Best Inkjet Printer for Direct CD and DVD Labeling?
cmashiel...@hotmail.com
direct labeling by printing on the disk's surface? Thanks for any help
or advice.
Cori
Mark˛
My opinion:
Rimage 480i
http://www.rimage.com/products_detail_objectname_pr_rimage_480i.html
For cheap...Epson 300, or similar comes with a CD tray and works fairly
well.
The color vibrance of the Rimage leaves it in the dust, though.
I have the 480i printer, but its built in to the Rimage 2000i, which is an
automated CD/DVD duplication/labeling system.
http://www.rimage.com/products_detail_objectname_pr_rimage_2000i.html
-Mark²
--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson
John H.
John H.
zakezuke
> direct labeling by printing on the disk's surface? Thanks for any help
> or advice.
If you are talking consumer inkjets, you have a choice between Epson or
Canon. If your in the states you'd have to e-bay a tray and press
buttons.
Technicaly I prefered the Epson in terms of color rendering and ability
to look pretty good on most media including verbatium silver discs. I
switched to canon as I found it to be more reliable. I have yet to
really try out my ip5200 but I would suspect the same is true.
Costo's TDKs seem to be the best media for canon though not full faced.
I believe RiData are the makers of the silvers which worked best in
the Canon but i'm not sure on that note.
cmashiel...@hotmail.com
> > What is considered the best inkjet printer for disks designed for
> > direct labeling by printing on the disk's surface? Thanks for any help
> > or advice.
>
> If you are talking consumer inkjets, you have a choice between Epson or
> Canon. If your in the states you'd have to e-bay a tray and press
> buttons.
It's for my own in-home use, to make copies for myself, family, and
friends, not professional copies on a large scale. Thanks.
Cori
cmashiel...@hotmail.com
> > What is considered the best inkjet printer for disks designed for
> > direct labeling by printing on the disk's surface? Thanks for any help
> > or advice.
>
> If you are talking consumer inkjets, you have a choice between Epson or
> Canon.
Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place, but I checked Canon's site and
didn't see any products mentioning the ability to print an image
directly to a disk surface:
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ProductCatIndexAct&fcategoryid=105
Cori
zakezuke
cmashiel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > If you are talking consumer inkjets, you have a choice between Epson or
> > Canon.
>
> Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place, but I checked Canon's site and
> didn't see any products mentioning the ability to print an image
> directly to a disk surface:
>
> http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ProductCatIndexAct&fcategoryid=105
The feature is not enabled on North American models, nor does it
function out of the box, but if you e-bay a tray (just search for canon
cd tray) and enabled the feature (press buttons) it will do it. Oh,
and pull a piece of plastic off the front.
http://pixma.allhyper.com/
http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Printers/Bubble_Jet/index.asp?ComponentID=25152&SourcePageID=25108#2
It'll cost you an extra $20 or $30 or so above and beyond the cost of
the printer. This makes even an ip4200 more spendy than a base model
r200.. but certainly a more reliable product and definatly the better
general purpose printer.
Oldus Fartus
Yes, as I mentioned in another post, I believe the Canon range of CD/DVD
printers are not available in the US.
Fortunately here in Australia we have various Canon models which can do
this .. see
http://canon.com.au/products/home_office/printers/colour_bj_printers/ip4200.html
for just one example.
--
Cheers
Oldus Fartus
Jan Alter
printed DVDs and it's worked very nicely. The R1800 is the wide version of
the R800 (which will also print CDs). The comparitive difference in price of
the R200 to the R800 is substantial.
--
Jan Alter
bea...@verizon.net
or
jal...@phila.k12.pa.us
"Oldus Fartus" <deni...@iiNOSPAMnet.net.au> wrote in message
news:44796d4e$0$7842$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
measekite
cmashiel...@hotmail.com wrote:
>zakezuke wrote:
>
>
>>>What is considered the best inkjet printer for disks designed for
>>>direct labeling by printing on the disk's surface? Thanks for any help
>>>or advice.
>>>
>>>
>>If you are talking consumer inkjets, you have a choice between Epson or
>>Canon. If your in the states you'd
>>
need to buy an epson so you do not have a mickey mouse printer.
Don Stauffer
R200 for that purpose. It is a great printer. We have now set it as our
default color printer. The printing on disks is amazing.
We started out providing DVDs to a group, with one dozen disks with the
paste-on labels. Ten of twelve have now been returned as unplayable.
We have had none of the inkjet printable ones returned. It IS a bit
harder finding blank DVDs with the printable coating, so we buy in large
quantity.
Registration is great, printing is great. We love it.
zakezuke
Jan Alter wrote:
> For the past year I've been using an Epson R1800 to make at least a 100
> printed DVDs and it's worked very nicely. The R1800 is the wide version of
> the R800 (which will also print CDs). The comparitive difference in price of
> the R200 to the R800 is substantial.
If your in the states, the epson store offers referb r800s for $199
with free shipping, and it looks like the referb r200 is back in stock
for $59. The referb r200 is less than the ink.
http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/BuyEpson/ccHome.jsp?BV_UseBVCookie=yes
zakezuke
cmashiel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> zakezuke wrote:
>
> It's for my own in-home use, to make copies for myself, family, and
> friends, not professional copies on a large scale. Thanks.
>
> Cori
I'd lean tward Canon. They won't waste as much ink, the build quality
is good, and it's the better general purpose printer. The major
advantage to the canon line is they have more options for printers
which will print on CDs, though not out of the box in north america the
feature is easily enabled. Expect to spend about $100-$120 currently
though it's still onsale for about $80ish shipped from newegg.com or
amazon.com . The ip5200 is the next step up and floats at about
$150ish, amazon.com seems to have the best price. It's basicly an
ip4200 but with a larger head and more weight. The ip5200 also comes
in a wireless model (ip5200R). A pure photo printer is next up, the
ip6600D feauring card slots and a screen, 6 tanks but you lose the
large pigmented black. Not so good for text, and cost per print will
increase because any printer which offers light cyan/magenta uses the
ink like candy.
Also in the Canon line are their all in one units MP500 MP800
MP830(fax/sheet feeder) MP950. ranging in price from about $220 to
$450 or so. The mp950 is based on the ip7500, a model not sold outside
of japan. It features the 6 tanks of the ip6600 plus the pigmented
black of the ip4200/5200. The older mp780(fax/sheet feeder) is still
sold for $300ish and can stll use aftermarket ink with ease.
All of these require purchace of a tray off e-bay, yanking of a front
panel, and some well documented button presses.
http://pixma.allhyper.com/
----
Epson, in all fairness, only offers cd printing on their photo
printers, and one multi fuctional (rx700) the last time I checked. If
you consider an epson, consider an external waste ink tank. It needs
it.
http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/view_topic.php?id=51595&forum_id=40
The models which print on CDs are limited to the R2x0, R3x0, R800,
R1800, R2400.
In all firness the r2x0 tends to be sub $100, or $59 for the referb
edition ($10ish less than the ink costs and free shipping) and is a top
notch photo printer, The r3x0 offers card slots and a screen. The
r800 is their base pigment ink printer, the prints will last an age
over dye models, and is $199 for a referb at the epson store.
cmashiel...@hotmail.com
that they are not sold in the U. S. all ready to print CDs. That would
make me lean towards an Epson as it (the RX700) is (sold already
enabled to print CDs plus do a lot of other things I need as well as
some I don't), but if the Canon wastes less ink and the ink is more
economical I would lean towards a Canon.
Why would I have to buy a CD tray for a Canon off eBay? Doesn't
Amazon.com or any of these computer parts stores sell them?
Cori
cmashiel...@hotmail.com
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.asp?Order=PRICE&Page=1&Brand=1213&N=2000330038+50001213&Submit=ENE&Manufactory=1213&SubCategory=38
are all under $100.00. Would any of them work for this purpose with a
CD tray and what should I expect to pay for a tray?
(I suppose a CD tray for the Epson Stylus Photo RX500 I already have is
absolutely out of the question?)
Cori
zakezuke
>From my understanding, it's a licensing issue with Philips... as in
Canon would have to pay money for this feature to be used in America,
Canon for what ever reason doesn't want to pay it, so the feature is
not enabled. There were a varity of mainstream parts dealers who
carried this part but, according to 2nd hand info, were asked by canon
not to. In fact you could order this part from Canon for a short time
december 2005, but they stopped selling it.
You gotta go e-bay because to get this part, some joe has to buy it
overseas, or you buy from some joe overseas. It's like a $5.00 to
$7.00 part sold for $20 to $30. While Canon can ask Partsnow or Amazon
to not sell this item, they can't ask regular joe to not sell it.
You can go with the rx700 if you like. It supports this feature out of
the box and there is a new Epson tray which from my understanding
actually works longer without failing. There is a $100 rebate on it so
you could get one for the $300 range. There is an obvious benifit to
the rx700 over the r2x0/r3x0 series in the fact it uses smaller drops.
IIRC this printer supports scan to memory card, a handy feature. It
will waste ink, and unless there is a means to reroute the waste ink
tube you will have to get it serviced to replace the waste pads.
If price is no object, the mp950 does photos *well* and offers lower
cost text printing. The rx700 in all fairness is purely a photo
printer. The price mark is about the same.
I would reccomend you take your digital camera down to your friendly
neighborhood shop and print off a couple of test images using either
your favorite paper, or the OEM reccomended paper and judge for your
self. If all in ones are your back, do checkout the rx700, the mp800
or the wireless edition mp800R, and the mp950. They will usually agree
so long as you leave your prints there.
unrecoveredchocoholic
ilk) may be a good bet. I got one when it was on sale and used it to
print a few dozen DVDs and CDs with very good results. I also got
gorgeous photographs on Kodak Ultima paper. There are some downsides.
One is that the longevity of the printer is questionable--but when you
consider that on sale the printer costs about the same as a full set of
ink cartridges, and it comes with a full set that changes the outlook.
Another downside is that it will only print CDs/DVDs from its own
software which has some nice features but is a little clunky. It also
requires installing a memory hogging application on your computer, but
at least that is much less invasive and bloated than, say, the crapware
that HP printers require you to install. Finally, the ink is not
waterproof and runs easily. On the plus side, the printer is cheap, the
ink is only moderately overpriced, the printing is gorgeous for the
price, it comes ready to print CDs out of the box (and even with a
practice disk!) and it is very easy to use. As for waterproofness, I
experimented with fixing spray (the kind you buy in art supplies store
to fix pastels) and I got excellent results, by being extra careful to
spray evenly and lightly.
zakezuke
A cd tray for the rx500 is out of the question.
On this page, your options are limited to
ip4200, ip5200, ip6600D (tray type C, though B is known to work, but do
get C), mp500 , mp800/mp800R, mp950.(tray type D)
The sub $70 models don't support this feature, and are not ecconomical
at all, as is the case with their MP models mp450 and lower.
J. Clarke
>
> cmashiel...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> zakezuke wrote:
>>
>> It's for my own in-home use, to make copies for myself, family, and
>> friends, not professional copies on a large scale. Thanks.
>>
>> Cori
>
> I'd lean tward Canon. They won't waste as much ink, the build quality
> is good, and it's the better general purpose printer.
In what way is Canon "the better general purpose printer"?
Are you sure the 2400 prints CDs? I can't find anything about it on the
Epson site.
> In all firness the r2x0 tends to be sub $100, or $59 for the referb
> edition ($10ish less than the ink costs and free shipping) and is a top
> notch photo printer, The r3x0 offers card slots and a screen. The
> r800 is their base pigment ink printer, the prints will last an age
> over dye models, and is $199 for a referb at the epson store.
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
J. Clarke
> Thanks for clearing that up about the Canons. I wonder why that is
> that they are not sold in the U. S. all ready to print CDs.
There is a legal issue. I don't recall the details offhand but Epson has
relevant intellectual property rights in the US that would require that
Canon pay them a license fee that Canon chooses not to pay.
> That would
> make me lean towards an Epson as it (the RX700) is (sold already
> enabled to print CDs plus do a lot of other things I need as well as
> some I don't), but if the Canon wastes less ink and the ink is more
> economical I would lean towards a Canon.
>
> Why would I have to buy a CD tray for a Canon off eBay? Doesn't
> Amazon.com or any of these computer parts stores sell them?
They're gray market, either purchased outside the US or removed from dead
printers, they aren't something that Canon puts in a box to be sold in the
US, lest they incur the wrath Epson's lawyers.
MITI really should beat some heads together over that one.
> Cori
zakezuke
> Epson site.
I stand corrected... the r1800 is the cutoff point.
zakezuke
J. Clarke wrote:
> zakezuke wrote:
> In what way is Canon "the better general purpose printer"?
On the ip4200/5200 and their AIOs text quality is good, really good.
Plus the fact that they offer a pigmented black for text. Ecconomicly
speaking canon offers very good bang for the buck for the pigmented
black. The prior generation was 2.5c/page (500p/25ml). The newer
cartridges cost a bit more... 3.2c/page(500p26ml). Assuming a
14ml/450p yield from the dye black on the r200/300 we're talking
3.7c/page. On plain paper I found the r200 wasn't so good for
barcodes, and as you might expect envelopes it wasn't the best egg as
one drop of water would cause the ink to run. However, while barcodes
it didn't excell at, I found the r200 better with white text on a
colored background.
See some pictures here:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2004/10/25/in_living_color/page10.html
> Are you sure the 2400 prints CDs? I can't find anything about it on the
> Epson site.
On this, I stand corrected, the r1800 is the cut-off for that feature.
Ed Light
"Jan Alter" <bea...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:NRieg.1067$%C6.238@trnddc08...
> For the past year I've been using an Epson R1800 to make at least a 100
> printed DVDs and it's worked very nicely. The R1800 is the wide version of
> the R800 (which will also print CDs). The comparitive difference in price
> of the R200 to the R800 is substantial.
Does it use dye ink instead of the clogging DuraBrite, and if so, how
water-resistant is it?
--
Ed Light
Smiley :-/
MS Smiley :-\
Send spam to the FTC at
sp...@uce.gov
Thanks, robots.
Bring the Troops Home:
http://bringthemhomenow.org
Bob Headrick
"J. Clarke" <jclarke...@snet.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:e5d4q...@news4.newsguy.com...
> cmashiel...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> Thanks for clearing that up about the Canons. I wonder why that is
>> that they are not sold in the U. S. all ready to print CDs.
>
> There is a legal issue. I don't recall the details offhand but Epson
> has
> relevant intellectual property rights in the US that would require
> that
> Canon pay them a license fee that Canon chooses not to pay.
I believe it is actually Phillips that has the IP in the US. Epson
licenses it, Canon currently does not.
Regards,
Bob Headrick, MS MVP Printing/Imaging
cmashiel...@hotmail.com
> "Jan Alter" <bea...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:NRieg.1067$%C6.238@trnddc08...
> > For the past year I've been using an Epson R1800 to make at least a 100
> > printed DVDs and it's worked very nicely. The R1800 is the wide version of
> > the R800 (which will also print CDs). The comparitive difference in price
> > of the R200 to the R800 is substantial.
>
> Does it use dye ink instead of the clogging DuraBrite, and if so, how
> water-resistant is it?
>
>
> --
> Ed Light
Yes, I am interested not just in good colors but in reliable-staying
ink I don't have to do things to after printing. Which is best for
this? Thanks.
Cori
cmashiel...@hotmail.com
method than the Epson R220, which is most durable as far as such
qualities as waterproofness, and how they compare to Canon as far as
waterproofness and the like? Thanks.
Cori
Mark˛
Again...that would be the Epson Chrome (pigment) inks present in the huge
4800 I posted about earlier, or the R2400. They will outlast (by a long
way) any dye-based inks.
zakezuke
The rx700 does use a diffrent model number of ink, and it uses a drop
size of 1.5pl, vs the r200/r220 which uses 3pl IIRC. I've not seen it
in action but it's your basic water based dye.
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/R300_R320.html
The premium papers for both Canon and Epson are microporous papers
which are reasonably water resistant. I know I can print on Canons
pr-101 paper and run it under the tap and not notice any bleeding. But
this is the paper, not the ink. The inks are totally water soluble.
The Epson r800/1800 on the other hand use pigment inks. These are more
resistant to water and light.
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/R800.html
The r800 features no bells or wistles what so ever, it's a printer, no
pictbridge it's a printer.
cmashiel...@hotmail.com
Even though it is "just a printer" that would seem to be the way to go
for what I want to do. (No one has mentioned thermal bonding rather
than just printing with ink--presumably that's some highly
sophisticated professional process the cost of which is out of the
question?) Using water-based ink is definitely straying deep into the
territory of hidden costs.
Sure, with Lightscribe, the output looks comparatively crummy, takes 20
minutes per disk to produce, and the disks cost twice the amount of
inkjet-printable disks, but when you do it, it's done. With
water-based ink going onto a disk, when you don't know what brand of
disk may work best with what brand of printer and ink, then how long
are you taking experimenting with different brands, then taking the
chance that they'll smear, or how much time and money are you putting
into spraying fixative on each disk, making sure no dust gets stuck to
the fixative, not to mention no fixative running onto the other side of
the disk, and waiting for it to dry? Might a 5-minute disk not quickly
become a 20-minute disk that way? Not to mention, the water-based inks
used in the other printers cost more per cartridge than the inks used
in the Epson Stylus Photo 800, although that has 8 cartridges and the
others have 6.
I'm thinking of producing archival-quality images not only for myself,
family, and friends, but for placement in libraries and museums--where
it stands to reason they *will* get handled by somebody, sometime. It
looks as if this would also be a good option for printing high-quality
CD inserts which may also be handled (by people reading titles.)
Although the ink for an Epson Stylus Photo R800 costs less than for the
Stylus Photo RX500, of course I'd have to keep that for all the other
features. What are the opinions of people who have used the Epson
Stylus Photo R800, particularly for printing directly to disks? How
does the ink look and act, and how easy or hard is it to set up and
print a label, keeping in mind I'd be taking images mostly from photo
CDs or capturing them from a digital source such as a frame from a
movie, or possibly scans? Thanks.
Cori
John McWilliams
>
> Although the ink for an Epson Stylus Photo R800 costs less than for the
> Stylus Photo RX500, of course I'd have to keep that for all the other
> features. What are the opinions of people who have used the Epson
> Stylus Photo R800, particularly for printing directly to disks? How
> does the ink look and act, and how easy or hard is it to set up and
> print a label, keeping in mind I'd be taking images mostly from photo
> CDs or capturing them from a digital source such as a frame from a
> movie, or possibly scans? Thanks.
An Epson rep at MacWorld said he thought the R 300 did a nicer job on
disks than the 800, due to the ink being dye based (vs. pigment for the
800.)
F-U set
--
john mcwilliams
Jan Alter
R1800 for a year now with the Ultrachrome inks, (knocking soundly on the
plastic as I write).
--
Jan Alter
bea...@verizon.net
or
jal...@phila.k12.pa.us
"Ed Light" <nob...@nobody.there> wrote in message
news:Wbseg.9436$KB.4540@fed1read08...
zakezuke
cmashiel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > The Epson r800/1800 on the other hand use pigment inks. These are more
> > resistant to water and light.
> > http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/R800.html
> > The r800 features no bells or wistles what so ever, it's a printer, no
> > pictbridge it's a printer.
>
> Even though it is "just a printer" that would seem to be the way to go
> for what I want to do. (No one has mentioned thermal bonding rather
> than just printing with ink--presumably that's some highly
> sophisticated professional process the cost of which is out of the
> question?) Using water-based ink is definitely straying deep into the
> territory of hidden costs.
> Sure, with Lightscribe, the output looks comparatively crummy, takes 20
> minutes per disk to produce, and the disks cost twice the amount of
> inkjet-printable disks, but when you do it, it's done.
Or rather variable costs. The area of given CD is about 1/3 the area
of a sheet of paper. Yields on cartridges are typicaly given in terms
of 5%, A given 13ml tank for an r800 @ 5% yield is 400p. CDs,
assuming this number is accurate, assuming 5% yield and 1/3 the area
this would be 1200pieces. Assuming 25% yield this would be 240pieces,
assuming 50% yield this would be 120pieces, and assuming 100% yield
this would be 60pieces. Assuming 13.50/tank * 7 tanks (IIRC it only
uses one black at a given time) this is $94.5.
5%=7.8c/per 25%=39c/per 50%=$1.30/per 100%=$1.58/per
Do keep in mind that the cleaning cycles on the epson are quite
massive.
There is lightscribe, plus on the grey market there is "labelflash".
Mail ordering a drive overseas isn't an issue, but getting the media
would be. The last time I checked it was double that lightscribe.
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/02/14/labelflash_vs_lightscribe_dvd/
There isn't a consumer level thermal solution beyond monochrome
ribbons, with your choice of color. There are wax transfer CD printers
but I believe these start in the $4000 range. I'm sure no one brought
these up as the title of your post was "best inkjet".
> Sure, with Lightscribe, the output looks comparatively crummy, takes 20
> minutes per disk to produce, and the disks cost twice the amount of
> inkjet-printable disks, but when you do it, it's done. With
> water-based ink going onto a disk, when you don't know what brand of
> disk may work best with what brand of printer and ink, then how long
> are you taking experimenting with different brands, then taking the
> chance that they'll smear, or how much time and money are you putting
> into spraying fixative on each disk, making sure no dust gets stuck to
> the fixative, not to mention no fixative running onto the other side of
> the disk, and waiting for it to dry? Might a 5-minute disk not quickly
> become a 20-minute disk that way?
I personaly have not found a spray that will work well on DVDs. Water
based sprays i've tried orange peal too easily, and spar urethane
reduces data to ashes. Epsons offer a "gloss optimizer" on the r800
but it's limited to the printed area. I've somewhat considered looking
into adapting my old r200 to use the gloss optimizer in all 6 tanks and
applying it to discs, i.e. print on my canon, then print in clear on
the epson.
But... though lightscribe offers fixed costs, there is no way it can
compair to painting discs. Lightscribe is limited to one disc per
drive at 30min a pop in high quality mode. Painting discs is limited
to your desk space which can be optimized by putting your discs in
trays. The offical drytime of the r800 for paper is 24hrs.
> I'm thinking of producing archival-quality images not only for myself,
> family, and friends, but for placement in libraries and museums--where
> it stands to reason they *will* get handled by somebody, sometime. It
> looks as if this would also be a good option for printing high-quality
> CD inserts which may also be handled (by people reading titles.)
A sprayed dye based inkjet print would do pretty well too... but given
the choice I'd lean tward pigments. Technicaly speaking I believe the
durabright series of epson inks outlasts the ultrachrome of the r800 in
terms of lightfastness, i.e. their cheaper series of printers. But...
the ultrachrome should it self outlast the archive life of a quality
home burnt CD/DVD.
Canon will release their own pigment printer come September, the Pixma
pro 9500. Again the american version will have cd-printing disabled
and enabling it is not documented. It's a wide model sporting 10 ink
tanks.
> Although the ink for an Epson Stylus Photo R800 costs less than for the
> Stylus Photo RX500, of course I'd have to keep that for all the other
> features. What are the opinions of people who have used the Epson
> Stylus Photo R800, particularly for printing directly to disks? How
> does the ink look and act, and how easy or hard is it to set up and
> print a label, keeping in mind I'd be taking images mostly from photo
> CDs or capturing them from a digital source such as a frame from a
> movie, or possibly scans?
Label printing I can speak of to some degree from my r200 experence...
the r800 isn't going to be any different on the software level. The
application included is rather limited, but it's good enough to take
your image edited in another application and printing it.
Still, consider one of these solutions
http://www.acoustica.com/cd-label-maker/
http://www.magicmouse.com/h_discus_detail.html
http://ww2.nero.com/enu/Nero_6_Ultra_Edition_InfoPage.html
http://www.surething.com/ST/
I use acoustica my self. It supports edge printed tracks.
measekite
cmashiel...@hotmail.com wrote:
the brand of printer and ink should be the same for there is only one
brand of ink for each printer
cmashiel...@hotmail.com
--Presumably both have the same capacity as more versatile machines to
enlarge or reduce the size of a copied image? (If I wanted to copy
something directly, like say for a CD cover, rather than using a
digital image?)
--Do either of them have the capacity to print on odd-sized items
besides CDs and DVDs? The CD/DVD printing feature requires a tray. I
have several hundred VHS tapes here waiting to be labeled. My options
are handwriting, which I absolutely refuse to do--way too
sloppy--throwing away all the original labels and buying labels made in
sheets to go through a printer--too expensive and wasteful--or putting
the original labels into an IBM Selectric II (over 30 years old) and
typing them with a flaky carbon ribbon. If one of these printers had a
way to put the original VHS labels in, compose a label on the computer,
and then print directly on the original label, it would be a MAJOR
selling point for me! But I suppose I'm dreaming.
Cori
cmashiel...@hotmail.com
tried to post earlier which didn't show up:
The R 300s must be being phased out as a price isn't mentioned on the
Epson site, and there are none for sale on Macmall or Newegg and only
one on Amazon. Lots of R 220s and R 340s around.
1. How do R 220s and R 340s compare in ink durability and drying time
to R 800s?
2. Do either of them come with some fixative method (which I assume a
gloss optimizer is) or way to install one? I don't like the idea of a
24-hour drying time on the R 800 any more than I like the idea of
possible smearing on the others! Thanks.
Cori
zakezuke
>
> --Presumably both have the same capacity as more versatile machines to
> enlarge or reduce the size of a copied image? (If I wanted to copy
> something directly, like say for a CD cover, rather than using a
> digital image?)
Do keep in mind I said before an offical drytime of 24hrs. You can
handle prints much sooner, or better yet shove them in a case or put
them in a drive. Also the gloss optimizer is a feature unique to the
r800/1800. It's because pigments tend to bronze, as in look like
powder on paper, less like a photograph. It's rather like paint, it's
tacky in hours but you want to wait for it to fully cure before
exposing what you painted to water or use.
The speed at which an dye based printer dries is going to be similar,
it's the quick dry microporous papers that really do the trick as far
as handling, which isn't nessicarly an option for pigment ink. Also,
since you are talking archiveablity they tend to not be the best for
that application.
But both the r2x0/r8x0 are printers, which will print any image you
throw at them. To copy a label, you'd need a scanner. Canon's
Japanese AIOs include software to do this on the fly, but the software
is Japanese only.
> --Do either of them have the capacity to print on odd-sized items
> besides CDs and DVDs? The CD/DVD printing feature requires a tray. I
> have several hundred VHS tapes here waiting to be labeled.
Odd sizes are not a problem, though boarderless printing support is
often limited to the sizes specified in the driver. You can overprint,
as in print 8.5 x 11 and shove in something smaller. Canon has the
benifit of officaly printing on something as small as a credit card.
i'm not sure on Epson, but regardless for VHS labels you'd be best off
either buying preformed vhs labels, buying sticky paper and a paper
trimmer, or using some light contact cement and regular paper.
Typcialy speaking I believe VHS labeling is done with plastic cases
with an inlay. But if you are talking about taking the offical label
that came with your blank vhs and shoving it through the printer, this
actually shouldn't be an issue as all printers that i'm aware of can
print on 4x6 paper.
Bill Funk
>--Do either of them have the capacity to print on odd-sized items
>besides CDs and DVDs? The CD/DVD printing feature requires a tray. I
>have several hundred VHS tapes here waiting to be labeled. My options
>are handwriting, which I absolutely refuse to do--way too
>sloppy--throwing away all the original labels and buying labels made in
>sheets to go through a printer--too expensive and wasteful--or putting
>the original labels into an IBM Selectric II (over 30 years old) and
>typing them with a flaky carbon ribbon. If one of these printers had a
>way to put the original VHS labels in, compose a label on the computer,
>and then print directly on the original label, it would be a MAJOR
>selling point for me! But I suppose I'm dreaming.
By "original label" do you mean the label that came on the VHS tape
shell itself? If so, how did you get it off the shell? Are you sure it
will accept inkjet ink?
And there's a relatively easy way to do what you want: scan the
original label, put it over the background in something like
Publisher, then make and print the label as you wish. Of course,
you'll need a way to position the label so that it's printed right.
That's why the labels you say are wasteful and expensive are there:
the ease of use is great, the paper itself is designed for inkjet
use,, you don't have to overwrite the original label, and the adhesive
works better than that on the original (which obviously has to come
off to be printed on).
Or did I miss something?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
cmashiel...@hotmail.com
> By "original label" do you mean the label that came on the VHS tape
> shell itself? If so, how did you get it off the shell?
Most blank VHS tapes for home use come with peel and stick labels not
already on the shell. Those that do come with labels on the shell come
with others that can be pasted on over or in place of them.
> Are you sure it
> will accept inkjet ink?
No idea.
> That's why the labels you say are wasteful and expensive are there:
> the ease of use is great, the paper itself is designed for inkjet
> use,, you don't have to overwrite the original label, and the adhesive
> works better than that on the original (which obviously has to come
> off to be printed on).
Well, it beats cutting something out with scissors.
> Or did I miss something?
> --
> Bill Funk
I'm not such a purist about original labels for using what came with
the box as I am for not having to buy bales of blank labels--might be
the way to go, though. Sticking with the original label I'd have to
ask not only would the printer ink be compatible, but could I be sure
of positioning it to print right each time--by which time I could just
run it through the typewriter. And it's one of the few uses I have for
this lifetime supply of typewriter ribbon I've got.
Cori
cmashiel...@hotmail.com
> The rx700 does use a diffrent model number of ink, and it uses a drop
> size of 1.5pl, vs the r200/r220 which uses 3pl IIRC. I've not seen it
> in action but it's your basic water based dye.
So is this saying I'd be less well off with the RX700 than with an R
200 or R 220?
> The Epson r800/1800 on the other hand use pigment inks. These are more
> resistant to water and light.
Still having a hard time deciding which is best. The pigment inks
sound a bit more archival than the others. Do the others have other
advantages such as being significantly better-looking, less expensive
ink, easier use, or anything? Thanks.
Cori
zakezuke
>> The rx700 does use a diffrent model number of ink, and it uses a drop
>> size of 1.5pl, vs the r200/r220 which uses 3pl IIRC. I've not seen it
>> in action but it's your basic water based dye.
>
>So is this saying I'd be less well off with the RX700 than with an R
>200 or R 220?
I'm saying the rx700 uses smaller drops. It could mean higher
resolution, or improved defination, but as i've not met the printer
personaly I can't say it's an improvement. I can say it costs more and
has a printhead which by all rights costs more to employ. The ink is
also different, but that's all I know. I know so little about it I
have to reference PCmag, which was as always useless.
>> The Epson r800/1800 on the other hand use pigment inks. These are more
>> resistant to water and light.
>
>Still having a hard time deciding which is best. The pigment inks
>sound a bit more archival than the others. Do the others have other
>advantages such as being significantly better-looking, less expensive
>ink, easier use, or anything? Thanks.
Well, you can pickup the r200 referb for $59, it's less than the ink,
so it's no great loss.
Dyes look better on photo paper, and probally better on TDK costco
media.
Ease of use doesn't really enter into the picture. Near as i'm aware
the Epson series uses the same software all around for CDs, same with
canon. The software I listed prior supports the Epson perfectly well,
and with the exception of SureThing the canon as well. Surething has
unoffical canon support which is, to be fair, tweeky.
Though it would seem the Canon ink costs a pretty penny, only having to
refill 4 tanks out of 5 to do cd printing helps. Canon does a great
job with only 4 colors. I'm just getting into my ip5200 my self and I
have to say so far i'm really impressed.
The r800 is @ $200 for a referb edition, which should carry the year
warranty the last time I asked epson, is really a good deal. Normally
the printer is $350/$400. The big benifit is the fact prints look
good, really good, on regular matte paper, and is archival on matte
paper. The offical Epson matte paper heavyweight is only $10 for 50
sheets. Wilhelm-research says the r300 is 30 years under glass, vs
>150 years under glass on the r800. While you "can" get kirkland photo paper for $20ish bucks for 120 sheets (IIRC), it's hardly an archival paper.
But this is the time you should ask for a sample from Epson ((800)
463-7766). Do evaluate the the r2x0/3x0 vs the rx700 vs the r800.
Specifications and infomation is one thing but you really should see
pigments vs dye for your self to make the final choice.
You might want to look at these images as well. They contrast the r800
with a HP photosmart 8450 and the canon ip8500, a super duper model
which can only be had on closeout presently.
Allen
cmashiel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Bill Funk wrote:
>
>
>>By "original label" do you mean the label that came on the VHS tape
>>shell itself? If so, how did you get it off the shell?
>
>
> Most blank VHS tapes for home use come with peel and stick labels not
> already on the shell. Those that do come with labels on the shell come
> with others that can be pasted on over or in place of them.
>
>
Measure those labels, which vary in size from brand to brand of VCR
tape. When I say measure, I'm not talking about the label itself, but
the backing paper that holds the label. Then go to each manufacturer's
web site and check the minimum size paper that the printer will handle.
Most have a minimum size of three inches in the smaller dimension, and
five inches in the larger. The length is not going to be a problem, but
the width will be.
Allen
Allen
cmashiel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Bill Funk wrote:
>
>
>>By "original label" do you mean the label that came on the VHS tape
>>shell itself? If so, how did you get it off the shell?
>
>
> Most blank VHS tapes for home use come with peel and stick labels not
> already on the shell. Those that do come with labels on the shell come
> with others that can be pasted on over or in place of them.
>
>
Measure the labels--not just the label itself, but the sheet of backing
paper that holds the label(s). Then go to each manufacturer's web site
and find the minimum size paper that each printer will handle. (While
you arethere, _please_ checl all the other specs as well.) I think you
are unlikely to find a printer that will handle paper less than three
inches wide, which will rule out handling most of those labels that are
included with the cartridges.
Allen
Allen
Allen wrote:
>
>
Sorry for the double post. My system told me the first message had not
been sent, so I rewrote it and tried again.
Allen
measekite
cmashiel...@hotmail.com wrote:
>zakezuke wrote:
>
>
>
>>The rx700 does use a diffrent model number of ink, and it uses a drop
>>size of 1.5pl, vs the r200/r220 which uses 3pl IIRC. I've not seen it
>>in action but it's your basic water based dye.
>>
>>
>
>So is this saying I'd be less well off with the RX700 than with an R
>200 or R 220?
>
>
>
>>The Epson r800/1800 on the other hand use pigment inks. These are more
>>resistant to water and light.
>>
>>
>
>Still having a hard time deciding which is best. The pigment inks
>sound a bit more archival than the others.
>
they are but they are much more prone to clogging
> Do the others have other
>advantages such as being significantly better-looking,
>
yes especvially on glossy paper. they are richer and more vibrant. my
canon has not faded in a year using kirkland paper and canon ink.
>less expensive
>
>
yes about $9.00 for a canon cart at costco
>ink, easier use
>
about the same
>, or anything? Thanks.
>
>Cori
>
>
>
cmashiel...@hotmail.com
> Measure the labels--not just the label itself, but the sheet of backing
> paper that holds the label(s). Then go to each manufacturer's web site
> and find the minimum size paper that each printer will handle. (While
> you arethere, _please_ checl all the other specs as well.) I think you
> are unlikely to find a printer that will handle paper less than three
> inches wide, which will rule out handling most of those labels that are
> included with the cartridges.
>
> Allen
That's about what I was afraid of, but thanks for telling. Typing is
not such a terrible hardship and in some ways easier than printing
would be, I just wondered.
Cori
zakezuke
> measekite said <snipped per request>:
Does costco even carry ink for new canons in the store? If so is it
really $9.00 each?
I know you "can" get it off the website, in twin packs, for $13.50 each
for color, small black for $14.50. The big black, the pgi5, doesn't
even look like they carry that at all. website or store. Buying costco
two packs for these 4 inks, out of 5, saves you 11 cents over buying
singles at office depot. My local costco doesn't carry ink for the new
canons as of Thursday.
You "can" buy a mp780 for $300ish, or an ip8500 for $350ish which will
take the $9.66 ink. Both print on CDs with a tray on e-bay.
The price of ink for the new Canon averages to about $13.75/tank for 4
colors. The ink for the Epson R800 is $13.50 each at office depot.
The estimated yield on the r800 ink is HIGHER than canon. I'm unsure
about actual fact as I never owned that specific model.
While I like the canons, enough to own three of them, and consider them
to be a very trouble free product, the moment someone askes about
archival I have to say Canon presently isn't where it's at. Perhaps
they will offer an a4 pigment printer in the future, they will offer an
a3 printer in the future, but as for this moment Epson is the only
choice.
cmashiel...@hotmail.com
> The estimated yield on the r800 ink is HIGHER than canon. I'm unsure
> about actual fact as I never owned that specific model.
>
> While I like the canons, enough to own three of them, and consider them
> to be a very trouble free product, the moment someone askes about
> archival I have to say Canon presently isn't where it's at. Perhaps
> they will offer an a4 pigment printer in the future, they will offer an
> a3 printer in the future, but as for this moment Epson is the only
> choice.
Well, what everyone said here, and at Epson when I called the number
you kindly supplied, leads me towards the Epson Stylus Photo R 800.
The only negative things were:
--Not as multi-function as an all-in-one (but I have an Epson Stylus
Photo RX500 now I mainly use as a photocopier and computer
printer--don't use half the functions on it)
--Colors may not be as vibrant and inks are more prone to clog
--Drying time may be slow, but to "cure" no slower than those using
dye-based inks.
--Ink is NOT water-soluble, so users have to be SURE not to get any on
themselves or anything else! I've never had a mess with the Epson
Stylus Photo RX500, but the ink's so expensive I haven't used it enough
to have a clog. Could anyone offer info about cleaning procedures for
either this or the Stylus Photo R 800? Is it ever necessary to come
into contact with the ink, or do you just run a cleaning cycle, or, if
worse comes to worst, take it in to repair?
The REALLY positive things are:
--Archival prints, possibly 100 years! I'm having a professional scan
all my negatives and prints onto CD due to his MUCH higher-quality
scanner, but it would be so nice to be able to make prints myself,
whenever I want and almost whatever size I want.
--Print size 4" - 44" -- much greater than RX500 or RX700.
--Ink costs almost the same so not a big issue, and lasts much longer.
--Smallest drop size so not only is resolution better but hopefully
doesn't waste as much ink.
--Has gloss optimizer, which costs the same as ink, to put a better
finish on prints, presumably including CDs/DVDs, so smearing wouldn't
be a big issue.
--Several like-new units available online for way less than factory
cost.
Anyone with anything to add, please speak now or forever hold your
peace! Thanks!
Cori
measekite
cmashiel...@hotmail.com wrote:
>zakezuke wrote:
>
>
>
>>The estimated yield on the r800 ink is HIGHER than canon. I'm unsure
>>about actual fact as I never owned that specific model.
>>
>>While I like the canons, enough to own three of them, and consider them
>>to be a very trouble free product, the moment someone askes about
>>archival I have to say Canon presently isn't where it's at.
>>
he does not use canon ink therefore he is not really using a 100 percent
canon printer. he is using a generic printer so he really cannot
comment on fadability since that is controlled by the ink and paper.
>>Perhaps
>>they will offer an a4 pigment printer in the future,
>>
i think they will offer a b4 before an a4. look at the pro9500.
John McWilliams
fpu set. bye bye kite.
zakezuke
There are procedures you can follow to clean the heads in the event of
a clog.
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.periphs.printers/msg/e418354378537894
Arthur Entlich offers a free cleaning manual. Epsons use micropiezos
rather than thermal jets. The difference is you can put just about
anything though a micropiezo as chemistry or the rate of expantion of a
liquid to a gas doesn't enter into the picture at all. The drawback
is, from my understanding, the shaft is longer, clogs are bigger, and
you don't have an expanding gas to clean them. This is resolved at
least in the r2x0/r3x0 model by having a pump hooked directly up to the
pladen geared to operate when the printer goes in reverse, but it's not
always enough. In this event, do get a cleaning manual, or cleaning
cartridges. Do get the cleaning manual before you use any paper
towels.
Taking it in for repair is an option, and considering this is a $400
printer, it's worth shelling out shop fees to resolve issues. But the
main issues can most often be resolved with windex. I think of Epsons
as being fickle, requiring more maintance than other more disposable
technologies.
http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/view_topic.php?id=51595&forum_id=40
The other bit of maintance is the waste ink pads, aka the diaper. An
external tank is highly reccomended because the technique of cleaning
the heads sucks a fair amount of ink. I don't know the r800 personaly,
but i'm willing to wager that like the lesser models it too has a door
to access the pad tube and can be re-routed to an external tank. You
will still get a waste ink full error, but this can be reset using the
ssc utility.... a link can be found in the above thread.
The SSC utility also has a function to hot swap ink cartridges. There
is no way change one cartridge and have it clean that one cartridge. I
don't know if it's a good idea, but you can use the utility to park the
head and replace the tank, without the reverse pladen suck the ink
mode. Seek a wiser authority on this subject as I abanonded my Epson.
Clogging is typicaly the result of lack of use, not use. Others have
looked for software to automaticly print a test page once a week.
zakezuke
There are procedures you can follow to clean the heads in the event of
cmashiel...@hotmail.com
> The other bit of maintance is the waste ink pads, aka the diaper. An
> external tank is highly reccomended because the technique of cleaning
> the heads sucks a fair amount of ink. I don't know the r800 personaly,
> but i'm willing to wager that like the lesser models it too has a door
> to access the pad tube and can be re-routed to an external tank.
Should I ask at a computer store whether this is even possible, what
type of tank to get, and how to install it, since there are bound to be
various kinds so can't just order one online?
Cori
cmashiel...@hotmail.com
> Clogging is typicaly the result of lack of use, not use. Others have
> looked for software to automaticly print a test page once a week.
Since this printer is presumably connected to my computer (don't know
how else it would work!) couldn't I just go online once a week and
print something being sure to use this printer?
Cori
zakezuke
A computer store, to be fair, is going to know jack about the subject.
This is a undocumented procedure, and will require tubing from a
hardware store. An aftermarket ink store or website will have useful
info on this subject.
I just googled the subject, and it looks like it's not as simple as the
r2x0/r3x0 series.
http://www.inkrepublic.com/KnowledgeBase/R800WasteInk.asp?C=0
http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/view_topic.php?id=51595&forum_id=40
Hendo
> >
> >
> >
> >>An Epson rep at MacWorld said he thought the R 300 did a nicer job on
> >>disks than the 800, due to the ink being dye based (vs. pigment for the
> >>800.)
> >>
> >> F-U set
> >>--
> >>john mcwilliams
measekite wrote:
>
> they are all the same series, the same basic print engine and the same
> basic ink
The R300 and the R800 are very different printers ,using different
inks.
The R300 uses 6-color Dye based photo Inks.
The R800 uses 8-color Epson UltraChrome pigment ink. Which include
inks and ink colors that the R300 does not use. This printer also uses
a Gloss Optimizer.
I own both these printers and I aggree that the R300 prints better on
CD's than the R800, using OEM inks.
John McWilliams
> John McWilliams wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> An Epson rep at MacWorld said he thought the R 300 did a nicer job on
>>>> disks than the 800, due to the ink being dye based (vs. pigment for the
>>>> 800.)
>
>> they are all the same series, the same basic print engine and the same
>> basic ink
>
>
> The R300 and the R800 are very different printers ,using different
> inks.
>
> The R300 uses 6-color Dye based photo Inks.
>
> The R800 uses 8-color Epson UltraChrome pigment ink. Which include
> inks and ink colors that the R300 does not use. This printer also uses
> a Gloss Optimizer.
>
> I own both these printers and I aggree that the R300 prints better on
> CD's than the R800, using OEM inks.
>
F-U set.
--
John McWilliams
cmashiel...@hotmail.com
> The R300 and the R800 are very different printers ,using different
> inks.
>
> The R300 uses 6-color Dye based photo Inks.
>
> The R800 uses 8-color Epson UltraChrome pigment ink. Which include
> inks and ink colors that the R300 does not use. This printer also uses
> a Gloss Optimizer.
>
> I own both these printers and I aggree that the R300 prints better on
> CD's than the R800, using OEM inks.
I haven't bought, or committed to buy, anything yet. Could you (and
anyone who knows!) please explain "prints better," and other pros and
cons you have learned from experience, including the archival issue?
As for archival properties, it stands to reason any fairly intelligent
person would keep a DVD in a case out of sunlight. But moisture, even
very small amounts such as drops of sweat, is sometimes unavoidable.
Sure one should always avoid handling a CD's surface, but what are the
chances of accidental smears, color coming off the edge of the disk
onto the user's fingers and so on, using the R300? I don't want to
have to apply any treatment afterwards that doesn't come with the
printer--that's why the gloss optimizer sounds so good!
I'd really appreciate as much information as possible. I will probably
end up buying from the Epson clearance center, which doesn't allow
returns.
Cori
measekite
cmashiel...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>John McWilliams wrote:
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>The R300 and the R800 are very different printers ,using different
>>inks.
>>
>>The R300 uses 6-color Dye based photo Inks.
>>
>>The R800 uses 8-color Epson UltraChrome pigment ink. Which include
>>inks and ink colors that the R300 does not use. This printer also uses
>>a Gloss Optimizer.
>>
>>I own both these printers and I aggree that the R300 prints better on
>>CD's than the R800, using OEM inks.
>>
>>
>
>I haven't bought, or committed to buy, anything yet. Could you (and
>anyone who knows!) please explain "prints better," and other pros and
>cons you have learned from experience, including the archival issue?
>
>As for archival properties, it stands to reason any fairly intelligent
>person would keep a DVD in a case out of sunlight.
>
this discussion is like ink. stupid come and stupid go. why you ask.
here is the answer. who cares how long the archival quality of ink is
as long as it lasts 5 to 7 years. the dye on the dvd is good for an
average lifespan o 5 years. some more and some less. it is recommended
to copy over your dvd every 5 years if you value them. so as long as
the ink is readable for the same time the dye is good who cares.
measekite
cmashiel...@hotmail.com wrote:
yes and you should also use oem ink since you do not print much
>Cori
>
>
>
measekite
cmashiel...@hotmail.com wrote:
talk to the mfg. this guy writes as if he knows about everything. he
does not own an r800. that costs too much money.
>Cori
>
>
>
zakezuke
cmashiel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> I haven't bought, or committed to buy, anything yet. Could you (and
> anyone who knows!) please explain "prints better," and other pros and
> cons you have learned from experience, including the archival issue?
>
> As for archival properties, it stands to reason any fairly intelligent
> person would keep a DVD in a case out of sunlight. But moisture, even
> very small amounts such as drops of sweat, is sometimes unavoidable.
> Sure one should always avoid handling a CD's surface, but what are the
> chances of accidental smears, color coming off the edge of the disk
> onto the user's fingers and so on, using the R300? I don't want to
> have to apply any treatment afterwards that doesn't come with the
> printer--that's why the gloss optimizer sounds so good!
>
> I'd really appreciate as much information as possible. I will probably
> end up buying from the Epson clearance center, which doesn't allow
> returns.
I don't own the r800... so all my data is second hand.
[http://forum.videohelp.com/viewtopic.php?p=1329323]
According to this person, the extra inks are not used on DVDs,
including the gloss optimizer.
But best to ask pre-sales support on this issue. (800) 463-7766
I have considered using my old r200 filled with gloss optmizer to print
on discs, but this is an untested mickey mouse solution.
Spraying discs, if I could find a spray that doesn't kill dvd data, is
the system I plan to employ using a disused cake box.
cmashiel...@hotmail.com
> Spraying discs, if I could find a spray that doesn't kill dvd data, is
> the system I plan to employ using a disused cake box.
How serious are smearing, running, or such problems on disks, and, if
worse comes to worst, what sort of spray should be used to apply a
protective coating?
Cori
cmashiel...@hotmail.com
--Confirmed the R 300 is not an option as they have discontinued it.
So if the R 300 prints disks better than the R 800, but the R 200 does
NOT, that STILL lends favor to the R 800.
--Confirmed that the gloss optimizer is used ONLY on paper, so would
not be a factor in my purchasing the R 800 as far as disks are
concerned, but would be a good point as far as printing my photos
archivally.
--The R 800 may still be slightly better as far as permanence (meaning
color adhering to the disk and not coming off) as it is pigment, not
dye-based, ink, but the Epson rep said they'd never had any smearing
issues with the R 200, depending on the brand and type of disks used.
They don't make the disks, nor have they tested them all, so I'd have
to rely on other peoples' experiences as to what brands to use.
--The Epson rep also said the R 800 was better than the R 200 for
printing disks because it has 8 color cartridges, all of which are
used, even on disks, so a wider color output, and a 1.5 pl drop size,
the smallest drops allowing for the greatest detail.
So even despite the gloss optimizer not being a factor, according to
Epson themselves the R 800 still seems the better choice. They did
confirm they don't manufacture any waste tank for it. Without a waste
tank, does it clog, waste ink, or what? Thanks.
Cori
measekite
cmashiel...@hotmail.com wrote:
>Okay, I called Epson and they
>
>--Confirmed the R 300 is not an option as they have discontinued it.
>
>
you did not ask the right questions and they did not volunteer all of
the information. yes the r300 technically as been discontinued but they
have replaced it with other r series printers after making very minor
adjustments. look for the r320 or r330 or whatever. these are any r
series that uses dye ink and is of the standard format.
>So if the R 300 prints disks better than the R 800, but the R 200
>
is the stripped version of the r300
using epson ink the r300 series replacements will be more vibrant than
the r800 pigmented printer which can clog easier if not used a great
deal and is much more costly.
>does
>NOT, that STILL lends favor to the R 800.
>
>--Confirmed that the gloss optimizer is used ONLY on paper, so would
>not be a factor in my purchasing the R 800 as far as disks are
>concerned, but would be a good point as far as printing my photos
>archivally.
>
>--The R 800 may still be slightly better as far as permanence (meaning
>color adhering to the disk and not coming off) as it is pigment, not
>dye-based, ink, but the Epson rep said they'd never had any smearing
>issues with the R 200, depending on the brand and type of disks used.
>They don't make the disks, nor have they tested them all, so I'd have
>to rely on other peoples' experiences as to what brands to use.
>
>--The Epson rep also said the R 800 was better than the R 200 for
>printing disks because it has 8 color cartridges,
>
for most disks the r3xx dye based printer will provide all of the
quality results you can ask for and all should last as long as the dye
on the dvd/cd that holds the information as long as you use epson ink.
Hendo
cmashiel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Okay, I called Epson and they
>
> --Confirmed the R 300 is not an option as they have discontinued it.
> So if the R 300 prints disks better than the R 800, but the R 200 does
> NOT, that STILL lends favor to the R 800.
>
> --Confirmed that the gloss optimizer is used ONLY on paper, so would
> not be a factor in my purchasing the R 800 as far as disks are
> concerned, but would be a good point as far as printing my photos
> archivally.
>
> --The R 800 may still be slightly better as far as permanence (meaning
> color adhering to the disk and not coming off) as it is pigment, not
> dye-based, ink, but the Epson rep said they'd never had any smearing
> issues with the R 200, depending on the brand and type of disks used.
> They don't make the disks, nor have they tested them all, so I'd have
> to rely on other peoples' experiences as to what brands to use.
>
The ink does smear when printed on disk. I would like to know what disk
they recommend.
> --The Epson rep also said the R 800 was better than the R 200 for
> printing disks because it has 8 color cartridges, all of which are
> used, even on disks, so a wider color output, and a 1.5 pl drop size,
> the smallest drops allowing for the greatest detail.
>
Not all 8 colors are used, matte black is not used in printing disk.
> So even despite the gloss optimizer not being a factor, according to
> Epson themselves the R 800 still seems the better choice. They did
> confirm they don't manufacture any waste tank for it. Without a waste
> tank, does it clog, waste ink, or what? Thanks.
I don't have any cloging issues with the R800. I have never used Epson
ink in my R800, only Image Specialist and a CISS from day one.
If you are looking for the best in quality and longevity, go with Epson
OEM cartridges, expensive but still the best.
zakezuke
cmashiel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Okay, I called Epson and they
>
> --Confirmed the R 300 is not an option as they have discontinued it.
> So if the R 300 prints disks better than the R 800, but the R 200 does
> NOT, that STILL lends favor to the R 800.
The r200 and r300 print the same. They are basicly the same printer
with the exception of a screen and card slots.
> --The R 800 may still be slightly better as far as permanence (meaning
> color adhering to the disk and not coming off) as it is pigment, not
> dye-based, ink, but the Epson rep said they'd never had any smearing
> issues with the R 200, depending on the brand and type of disks used.
> They don't make the disks, nor have they tested them all, so I'd have
> to rely on other peoples' experiences as to what brands to use.
This sounds reasonable. I know my r200 experence for actual printing
was good, as in the ink looked good on every disk I threw at it. My
Canon requires tweeking, mostly setting the intensity +11 to +15
depending on the discs I use.
> --The Epson rep also said the R 800 was better than the R 200 for
> printing disks because it has 8 color cartridges, all of which are
> used, even on disks, so a wider color output, and a 1.5 pl drop size,
> the smallest drops allowing for the greatest detail.
> So even despite the gloss optimizer not being a factor, according to
> Epson themselves the R 800 still seems the better choice. They did
> confirm they don't manufacture any waste tank for it. Without a waste
> tank, does it clog, waste ink, or what? Thanks.
Yes, I had a link above regarding installing a waste tank on the r800,
and it's not an easy task like the r200. Most inkjets spew ink into a
waste area during the cleaning cycles, the epsons more so than others.
This ink goes into a waste pad or a diaper. The printer will stop
working when it believes the waste pad is full where at such time you
take the printer in for service to replace the waste pads. An external
tank would eliminate this step. The time at which it needs this
procedure depends on how much you print.
> How serious are smearing, running, or such problems on disks, and, if
> worse comes to worst, what sort of spray should be used to apply a
> protective coating?
I can only speak for dye based printers, like the r200 and the canon
ip3000/4000/5200. Printed discs can be played soon after printing.
But as the label acts like paper, dirty hands and such will get on the
surface as well.
I don't have any reccomendation yet for a protective coating, but I can
come up with a list of stuff that doesn't work, as in sprays which will
damage the disc. Helmsman spar urethane will destroy data the fastest.
The only thing that i've used so far that will not damage the disc are
water based acrylics, but the sprays i've used thus far orange peal.
The link I listed priviously listed an acryic some guy uses, sold at
k-mart.
measekite
Hendo wrote:
oh i get it. you want to save money so you threw away $100 of epson ink
that came with the printer. I think i understand.
>If you are looking for the best in quality and longevity, go with Epson
>OEM cartridges, expensive but still the best.
>
>
certainly that is true.
cmashiel...@hotmail.com
> you did not ask the right questions and they did not volunteer all of
> the information. yes the r300 technically as been discontinued but they
> have replaced it with other r series printers after making very minor
> adjustments. look for the r320 or r330 or whatever. these are any r
> series that uses dye ink and is of the standard format.
Okay, they have an R 220 and an R 340. Because the R 340 costs more,
does that make it any better a printer? If they both use the same ink
and do the same job printing on disks, am I any better off with a 340
than a 220? Thanks.
Cori
Oldus Fartus
I think you are looking for problems which are minimal, at the least
Cori. I have been using CD printing for nearly three years, starting
with the Canon i865, then the IP3000 (which I still use), and the Epson
R210 and R310, and have not struck any problems to date.
As you quite rightly have said, one avoids exposing discs to moisture or
rough handling.
I have found print quality with both the Canon and Epson to range from
fair to excellent, but that depends more on the disc printing surface
than anything else. Some disc surfaces are not much better than plain
paper quality, where others have a surface equivalent to photo paper,
both gloss and semi-gloss.
--
Cheers
Oldus Fartus
cmashiel...@hotmail.com
> I think you are looking for problems which are minimal, at the least
> Cori. I have been using CD printing for nearly three years, starting
> with the Canon i865, then the IP3000 (which I still use), and the Epson
> R210 and R310, and have not struck any problems to date.
>
> As you quite rightly have said, one avoids exposing discs to moisture or
> rough handling.
>
> I have found print quality with both the Canon and Epson to range from
> fair to excellent, but that depends more on the disc printing surface
> than anything else. Some disc surfaces are not much better than plain
> paper quality, where others have a surface equivalent to photo paper,
> both gloss and semi-gloss.
>
> --
> Cheers
> Oldus Fartus
Since you have both an R 210 and R 310, perhaps you could give advice
on the advantages (if any) of the R 340 over the R 220.
Also, can anyone name preferences in disks, both for data performance
and surface printability? Thanks.
Cori
cmashiel...@hotmail.com
> this discussion is like ink. stupid come and stupid go. why you ask.
> here is the answer. who cares how long the archival quality of ink is
> as long as it lasts 5 to 7 years. the dye on the dvd is good for an
> average lifespan o 5 years. some more and some less. it is recommended
> to copy over your dvd every 5 years if you value them. so as long as
> the ink is readable for the same time the dye is good who cares.
Where do you get five years when other sources claim a disk's life span
is 20-200 years with 100 years being the average given by manufacturers
if handled and stored correctly?
Cori
Kevin Weaver
"measekite" <inkys...@oem.com> wrote in message
news:cUNfg.89448$H71....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
Oldus Fartus
>
> Since you have both an R 210 and R 310, perhaps you could give advice
> on the advantages (if any) of the R 340 over the R 220.
>
Unfortunately no, because mine are the earlier models. Assuming
though, that the new and old models are similar, the R3xx has memory
slots, a small screen, and an improved printer tray. Print quality is
about the same with both models, as is speed.
> Also, can anyone name preferences in disks, both for data performance
> and surface printability? Thanks.
>
I have had good results with Verbatim, Imation and until recently, TDK.
The last TDK discs I bought were rubbish, and I will not buy
them again.
--
Cheers
Oldus Fartus
Hendo
> >I don't have any cloging issues with the R800. I have never used Epson
> >ink in my R800, only Image Specialist and a CISS from day one.
> >
> >
> oh i get it. you want to save money so you threw away $100 of epson ink
> that came with the printer. I think i understand.
No I sold the ink cartridges. Then I bought some IS ink and a CISS. I
can understand your confusion.
All you have to do is read your own post to be confused. Example below:
> >John McWilliams wrote:
> >
> >>An Epson rep at MacWorld said he thought the R 300 did a nicer job on
> >>disks than the 800, due to the ink being dye based (vs. pigment for the
> >>800.)
> >>
> >> F-U set
> >>--
> >>john mcwilliams
Your answer is as follows:
> measekite wrote:
>
> they are all the same series, the same basic print engine and the same
> basic ink
Then 3 days later your answer changes. read below:
> cmashieldscapt...@hotmail.com wrote:
>Okay, I called Epson and they
>--Confirmed the R 300 is not an option as they have discontinued it.
>So if the R 300 prints disks better than the R 800, but the R 200
Your answer is as follows:
> >measekite wrote:
>>
>>using epson ink the r300 series replacements will be more vibrant than
>>the r800 pigmented printer which can clog easier if not used a great
>>deal and is much more costly.
Sorry for the confusion.
Frank
He makes up the answer. He has been lying in the ng now for years.
Frank
Frank
Don't believe one word that meashershithead post as he is pathological liar.
Frank
measekite
cmashiel...@hotmail.com wrote:
do a goodle search and go to the sites where they show how the cds are
mfg and explain about the different types of dye.
http://www.cdmediaworld.com/hardware/cdrom/cd.shtml
this is one site you should read. somewhere it tells of the lifespan
and quality of the various dyes that make up the media. what ever
sources you are reading from are totally unrealliable or you
misunderstood what they were saying
>Cori
>
>
>
measekite
cmashiel...@hotmail.com wrote:
>measekite wrote:
>
>
>
>>you did not ask the right questions and they did not volunteer all of
>>the information. yes the r300 technically as been discontinued but they
>>have replaced it with other r series printers after making very minor
>>adjustments. look for the r320 or r330 or whatever. these are any r
>>series that uses dye ink and is of the standard format.
>>
>>
>
>Okay, they have an R 220 and an R 340. Because the R 340 costs more,
>does that make it any better a printer?
>
the r3xx series has card readers. i am not sure what the other
differences are but they will be in the specs on the epson website. my
friend has an r300 and likes it. he prints many cd/dvds and has only
had trouble with the cd tray, a known problem. however, he saw the
photo results from my canon ip4000 and did admit that the canon produces
better results. if not for the ability to print directly on cd that he
wanted he would have bought the canon.
>If they both use the same ink
>and do the same job printing on disks, am I any better off with a 340
>than a 220? Thanks.
>
>
the ink and the printhead should be the same. therefore the print
quality should be the same. the keyword is should. check the epson
site. but i think that the rxx has more additional features and when on
sale the price difference is meaningless. also check the weight of the
machines. if the weight differential appears to be greater than what a
card reader weighs than there must be other differences which account
for the difference.
>Cori
>
>
>
J. Clarke
Those figures are based on accelerated aging tests, not on practical
experience, and there's not enough real-world longevity data to be able to
determine whether the accelerated aging tests have covered all the
applicable variables. Remember when it was discovered that despite all the
accelerated aging tests, certain "archival" inks and papers that were
supposed to be good for decades were in fact developing an orange cast
within weeks due to circumstances that had not been considered in the
accelerated aging tests?
Also, it depends on the particular chemistry, there are several in use.
This gets discussed regularly in a number of places and the bottom line is
that one should not place excessive faith in the claims of longevity
presented by any manufacturer of consumer optical media.
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
John H.
>
> Also, can anyone name preferences in disks, both for data performance
> and surface printability? Thanks.
>
> Cori
>
I use the Taiyo Yuden white printable cds.never had a coaster yet.
get the r200 or r220 printer you wont be sorry that you did,
John.H.
measekite
J. Clarke wrote:
thats correct. look at cd media world
cmashiel...@hotmail.com
> I use the Taiyo Yuden white printable cds.never had a coaster yet.
> get the r200 or r220 printer you wont be sorry that you did,
> John.H.
Thanks, John. It was my plan to buy a batch of 50 Taiyo Yudens, and,
if they seem to work fine, stick with them, if not, switch to Verbatim
for the next batch.
I might buy an R 340 if there's one at a bargain, otherwise, for the
purposes for which I actually want the printer, don't see why an R 220
wouldn't do.
Cori
cmashiel...@hotmail.com
> the r3xx series has card readers. i am not sure what the other
> differences are but they will be in the specs on the epson website.
I assume "card readers" are for digital cameras, which I don't have or
plan on getting.
> my friend has an r300 and likes it. he prints many cd/dvds and has only
> had trouble with the cd tray, a known problem. however, he saw the
> photo results from my canon ip4000 and did admit that the canon produces
> better results. if not for the ability to print directly on cd that he
> wanted he would have bought the canon.
Same here, if the cheap so-and-sos would fix it so it wasn't so
difficult for U. S. consumers to use their machine for that.
> the ink and the printhead should be the same. therefore the print
> quality should be the same. the keyword is should. check the epson
> site. but i think that the rxx has more additional features and when on
> sale the price difference is meaningless. also check the weight of the
> machines. if the weight differential appears to be greater than what a
> card reader weighs than there must be other differences which account
> for the difference.
I'm thinking if I can get a bargain on the R 340 even if it's slightly
more it would be smarter to get the higher-end machine.
Cori
zakezuke
cmashiel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> measekite wrote
Firstly you should know that measekite is the troll of
comp.periphs.printers. He has no experence above and beyond his Canon
iP4000 and some HP product. One and a while he says something useful,
but before taking anything he has to say as the truth, review his
google profie.
http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?enc_user=yvREpBIAAADEx8x8Ar5cT9MycNaTjCAv8rhlH0Pnl47z4AZhN98BFg
> > the r3xx series has card readers. i am not sure what the other
> > differences are but they will be in the specs on the epson website.
>
> I assume "card readers" are for digital cameras, which I don't have or
> plan on getting.
They are used for more than digital cameras, they are often used for
sneaker net, as in getting data from point A to point B. I use mine on
my mp760 from time to time, mostly to copy data to CD-R.
> > my friend has an r300 and likes it. he prints many cd/dvds and has only
> > had trouble with the cd tray, a known problem. however, he saw the
> > photo results from my canon ip4000 and did admit that the canon produces
> > better results. if not for the ability to print directly on cd that he
> > wanted he would have bought the canon.
>
> Same here, if the cheap so-and-sos would fix it so it wasn't so
> difficult for U. S. consumers to use their machine for that.
It really is just one part, and a few button presses. I am using the
same tray on my ip3000, my mp760, and my ip5200. I also have hacked
trays and i've made a few out of photo paper and raison bran boxes.
> > the ink and the printhead should be the same. therefore the print
> > quality should be the same. the keyword is should. check the epson
> > site. but i think that the rxx has more additional features and when on
> > sale the price difference is meaningless. also check the weight of the
> > machines. if the weight differential appears to be greater than what a
> > card reader weighs than there must be other differences which account
> > for the difference.
>
> I'm thinking if I can get a bargain on the R 340 even if it's slightly
> more it would be smarter to get the higher-end machine.
If you go r2x0/r3x0 series. well, I would normally say you can get the
r200 referb from the epson store, but it looks like they are presently
out of stock. When they are in stock the r200 they are $59, or less
than the ink it comes with by about $10.00. They however currently
have the r220 for $71.00, and the r320 for $99. At least with the
r220, it's about the same cost as ink withink a buck or two, and if
it's not to your needs you only spent as much as the ink it comes with.
While in some cases I see spending more money, with the r3x0 series,
near as i'm aware, you just get a screen and card slots for your extra
dollars, not a better printer.
While i'm not a big fan of this series, they are under warranty for a
year, failure gets you free ink, and the price is so low if it only
lasts a year it's no great loss.
John McWilliams
> cmashiel...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> measekite wrote
>
> Firstly you should know that measekite is the troll of
> comp.periphs.printers.
That's why I am setting f-u to c.p.p. and hope it can reside peacefully
here and not have to populate the other groups.
He has no experence above and beyond his Canon
> iP4000 and some HP product. One and a while he says something useful,
> but before taking anything he has to say as the truth, review his
> google profie.
> http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?enc_user=yvREpBIAAADEx8x8Ar5cT9MycNaTjCAv8rhlH0Pnl47z4AZhN98BFg
NO! I can't do that! <s> . I know you are showing others the way, but
I've seen it first hand. Although, he's at least stopped with caps already.
cmashiel...@hotmail.com
> While i'm not a big fan of this series, they are under warranty for a
> year, failure gets you free ink, and the price is so low if it only
> lasts a year it's no great loss.
Are the Canons enough better than the Epsons to justify any extra
trouble and expense in modifying them to print disks?
Cori
zakezuke
In terms of hard core photo quality... I lean tward epson, though I
have not had a chance to test my new ip5200 side by side with my r200.
I still need to get ink for it. The last time I saw the ip8500 vs the
epson r800, i'd have to lean tward the epson in terms of hard core
photo quality, though it's pretty much a coin toss between the two
depending on the image.
The 8 tank ip8500 is not currently in production and can only be had on
closeout for between $300ish to $400ish, in the same ball park as a new
r800 but not a referbished one.
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2005_reviews/canon_ip5200_pg4.html
"The iP5200 is another of Canon's 5-color printers that leaves me
wondering why I own and use the 8-color i9900. When I see just how good
the photo prints look when using only the three primary colors (cyan,
magenta and yellow), I don't know why I need those other ink colors, or
the added expense. With the 1-picoliter size ink droplets the prints
are virtually grainless. I can only visually see imperfections after
scanning a print at 600dpi and then zooming in really close. Holding a
4×6" print in my hand and getting it as close as possible, I can see
nothing to complain about at all. For the average to the hypercritical
user I am sure that this printer will satisfy your photo printing as
well as your everyday printing needs. The color is simply brilliant,
the prints last and you'll certainly not be waiting for this printer to
do its job." --Steves Digicams
I do consider Canon, the ip4200/ip5200 to be a more reliable product,
this is based on my past experence with the r200 vs the ip3000 and
mp760. But I do consider epson to have the better photo printer, and
for print longevity it's no contest, it's the r800. Do consider canon
if you want a good general purpose printer that also does text very
well and CDs, if you are willing to get the tray and muck with the
buttons.
Oldus Fartus
>
> Are the Canons enough better than the Epsons to justify any extra
> trouble and expense in modifying them to print disks?
>
That would depend on what it is going to cost you to convert the Canon
to be able to print discs.
With the Pixma IP3000 the print quality is marginally below that of the
Epson, but this is probably more to do with the extra colour tanks on
the Epson. Regardless of that, print quality is still excellent,
either with the genuine or after-market inks. I find the Canon
software to be better, and the disc tray is of a better quality.
The one area I believe the Canon has a lead over the Epson, is with the
better paper handling. As well as the normal top feed, there is a
magazine built into the bottom of the printer, so two different types of
paper can be loaded simultaneously. Duplex printing is supported out of
the box. (Print one side of the paper, suck it back in, and print the
other side automagically.)
--
Cheers
Oldus Fartus
Voinin
> cmashiel...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>
>> Are the Canons enough better than the Epsons to justify any extra
>> trouble and expense in modifying them to print disks?
>>
>
> That would depend on what it is going to cost you to convert the Canon
> to be able to print discs.
>
> With the Pixma IP3000 the print quality is marginally below that of the
> Epson, but this is probably more to do with the extra colour tanks on
> the Epson. Regardless of that, print quality is still excellent,
> either with the genuine or after-market inks. I find the Canon
> software to be better, and the disc tray is of a better quality.
How would you modify the printer to print discs? I have the IP3000 and
if it's possible, I'd like to know. Looking at Canon's site, I don't
see anything, but I may not be looking in the right place.
--
All right, let's not panic. I'll make the money by selling one of my
livers. I can get by with one.
zakezuke
Voinin wrote:
> Oldus Fartus wrote:
> > cmashiel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> How would you modify the printer to print discs? I have the IP3000 and
> if it's possible, I'd like to know. Looking at Canon's site, I don't
> see anything, but I may not be looking in the right place.
Try http://www.canon-europe.com/ http://www.canon.com.au/ or
http://www.canon.com.hk
Rather than quote the details, i'll just link you to this site.
http://pixma.allhyper.com/
You know that door that says "canon" on it, that one that opens to
nothing, that's for the CD tray. $20 to $30 on e-bay, a few button
presses, software download, cd printing on the pixmas. I am an ip3000
user i've printed 536 cds on it using a combo of a hacked epson tray,
canon's offical tray type B, as well as a few cardboard jobbies I made
most recently for those too lazy to order from e-bay.
cmashiel...@hotmail.com
> I do consider Canon, the ip4200/ip5200 to be a more reliable product,
> this is based on my past experence with the r200 vs the ip3000 and
> mp760. But I do consider epson to have the better photo printer, and
> for print longevity it's no contest, it's the r800. Do consider canon
> if you want a good general purpose printer that also does text very
> well and CDs, if you are willing to get the tray and muck with the
> buttons.
I'd have to be sure it was worth the extra bother. In what ways are
the Canons more reliable? Thanks.
Cori
Oldus Fartus
>
> How would you modify the printer to print discs? I have the IP3000 and
> if it's possible, I'd like to know. Looking at Canon's site, I don't
> see anything, but I may not be looking in the right place.
>
Have a look at http://pixma.allhyper.com/
--
Cheers
Oldus Fartus
measekite
cmashiel...@hotmail.com wrote:
he does not really know. i like canon better than epson and the canon
uses less ink and does less cleaning cycles if any when using oem ink.
but my friend has an epson r300 and it seems that the rxx series epsons
(even though they are ink guzzlers) has been very reliable. my hp has
also been very reliable.
of course reliability comes at a price. the price of using only oem ink.
>Cori
>
>
>
measekite
Voinin wrote:
> Oldus Fartus wrote:
>
>> cmashiel...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Are the Canons enough better than the Epsons to justify any extra
>>> trouble and expense in modifying them to print disks?
>>>
>>
>> That would depend on what it is going to cost you to convert the
>> Canon to be able to print discs.
>>
>> With the Pixma IP3000 the print quality is marginally below that of
>> the Epson, but
>
the ip4000 photo quality is more than maginally better than the epson
and the business print quality is much better. that has to do with the
extra black for photo quality.
>> this is probably more to do with the extra colour tanks on the
>> Epson. Regardless of that, print quality is still excellent, either
>> with the genuine or after-market inks. I find the Canon software to
>> be better, and the disc tray is of a better quality.
>
>
> How would you modify the printer to print discs? I have the IP3000
> and if it's possible,
if printing of discs is that important then you can buy an rpson
r200/r2xx on sale for a few bucks more than a set of carts and just
dedicate it to that use.
zakezuke
My offical CD count is on the ip3000 536, full color, there and abouts
of 4oz of ink. I'm still printing. My printer required manual deep
cleaning once. This is using MIS aftermarket ink.
The Epson r200, granted I was using aftermarket ink, was one sloppy
beast. Ink would get on the rollers, and ink would collect on the
waste station wiper and slop ink everywhere, eventualy to what I
believe to be an aligment sensor which caused the printer to stop
printing.
Roger
number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>cmashiel...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> What is considered the best inkjet printer for disks designed for
>> direct labeling by printing on the disk's surface? Thanks for any
>> help or advice.
>>
>> Cori
>
>My opinion:
>Rimage 480i
>http://www.rimage.com/products_detail_objectname_pr_rimage_480i.html
>
>For cheap...Epson 300, or similar comes with a CD tray and works fairly
>well.
I have a 320 which has worked well on "printable" CDs and DVDs. Not
worth a darn on regular CDs and DVDs.
Quality of the printing is good, drys to safe handeling in about 10
minutes.
Only drawback I can see is the ink is *expensive*. It's miserly on ink
but a set of 6 of those little cartridges will run between $80 and $90
USD unless you find them on sale.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>The color vibrance of the Rimage leaves it in the dust, though.
>
>I have the 480i printer, but its built in to the Rimage 2000i, which is an
>automated CD/DVD duplication/labeling system.
>http://www.rimage.com/products_detail_objectname_pr_rimage_2000i.html
>
>-Mark²
Mark˛
> On Sat, 27 May 2006 13:53:43 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
> number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
>> cmashiel...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> What is considered the best inkjet printer for disks designed for
>>> direct labeling by printing on the disk's surface? Thanks for any
>>> help or advice.
>>>
>>> Cori
>>
>> My opinion:
>> Rimage 480i
>> http://www.rimage.com/products_detail_objectname_pr_rimage_480i.html
>>
>> For cheap...Epson 300, or similar comes with a CD tray and works
>> fairly well.
>
> I have a 320 which has worked well on "printable" CDs and DVDs. Not
> worth a darn on regular CDs and DVDs.
I wouldn't expect any printer to fare well on non-printable discs though...
There is a reason why discs are made with special printable surfaces.
> Quality of the printing is good, drys to safe handeling in about 10
> minutes.
Mine is immediately dry enough to handle...right out of the printer...which
is important, since my printer is a part of a robotic printing/burning
system, and the next disc is quickly placed on the previously printed disc.
A very slick system. I can set it up and leave... When I return, there are
100 full, edge-to-edge DVDs...all burned and beautifully printed. :)
> Only drawback I can see is the ink is *expensive*. It's miserly on ink
> but a set of 6 of those little cartridges will run between $80 and $90
> USD unless you find them on sale.
The 480i uses a simple black and a tri-color cartridge made by HP.
It isn't cheap per cartridge, but you can print a TON between cartidge
swaps.
-I've actually been quite amazed at the numbers, including full coverage
graphics.
-Mark²
--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson
John H.
the 480i is a little expensive at $ 1149.00 on sale
Mark˛
That is a bit steep... I likely wouldn't pay that, though as a part of the
Rimage 2000i, it is a great system.
He said he wanted to know the best inkjet CD/DVD printer...
-So there ya go.
The "best" is rarely cheap.
measekite
over a 1,000 CD's with it and it is still going. He did have some
trouble with the tray but that is a known problem.