain free; not so from the
>>>> i860/iP4000 series.
>>>>
>>>> I was always hoping for a printer that could one day deliver a photo
>>>> that up close would look like a photo lab print, that is, grain free.
>>>> I think this is as close as we're gonna get unless Canon invents one
>>>> with .5 picoliter dots. I'm sure there's one on the horizon...
>>>>
>>>> -Taliesyn
>>>
>>>
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 8:13:15 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Arthur Entlich wrote:
> You are speaking of what is referred to as "dot gain". The picolitre
> measurement is not a size, per se, but a volume of ink. Therefore the
> dot gain of the paper will determine the size of the "flat" dot. Plain
> paper certainly has a fairly large dot gain, but specially
> coated inkjet papers are designed to control dot gain. You are
> correct that some use dot gain to "smooth" the edges of the dots, but
> they do not typically "fill in" the whole area other than in darker
> areas. The dots typically are found intermingled with one another
> and with some white paper substrate.
>
> Take a look as a print under a loupe and you'll see.
>
> Dye inks tend to have higher dot gain than pigment color inks, because
> they are designed to penetrate and spread in the fiber of the paper
> which pigments sit on top of the paper for the post part. It all
> comes down to careful control on the dot volume. They is in part why
> profiles are created for different paper types.
>
> There is a certain loss of color fidelity or accuracy with a four
> color system (even one with low dye load inks). That is why many
> inkjet manufacturers have added greens or blues, oranges or reds. The
> making of blue from cyan and magenta, and red from magenta and
> yellow somewhat limits the gamut available, so by adding a "true blue
> and red, or green and orange, often allows for several advantages. Less
> dots have to be laid down since, for instance, every blue dot is
> equivalent to several cyan and magenta dots. That speeds up the
> printing process. Further, the blue might be one that is out of
> gamut for a mix of magenta and cyan. It is also more profitable for
> the inkjet company, since they sell a lot more ink cartridges when
> the printer has 7 or 8 or more involved. It also makes counterfeiting
> or 3rd party copies more difficult, and makes the profiles more
> "ego-centric" to the specific colors of the OEM inks.
>
> Overall, for most applications, however, the idea of a simple four
> color printer using a very small dot size and 4 full dye load inks,
> makes sense in terms of use of raw materials, and fade resistance.
>
> Art
>
>
> SleeperMan wrote:
>
>
>> Hmmmm..
>> i guess time will tell if you're right...
>> but...does a man can buy paper good enough not to absorb that ink so
>> much that from 1pl drop a huge, 2 or 3 pl sized would result on a
>> paper? If paper absorbs too much ink it's useless to have 1pl
>> dots... i guess all the fun is that paper abosorbs ink in that way
>> that those small dots merge together to create nice, smooth
>> picture...so, if dot is too small, they won't merge (therefore whit
>> space), if it's too large, they will interfere each other...
>>> Art

hm...very detailed explanation...and true, i guess...
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 8:36:14 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Why don't you use their ink. Or if you have what was your experience
and why do you still want Formulabs ink?

Taliesyn wrote:

> measekite wrote:
>
>> What brand of blank carts come with screw top fill holes. I assume
>> they have a rubber washer to seal them.
>>
>
> You can view this unique cartridge at hobbicolors.com
>
> Or view their eBay items for sale.
>
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=...
>
>
> I can't comment on the ink as I haven't really tested it outside of one
> photograph. But I like the cartridges. And no, there is no rubber
> seal/washer on the screw. I see no need. I have them sitting filled
> for almost a couple of months and they do not leak. The cartridges are
> nicely made, not cheap looking. I don't know if you can buy them
> separately.
>
> -Taliesyn
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 8:36:15 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

measekite wrote:
> Why don't you use their ink.

1. I have "tons" of my current bulk ink to get through. 2. I can wait.

> Or if you have what was your experience

Photo was a tad "warmer" than prints from other makers. Need to
do more tests . . . someday. But you're welcome to do your own
experimenting. Don't just rely on word of mouth from others.

> and why do you still want Formulabs ink?

Personal preference, closest to Canon (my tests and results I've read
elsewhere seem to agree)

-Taliesyn
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 9:10:12 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

I am using the word "grain" as it has been used in the photographic
industry for over 100 years. And that it refers to the silver halide
dots you see in film. Therefore, since prints from digital cameras do
not use film they cannot have grain. However, digital prints made from
scanned in negatives or slides may show "grain" in the result.

After all , this is a photographic forum so the word "grain" should be
understood.

Arthur Entlich wrote:

> You are using the term in a very specific context that others are not.
> My dictionary defines grain as:
>
> 1: a small hard seed...
> 2: the gathered seeds of those types of plants
> 3: the plants themselves
> 4: any small hard particle, as of sand
> 5: the smallest unit of weight
> 6: a tiny amount
> 7: the arrangement of fibers in wood
> 8: TEXTURE (As "sugar can be fine grain")
> 9: Natural character (going against one's grain)
>
> Again, you are referring to "silver grain", which is fine, but it
> doesn't preclude the use of the word grain as a descriptor for other
> types of textures.
>
> Art
>
> measekite wrote:
>
>> What you are seeing (if the photo was created with a digital camera)
>> is either noise from the camera or dots from the printer, it is not
>> grain.
>>
>> Taliesyn wrote:
>>
>>> measekite wrote:
>>>
>>>> If you are using a digital camera all printers produce grain free
>>>> photos because there is only grain in film.
>>>>
>>>> Taliesyn wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> HUH? . . .
>>>
>>> I don't know what you call "grain free". To me, ink dots are the
>>> "grains". And all printers are not equal by any means. I just visited
>>> Vincent Oliver's review site of printers and you see a varied
>>> difference
>>> in "grain" between magnified print samples. Any half decent pair of
>>> eyes
>>> can see the difference without magnification. I've changed printers
>>> several times in the last five years and can attest to that.
>>>
>>> -Taliesyn
>>>
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 9:10:13 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

measekite wrote:

> I am using the word "grain" as it has been used in the photographic
> industry for over 100 years. And that it refers to the silver halide
> dots you see in film. Therefore, since prints from digital cameras do
> not use film they cannot have grain. However, digital prints made from
> scanned in negatives or slides may show "grain" in the result.
>
> After all , this is a photographic forum so the word "grain" should be
> understood.
>

No, last I checked this was a "printer" forum. "Grain" are the dots
that the printhead spits out that forms an image. Take a magnifying
glass and look at the prints: dots! (grains)

-Taliesyn
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 9:14:09 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

It is accepted practice to refer to grain in color film. Even the film
mfg, the photo stores, refer to fine grain color film. We do not need a
play on words. It is obvious that the general photo population knows
what I mean so it is not necessary to be anal.

Arthur Entlich wrote:

> Well, if you want to get technical, guess what? nearly all color film
> has no silver halide grain. It has dye clouds, since the dye is
> formed around the silver halide and the silver halide is removed
> through a chemical bleaching and fixing process. Other than some very
> rarely used processes these days, no color films or prints have
> "grain". Only B&W film and prints have grain. Also, some color films
> used potato starch grains which were dyed during processing. I guess
> that wasn't grain either.
>
> So, now what you gonna do? Stop calling color film "grainy" if it has
> a lot of tiny discrete spots on it? Feel free, call it "dye cloudy",
> but I think most people would best understand the idea of the film
> being "Grainy".
>
> Art
>
> measekite wrote:
>
>> People that have spoken of grain in photos for a long time infer that
>> the grain is from silver halide in film. It is like saying Scotch
>> Tape for cellophane tape of Coke when drinking a Pepsi.
>>
>> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>>
>>> I think he was speaking of the granularity of the ink on the print.
>>>
>>> Grain simply means something that is made up of many fairly uniform
>>> dots or repeated points. He didn't say "silver-grains".
>>>
>>>
>>> Art
>>>
>>> measekite wrote:
>>>
>>>> If you are using a digital camera all printers produce grain free
>>>> photos because there is only grain in film.
>>>>
>>>> Taliesyn wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I find photos from the iP5000 virtually grain free; not so from
>>>>> the i860/iP4000 series.
>>>>>
>>>>> I was always hoping for a printer that could one day deliver a photo
>>>>> that up close would look like a photo lab print, that is, grain free.
>>>>> I think this is as close as we're gonna get unless Canon invents one
>>>>> with .5 picoliter dots. I'm sure there's one on the horizon...
>>>>>
>>>>> -Taliesyn
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 9:14:10 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

measekite wrote:

> It is accepted practice to refer to grain in color film. Even the film
> mfg, the photo stores, refer to fine grain color film. We do not need a
> play on words. It is obvious that the general photo population knows
> what I mean so it is not necessary to be anal.
>

Hah! I needed that one. Still shaking my head in disbelief.

-Taliesyn


> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
>> Well, if you want to get technical, guess what? nearly all color film
>> has no silver halide grain. It has dye clouds, since the dye is
>> formed around the silver halide and the silver halide is removed
>> through a chemical bleaching and fixing process. Other than some very
>> rarely used processes these days, no color films or prints have
>> "grain". Only B&W film and prints have grain. Also, some color films
>> used potato starch grains which were dyed during processing. I guess
>> that wasn't grain either.
>>
>> So, now what you gonna do? Stop calling color film "grainy" if it has
>> a lot of tiny discrete spots on it? Feel free, call it "dye cloudy",
>> but I think most people would best understand the idea of the film
>> being "Grainy".
>>
>> Art
>>
>> measekite wrote:
>>
>>> People that have spoken of grain in photos for a long time infer that
>>> the grain is from silver halide in film. It is like saying Scotch
>>> Tape for cellophane tape of Coke when drinking a Pepsi.
>>>
>>> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think he was speaking of the granularity of the ink on the print.
>>>>
>>>> Grain simply means something that is made up of many fairly uniform
>>>> dots or repeated points. He didn't say "silver-grains".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Art
>>>>
>>>> measekite wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If you are using a digital camera all printers produce grain free
>>>>> photos because there is only grain in film.
>>>>>
>>>>> Taliesyn wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I find photos from the iP5000 virtually grain free; not so from
>>>>>> the i860/iP4000 series.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was always hoping for a printer that could one day deliver a photo
>>>>>> that up close would look like a photo lab print, that is, grain free.
>>>>>> I think this is as close as we're gonna get unless Canon invents one
>>>>>> with .5 picoliter dots. I'm sure there's one on the horizon...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Taliesyn
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
!