Epson printers - 2400 vs. 4800 ??

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mark Anon
  • Start date Start date
Do you NOT know what 'Large Format' means?

This is a group for large-format cameras...

SHEET film

4x5 INCHES or more....

WTF......?
 
Benwa writes ...
Benwa, when I get the facts wrong I'm willing to eat my words and I got
this wrong, so I apologize ... the 4000 was almost twice as fast as the
7600 but Epson speeded up the 7800 considerably ... I found this
statement on the Epson release info for the 7800 ... "Utilizing our
latest high-performance print head technology, the Epson Stylus Pro
7800 is among the fastest print engines in the industry, while printing
twice as fast as our previous models."

And here are the actual speeds for the 4800 and 7800, which are pretty
similar for the same size prints ...
4800 speeds ...
• Fine — 720 dpi HS produces an 8" x 10" in 1:28, 11" x 14" in 2:27,
16" x 20" in 4:07
• SuperFine — 1440 dpi HS produces an 8" x 10" in 2:00, 11" x 14" in
3:25, 16" x 20" in 6:07
• SuperFine — 1440 dpi produces an 8" x 10" in 3:17, 11" x 14" in 5:35,
16" x 20" in 9:46
• SuperPhoto — 2880 dpi HS produces an 8" x 10" in 3:54, 11" x 14" in
6:35, 16" x 20" in 11:40
• SuperPhoto — 2880 dpi produces an 8" x 10" in 6:25, 11" x 14" in
10:55, 16" x 20" in 18:57.

7800 speeds ...
720 x 720 dpi - HS* produces a 16" x 20" in 4:20, 24" x 30" in 9:54
1440 x 720 dpi - HS* produces a 16" x 20" in 6:41, 24" x 30" in 14:18
2,880 x 1,440 dpi - HS* produces a 16" x 20" in 12:57, 24" x 30" in
26:54
*HS = High Speed Print Mode (Bi-directional Print Mode)

So for a HS 16x20 the 4800 takes 11:40 and the 7800 12:57, a lot faster
than the 7600 IIRC.

Bill
 
On 1/4/06 9:32 AM, in article
(e-mail address removed), "Bill Hilton"

snip
... the 4000 was almost twice as fast as the
7600 but Epson speeded up the 7800 considerably ...
Click to expand...

snip

And, as long as we are printing corrections in this thread . . .

I said that the smallest size paper that the 4800 would handle was letter
size (8.5x11 in.). That is close but not quite correct. It will print on
paper that is as narrow as 8 in. wide. It will also handle paper,
lengthwise, that is 8 in. as well. So paper pre-cut to 8x10 would work, as
would 8x8 - if you could find that size. This all according to a call that
I made to Epson tech. support because of my own curiosity.
Chuck
 
Mark Anon said:
Aside from the obvious difference in print output size, what are the _real
quality_ differences between the new Epson 2400 and 4800 printers?

The 2400 advertises much higher 5760x1440 dpi printing, but the 4800 at
2880x1440 is listed as a "Pro" model. What gives?

Both use the new K3 inks.
Click to expand...
Take a look at the Canon iP4200. It'll print at 9600x2400dpi.
 
Mark² said:
What media do you print on that you believe takes advantage of that dpi?
Click to expand...

Here in Japan there are plenty of high resolution papers to choose from,
unfortunately many are unavailable in other countries just as Ilford
papers are hard to get in Japan.
 
It's called specmanship.

Professionals know that 2880 x 1440 dpi is about all a printer,
especially a printer with several color load inks, needs. ALso, the 4800
is a 17" wide printer, designed with larger prints in mind, where people
will tend to observe them from a distance. However, at 2880 x 1440, it
will be quite difficult to see a 5670 dpi model and think it really
looks better.

2880 x 1440 dpi is photographic with Epson printers, and higher numbers
usually mean slower output,. more memory demands, etc. The driver in
the 2400 will probably not actually output at more than 720 or 1440 dpi
anyway, so the 5670 number is a bit of a dream.

Art
 
There is a certain irony that this business model is so well "designed"
that by Epson offering perhaps $10-$20 actual cost worth of ink, they
can make a person justify spending an additional $1000 or more on a printer.

Of course, if you are to use OEM inks in the less costly 2400 or R1800
anyway, indeed the prices are what they are, and the ink cost therefore
is a real consideration. However, that doesn't alter the fact that this
ink is unbelievably overpriced.

One caveat. If you are not producing large quantities of large prints,
keep in mind the Ultrachrome inks tend to have quality loss issues after
6 months to a year, so you want to be sure you will use them up in that
period of time on open cartridges, or that savings on ink may be reversed.

Further, as mentioned, if you will be moving between the Photo/glossy
and Matte black inks often, the cost of lost ink plus replacement waste
ink units will rapidly eat up all your savings.

Art
 
Arthur said:
There is a certain irony that this business model is so well
"designed" that by Epson offering perhaps $10-$20 actual cost worth
of ink, they can make a person justify spending an additional $1000 or
more on a
printer.
Click to expand...

It is worth every bit of that extra $1000 if you want ultra chrome, larger
prints, serious longevity, and industrial-strength product build.
 
Stewy said:
Here in Japan there are plenty of high resolution papers to choose
from, unfortunately many are unavailable in other countries just as
Ilford papers are hard to get in Japan.
Click to expand...

I contend that there isn't ANY media capable of showing a benefit of dpi
that high.
 
Arthur said:
There is a certain irony that this business model is so well
"designed" that by Epson offering perhaps $10-$20 actual cost worth of
ink, they can make a person justify spending an additional $1000 or
more on a printer.

Of course, if you are to use OEM inks
Click to expand...

YOU NEED TO PROTECT YOU BIG INVESTMENT
 
Mark² spake thus:
I contend that there isn't ANY media capable of showing a benefit of
dpi that high.
Click to expand...

Right; seems to me the fibers in the paper are going to be *much*
coarser than that claimed high resolution. Anyone know for sure?
 
Right; seems to me the fibers in the paper are going to be *much* coarser
than that claimed high resolution. Anyone know for sure?
Click to expand...


You're not printing on fibers. There are about a half-dozen
layers on top of the fiber, and you're printing on the topmost
of those. It's likely to be kaolin or microcrystalline, or maybe
a swellable polymer. But definitely not fibers.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
 
rafe b spake thus:
You're not printing on fibers. There are about a half-dozen
layers on top of the fiber, and you're printing on the topmost
of those. It's likely to be kaolin or microcrystalline, or maybe
a swellable polymer. But definitely not fibers.
Click to expand...

Well, OK; you're right. But even a kaolin (clay-coated) surface isn't
going to be smooth enough to make 5670 dpi anything but an inverifiable
marketing claim.

I'd like to see something like a scanning electron microphoto of the
surface.
 
David Nebenzahl said:
rafe b spake thus:

Well, OK; you're right. But even a kaolin (clay-coated) surface isn't
going to be smooth enough to make 5670 dpi anything but an inverifiable
marketing claim.

I'd like to see something like a scanning electron microphoto of the
surface.
Click to expand...


I think most of us know that the contone resolution
is far lower than the advertised resolution.

That said, I received my Epson R1800 yesterday
and am pretty impressed with how fine and well-
placed the dots are, especially in "RPM" mode.
(RPM is Epson's acronym for their super-hi-res
photo mode.)

I've got an LF (4x5) shot taken with a 90mm,
printed at 8x10." With a loupe, you can clearly
make out some fence posts about 1/4 mile away.
The fence posts have a cross-section of around
1.5 inches -- you know, those stamped-metal posts
used for barbed wire and drift fences.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
 
Mark² said:
I contend that there isn't ANY media capable of showing a benefit of
dpi that high.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of such media, they just aren't papers. :-)
 
Kennedy said:
There are plenty of such media, they just aren't papers. :-)
Click to expand...

Who said anything about papers?
I still challenge anyone to produce evidence that ANY media will show the
useful exhibition of 9600dpi from an ink jet type printer.
 
Mark² said:
I still challenge anyone to produce evidence that ANY media will show the
useful exhibition of 9600dpi from an ink jet type printer.
Click to expand...

The dpis aren't there because someone might actually see
the resolution, they are there because the inkjet dot
is not a '24-bit' dot. The printer has to dither - and the
more dpi, the better it can do this.

So you have to divide the stated dpi by the number of inks
and then further by number of 'levels' you want to have
from one ink (depending on whether the inkjet can modulate
the size of the dot or not this really matters or not).
A 5760x1440 dpi printer with 8 inks is in reality 720x1440
for one ink color. Divide the 720 by two and you get 360 lpi -
something that is not far away from what one can see with
bare eye.

My previous printer was a several years old 1200x2400 3-ink
dpi HP all-in-one. The photos from it were good enough for
a 8 x 11 print that you don't look at closely, but were
unacceptable for regular 4 x 6 in - the dithering was clearly
visible when holding from a normal viewing distance.

My current photo-printer is a 5760x1440 Epson R1800 and
it is fantastic. I think one could construct an example
that makes its limits visible, but for normal use it
is amazingly good.
 
Mark² said:
Who said anything about papers?
I still challenge anyone to produce evidence that ANY media will show the
useful exhibition of 9600dpi from an ink jet type printer.
Click to expand...
You didn't say anything about injet printers either! ;-)
 
Back
Top