Epson 2100 or Canon i9950

[Neo]

I heard from friend of my friend who is doing printing with Canon i series printer for business... as bubblejet means heat/boiling of inks to spray/print anyway he is printing so fast and very frequent that the printhead was burnt-out.

The last Canon printer that I owned was BJC 4310..... I would like to own another Canon printer to try-out.... any used i9100 for sale?

I can't speak for HP (because I don't use 'em), but that's one of the biggest urban myths competitors are spreading for Canon printers. The fact is that the thermal element heats up the air space which forces the expansion of the air that ejects the microscopic ink droplet. So those who talks about "boiling of the ink"... :bsmilie:

Don't get fooled by such seemingly logical reasoning... ask around to see which brands have the most problem with the printhead... In fact, I'm sure some people will say cars are greatly unreliable because there are thousands of explosions in a combustion engine every minute! Can you imagine a lifespan of a metal block which has mist of air/petrol igniting to drive tightly-fitted pistons connected to a shaft which rotates at thousands of revolutions per minute? Heheheh! :sweat:

Reality is... both the bubblejet printhead and combustion engine are highly-engineered modern marvel of science. Sounds like a crude idea when explained, but works amazingly well and reliably... :think:

 

[Watcher]

I can't speak for HP (because I don't use 'em), but that's one of the biggest urban myths competitors are spreading for Canon printers. The fact is that the thermal element heats up the air space which forces the expansion of the air that ejects the microscopic ink droplet. So those who talks about "boiling of the ink"... :bsmilie:

Well, a little search on the net gave this link which was linked to the various patents to Canon with regards to their Bubble Jet.

From the original link, it said "the most popular technique is the bubble jet. In a bubble jet printer, tiny resistors create heat, and this heat vaporizes ink to create a bubble. The expansion that creates the bubble causes a droplet to form and eject from the print head."

Drill down on the first link and there is even a moving illustration.

If you follow the links to the Canon patents, this one issued in 1981 explicitly said "causing said controlled thermal energy to act on the liquid in said liquid chamber to bring about instantaneous change in the state of the liquid to develop foams; and
discharging and spattering the liquid droplets from said discharge orifice for recording. "

Thus it literally means the the thermal energy act on the liquid to heat the liquid to foams and discharge the ink. There is no "heats up the air space which forces the expansion of the air that ejects the microscopic ink droplet." as you said in this patent.

More explicitly, in this link, it said "Liquid is supplied to the inlet for flow through the liquid flow path to a heating element, which heats liquid in the liquid flow path in response to recording signals. Heating is sufficient to cause a change of state of the liquid (that is, to generate a bubble) and produce a force acting on the liquid which overcomes the surface tension of liquid at the orifice and thereby projects a droplet of liquid from the orifice."
<bold by me>

Obviously, direct heating of the ink to get it to instantenously boil into a foam/generate a bubble. Mind you, these two mentioned patents are issue to "Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, Tokyo, Japan". Urban myth?

 

[Neo]

I can't speak for HP (because I don't use 'em), but that's one of the biggest urban myths competitors are spreading for Canon printers. The fact is that the thermal element heats up the air space which forces the expansion of the air that ejects the microscopic ink droplet. So those who talks about "boiling of the ink"... :bsmilie:

Read my post carefully, Watcher. I said the boiling of the ink is a myth... according to the Canon website, it said "In conventional inkjet processes, including Bubble Jet and piezoelectric processes, ink droplets are formed by applying pressure to ink inside the nozzle and, after repeated forward-and-return motion, separating a tiny volume of ink from the ink pressed out from the tip of the nozzle." Inkjet technology more accurately uses the heated air to induce pressure to force out the ink, rather than "boiling" the ink so crudely put. There's animation at the following link too:

http://www.canon.com/technology/detail/ij/bj_mfdt/index.html

It's a interesting website... amazing how much precision it takes to create a modern print head with more than 5000 nozzles!

 

[Watcher]

Read my post carefully, Watcher. I said the boiling of the ink is a myth... according to the Canon website, it said "In conventional inkjet processes, including Bubble Jet and piezoelectric processes, ink droplets are formed by applying pressure to ink inside the nozzle and, after repeated forward-and-return motion, separating a tiny volume of ink from the ink pressed out from the tip of the nozzle." Inkjet technology more accurately uses the heated air to induce pressure to force out the ink, rather than "boiling" the ink so crudely put. There's animation at the following link too:

http://www.canon.com/technology/detail/ij/bj_mfdt/index.html

It's a interesting website... amazing how much precision it takes to create a modern print head with more than 5000 nozzles!

Firstly, if you look at the diagram, the new nozzle has "ink-ejection opening is positioned directly beneath the heater" and that the ink (orange color) is over the heater. If that is the case, where is the air to heat? :dunno:

The smaller print below the diagram also said that Canon "repositions the heater so that all the ink forward of the heater is uniformly discharged". Where is the air between the heater and the ink then?

Also, what about all those patents that Canon has applied and granted since 1980's? Please comment on these patents that mentioned the boiling and heating of the ink part.

Note that these illustration and information on Canon's site are just like those on Intel, etc, for information and marketing and is not meant to be technically accurate. The patents on the other hand, has to be precise and exact, else it would not be granted. I had worked to apply patents for my current company; I know the process and the cost... :sweat:

 

[tim]

I have been well informed and read more than enough to know it's heating of ink to create a "air bubble" in the ink, and pressure results in ink droplets ejecting from the nozzles.

Happy reading!

Bubble Jet Technology

Bubble Jet is the name of Canon's best-known proprietary technology. A micro-heater is built into each ink nozzle of a print head. Ink is heated by running an instantaneous electric current through the micro-heater, so that ink droplets jet out of the nozzle under the pressure of the heat.

http://www.canon.co.uk/about_us/about_canon/canon_technology/bubble_jet_technology.asp

http://www.canon.ca/digitalphotography/english/ctech_article.asp?id=5&tid=3

http://www.imaging.org/resources/leinkjet/part1.cfm

http://mimech.com/printers/inkjet-printer-technology.asp

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question163.htm

http://www.memagazine.org/backissues/july01/features/microres/microres.html

 

[tim]

Isn't heater mean boiler = boiling...... mmm :think:

 

[tim]

Firstly, if you look at the diagram, the new nozzle has "ink-ejection opening is positioned directly beneath the heater" and that the ink (orange color) is over the heater. If that is the case, where is the air to heat? :dunno:

The smaller print below the diagram also said that Canon "repositions the heater so that all the ink forward of the heater is uniformly discharged". Where is the air between the heater and the ink then?

Also, what about all those patents that Canon has applied and granted since 1980's? Please comment on these patents that mentioned the boiling and heating of the ink part.

Easy to explain where the air bubble come from: When I heat the water in my (whistle) kettle till it is boiling and that created so much air that it cause the kettle to whistle......... and this is same method in bubblejet technology that cause the boiled ink to create air and apply pressure to the ink inside/near the nozzle-end and, after repeated forward-and-return motion to induce more pressure (thru air bubble) to force out the ink just like why my kettle can whistle

That's where the name "Bubble"jet come from, check those papers from HP(Thermal = also mean heat) and Canon.

 

[Watcher]

Easy to explain where the air bubble come from: When I heat the water in my (whistle) kettle till it is boiling and that created so much air that it cause the kettle to whistle......... and this is same method in bubblejet technology that cause the boiled ink to create air and apply pressure to the ink inside/near the nozzle-end and, after repeated forward-and-return motion to induce more pressure (thru air bubble) to force out the ink just like why my kettle can whistle

That's where the name "Bubble"jet come from, check those papers from HP(Thermal = also mean heat) and Canon.

So, I presume that the description "Heating is sufficient to cause a change of state of the liquid (that is, to generate a bubble) and produce a force acting on the liquid which overcomes the surface tension of liquid at the orifice and thereby projects a droplet of liquid from the orifice" from the patent is describing what you said.

In a kettle, when boiling water, the water in contact with the heating element, becomes a gaseous/vapourous state when it becomes hot enough. This vapourised water (aka steam) would then bubble out and be force out of the kettle.

The heating element, just like in a kettle, changes the ink in contact to a vapour (the "change of state of the liquid"). So isn't this considered as a direct heating of the ink to boil (defined as from a liquid to vapourous state)?

But contrast this with what Neo said: "the thermal element heats up the air space which forces the expansion of the air that ejects the microscopic ink droplet". I was wondering where is the air space? :dunno:

 

[Neo]

Easy to explain where the air bubble come from: When I heat the water in my (whistle) kettle till it is boiling and that created so much air that it cause the kettle to whistle......... and this is same method in bubblejet technology that cause the boiled ink to create air and apply pressure to the ink inside/near the nozzle-end and, after repeated forward-and-return motion to induce more pressure (thru air bubble) to force out the ink just like why my kettle can whistle

That's where the name "Bubble"jet come from, check those papers from HP(Thermal = also mean heat) and Canon.

Hi Tim,

Did some research... turns out that you're quite right. I also discovered that the Canon inks are formulated to maintain their stability and chemical composition at temperatures of more than 300 degrees celcius! In addition, Canon holds more than 10,000 patents for Bubble Jet technology alone... hmmm... wonder if 3rd-party inks are stable at that temperature...

http://www.bubblejet.canon.com.my/technolog/bjink_bj.htm
http://www.bubblejet.canon.com.my/technolog/techno.htm

 

[Neo]

Hi Tim,

Since you're looking for a i9100, forget about that model. Go straight for i9950 instead... I'm using one now for my design work... printing colour proofs day and night (ok... exagerrating... just days no nights!) and no problems with the printhead at all!

Someone is selling one now...

http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=122560

Hope this helps!

P.S: Clients (and even my offset printing company) ALWAYS ask me what the hell did I use to generate the colour proofs... :bsmilie:

 

[Watcher]

Hi Tim,

Did some research... turns out that you're quite right. I also discovered that the Canon inks are formulated to maintain their stability and chemical composition at temperatures of more than 300 degrees celcius! In addition, Canon holds more than 10,000 patents for Bubble Jet technology alone... hmmm... wonder if 3rd-party inks are stable at that temperature...

http://www.bubblejet.canon.com.my/technolog/bjink_bj.htm
http://www.bubblejet.canon.com.my/technolog/techno.htm

Well, HP does not seem to have an issue. Epson uses actual force via piezoelectric generated pressure; there is no temperature or heating involved. The heating method is the reason why besides black, Canon and HP does not use pigment inks and have no prosumer range of pigment printers.

 

[Neo]

Watcher,

How certain can you be that the reason behind Canon not making pigment inks for prosumer printers? Seems to me that it's pure conjecture on your part, since Canon has shown that it's entirely possible to use pigment ink with Bubble Jet technology with their large format photo printers (i.e BJW8200). Personally, I think Canon has chosen dye inks as the platform for gamut superiority and compatibility with glossy photo papers, and working towards print longivity with dye inks.

The choice behind not releasing pigment ink consumer printers seems to be that of having courses for horses (i.e pigment for weather resistant large format prints, dye for wide-gamut desktop colour prints on glossy and matte). That is, unless you know something about Canon's patent on pigment Bubblejet print head that we don't...

 

[tim]

Hi Tim,

Since you're looking for a i9100, forget about that model. Go straight for i9950 instead... I'm using one now for my design work... printing colour proofs day and night (ok... exagerrating... just days no nights!) and no problems with the printhead at all!

Someone is selling one now...

http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=122560

Hope this helps!

P.S: Clients (and even my offset printing company) ALWAYS ask me what the hell did I use to generate the colour proofs... :bsmilie:

Hi Neo, thanks for the lead however he is asking for $640... may as well buying a new one for around $700

 

[Neo]

Hi Tim,

See if you can use the Singaporean skill of bargaining.... or else... get a new one! :bsmilie:

 

[Watcher]

Watcher,

How certain can you be that the reason behind Canon not making pigment inks for prosumer printers? Seems to me that it's pure conjecture on your part, since Canon has shown that it's entirely possible to use pigment ink with Bubble Jet technology with their large format photo printers (i.e BJW8200). Personally, I think Canon has chosen dye inks as the platform for gamut superiority and compatibility with glossy photo papers, and working towards print longivity with dye inks.

If pigment printers produces gamut inferiority (as you said that dye provides gamut speriority), why does Canon use it for its professional large format printer that you mentioned? Have you thought about this contradiction? Has any review done independently complain about the gamut or even mentioned it being lesser? As for the W8200 and W6200 printers, ave you seen the stated (by Canon) size of the drops? The W6200 is 8pl :bigeyes: . No wonder they can do it on a bubble jet; with drop size so large, the pigment drops will not be easily affected by the heat, unlike 1-3pl drops that current desktop printers use.

As for glossy paper, well, Epson seems to have it licked

Longevity? All things equal, in the same generation, dye will almost be lesser in longevity compared to pigment. Case in point: the yet to be released BCI-7 inks (dye) has the longevity (untested and unreviewed by an independant reviewer eg Wilhelm Imaging Research) that is superior to the current BCI-6 but is nowhere near that of Epson's tested longevity. BCI-7/Chroma100 is claimed to have a longevity of 100 years in album, 30 years light resistance, 10 years antigas together with Canon's Professional Photo paper based on Wilhelm's standard. Ultrachrome has been accelerated tested to last >200 years in album, 104 years under normal glass and 34 years exposed using PGPP (glossy).

The choice behind not releasing pigment ink consumer printers seems to be that of having courses for horses (i.e pigment for weather resistant large format prints, dye for wide-gamut desktop colour prints on glossy and matte). That is, unless you know something about Canon's patent on pigment Bubblejet print head that we don't...

From Canon's own site: "With respect to color gamut, there’s little difference between the W8200 pigment ink and W8200 dye ink models. Both are brilliant." By Canon themselves, stating that the gamut is not significantly different

So it seems that Canon themselves disagrees with you on the fact that pigment inks have smaller gamut.

 

[icebooke]

I hope this does not digress into a dye vs pigments discussion.

Anyhow, do consider the Epson R1800, and the HP 8750.

They will be released shortly and it doesn't hurt to wait awhile while you continue using your current printer/labs.

 

[Neo]

Hi Watcher,

For someone who searches the net extensively to just to rebutt my posts, I'm surprised that you did not find any information pertaining to colour gamut of dye vs pigment ink. You can find many just by typing "dye vs. pigment ink" using Google, but here's an interesting one...

http://www.marrutt.com/digital-ink-myths-2.php

Here's a short clip from the article: "Another favorite trick of inkjet marketers is to show color gamut comparison diagrams in promotional literature. These illustrations are two-dimensional diagrams showing how big a color space an ink has compared to a competitor. However, these 2-D charts only show the range of achievable colors that can be had from an ink set, and don’t show the brilliance level of the colors, which can only be represented in 3-D.
Before writing this article, I conducted a very simple test. I took the leading OEM pigment ink set and a long-life dye-based ink set, and made 2- D color comparison charts using topend color measurement equipment (Figure 5). The dye ink had a slightly larger color space, but the color gamut of both inks was very similar. Then, I made prints on the same media using the same color print file. The results were vastly different. The dye-based print was more intense and brilliant. The point is that 2-D gamut comparison charts do not tell the whole story. The best way to make a true comparison is with the actual printed images. "

Anyway, my posts stated clearly that "The choice behind not releasing pigment ink consumer printers seems to be that of having courses for horses (i.e pigment for weather resistant large format prints, dye for wide-gamut desktop colour prints on glossy and matte)." So clearly the reason for choosing pigment ink for the large-format BJW8200 printer may signify that they wanted weather-resistant prints OVER having superior gamut.

That seems to be a simple concept for many people to grasp. Producing a car with superior torque may result in inefficiency in fuel consumption, such as the Nissan Fairlady with its V6 engine. This is the choice of the company and consumer to place one factor over another. Does it mean that everyone wants a powerful vehicle over a fuel-sipping car? No. Does Nissan make fuel-sipping Sunny and Latio cars? Yes. What does it all mean? Nothing. That's precisely what I'm saying. There is NO contradicition... it's the use of technology where there's strongest benefit.

And while earlier on you've so confidently claimed that inkjet technology does not permit pigment ink to be used, now you've shifted the goal posts by saying that the 8 picolitre droplet allows pigment to be used. Since we're on the point of picolitre, I'm sure you understand that perception of sharpness is also a function of viewing distance. So are you so sure that 8 picolitres is the threshold for using pigment ink, or is it simply because it may not be cost-efficient to go lower because viewers are expected to view it at a longer distance for large format prints? Or could your argument of "8-picolitre so it's possible for inkjet" simply be another of your conjectures?

As for pigment vs dye in terms of lightfastness and glossiness, I simply stated the approach Canon is taking: "I think Canon has chosen dye inks as the platform for gamut superiority and compatibility with glossy photo papers, and working towards print longivity with dye inks." Before I knew it, you're going lambasting Canon dye inks and going on and on about how much longer Epson inks can last. But that is not the point here! I'm simply stating the various ways the industry is approaching printing!

Since Epson is taking the pigment approach by trying to make the paper look glossy with its Gloss Optimizer, can I say Epson is making consumers spend even more with the extra cartridge? Yes I can... but did I? No... cuz my point is to share printing knowledge with the CS community, not slamming Epson wherever I can.

I'm not trying to get into arguments with you, and I'm just tired of you trying to lick my chops everytime I say something positive about Canon printers and dye inks. If you intend to get into meaningful discussions about inkjet photo printing, I'd be glad to join in the debate. If you intend to go on slamming everything non-Epson, then I'm so sorry that I'll not waste my time trying to dignify your attempts by counter-slamming Epson. I'm not a brand evangelists that's being paid for every post, so I'll focus on sharing my print experience with the rest. All that said, I'll remain cordial and I do hope for a day where we can share our print experience and knowledge without having you enter into a brand-war discussion.

 

[Watcher]

Neo,
We have this round and round discussion; I had searched this forum. Let me summarize the various points on issues on this page:

1) I guess you do agree that Canon does boil/vapourize their inks in order to eject the inks. This is not an urban myth, unlike your post #43 where you said "I said the boiling of the ink is a myth".

2) Gamut of pigment. Now, I look not only by looking at the 3D charts of it (I use the very nice features on http://www.iccview.de/ btw), I also hear independant reviews like those on Photo-i UK of printers like R1800 and other comments on DPReview. Non of the reviews nor comments has mentioned that the pigment printers is restrictive on their gamut in use. In fact, in the Photo-i review, he said in the end of the review that "The print has sharpness, great colour saturation and all the qualities that I would expect from a wet chemistry photograph". On page four, it even showed the 3-D shape of the gamut claim by Epson to be 97% of AdobeRGB. Unless Epson wants to be sued for false advertisment, I would think that the reality is close to that. Is that a small gamut? That is actually larger than many dye printers out there!

The dogma that you repeat that "I think Canon chosen dye inks as the platform for gamut superiority" 5 post ago, is opposite of what Canon has printed on its own website "With respect to color gamut, there’s little difference between the W8200 pigment ink and W8200 dye ink models. Both are brilliant." Please explain this statement that is opposite of what you had stated.

3. Use of pigment inks. I had said in post #51 "Canon and HP does not use pigment inks and have no prosumer range of pigment printers" Note prosumer. It refers to those up to A3 prints or A2 prints that can be placed on tables like i9100, i9900 or 2100, R800, R1800. The prosumer range is usually less than $3k in price. The pro range OTOH, like the W6200 and W8200, or 7600, 9600, 10600 cost a lot more. I know that Canon's pro range can and do use pigment inks. That is why I had mentioned "prosumer" which is what most can afford here. Read carefully. As for the 8pl size drops, it is not to say that the drops are meant for distance viewing, but to explain why these pro printers can take pigment inks. Larger drops means the tubings or orifice can be more coarse, and thus, the pigment particles can be bigger and hence less issue with it being changed by being boiled.

On prosumer printers (like i9100/i9900), these printers are tasked to print from 4R up to A2 size prints. The smaller prints would need finer ink drops (as seen in the decreasing size amongst the iP series) would make it very difficult to stablize the pigment ink and yet get this suspension through fine enough plumbing to get to the 1-4pl drops needed to make these fine drops. Read up the Printer forum on DPReview yourself.

4. Longevity. The fact is that Canon's dye inks, even the BCI-7, in terms of longevity is not comparable at all. Check out the longevity of HP dye inks here. The 8750, a prosumer (not a professional) A3 printer is using dye inks in conjunction with swellable papers.

5. Summary. I do not comment on opinions; everyone has one. But the statements that you give as facts are not correct in the first place. I am not "trying to lick my chops everytime I say something positive about Canon printers and dye inks". If you had mentioned that Canon is fast and that the inks are cheaper, these are (positive) facts and I would not have commented. But you have instead have mentioned your views and opinion as facts which are incorrect (the boiling and smaller gamut, etc)...

 

[Neo]

Watcher,

1) I already agreed with Tim that he's right, and that Canon inks are forumulated to reach 300 degrees without affecting stability.

2) I'm stating the fact that you're ignoring everyone else that says pigment inks are lesser in gamut. Anyone doing a search in Google with "pigment and dye inks" can find that out... Even prior to the R1800, you were knocking dye inks and insisting that pigment inks matched dye inks in gamut value. Anyone who's done the same print on both the 2100 and i9950 can attest that this is not the case. Have you? Cuz I have...

My point is that you're presenting very one-sided arguments while ignoring all the other evidence out there that contradicts what you feel.

3) I know that you said prosumer. But prosumer or not is a marketing decision, not a technical one. The fact is that you stated the inkjet process is not suitable for pigment. I'm merely pointing out that Canon has already proved it is possible. From that point on, you shifted the goal-post with some theory of picolitre sizes affecting suitability for inkjet. That was when I challenged your statement of being your own conjecture rather than a fact. I see that you've not been able to prove it yet.

4) You mentioned about Epson claiming 97% of AdobeRGB colour gamut, and that this cannot be wrong because Epson wouldn't want to be sued for false advertising. Now Canon is claiming 100 years light-fastness for its new inks, so I guess that should be taken as the gospel truth too, using your thread of reasoning. Go figure...

I don't know about you, but 100 years is pretty archival for a lot of us. Or at least Epson claimed 100 years is archival when it launched pigment ink models. The fact that Epson is claiming more than 100 years for its new inks doesn't make 100 years less archival, does it?

5) Hardly. When Tim and yourself challenged about the technical aspects of inkjet printing, I concurred once I did the research and found that my statements were inaccurate, and I immediately posted in this thread. Instead, you have thrown in qualifers and moved the goalposts around to suit your own arguments, such as picolitre sizes and definitions of what constitutes archival. So who's the one passing off opinions as facts?

I do not intend to continue this discussion unless circumstances force me to. I've already made my points for all to see, so I think I'll retreat to my digital darkroom for some theruputic printing...

 

[2hwang]

..happy with epson 2100 and no experience with i9950...
long story made short..