Looking at the new Canon PRO-300

[PeterBJ]

In dreams ?
Where did you find this text ... in Canon's website ?
Unless I miss something, there're no backup nozzles in a QY6-0085 printhead. AFAIK, several regular posters here, including you and me, have seen banding in nozzle checks or prints with a Pro10, although it's luckily a rare occurrence.

Maybe @palombian read the review on druckerchannel,de? A translation is here. Scroll down to "Düsenausfallkorrektur" or "Nozzle failure correction" Also see this post by @mikling .

 

[The Hat]

Nozzle failure correction"

I’m sorry but that’s a load of cods wallop, @Artur5 is correct and I’m singing the same Hymn as he is, “Compensation” for nozzle failure is just a dream, if it had been available for the Pro 10 well how come no one has heard of it, they both use the same Feckin print head..

This Pro 300 is taking on a mystical favour all of its own, next thing you know someone else will say it has vacuum feed assist, O’ but it does have skew paper correction, but so has my Feckin iP4500, but its biggest failure is lack of a waste ink cartridge and the little ink carts.

The Pro 300 is a dedicated photographers printer, who will need to sell their prints, it has to be used with OEM inks and Canon own profiles, deviate from that or mess with other inks or paper and you’ll get much poorer quality prints.. (Printer for sale) !

Stick with what you got, because the Pro 10 can and will match the Pro 300 every time using the same OEM inks, but the Pro 10 has the added bonus, it can be refilled and use 3rd party inks and still get great results, remember the Pro 300 would need a complete new redesigned print head to use this “Compensation for nozzle failure”…

P.S. Let’s see what Canon will do with the Pro 100 replacement..

 

[palombian]

I’m sorry but that’s a load of cods wallop, @Artur5 is correct and I’m singing the same Hymn as he is, “Compensation” for nozzle failure is just a dream, if it had been available for the Pro 10 well how come no one has heard of it, they both use the same Feckin print head..

This Pro 300 is taking on a mystical favour all of its own, next thing you know someone else will say it has vacuum feed assist, O’ but it does have skew paper correction, but so has my Feckin iP4500, but its biggest failure is lack of a waste ink cartridge and the little ink carts.

The Pro 300 is a dedicated photographers printer, who will need to sell their prints, it has to be used with OEM inks and Canon own profiles, deviate from that or mess with other inks or paper and you’ll get much poorer quality prints.. (Printer for sale) !

Stick with what you got, because the Pro 10 can and will match the Pro 300 every time using the same OEM inks, but the Pro 10 has the added bonus, it can be refilled and use 3rd party inks and still get great results, remember the Pro 300 would need a complete new redesigned print head to use this “Compensation for nozzle failure”…

P.S. Let’s see what Canon will do with the Pro 100 replacement..

I think everyone who did the effort to read and listen to what has been published on the PRO-300 must have a rather precise view now.
IMO some misconceptions:
- the printhead is most probably the same as the PRO-10, the software is able to detect malfunctioning nozzles and will use existing nozzles a second time to fill the gap
- the inkset is "Lucia Pro", not the same as the PRO-10, but according to Canon the "same quality" as the PRO-1000 (meaning the same, just as the cart have "about the same volume as the PRO-10") , without Blue and Light Grey, and a new MBK, better than the PRO-1000.
- there is no vacuum paper feed
- the internal calibration is a marketing feature to lift the printer (and the price) to the PRO status, but completely unimportant for the amateur

If I did not have access to a PRO-10 anymore, I wouldn't hesitate to buy the PRO-300, disable the ink monitoring and refill it with 3th party inks for the PRO-1000 or large format OEM ink.

BTW second hand PRO-10S's are sold here for € 250-300.

 

[Artur5]

Software detecting non firing nozzles is what Canon says. How do they do it and how effective it is ?.

It seems out of the question that they detect the faults on the fly, because that needs a thermal sensor in each of the 7680 nozzles. Almost 100% impossible with the current QY6-0085 printhead, Besides, it would require a terrific speed of process by the printer, which I doubt very much it’s doable.
Now, if they detect the faults after printing nozzle patterns, that means that the corrections are after the fact and will be effective only when/if the user decides to print such tests. Thus, the printer’s memory would be programmed with a table of faulty and double duty nozzles. What happens if those overworked nozzles clog too?. Do they use a third one to replace the other two ?. Eventually, overworking the same nozzles will provoke a snow ball effect.

If the printhead has thousands of redundant nozzles, as the Pro1000 and above, that system makes sense. Instead, using existing nozzles to perform double/triple duty seems a bad idea to me. In the long term, the printhead will wear faster on a Pro300 than on a Pro10.

 

[mikling]

I already described how you can use nozzles that appear to have some redundancy in Jose's podcast. You can have relative/virtual redundancy provided you have enough control in fine steps. Not saying this is done by Canon but it is one way of potentially doing it.
Simplistically, imagine a three deep firing line. Normally each line fires sequentially. So line 1 fires, Line 2 then fires and then Line 3 fires. So suppose one gun in line 1 is bad. Now as long any gun in line 2 and 3 is available can then fire when the bad gun in 1 is needed to fire then all is still OK. One qualifier.....that any gun that is waiting for its turn is able to reload before it's normal turn is necessary AND you have a commander who can issue the more complex command.
Yeah, you have to do this while the shooting line is moving as well. But you get the idea. If the controller can make the extra instruction to make the call to fire to compensate you still have full shots. There is the positional issue but the idea is that it can be done as long as there is sufficient on the fly processing power. You might not have to have a physically redundant set of nozzles. So you need a processor that is fast and have some serious buffer memory.

As far as wear is concerned. The worry makes no logic. Why? is it better to have a compensated algo that gives slightly more wear and not have to replace a printhead or is it better to have less wear but have to ditch a printhead. The choice is clear use the Algo compensation and get more service life.

The thing is hardly any nozzles go bad on the Pro-10 printhead anyways unless it is abused. So it really is moot.
Now go out and take some pictures rather than commenting on a printer that you won't likely purchase anyways.

 

[stratman]

I already described how you can use nozzles that appear to have some redundancy in Jose's podcast.

Not everyone watches the podcast. Describing here is best unless you care to give a link and time stamp for the actual podcast discussion.

Things are getting deeper as this thread spools on.

The forum has gone from bad nozzle compensation in the Pro-300 to this ability was inherent in the Pro-10. Never heard about this with the Pro-10 even if the Pro-10 and Pro-300 appear to share the exact same print head.

If this technology was available in previous Canon printers then why was it not advertised or even utilized in some fashion if nothing more than a selling point? I find it difficult to believe that Canon would spend more money to manufacturer a print head with the capability to "sense" a blocked nozzle and then not use it in some fashion.

Do you, or anyone, have a link to an article or post from someone actually in or attached to the development, manufacturing, or official technical support of the functional aspect of this nozzle compensation technology you have hypothesized in you posts?

Enjoy the speculation but I'd also like some clarity.

 

[mikling]

Nobody said this was implemented. Someone did ask was it possible? However it is one possibility of perhaps getting it done without having a resident set of redundant nozzles in waiting. Speculation yes. But maybe Canon has described a feature that in reality is not really what we think. The jury is still out.

One way to determine a clogged nozzle is via the nozzle check like the one a Pro-1000 has. It is similar to the nozzle check in the diagnostic service routines. A pro-300 use confirmed the nozzle check has the stair steps. this would then be similar to Epson auto nozzle check. The sensor can then detect missing lines like the Epson. This was covered in Jose's podcast.

Next I am now suspicious of the calibration side because in reviewing Keith Cooper's setup article. He says "calibration AND alignment". However he does not elucidate what calibration really means. He goes on to mention that it rid him of some banding. Well, alignment vertical and horizontal will do that. Duh! But then he goes on and mentions post calibration it makes a difference in prints. In retrospect it is now suspect what I interpreted because Calibration in the Pro-1000 world is color calibration to a set standard. I don't think we need to be told that alignment helps with banding and should be done. Do we? So that aspect is up in the air.
If this machine does not have that, then the Pro-300 is severely overpriced and ANYONE needing a printer something like the Pro-10 should waste no time to get theirs.

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/setting-up-your-new-pro-300/

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/canon-pro-300-printer-review/
"This has a real effect on print quality, so don’t be stingy and skip the process! "
Does he mean banding? If he does...Then what else does one expect Keith? Everybody with a printer knows that. Right?

 

[mikling]

One thing that no one has caught onto as yet is that the Pro-10 has a CO control dialog that is superior to that of the Pro-1000. Perhaps Canon discovered this was too complicated for the vast majority of users. In the Pro-1000. There is only an Auto or Overall choice. In the Pro-10 there is a CUSTOM. This is where you must use form controls.
https://ugp01.c-ij.com/ij/webmanual/PrinterDriver/M/PRO-10S series/1.0/EN/PPG/dg-c_clearcoating.html

This aspect disappeared on the Pro-1000. Complicated, yes but once you figure it out, it is very flexible.

 

[stratman]

Speculation yes. But maybe Canon has described a feature that in reality is not really what we think. The jury is still out.

Thank you for your response. I respect theorizing, especially from your learned position.

"This has a real effect on print quality, so don’t be stingy and skip the process! "

Keith is clearly talking about "Alignment" performed on initial setup.

After installation I suggest immediately doing a print head alignment. The test print here is using plain paper, but a couple of A4 sheets of photo paper will optimise the results.

This has a real effect on print quality, so don’t be stingy and skip the process!

The "stingy" part may be refering to using photo paper and not plain paper, at least in part. Ask @Keith Cooper if you need further clarification.

I don't think we need to be told that alignment helps with banding and should be done. Do we?

I searched Keith's article and "banding" was not mentioned and "band" was mentioned once in the context of WiFi frequency bandwidth. Where did you get the alignment-banding issue in the article?

Yes, most would not skip the alignment step. No, I don't think Keith was condescending to the reader about this. I have seen condescension in this forum by certain individuals, some that regularly employ it in their posts. I didn't get the feeling Keith was doing this.

Does he mean banding? If he does...Then what else does one expect Keith? Everybody with a printer knows that. Right?

For all we know Keith may not be reading the thread anymore. Consider using the "@name" function to flag his attention and optimize the chance of a response to your questions and concerns.

 

[mikling]

Thank you for your response. I respect theorizing, especially from your learned position.


Keith is clearly talking about "Alignment" performed on initial setup.


The "stingy" part may be refering to using photo paper and not plain paper, at least in part. Ask @Keith Cooper if you need further clarification.


I searched Keith's article and "banding" was not mentioned and "band" was mentioned once in the context of WiFi frequency bandwidth. Where did you get the alignment-banding issue in the article?

Yes, most would not skip the alignment step. No, I don't think Keith was condescending to the reader about this. I have seen condescension in this forum by certain individuals, some that regularly employ it in their posts. I didn't get the feeling Keith was doing this.


For all we know Keith may not be reading the thread anymore. Consider using the "@name" function to flag his attention and optimize the chance of a response to your questions and concerns.

Keith has now confirmed there is no densitometer and has revised the wording in his article.
As such, there is no new feature that stands out to justify the Pro-300 high MSRP. Unless there is another superb feature set which was overlooked, this product might simply just sit on the shelf. Save your pennies and consider the Pro-1000 and get a real upgrade.