Why? Nozzle check on iP4500 has 3 separate Cyan and Magenta rectangles

[pharmacist]

No it does not: your question was about the IP4500, at the end your question deviated to the Pro 9000 with its 2 pl droplet size. Besides: the Pro 9500 is not the same as the Pro 9000. The Pro 9500 uses 2.5 pl droplet size, the Pro 9000 2 pl.

I do not have the Pro 3880, but the Pro 3800 and because I use refillable cartridges to lower printing cost significantly.

Canon versus Epson ??? I used to have an i9950 (the non-chipped version of the Pro 9000) and the prints were very good and was very pleased with the results until I got my Pro 3800 and realized it could be much better. The pigment inks guarantee fade resistent and waterproof prints. Yes I love Canon, but I love Epson even more.

 

[mikling]

Droplet size is misleading but the size of the droplet does play a part in determining the speed and color capabilities of the printer.

Do understand that Epsons print with a higher "native" resolution than Canons do even though they have larger droplet size. What that means is that for a given fixed area to print, the Epson will place more individual dots on the paper. Each one of these dots will be formed by droplets. Now here is where it gets interesting because how you form a colored dot on an Epson requires a slightly different strategy as opposed to a Canon. The Epson can choose to lay down different droplet sizes of different colors. The Canon has more limited options due to fewer droplet size options but it can lay down lots...or just a bunch of small consistent ones of different colors. This concept can be confusing. Each strategy chosen will depend on the available ink colors, droplet sizes and desired print speed, number of nozzles and possibly other factors. What droplet size are used and which colors are controlled by the printer or RIP.

If for example you look at the size of a print file in Qimage for the same image to be printed the same size, the Epson file will be larger than the Canon. If you accept the argument that we cannot with our eyes resolve more than 300dpi or even 600 dpi, then the droplet size argument is moot and it is there for other reasons.
Consumers normally think this droplet size is the grain they would see in the print. It is much much smaller than that. So why have it that small? speed perhaps? More color combinations/ larger gamut? I simply don't know. I think Canon started the race and it was perhaps a spec that led to misunderstanding. Intentional to the uninformed...like megapixels. maybe.

Beyond this I cannot explain exactly what each strategy entails as it is quite complicated.

Droplet size is even more misleading than megapixels in cameras. Perhaps it is more akin to the different sensors like a comparison between a foveon and bayer type sensor.

 

[l_d_allan]

No it does not:

Not meaning to be a wise-acre, but it(?) doesn't do what? The [ip4500 | 3800 | 9000 | 9500 ] doesn't do something? I'm unclear on your use of pronouns.

Sorry about the 3800 / 3880 confusion on my part. Also, all my comments are regarding the Mark II versions of the 9000 and 9500, not the Mark 1's.

And yes, it would appear that I hijacked my own thread. by drifting away from the iP4500. Uncle.

The Canon webpage for the 9500 Mark II (aka 9500-2 and 9500m2) indicates it has "as small as 2 pl ink droplets".

>Terrific ResolutionThis level of quality is achieved by 4800 x 2400 maximum color dpi3 thanks to Canon Full-photolithography Inkjet Nozzle Engineering (FINE) with a patented printhead firing ink droplets as small as 2pl. This delivers professional quality and detail for all of your photos.

BTW, that is consistent with an earlier observation of yours that the print-heads for the 9000m2 and 9500m2 might be interchangeable, as well as the 9000m1 and 9500m1. But then how do we account for 30pl nozzle sizes for PGI-5bk ink? Is the ink in PGI-9Bk carts significantly less viscous than the ink in PGI-5Bk carts?

 

[l_d_allan]

Mikling,
Thanks, that clarified some fuzziness on this dim bulb's part.

 

[ghwellsjr]

BTW, do you cringe or smile when I include the phrase,
> ghwellsjr, a.k.a. St. George the clog slayer

Both, actually I'm really a print head slayer and sometimes a printer slayer. And I've got lots of print heads wifh stubborn clogs that I've never been able to clear up. I learn what not to do by doing. And then I try to warn others not to do what I did. I've made lots of mistakes. I've got a couple print heads that every time I do a cleaning and a nozzle check, a different pattern of nozzles don't print. I'm really not an expert at unclogging print heads. Sure, most times a used printer that hasn't been plugged in for months that I have just purchased will unclog just by doing the basic cleanings and nozzle checks, that's when I feel real lucky. But other times I have not been so lucky. The one time I used solvents stronger than Windex, I burned out the print head. Another time, I burned out a print head and probably the printer just by slamming the print head down on my carpet (wrapped in a paper towel) in an effort to dislodge some clogs (should I be admitting this???). And then there was the time I burned out my print head and printer by pumping Windex into the inlet port from a syringe and tubing and not rinsing and waiting at least a day for it to dry. And then one time I was working on a friend's printer and left his print head out of the printer for a couple hours and I've never been able to unclog it. I think I better stop now.

I'll discontinue if you prefer, but it's my way of expressing appreciation, and acknowledging your expertise and willingness to share it. Truth be told, many of my replies are summaries of what I've seen written by you, although I realize I don't always comprehend what you write all that well.

I do appreciate any and all expressions of appreciation but once is enough for any particular expression, thanks.

I appreciate when you "correct the error of my ways", as that is the way I learn the most, the fastest. It also seems to me that your correction of my misconceptions provides a "teachable moment" for others reading that thread, so I don't really mind being perceived as an uninformed semi-newbie.

I do think it is better for you to only post advice that you feel is correct. I don't think it is good to post things you're not sure about assuming that someone will come along and correct you. If you're not sure, do a search (which I know you are doing) and then ask if you can't find the answer. Also, I don't think it is particularly good for people to direct their questions just to me, as I'm always glad when someone else answers, the more the better, because that not only shows that other people are knowledgeable, it also shows the team spirit of lots of people wanting to help others in appreciation of the help they have received.

 

[ghwellsjr]

From the iP4500 service manual:

Pigment-based BK: 512 nozzles (30 pl), 600 dpi

Dye-based BK / Y: 512 nozzles for each color (5 pl), 1,200 dpi

Dye-based C / M: 512 x 2 nozzles for each color (5 pl), 2,400 dpi
512 x 2 nozzles for each color (2 pl), 2,400 dpi
512 x 2 nozzles for each color (1 pl), 2,400 dpi

These specs are a little misleading or just wrong. They seem to imply that the number of nozzles for the cyan and magenta are double what they are for the black and yellow. And they are giving incorrect dpi values for the cyan and magenta.

It's really quite easy to determine the dpi if you know the number of nozzles and you can measure the distance over which those nozzles are spread.

For the case of the pigment black, the spread is 13/16" and there are 512 nozzles which calculates to 630 dpi so the spec of 600 dpi is reasonable.

For the dye-based black and yellow, the spread is one half of the pigment black for the same number of nozzles so the spec of 1,200 dpi is reasonable. But each of the three pl sizes for the cyan and magenta are the same spread and the same number of nozzles so the spec of 2,400 dpi is not reasonable--it should be 1200. I have no idea why they doubled these numbers.

 

[ghwellsjr]

Makes me wonder about the Pro-9500-2's picoliter size. Webpage says "as small as 2.0 pl" which is a bit ambiguous. Actually, that "as small as" phrase reinforces my suspicion that pl specs have become as important to marketing as mpx to cameras.

The pl size is more than marketing hype, the smaller nozzles means that the printer can produce more colors. The native resolution of Canon printers is 600 dpi, so having nozzles spaced closer together allows the printer to produce lighter shades of magenta and cyan and mix them in with other colors.

 

[l_d_allan]

I think I better stop now.

If I could see the floor through my tears, I'd be rotfl.

 

[ghwellsjr]

iP4xxx,
Thanks! That's almost exactly what I was asking. I'm still somewhat wondering why have both 2.0 pl and 1.0 pl if both can achieve 1200 dpi. Marketing?

To me, I would think there is more potential for clogs with 1 pl nozzles than 2 pl nozzles. Pehaps significantly more potential?

FNO (for nerds only):
Some math help pls?

If I understand how bubble based inkjets work:
Ink droplets are quickly boiled so they essentially explode out of the nozzle onto the paper.
Then I would think we aren't really talking about spherical drops, but films like a liquid balloon when they exit the nozzle.

To me, the tendency to clog would be inversely proportional to the square of the diameter of the nozzle, or an inverse square factor, all other things being equal (which they aren't due to surface tension issues, fluid dynamics, capilliary action, etc).

With a solid drop, a nozzle for a 1 pl drop would be an inverse cube factor smaller than 2 pl nozzle. So for purposes of discussion, if the nozzle for a 2 pl droplet was 100 units in diameter, a 1 pl droplet might need a nozzle diameter of 80 to 90 units or so. I'm really, really rusty in math.
1.x * 1.x * 1.x = 2.0. Solve for x?

However, since it isn't necessarily a solid drop that is being boiled onto the paper, but I believe a hollow film resembling a half-dome, then perhaps it becomes some kind of semi-complicated inverse square function. My speculation is that the nozzle diameter might to 70 to 80 units.
1.x * 1.x * (some constant pi factor) = 2.0. Solve for x and pi factor?

Part of my reason for asking in the OP was that I noticed my Pro 9000-2 has 2.0 pl ink droplets. And then I was surprised that the less expensive iP4500 was rated to have 1.0 pl ink droplets, even smaller. So I got to asking myself ... are 1.0 pl ink droplets necessarily better than 2.0 pl ink droplets?

Then I got to suspecting that ink droplet size was like megapixels in DSLR's and point-n-shoots ... eventually you realize that a 20+ mpx camera isn't necessarily better than a 12 mpx camera. It all depends?

Actually, what comes out of the nozzle is a series of two or three droplets, each one smaller than the previous with a total volume of whatever the pl size is so you can't directly relate it to the diameter of the nozzle but it is true that the 1 pl nozzles would have a greater tendency to clog.

The reason why your 9000-2 only goes down to 2 pl is because it has those lighter shades of magenta and cyan which allows the printer to do the lightest shades with a single

 

[pharmacist]

Allan,

I'm an uncle, but not according to your vocabulary. One thing: I would appreciate if you could stop making philosophical assumptions, which can be true or maybe not. Even for me as a scientist the posts doesn't make any (practical) sense to me. The Canon Pro 9000 whether it is the I or II version will still make better prints compared to the IP4500. There is physically no difference between the I and II versions of both the Pro 9000 and Pro 9500. The only change is the inner RIP and the supplied software, so the physical droplet size should be the same.

Can someone help me with a good recipe to make vanilla ice cream with organic cream ? In fact what can be considered to be organic or not...