Digital BW, The Print

Would someone be so kind as to inform me whether there is a print
quality difference between the 2400 and 4800 or is it just a matter of
the 13" versus the 17" paper width?
Thank you.
Brad

Has anyone actually compared the output of these two printers?

I have samples from Steve that look just like my 2400 produces -- at least
enough so that I concluded they were basically the same.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of wwodets
> Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 7:05 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] 2400 vs. 4800
> 
> Has anyone actually compared the output of these two printers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
> they are often being updated.
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
> page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
> Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
> membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
> printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
> the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner
> and Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files
> section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> 
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND
> "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO
> YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR
> EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF
> PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE
> "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN
> ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE
> OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii)
> UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii)
> STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE
> PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Having spent the last six months using a 2400, I received a 4800 
yesterday and have it set up, just now, with some QTR ICC profiles 
for VFA, EEM and HPR.  Since so many are using one or the other of 
these printers, I thought I'd give my impressions of the comparison.

1.  The 4800 seems like a huge leap in apparent technology over the 
2400 and at $1,400 (that rebate last month) it seems like a steal.
2.  The driver in the 4800 is more awkward (Windows):  type of feed, 
orientation, etc. are not savable in a workflow.  This seems odd and 
irritating.  The feed route (top manual, tray, etc.) must be selected 
before anything else or certain papers and ABW are unavailable. (Am I 
wrong on this?)  
3.  The top manual feed slot is very fussy and difficult to use,  
rejecting paper because it was not inserted "deeply" or it is 
crooked.  The alternative, the front manual slot, requires a good 15 
inches behind the printer and I don't have the space for that.  Even 
this loading is hardly the height of convenience.  The EEM tray 
loading (holds about 75 sheets I think) is a delight.
4.  The size of the ink carts in the 4800 is a huge relief.  They are 
three quarters the size of a VHS tape.  I had been stocking 30-40 
carts for the 2400 and changing them *constantly*.
5.  Surprisingly, the 4800 seems a bit slower in cranking out a print 
(2880, unidirectional).
6.  The 4800 has linearized and separated the shadows on HPR, which 
was a problem with the 2400, which showed shadow reversals.  The new 
values for 90-100% blacks are (followed in parentheses by the 2400 
figures: 24.52 (21.56); 21.67 (19.63); 20.10 (18.39); 18.94 (17.77); 
17.57 (17.79); 16.53 (17.77).  So this is a much better performance 
from the 4800.  (Unfortunateloy the dmax at 16.53 is still pretty 
poor.)
7.  The corresponding VFA figures are good too:  26.13 (24.67); 23.05 
(22.72); 21.08 (20.68); 18.81 (18.63); 16.36 (16.66); 14.15 (14.19).  
The separation here is, I think, really visible in the prints (as it 
is with the HPR).  What do people think of a 90% black coming in at 
L* 26.13?  The unmanaged scale from top to bottom is quite linear, 
with fewer little irregularities than on the 2400 and a straighter 
curve.
8.  I had expected the visible output of the two printers to be 
identical, but they are not.  The differences are slight, but there 
is a tonal smoothness and lack of "grain" in the 4800 images (as well 
as those lucid shadows) that is immediately apparent side-by-side.  I 
wouldn't get a 4800 for this reason (I got it for ink costs mostly), 
but it's nice to have and it is an improvement.  The 4800 appears to 
have *much* more sophisticated head alignment routines and it is also 
holding the paper flat with suction.

So those are my observations and questions so far.  And once again, 
thank you Roy for those profiles!

Walt

From your cartridge size description (less than a video tape) I presume that you mean the 
110 ml carts.

With your apparent printing volume you should upgrade to using the 220's when you get a 
chance.

Scott'

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "wwodets" <odets@c...> wrote:

>
> Having spent the last six months using a 2400, I received a 4800 
> yesterday and have it set up, just now, with some QTR ICC profiles 
> for VFA, EEM and HPR.  Since so many are using one or the other of 
> these printers, I thought I'd give my impressions of the comparison.
> 
> 1.  The 4800 seems like a huge leap in apparent technology over the 
> 2400 and at $1,400 (that rebate last month) it seems like a steal.
> 2.  The driver in the 4800 is more awkward (Windows):  type of feed, 
> orientation, etc. are not savable in a workflow.  This seems odd and 
> irritating.  The feed route (top manual, tray, etc.) must be selected 
> before anything else or certain papers and ABW are unavailable. (Am I 
> wrong on this?)  
> 3.  The top manual feed slot is very fussy and difficult to use,  
> rejecting paper because it was not inserted "deeply" or it is 
> crooked.  The alternative, the front manual slot, requires a good 15 
> inches behind the printer and I don't have the space for that.  Even 
> this loading is hardly the height of convenience.  The EEM tray 
> loading (holds about 75 sheets I think) is a delight.
> 4.  The size of the ink carts in the 4800 is a huge relief.  They are 
> three quarters the size of a VHS tape.  I had been stocking 30-40 
> carts for the 2400 and changing them *constantly*.
> 5.  Surprisingly, the 4800 seems a bit slower in cranking out a print 
> (2880, unidirectional).
> Walt
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "wwodets" 
<odets@c...> wrote:
>
> Having spent the last six months using a 2400, I received a 4800 
> yesterday and have it set up, just now, with some QTR ICC profiles 
> for VFA, EEM and HPR.  Since so many are using one or the other of 
> these printers, I thought I'd give my impressions of the comparison.
> 
> 1.  The 4800 seems like a huge leap in apparent technology over the 
> 2400 and at $1,400 (that rebate last month) it seems like a steal.
> 2.  The driver in the 4800 is more awkward (Windows):  type of 
feed, 
> orientation, etc. are not savable in a workflow.  This seems odd 
and 
> irritating.  The feed route (top manual, tray, etc.) must be 
selected 
> before anything else or certain papers and ABW are unavailable. (Am 
I 
> wrong on this?)  
> 3.  The top manual feed slot is very fussy and difficult to use,  
> rejecting paper because it was not inserted "deeply" or it is 
> crooked.  The alternative, the front manual slot, requires a good 
15 
> inches behind the printer and I don't have the space for that.  
Even 
> this loading is hardly the height of convenience.  The EEM tray 
> loading (holds about 75 sheets I think) is a delight.
> 4.  The size of the ink carts in the 4800 is a huge relief.  They 
are 
> three quarters the size of a VHS tape.  I had been stocking 30-40 
> carts for the 2400 and changing them *constantly*.
> 5.  Surprisingly, the 4800 seems a bit slower in cranking out a 
print 
> (2880, unidirectional).
> 6.  The 4800 has linearized and separated the shadows on HPR, which 
> was a problem with the 2400, which showed shadow reversals.  The 
new 
> values for 90-100% blacks are (followed in parentheses by the 2400 
> figures: 24.52 (21.56); 21.67 (19.63); 20.10 (18.39); 18.94 
(17.77); 
> 17.57 (17.79); 16.53 (17.77).  So this is a much better performance 
> from the 4800.  (Unfortunateloy the dmax at 16.53 is still pretty 
> poor.)
> 7.  The corresponding VFA figures are good too:  26.13 (24.67); 
23.05 
> (22.72); 21.08 (20.68); 18.81 (18.63); 16.36 (16.66); 14.15 
(14.19).  
> The separation here is, I think, really visible in the prints (as 
it 
> is with the HPR).  What do people think of a 90% black coming in at 
> L* 26.13?  The unmanaged scale from top to bottom is quite linear, 
> with fewer little irregularities than on the 2400 and a straighter 
> curve.
> 8.  I had expected the visible output of the two printers to be 
> identical, but they are not.  The differences are slight, but there 
> is a tonal smoothness and lack of "grain" in the 4800 images (as 
well 
> as those lucid shadows) that is immediately apparent side-by-side.  
I 
> wouldn't get a 4800 for this reason (I got it for ink costs 
mostly), 
> but it's nice to have and it is an improvement.  The 4800 appears 
to 
> have *much* more sophisticated head alignment routines and it is 
also 
> holding the paper flat with suction.
> 
> So those are my observations and questions so far.  And once again, 
> thank you Roy for those profiles!
> 
> Walt
>
Walt,

I've had the same problem with the top-load slot on my 4800 rejecting 
paper due to it being crooked. The skew tolerances seem to tight. At 
the time you get the message, hitting the Pause button clears the 
error and allows you to print anyway. 

Kirk

Walt

I did the 4800 QTR profiles and would be very interested in your thoughts on
them once you've had the chance to work with them some more.  (As well as
thoughts from any others.)   In particular I'm interested in people's
thoughts on the hues I generated and the neutrality/look of 55%cool/45%warm
mix.  I thought they looked right to me but then it's hard to judge this
without feedback.

Steve

Load the paper firmly and then let go immediately - don't try to guide it as
the printer takes hold of it.  There's a bit of a knack to it but it does
work well once you get the hang of it.

> From: kirkszybus <KSzymanski@...>

> Walt,
> 
> I've had the same problem with the top-load slot on my 4800 rejecting
> paper due to it being crooked. The skew tolerances seem to tight. At
> the time you get the message, hitting the Pause button clears the
> error and allows you to print anyway.
> 
> Kirk

Steve hi,

On the loading--I've gone to the front loading with a "custom made" 
guide on the back of the printer that directs the paper down.  Seems 
to work, but I'll try your suggestion on the back loading.  It was 
very frustrating.

On the other issue, I am not using QTR curves, only the ICC 
profiles.  I have been using the ABW with light setting.  The 
profiles for the 4800 are quite subtle compared to those for the 2400-
-better linearization in the printer I guess.

Why did you do the QTR curves?  Are you using Eboni instead of K3?  
What advantage do you see in printing through QTR on this printer?

Best,
Walt



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale 
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
>
> Load the paper firmly and then let go immediately - don't try to 
guide it as
> the printer takes hold of it.  There's a bit of a knack to it but 
it does
> work well once you get the hang of it.
> 
> 
> > From: kirkszybus <KSzymanski@i...>
> 
> > Walt,
> > 
> > I've had the same problem with the top-load slot on my 4800 
rejecting
> > paper due to it being crooked. The skew tolerances seem to tight. 
At

> > the time you get the message, hitting the Pause button clears the
> > error and allows you to print anyway.
> > 
> > Kirk
>

Hi Walt

I did the QTR curves for the 4800 to avoid the use of yellow ink.  I have
not as yet gone back to compare output from Epson ABW vs these QTR curves on
matte paper.  Yes I am using Eboni.  It performs better on third party
papers but can't match Epson MK on Epson papers.

Cheers

Steve

> From: wwodets <odets@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 16:50:36 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: 2400 vs. 4800
> 
> Steve hi,
> 
> On the loading--I've gone to the front loading with a "custom made"
> guide on the back of the printer that directs the paper down.  Seems
> to work, but I'll try your suggestion on the back loading.  It was
> very frustrating.
> 
> On the other issue, I am not using QTR curves, only the ICC
> profiles.  I have been using the ABW with light setting.  The
> profiles for the 4800 are quite subtle compared to those for the 2400-
> -better linearization in the printer I guess.
> 
> Why did you do the QTR curves?  Are you using Eboni instead of K3?
> What advantage do you see in printing through QTR on this printer?
> 
> Best,
> Walt

> I did the QTR curves for the 4800 to avoid the use of yellow ink.  ...

I have this approach v. the ABW approach test strips in the fader now.
It'll be interesting to see how much difference it makes.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com