G
GEO Me
Thank you for the address. Saved for future reference.
Geo
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Thank you for the address. Saved for future reference.
Geo
G
Guest
T- [Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:56:01 -0500]:
Something about a Philips patent, and Canon not wanting to
license, from what I read. It's not "copyright", in any
case.
[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.
T
Taliesyn
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
S
SleeperMan
Taliesyn said: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...
A
Arthur Entlich
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:
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:
A
Arthur Entlich
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
Grain simply means something that is made up of many fairly uniform dots
or repeated points. He didn't say "silver-grains".
Art
S
SleeperMan
Arthur said: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...
M
measekite
I read this review and it is a nice review. However, this is not a
comparative review. PC Mag /PCWorld is. I never said the IP5000 was
not a good printer. I wanted one until I read the reviews and then it
was my second choice.
These two articles compare the two printers:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1651975,00.asp IP4000
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1725827,00.asp IP5000
Here is a short summary:
Begin PC Mag Summary
The Canon Pixma iP5000 is the next step up in Canon's Pixma line from
the iP4000 <http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1651974,00.asp>, our
current Editors' Choice among personal ink jet printers. Although Canon
bills both as photo printers, they're also good choices for all-purpose
printing. Significantly, the iP5000 offers even better-quality text and
graphics than the iP4000. Unfortunately, it's one step lower for photo
quality, and it's slower for photos as well.
End PC Mag Summary
..Taliesyn, I wonder if you think so much of Photo-i, why don't you use
genuine Canon inks and media,in particular photo paper pro?
Begin Photo-i Quote
As an extra footnote, to get the best quality from this printer or for
that matter any other PIXMA printer, you should use Canon's own Photo
Quality media and inks. I found that PR-101 gives the best results and
this media also produces the best print longevity.
End Photo-i Quote
comparative review. PC Mag /PCWorld is. I never said the IP5000 was
not a good printer. I wanted one until I read the reviews and then it
was my second choice.
These two articles compare the two printers:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1651975,00.asp IP4000
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1725827,00.asp IP5000
Here is a short summary:
Begin PC Mag Summary
The Canon Pixma iP5000 is the next step up in Canon's Pixma line from
the iP4000 <http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1651974,00.asp>, our
current Editors' Choice among personal ink jet printers. Although Canon
bills both as photo printers, they're also good choices for all-purpose
printing. Significantly, the iP5000 offers even better-quality text and
graphics than the iP4000. Unfortunately, it's one step lower for photo
quality, and it's slower for photos as well.
End PC Mag Summary
..Taliesyn, I wonder if you think so much of Photo-i, why don't you use
genuine Canon inks and media,in particular photo paper pro?
Begin Photo-i Quote
As an extra footnote, to get the best quality from this printer or for
that matter any other PIXMA printer, you should use Canon's own Photo
Quality media and inks. I found that PR-101 gives the best results and
this media also produces the best print longevity.
End Photo-i Quote
T
Taliesyn
Arthur said: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
M
measekite
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.
either noise from the camera or dots from the printer, it is not grain.
T
Taliesyn
measekite said:I read this review and it is a nice review. However, this is not a
comparative review. PC Mag /PCWorld is. I never said the IP5000 was
not a good printer. I wanted one until I read the reviews and then it
was my second choice.
Interesting. You wanted a 5000 originally. I wanted a 4000. Costco's
lack of them forced my hand into buying an iP5000. I had not read any
reviews on the 5000 as I wasn't planning on getting one. Reading the
specifications in the store - that it used the same cartridges I already
owned ... 9600 dpi ... only $40 more.... I said, "Where do I pay?"
These two articles compare the two printers:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1651975,00.asp IP4000
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1725827,00.asp IP5000
Here is a short summary:
Begin PC Mag Summary
The Canon Pixma iP5000 is the next step up in Canon's Pixma line from
the iP4000 <http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1651974,00.asp>, our
current Editors' Choice among personal ink jet printers. Although Canon
bills both as photo printers, they're also good choices for all-purpose
printing. Significantly, the iP5000 offers even better-quality text and
graphics than the iP4000. Unfortunately, it's one step lower for photo
quality, and it's slower for photos as well.
End PC Mag Summary
I don't take the quality comment too seriously as I have an i860 (same
engine used for the 4000). The 5000 produces significantly better photos
than the i860.
Speed slower? I am printing higher resolution, no? Graphics better on
the iP5000? Great reason for me to have the iP5000 then. I do graphics
and photos on about an even split.
Taliesyn, I wonder if you think so much of Photo-i, why don't you use
genuine Canon inks and media,in particular photo paper pro?
Can't afford the luxury of genuine items is the prime reason. Second
reason is that Canon Photo Paper Pro DID NOT produce a better side by
side photo than paper I had bought at the Dollar Store - 20 4x6 for
$1.00. Canon paper looks better, feels better, and dries immediately.
But once dry and safe behind glass, dollar store paper was identical to
Canon's own. And no exaggeration here. I'm not too concerned how this
"cheappy" paper will look 5, 10 years from now. I can reprint any time
if necessary.
My preferred photo paper is Costco's Kirkland brand. And for graphics
work - CD liners, inserts, greeting cards, etc - Epson Glossy Photo
Paper. Fantastic.
I do a lot of different kind of printing. I'd go bankrupt using Canon
inks. I have to refill with bulk or use 3rd party supplies. I plan to
run the iP5000 with prefilled Formulabs ink cartridges (or bulk if I
can find anyone who ships to Canada) and use bulk inks for the older
i860.
-Taliesyn
M
measekite
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.
the grain is from silver halide in film. It is like saying Scotch Tape
for cellophane tape of Coke when drinking a Pepsi.
S
SleeperMan
Taliesyn said:Interesting. You wanted a 5000 originally. I wanted a 4000. Costco's
lack of them forced my hand into buying an iP5000. I had not read any
reviews on the 5000 as I wasn't planning on getting one. Reading the
specifications in the store - that it used the same cartridges I
already owned ... 9600 dpi ... only $40 more.... I said, "Where do I
to be honest, i'd do exactly the same if this would be the case...
M
measekite
Try Costco Kirkland paper (?? Ilford glossy) and let me know what you think.
M
measekite
Why do you prefer Formulabs over MSI inks that were recommeded by Neil
Slade?
Slade?
T
Taliesyn
measekite said:Try Costco Kirkland paper (?? Ilford glossy) and let me know what you
think.
I've been waiting for it to appear in Canada for over a year. Well,
it's here now. And I use it as my archival paper. It's excellent. It
looks and feels great. Prints right out of my iP5000 are dry to the
touch and won't leave fingerprints. Very affordable - 7 cents ($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
T
Taliesyn
measekite said: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
C
Caitlin
Taliesyn said: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?
M
measekite
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?
wear out after a while or get gummed up and have to be replaced?
T
Taliesyn
measekite said: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