Looking for some advice for printing on sheets of 17x25 paper on the Canon Pro-1000. The print driver only wants to let me go to 23.3 inches. Super annoying. Any workarounds?
a Canon person I talked to said not possible without firmware update. Maybe if they get enough feedback it will happen. For a printer without any Roll capability you think they would have maxed it out at the max standard size for 17" sheet paper.
So in the meantime I'm going to use A2 paper to get a better aspect ratio out of the prints. Lose a half inch on the width but oh well.
Alternative is to cut off the 1.7 inches then print but what a bother.
I wonder why they limit the printer in this way. I would guess maybe because most of the available 17" fine art papers come in 17x22 or A2 size, but still. That aspect ratio is odd.
I would take anything from Popular Photography with a grain of salt. Especially after statements like"
"a Chroma Optimizer that reduces metamerism in among the usual suspects (cyan, photo cyan, magenta photo magenta, yellow, red, blue, gray, photo gray, photo black and matte black). ".
1. Metamerism isn't a problem, metameric failure would be.
2. The Canon Chroma Optimizer is actually a gloss optimizer, and is there to reduce gloss differential and bronzing; nothing at all to do with metamerism.
If this is the case, it's absolutely absurd. I was actually considering this (down the road) as an eventual replacement for my Pro-100 because then I could print 16x24" prints at home. Why would you make a printer that can handle 17" width but not make it capable of printing 16x24" prints? I'm flabbergasted.
Jman13 wrote:
If this is the case, it's absolutely absurd. I was actually considering this (down the road) as an eventual replacement for my Pro-100 because then I could print 16x24" prints at home. Why would you make a printer that can handle 17" width but not make it capable of printing 16x24" prints? I'm flabbergasted.
The feedback path to Japanese multinationals is quite torturous. Maybe they will get it, but maybe not. I don’t know how many decades it took Canon to figure out that almost everyone else was using centre pinch lens caps – did anyone there try removing a 77 or 82 mm lens cap with the hood on?
I was certainly interested in purchasing this printer until it was confirmed that there is no workaround for the 22" limit. Oh well, maybe Canon will get the message and provide a firmware update. :-(
I keep waiting for a highly improbable update from Canon that says the drivers have been updated to allow larger prints, as well as the distant possibility that they'll provide instructions on how to remove a couple of hidden screws that will let a PRO-1000 user add a yet to be released rollpaper adapter to it.
That's probably like waiting on time travel though, and I'm poised to purchase the P800 before the rebates expire at the end of the month.
Wow, I was hoping to go with this one too, for an upgrade of my Pixma Pro 9000 II.
I do love my printer, but, the FORCED border on premium matte and fine art papers is unacceptable.
And now I see Canon continues to be stupid with the new printers, wow, this is sad.
Looks to be a change to Epson for me.
buggz2k - Curious why you think switching to Epson would get you away from a company that continues to be stupid with the new printers. How many years has Epson continued to bank consumers money on the photo and matte black switching and head cleanings? At least Canons issue has a possible resolution with a firmware or driver fix....
rsk7 wrote:
buggz2k - Curious why you think switching to Epson would get you away from a company that continues to be stupid with the new printers. How many years has Epson continued to bank consumers money on the photo and matte black switching and head cleanings? At least Canons issue has a possible resolution with a firmware or driver fix....
Why do you assume this is some sort of massive stupidity on the part of Canon that can be fixed with a firmware update? I would guess this has to do with the printer design and preventing head strikes.
The maximum length is controlled by the driver code and firmware. Not unlike a firmware fix they put out earlier in the year to decrease the silly matte borders.
I'd consider the -1000 to be most similar to the Epson 38xx and that had a 37" max, again, driven by the driver code. Use a RIP and that limitation is removed.
Canon would be double sucky if they built it into firmware that would make the RIP trick impossible. The printer knows where the front edge of the paper is and how many rotary encoder ticks it takes to get to whatever the 'max' is and it would simply stop printing when that number is reached.
I guess we will hear the outcome eventually. In the meantime I am happy printing 16x24 on 17x25 sheets with my 3880. If I ever to decide to print panos, I would like to be able to handle a 1:3 aspect ratio; i.e., 16x48. I am not sure I understand why any printer is limited by length of print.
Camperjim wrote:
Why do you assume this is some sort of massive stupidity on the part of Canon that can be fixed with a firmware update? I would guess this has to do with the printer design and preventing head strikes.
Well, first off I don't think it is some sort of "massive stupidity" on the part of Canon, just an unfortunate and unnecessary limitation that they will hopefully fix so folks can print 16x24 on 17x25. Canon obviously decided not to support roll paper with this printer. Given no roll support, they do support the standard paper sheet sizes that are up to 17 inches wide with ansi C (17 x 22) and iso A2 (16.54 x 23.39). From what I can tell, 17x25 is not a standard size paper and some (Red River) but not that many papers are available in that size sheets.
Second, a Canon rep I talked to (yeah.. a sales/training guy, not an engineer so taken with a big grain of salt) said that Canon might fix that with a firmware/driver fix if convinced that it was worth while.
For personal use, I don't usually print even 16x24. I typically print around 13.5 x 20.5 and I can do that with adequate margin on A2. I've decided panorama's are too much a pain to mat and frame myself and too small at even 17" width for the impact I want in a pano so I'll outsource those to shops with the big iron.
Turns out this Pro-1000 will work just fine for me although I still would like to be able to print 16x24 if I wanted to. I just don't have to.
rsk7 wrote:
.........From what I can tell, 17x25 is not a standard size paper and some (Red River) but not that many papers are available in that size sheets.
..........I typically print around 13.5 x 20.5 and I can do that with adequate margin on A2. .......
I understand printing small when necessary. I expected to print a lot of 12x18s on 13x19 paper. That changed as soon as I printed my first 16x24. Now I only print smaller if required by a gallery size limitation.
I have no idea why we are stuck with some sort of odd paper and frame sizes that do not fit the popular 3:2 aspect ratio. I see no reason to print 14x21 on 17x22. Composition is important to me. I am not about to randomly start cropping my images to fit different sized papers. I have not checked every paper, but I think all or almost all of the Red River papers are available in 17x25 sheets. I buy almost all of my paper from RR. I was planning on trying some more expensive papers such as Canson Platine, but now RR also carries an equivalent paper and of course in 17x25 sheets.
If we can't get full panoramas, the beauty of the Pro-1000 will be severely diminished. Feel free to send an opinion to Canon's PR department ([email protected]).
