Differences R3000 vs. P600 and Pro3880 and P800..kinda quirky

[mikling]

I've had both a P600 on individual refillable cartridges now for about six months and the R3000 using the same identical inks PCK3HD. There is a slight difference and it will vary on images. They use different print engines and the ICCs are distinctly different and cannot be interchanged at all. Some of the slight perceived greater contrast of the P600 is due to the newer engine.

Similarly, the 3880 and P800 using the same identical aftermarket PCK3HD inks produce very similar images but the differences are there but not large at all. Probably not visible in a video. Again, they use different ICCs and the engine is tilted towards using more of the darker inks to create the same target color. For example, the engine on the P800 is so different that the printed targets that the 3880 produced are read by an Xrite i1pro2 cleanly with no issues. On the P800 the same printed target causes even the i1Pro2 to misbehave. This required me to generate a different printed target to get around this misread EVEN with one of the best spectros available. This tells me there is a great divergence in certain colors in raw printing that is outside of what is normally accepted and Epson is likely using a lot of correction within their ICC as opposed to the 3880. The P600 does not display this from what I saw. Is this there to cause problems in profiling......with aftermarket inks? Interesting conspiracy.

The reality is that if you are not dealing with critical color all day, most people probably will not notice the differences or find them, if you are using a correct ICC. If you have a functioning prior generation model, there is no need to upgrade for improved Image Quality.

If you thought of using older ICCs because you'd be using the same inks..yes there will be a significant difference because you'd be using incorrect ICCs.

Later on in the spring I will make a video demonstrating the differences.

 

[Ink stained Fingers]

On the P800 the same printed target causes even the i1Pro2 to misbehave.

How does that become visible - by an error indication in the profiling softrware ?
Are there now refill cartridges available for the P800 , and a resetter? Or can you refill the original cartridges and use a resetter ? Epson claims an extended gamut for their Ultrachrome HDR inks in the P600/800 whatever that means in marketing speech - a direct comparison of the gamut vs. a previous Ultrachrome ink set would show which colors contribute to an improved gamut - and how much .

 

[mikling]

How does that become visible - by an error indication in the profiling softrware ?
Are there now refill cartridges available for the P800 , and a resetter? Or can you refill the original cartridges and use a resetter ? Epson claims an extended gamut for their Ultrachrome HDR inks in the P600/800 whatever that means in marketing speech - a direct comparison of the gamut vs. a previous Ultrachrome ink set would show which colors contribute to an improved gamut - and how much .

Yes, the same target used thousands of time before with no errors on multiple printers cannot be read properly with a P800. One or more colors has such an extreme error that the software thinks it is reading the incorrect strip. No errors printed on the other three in the lineup and 4 including the R2880.

Again there are differences but nobody will shell out big bucks to get an upgrade if IQ is what is being sought. We approached the peak one or two generations ago. From here on in, our eyes will not be good enough to detect what machines are telling us is superior.

 

[Ink stained Fingers]

availability of inks and cartridges and CISS systems for the P600 seems to take up speed - with resp. announcements by precisioncolors.com and other companies,
http://shop.inkjetmall.com/Shop-By-Printer/Accessories-P600/CISS-for-Epson-P600.html
Lyson offered a P600 like ink already almost a year ago. I'm reading as well some news in the inkjetmall/Jon Cone newsletter that they have inks and a CISS available, with a particularly interesting remark, that they are besides Epson the only company supplying encapsulated pigment inks, and that this encapsulation requires chemistry not compatible with traditional CISS systems using PVC in the assembly or the tubing, and that they use PE tubing instead. Their CISS specially made for them would take care of all of that including chips as well specially made for them - o.-k. - other CISS system will most likely work as well . I'm not aware that Epson pigment inks would cause problems in 3rd party CISS systems, or too few people are doing that - tapping original cartridges and filling the ink into a CISS for another printer model, so this problem is just not showing up and reported.

 

[W. Fisher]

I went to a printer's seminar. What I learned was no two printers print alike, even with the same ink and paper or model number, and why the need to make a profile for each one.

More alarming was the instructor opened ColorThink 3 on Epson's generic profiles for their glossy and luster papers. The 3D L*ab image is the exact same "wireframe bubble" in all of them! The only thing different was they assign the PK/MK ink, and change the paper surface in the Epson driver window, but the L*ab profiles are all identical and overlap perfectly in the 3D window. Plus, they all have the exact same time of making and date back in 2009. They are generic profiles, and not that specific. In other words, they are good enough - but not great.

If you have ColorThink, open them and compare the data. Sort of shocking.

W. Fisher

 

[Ink stained Fingers]

you are very right, printer output varies between units, inks vary between batches, papers vary between batches, and when you average all that you come to a kind of profile which is in the middle of all that. I checked longer time ago some Canon profiles and I was wondering how smooth and even they were, not very close to those which I generated. Those company profiles are tuned and smoothed quite a lot. When you are in the commercial printing business process and quality control, ongoing, per print batch, per order, every morning or whatever is suitable is just a must and established at every serious printing company anyway.

 

[mikling]

I went to a printer's seminar. What I learned was no two printers print alike, even with the same ink and paper or model number, and why the need to make a profile for each one.

More alarming was the instructor opened ColorThink 3 on Epson's generic profiles for their glossy and luster papers. The 3D L*ab image is the exact same "wireframe bubble" in all of them! The only thing different was they assign the PK/MK ink, and change the paper surface in the Epson driver window, but the L*ab profiles are all identical and overlap perfectly in the 3D window. Plus, they all have the exact same time of making and date back in 2009. They are generic profiles, and not that specific. In other words, they are good enough - but not great.

If you have ColorThink, open them and compare the data. Sort of shocking.

W. Fisher

I already pointed this out many years ago.

I opened a discussion about this recently but it appears that too few people understand the depth of the print engine inside a printer and how this affects the reality of color management to continue discussion.

OEM profiles are not always " accurate". They are made to be pleasing to a certain market segment. Even then, they can also "retune" a profile to be more pleasing. Once you start understanding what compromises are made in ICC profiles and how you can retune them beyond a "standard" output, it can get interesting. I will begin this later this summer as a project of sorts. Unfortunately standard packages like Colormunki and Xrite and Datacolor do not allow for this tweaking but I have figured out a way to do so. Again for for years on end I always suspected OEM profiles are not what off the shelf generated profiling software would produce.

 

[Ink stained Fingers]

Unfortunately standard packages like Colormunki and Xrite and Datacolor do not allow for this tweaking but I have figured out a way to do so.

There is a package which allows some of that, by a German company

http://www.basiccolor.de/basiccolor-print-3-en/

with a function which is not found in the other typical profiling packages ' It also offers a user defined modification to the perceptual rendering intent, so that images convert with highest quality results.'
o-k-. - not all changes to a profile makes it better just like that. And it's very important in all these discussions to clarify which rendering intent is meant - the intentions of a colorimetrically correct reproduction is quite opposite to a photographic rendering intent which tries to aim for a pleasing print output - with compromises, contrast compression, gamut mapping and this and that by company specific design rules. so your further elaborations on this subject will be quite interesting

 

[The Hat]

Exactly the same printers with exactly the same ink, paper and profile as you have said won’t print exactly the same, but who amongst us would be able to see the difference, I for one wouldn't, it’s like the child and the emperors’ new cloths..

 

[mikling]

side by side, there are differences that are perceptible and this will vary by image content. If you don't see the difference, then you're blessed. Once you see the differences, you then bear the curse.