Digital BW, The Print

In a message dated 8/2/07 5:30:03 PM, jef.jef@... writes:


> I'm debating replacing my R2400 in favor of an Epson Pro 3800 
> primarily because my printing volume has picked up since I first got 
> the 2400 and the ink carts are continually running out!
> 
> A few question for people who have owned both the r2400 and Pro 3800:
> 
> The 3800 has Epson's PRO designation. Are the internal parts of the 
> 3800 really more robust than the parts on the 2400 or is the PRO 
> designation primarily based on the fact that the 3800 is a 17" wide?
> 
The 3800 has a bulk ink feed system and larger carts. It is probably designed 
to print more pages over its lifetime, but the main issue is the larger 
carts.
> 
> The 3800 sales pitch talks about an improved dither over the 2400. Is 
> there really any visible difference?
> 
Yes, its visible, under the right conditions its even visible on matte media.

C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision Business Unit
Datacolor Inc.
CDTobie@...
www.colorvision.com




**************************************
 Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at 
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

C.D.:

Would you describe the difference on the PRO 3800 as smoother, sharper or both? The 
reason why I ask is because one of my small nit-picks about r2400 output is that it is 
slightly soft / diffuse. If I send the exact same file to the r2400 and a Kodak RP30 Lightjet 
printer, surprisingly the Kodak RP30 print has a bit more sharpness and detail. However 
the K3 inkset offers much better color gamut on images that require it.

- Jeff

> > The 3800 sales pitch talks about an improved dither over the 2400. Is 
> > there really any visible difference?
> > 
> Yes, its visible, under the right conditions its even visible on matte media.
> 
> C. David Tobie
> Product Technology Manager
> ColorVision Business Unit
> Datacolor Inc.
> CDTobie@...
> www.colorvision.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> **************************************
>  Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at 
> http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

In a message dated 8/3/07 2:32:18 PM, jef.jef@... writes:


> Would you describe the difference on the PRO 3800 as smoother, sharper or 
> both?
> 

Sharper and more detailed is what comes to mind, though thats not always 
opposed to smoother, when its improved dithering thats involved. We may see yet 
another step forward in this with the xx80 printers, though I don't envision a 
lot of people changing to them just for that, or the brighter magenta inks.

C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision Business Unit
Datacolor Inc.
CDTobie@...
www.colorvision.com




**************************************
 Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at 
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> Would you describe the difference on the PRO 3800 as smoother,
sharper or both? The 
> reason why I ask is because one of my small nit-picks about r2400
output is that it is 
> slightly soft / diffuse. If I send the exact same file to the r2400
and a Kodak RP30 Lightjet 
> printer, surprisingly the Kodak RP30 print has a bit more sharpness
and detail. 

But keep in mind that you shouldn't be sending the "exact same file"
to the R2400 and a Kodak RP30 Lightjet, because these two systems
operate completely differently. The former device is an
error-diffusion dither inkjet, whereas the latter is a continuous tone
system. Very different output sharpening requirements, not to mention
different native driver resolutions. 

Eric