Cathy Stratton
Well-known member
Sorry! I thought what I read looked an awful lot like an Adobe press release! I should have used my good sense. (or maybe the problem is I don't have any!)
Thanks,
Cathy
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Canon i950 Interactive Review at Photo-i
- Thread starter Kiran P
- Start date
Thanks,
Cathy
Vincent,
In your i950 review page, there is a sample print from S900. I can see the mircobanding on the detail view as well as the original view. My question is that is the original view from S900 at 100%?
I am asking this question because everybody in this forums said that they can not see microbanding from S900 using nake eye. However, it is very obvious in your sample print.
Thanks, Jack
In your i950 review page, there is a sample print from S900. I can see the mircobanding on the detail view as well as the original view. My question is that is the original view from S900 at 100%?
I am asking this question because everybody in this forums said that they can not see microbanding from S900 using nake eye. However, it is very obvious in your sample print.
Thanks, Jack
Just wanted to tell everyone that Vincent started another
interactive review at his website on the Canon i950. Remember how
popular his Epson 2200 review was?
At the moment he only has 3 pages of boring stuff like setting it
up, but the paper trays are different this time. Anyway, I can't
wait for the scans of the prints, especially when he compares them
to the S900. Will the 2pl drop really be much smaller than the
4pl??? Guess we'll have to wait and see. Move it along faster
Vincent!!!
http://www.photo-i.co.uk/index.html
Kiran
--
V
Vincent Oliver
Guest
No it is at a higher magnification, the other members are quite right you can't see banding with the naked eye. I have included the shot to show the readers just how the image is made up. When you look at the i950 pictures (at the same magnification) you can see just how much Canon have improved their print head. That was the purpose of the test.
--
Vincent Oliver
Barry47598
Forum Enthusiast
Do you know the price of the new i950?
Pietro Marchesi
Forum Enthusiast
How does the Canon i950 really compare to new Epson 970C?
Read this test :
http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/urltrurl?lp=ja_en&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sbpnet.jp%2Fvwalker%2Fseries%2Ftestlab%2Fart.asp%3Fnewsid%3D4665
Q for Vincent: Do you have a 970C review coming up soon?
Pietro
Med Vänlig Hälsning / Best Regards
Pietro Marchesi
Read this test :
http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/urltrurl?lp=ja_en&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sbpnet.jp%2Fvwalker%2Fseries%2Ftestlab%2Fart.asp%3Fnewsid%3D4665
Q for Vincent: Do you have a 970C review coming up soon?
Pietro
--Just wanted to tell everyone that Vincent started another
interactive review at his website on the Canon i950. Remember how
popular his Epson 2200 review was?
At the moment he only has 3 pages of boring stuff like setting it
up, but the paper trays are different this time. Anyway, I can't
wait for the scans of the prints, especially when he compares them
to the S900. Will the 2pl drop really be much smaller than the
4pl??? Guess we'll have to wait and see. Move it along faster
Vincent!!!
http://www.photo-i.co.uk/index.html
Kiran
--
Med Vänlig Hälsning / Best Regards
Pietro Marchesi
V
Vincent Oliver
Guest
Wow, I love the inks this printer uses "As for ink cyanide + magenta + yellow + light/write cyanide + light/write magenta + dark yellow (each 180 nozzles) + black (360 nozzles) 7 color constitution."
The Cyanide is sure to kill of any bad reviews.
This is the first I have heard of this printer, but I suspect it is the same 950/960 we have here in the UK & USA.
--
Vincent Oliver
Vincent wrote:
This is the first I have heard of this printer, but I suspect it is
950/960 is 6 colour
970 is 7 colour
950/960 is 2880x1440
970 is 2880x2880
It's more like an A4 2100/2200.
racer.
This is the first I have heard of this printer, but I suspect it is
No, the specs are different.
950/960 is 6 colour
970 is 7 colour
950/960 is 2880x1440
970 is 2880x2880
It's more like an A4 2100/2200.
racer.
Chris R-UK
Forum Pro
Vincent,
I think that this is an upgrade. The styling is quite different to the 950/960 and the droplet size seems to be slightly smaller.
I believe that the 950 was originally released as the 950c in Japan before coming to Europe and the US - dropping the "c" and photo yellow in the process.
--
Chris R
V
Vincent Oliver
Guest
V
Vincent Oliver
Guest
I have just spoken with Epson UK and am informed that they know nothing about this printer. It could be exclusive to the Japanese market, I suspect we will see a UK version announced before the Summer.
Shame it doesn't use the same UltraChrome inks as the 2100, now that would be a A4 printer to die for.
--
Vincent Oliver
This printer was discussed a bit a few months ago when first seen. It is an upgrade to the Epson 950/960, because shortly after they came out, the Canon i950 was released in Japan. Now Epson was behind in speed AND droplet size! Epson really wanted to make some inroads into speeding up their printers, and the 970 is their first attempt at a faster printer (Still much slower than the Canon's but faster than their current generation).
They also stated a reduced droplet size to 1.8 picoliters, but that just seems to be a numbers game with Canon, the 0.2 picoliter measurable difference at such a small size is just a ridiculous claim, may be true, but in real world virtually no difference at all! If my calculations are correct, somewhere around 0.3 microns in actual size difference, check out this site for how small that really is http://www.pacpress.com/level3/micron.htm . This website states that below 40 microns, the dot is invisible to the naked eye. 4-picoliter printers droplet size was somewhere around 25 microns, and people with good eyes could still see the graininess, probably due to dithering or layering of dots. According to Canon's literature, a 4-picoliter bubblejet can place as many as 20,000 individual spots in a square centimeter. Now with 2 picoliter size droplets that is simply amazing!
The initial review I saw of the 970 on that Japanese website showed microbanding issues like the Canon S900 series showed. That review from japan show the Canon i950 has the slight edge (Mainly due to maintaining high quality at faster speeds).
The theory of more color ink tanks = better photo quality is put to the test. Is 7 really better than 6? With newer technology is 6 that much better than 4? It is at the same level now as 48 bit vs 32 bit scanning. When does it reach the point when there is no real gain in quality that is noticible to the human eye?
I would still like to see both these printers in person some day. May have to take a trip to Japan when the piggy bank gets full!
--
http://www.pbase.com/wp12001
Life is too short to waste it complaining.
They also stated a reduced droplet size to 1.8 picoliters, but that just seems to be a numbers game with Canon, the 0.2 picoliter measurable difference at such a small size is just a ridiculous claim, may be true, but in real world virtually no difference at all! If my calculations are correct, somewhere around 0.3 microns in actual size difference, check out this site for how small that really is http://www.pacpress.com/level3/micron.htm . This website states that below 40 microns, the dot is invisible to the naked eye. 4-picoliter printers droplet size was somewhere around 25 microns, and people with good eyes could still see the graininess, probably due to dithering or layering of dots. According to Canon's literature, a 4-picoliter bubblejet can place as many as 20,000 individual spots in a square centimeter. Now with 2 picoliter size droplets that is simply amazing!
The initial review I saw of the 970 on that Japanese website showed microbanding issues like the Canon S900 series showed. That review from japan show the Canon i950 has the slight edge (Mainly due to maintaining high quality at faster speeds).
The theory of more color ink tanks = better photo quality is put to the test. Is 7 really better than 6? With newer technology is 6 that much better than 4? It is at the same level now as 48 bit vs 32 bit scanning. When does it reach the point when there is no real gain in quality that is noticible to the human eye?
I would still like to see both these printers in person some day. May have to take a trip to Japan when the piggy bank gets full!
--
http://www.pbase.com/wp12001
Life is too short to waste it complaining.
Chris R-UK
Forum Pro
WP,
Like the 970c, the 950/960 started life last year in Japan as the 950c and, like the 970c, the 950c had a 7th photo yellow (PY) cartridge. When it arrived in Europe the "c" had been dropped from the name and the PY cartridge had become a second black cartridge. There was some discussion at the time about differences between Japanese and European eyesight - the inference being that Japanese could see a difference with PY but Europeans couldn't. I have no idea whether this is correct or not, or whether the decision to drop the PY was a marketing decision.
We might therefore expect the 970c to lose its PY cartridge as well.
Of course, the 950 also (temporarily) lost its CD print facility when it became the US 960.
--
Chris R
There was a chemistry article published a while back that measured how much a 1 picoliter droplet spread after hitting a surface, and it measured out at just over 6 microns. The problem with a printer is it can take MANY 4-picoliter drops to make one color, so the apparent droplet size will increase dramatically as different droplets are added to make that color.
If Canon can place 20000 drops in a centimeter, that equates to 50 Microns per droplet? That's just barely visible!
Another issue with smaller droplets is control of placement. The smaller the droplet, the more subject it is to drifting.
http://www.pbase.com/wp12001
Life is too short to waste it complaining.
If Canon can place 20000 drops in a centimeter, that equates to 50 Microns per droplet? That's just barely visible!
Another issue with smaller droplets is control of placement. The smaller the droplet, the more subject it is to drifting.
--
http://www.pbase.com/wp12001
Life is too short to waste it complaining.
Tricia
Veteran Member
The 2100/2200 also had the other yellow cartridge when it was the Pxx4000xx (sorry, can't remember the letters) in Japan. The claim then was that the Japanese like brighter colors than Europeans and Americans, and that we like better shading and shadows, so it was switched for light black.
--
Tricia
Minolta Dimage D7(UG), Epson 2200, PS7, PBase supporter
Chris R-UK
Forum Pro
At least on the 2100/2200 they swapped it for a light black cartridge. On the 950/960 they simply put in a second standard black. Perhaps it was too much bother to rewrite the driver for light black.
--
Chris R
V
Vincent Oliver
Guest
I have added an extra page to the i950 review. The colour prints from the i950 are something else, even my wife was impressed and that takes some doing - believe me!
Enjoy
--
Vincent Oliver
Enjoy
--
Vincent Oliver
Just went to the site and can't seem to get past the B&W page...????
I am impressed at the B&W quality. Haven't seen very many printers that are that capable printing B&W.
Thanks for enlightening us!
http://www.pbase.com/wp12001
Life is too short to waste it complaining.
I am impressed at the B&W quality. Haven't seen very many printers that are that capable printing B&W.
Thanks for enlightening us!
--
http://www.pbase.com/wp12001
Life is too short to waste it complaining.
V
Vincent Oliver
Guest
The Epson 2100 with its pigment inks is excellent for BW, but no other dye ink based printer comes close to the i950.
OOOP's I forgot to link the continue button on page 7, it is now fixed. You should have still been able to access it via the top drop down list - unless your not looking at the pages in the sites frames.
--
Vincent Oliver
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum