Dare I buy a Canon IP3000? For photo printing, refilling cartridges

[ghwellsjr]

The Hat, can you please scan them again, either as .png or as .bmp converted to .png. The .jpg format introduces artifacts. And please scan them identically. You will note that the B sample is scanned larger than the A sample making it impossible to do a valid comparison.

 

[The Hat]

The Hat, can you please scan them again, either as .png or as .bmp converted to .png. The .jpg format introduces artifacts. And please scan them identically. You will note that the B sample is scanned larger than the A sample making it impossible to do a valid comparison.

What I will do for you is to reprint them again from your original and make sure that they are the same size.

I dont know why they were not printed the same but that is how they each came off the printers,
I didnt alter their size at all and I scanned s/s.

As far as the conversion to BMP or PNG is concerned reducing a file down for posting
tends to always result in a reduction of quality anyway.

 

[ghwellsjr]

A JPG is a lossy compression and will result in a reduction of quality. A PNG is lossless and will not change the quality at all. However, it may not have as much compression, especially for a scanned image. If it's too large to upload, then just do the two gray samples. But make sure you scan it as a BMP, not a JPG, and then convert it to a PNG using Paint.

 

[The Hat]

A JPG is a lossy compression and will result in a reduction of quality. A PNG is lossless and will not change the quality at all. However, it may not have as much compression, especially for a scanned image. If it's too large to upload, then just do the two gray samples. But make sure you scan it as a BMP, not a JPG, and then convert it to a PNG using Paint.

I know about lossy files and seldom use them; I mainly use TIFF and PDF normally
but I did managed to get these two prints down small enough to post them.

Thanks for tip anyway.

 

[panos]

I don't know why but your software is restricting PNG to 256 colors. That's not normal. It's impossible to judge a sample by these images.

This how a proper scanning should look like (printed on my iP3300 which is readily available; my MX850 is at my workplace so I can't do both):

GHW's test (PNG, 88kb, gray test only)

GHW's test (JPG, 131kb, 10% compression, full size)

The grain you see is the real grain of the inkjet (problem in my 2pl nozzles!), no artificial filters or color compression.

A simple inspection reveals that the black is not real black but rather carbon.

BTW, the scans were taken by my Epson BX305 which is a cheap (50) MFC with an excellent scanner. Software used to communicate with the TWAIN scan utility and save the images: Paint Shop Pro version 7. Oldie

 

[The Hat]

I don't know why but your software is restricting PNG to 256 colors.
That's not normal. It's impossible to judge a sample by these images.

I decided to just do the two greys as ghwellsjr suggested so would this be more to your liking..

 

[panos]

Well... this is 256 color PNG again which means that colors had to be compressed and artificial grain was added to make it look more natural. The grain is obvious even in the white paper areas.

Personally I think that the samples you posted 2 days ago were good enough to allow one to tell the difference. I feel that this thread is harassing you without any reason and I am going to stop here.

 

[ghwellsjr]

I'm beginning to think that the change Canon made with CLI-8 inks (over the BCI-6 inks), especially in the magenta ink, was to improve the darkness of black when printing from a 3-dye ink printer. The printers that The Hat is doing his comparison test with use the CLI-8 cartridges (and probably refilled ink) and probably result in a different conclusion than when done with printers that use the BCI-6 cartridges and Canon ink or refilled ink.

When I did my comparison many years ago, it was with BCI-6 printers (iP3000 and iP4000) and I don't remember what inks but probably not Canon. I don't even remember if I had the same type of refill ink in both printers. So for Justin, the issue for the iP3000 is whether having the darkest blacks on photo paper is important and if so, whether he plans on using Canon ink or refill ink.

I'm also wondering if refilling with Hobbicolors one-size-fits-all UW8 ink improves the darkness of blacks with a 3-dye ink printer.

My MX-700 is a 3-dye ink printer but I don't have a set of Canon inks. I could do a test with whatever refill ink I have in it now it will have to wait til I get back from a trip.

 

[ghwellsjr]

I did a test of two images on three printers: an i560, an MX700 and an iP4000. The first two have three dye ink cartridges (no photo black) while the third printer has four dye ink cartridges (including photo black). I purchased a used iP3000 which had a bad print head but uses the same one as the i560 in hopes that I could swap them but that didn't work so I have to settle for printouts from the i560 to approximate what the iP3000 might do. I used new sets of Canon OEM ink cartridges in all printers. The i560 and iP4000 used BCI-6 dye ink cartridges while the MX700 uses CLI8 dye ink cartridges.

The first image is the one that I did my comparison with many years ago. These results show that in addition to the blacks being not as dark on the three dye ink printers, the detail is not as clear in the dark areas compared to the four color printer.

Surprisingly, the newer MX700 gave a much inferior printout than the i560. The colors all appear lighter.

Here are the scans of the printout from the three printers:

First the i560:

Now the MX700:

And finally the iP4000:

The second image is of the color bars. These png files are quite large so be aware that if you click on the thumbnails, it could take a long time to download the full images.

First the i560:



Then the MX700:



And finally the iP4000:



I can see that these png files get corrupted during the upload/download process. They look perfect on my computer so I will upload a set of jpg files that don't look perfect on my computer but they should look the same after uploading and downloading.

First the i560:

Next the MX700:

And finally the iP4000:

Even these look far different after uploading/downloading so I guess these color bars are not too useful. Sorry about that.

 

[Tin Ho]

Is it because Canon designed the MX700 to be inferior? It is a possibility. On the other hand the i560 was a great printer. I had a couple at a time and I wish I still had them. So it is probably not appropriate to make a conclusion by comparing the prints from the two printers.

I downloaded the scans Hat posted and I found one had a wider and the other a narrower empty gap on the left side of the histograms. This tells that one had a darker black than the other. That's why I asked which is printed by which printer. Unfortunately Hat never answered the question. Had he answered it would have been the end of the discussion.