• I want to thank all the members that have upgraded your accounts. I truly appreciate your support of the site monetarily. Supporting the site keeps this site up and running as a lot of work daily goes on behind the scenes. Click to Support Signs101 ...

Any Colorado 1650 Owners.

I

iPrintStuff

Prints stuff
1650 should be better because it actually calibrates the media at each speed. Whereas the 1640 just does the slowest mode.

aside from that, we’ve been able to fix any banding issues with the feed correction in onyx. We do have to use the advanced AAC for a few media’s. I don’t trust anything other than high quality with regards to output. All the faster speeds they show off are unreliable at best.
 
Bly

Bly

New Member
Hi Jason
Yeah I had a demo the other day.
It seems to print well on anything at their quality gloss mode - about 40 m2 hr.
Matte is slower.
 
T

thomlov

New Member
I got both a HP latex 560 and a colorado 1650.

so far the colorado are best at colors, speed, ink usage. No chipping of ink. Ink can be stretched 140-150 percent before cracking, both unlaminated and laminated.

colorado uvgel has much better adhesion of the laminate on top of the ink than the latex.

Printing pantone colors after full I1 calibration on both machines gives much better colormatch on the colorado.

speed of printing and operation is much quicker on 1650. No waiting for warmup, drying time, slow software etc. i can have a 50 cm print out in 2 minutes on the 1650 vs 10 minutes on the latex.

I still use the latex for car wrap and textiles witch are not coated. Also some stiff reflective vinyl work better on latex. All in all i still need both machines. But my initial test result after 1.5 months with the 1650 show a lot less ink usage.

but for the 1650 - stiff service contract price. Expensive heads. I think maintainance will be so much more expensive on the colorado that the ink savings will be gone.
 
Christian @ 2CT Media

Christian @ 2CT Media

Active Member
thomlov said:
I got both a HP latex 560 and a colorado 1650.

so far the colorado are best at colors, speed, ink usage. No chipping of ink. Ink can be stretched 140-150 percent before cracking, both unlaminated and laminated.

colorado uvgel has much better adhesion of the laminate on top of the ink than the latex.

Printing pantone colors after full I1 calibration on both machines gives much better colormatch on the colorado.

speed of printing and operation is much quicker on 1650. No waiting for warmup, drying time, slow software etc. i can have a 50 cm print out in 2 minutes on the 1650 vs 10 minutes on the latex.

I still use the latex for car wrap and textiles witch are not coated. Also some stiff reflective vinyl work better on latex. All in all i still need both machines. But my initial test result after 1.5 months with the 1650 show a lot less ink usage.

but for the 1650 - stiff service contract price. Expensive heads. I think maintainance will be so much more expensive on the colorado that the ink savings will be gone.
Click to expand...
That was my argument to Canon formerly Oce'. The total cost of operation is higher than 2 latex 570s...ink savings is negated by machine cost and maintenance/service contract if you go that route. Our payback would be 3.9years vs buying 3 latex 570s... In nearly 4 years tech will change dramatically!

My opinion and my company's stance is if we can't ROI a printer in a year, it's a bad investment as typically in less than 12 months there will be better technology.
 
Z

zspace

Premium Subscriber
We’ve been running a 1650 for 4 weeks. So far we are happy with the quality on banners, IJ35 and wallpaper. The ink on banners is way more durable than the HP570. Latex inks seem to show scratches and creases if the finisher handles them wrong. The IJ35 prints have a nice gloss without laminating. Banners run at high speed are more vibrant than banners off latex. We run a full roll of 60” in around an hour, versus 4-5 on the HP.

The double sided print feature is not as spot on as the HP570. Cost is also higher on the Colorado. Oce is charging an all in square foot rate that is about 10% higher than our all in cost on the 570. In the final measurement, I can print more $’s per square foot of floor space so it balances out for us, but might not for another user.

If anyone has specific questions I’ll be happy to answer.
 
I

iPrintStuff

Prints stuff
It’s consistent at least. Pretty good tolerances. Can start printing on a roll about 1/5” in, so not a lot of wasted material.

the only down side, is that if you have a roll in roll 2, you’re talking about losing at least 3’ at the end of a roll that it won’t print on, even more if you ever get media coming in taped to the core.

With our old mimaki I had countless runs that I’d just stick my finger over the media sensor and it’d print all the way up to the pinch rollers.

but as far as automation goes, if you have two different jobs and two rolls loaded, it’ll print one job, let you take it off the take up, hit “completed” then it’ll start on the next job on a different media.
 
J

jawdavis

New Member
zspace said:
We’ve been running a 1650 for 4 weeks. So far we are happy with the quality on banners, IJ35 and wallpaper.
Click to expand...
What sort of wallpapers have you run on this machine? Any phototex, dreamscapes or pre-pasted wallpapers? What pass is really needed for an indoor wallpaper quality comparable to HP latex?
 
Christian @ 2CT Media

Christian @ 2CT Media

Active Member
For those that have the Colorado 1650, what mo offset/correction factor do you use for ink usage reporting in your RIP? We have used the defaults and Onyx doesn't report the correct amount of ink usage.
 
B

BGH

New Member
We have had a 1650 since mid Jan, we were chasing colour consistency that the HP Latex just couldn't offer, had 2 x 570's for last 18 months and no one could get them right.
Print corporate colours which are heavily Magenta based and finding we can not print anything faster than Specialty mode otherwise there is way too much stepping, we have a colour specialists flying in soon to try and assist.
Found stepping in the first 2 inches of most prints, I have found this to be an issue with the AAC, the machine takes the first 2 inches to read the marks and adjust, I am experimenting with AAC off to see what happens, hopefully Canon listen and make a correction in a firmware upgrade.
Not sure if anyone else if have any problems but can't see anyway of printing Magenta based colours at anywhere near 40 square metres an hour, naturally all the sample files set for marketing print beautifully but in reality are a fair way short, not convinced yet the 1650 was quite ready for market.
Hopefully I will be proved wrong in a couple of weeks.
 
jasonx

jasonx

New Member
BGH said:
We have had a 1650 since mid Jan, we were chasing colour consistency that the HP Latex just couldn't offer, had 2 x 570's for last 18 months and no one could get them right.
Print corporate colours which are heavily Magenta based and finding we can not print anything faster than Specialty mode otherwise there is way too much stepping, we have a colour specialists flying in soon to try and assist.
Found stepping in the first 2 inches of most prints, I have found this to be an issue with the AAC, the machine takes the first 2 inches to read the marks and adjust, I am experimenting with AAC off to see what happens, hopefully Canon listen and make a correction in a firmware upgrade.
Not sure if anyone else if have any problems but can't see anyway of printing Magenta based colours at anywhere near 40 square metres an hour, naturally all the sample files set for marketing print beautifully but in reality are a fair way short, not convinced yet the 1650 was quite ready for market.
Hopefully I will be proved wrong in a couple of weeks.
Click to expand...

Was this present in your demos? We looked at 1640 and saw the same things. We're really hoping 1650 has fixed the issues we saw. It's odd that its mixed reports on this. What I could see with my eyes I'd consider being the same visual output as gloss banding. But in the slowest mode, it went away. Anything above that I could clearly see it.

There's a lot I like about this platform but it needs to be flawless at 40sqm on all our stocks.
 
B

BGH

New Member
jasonx said:
Was this present in your demos? We looked at 1640 and saw the same things. We're really hoping 1650 has fixed the issues we saw. It's odd that its mixed reports on this. What I could see with my eyes I'd consider being the same visual output as gloss banding. But in the slowest mode, it went away. Anything above that I could clearly see it.

There's a lot I like about this platform but it needs to be flawless at 40sqm on all our stocks.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately we took a punt on the 1650 as there were no machines in Australia to demo, it is definitely stepping not gloss banding.
Will be interested to see what the profiling experts have to say when they come over in a couple of weeks, we currently get best results in Gloss Specialty which is around 20 square metres per hour, at that the machine is running fine but we are aiming to get it up around 30 square metres per hour.
Will post with updated results as we go.
 
I

iPrintStuff

Prints stuff
If you’re not convinced the 1650 was ready for market you should have a play with my 1640.

had to restart my printer about 6 times today just because I decided to move a new job to the top of the queue and it then refused to print anything.

Don’t get me wrong, with regards to print quality we get on fine, running high quality gives us no banding but I do have the enhanced AAC marks on pretty much all media’s.

I can even run a few of our regular jobs on high speed! No idea why they made the max speed function though. Pretty much useless unless you hate your customer.

For being a 2 year old printer, I still get the feeling it’s far from market ready. Still feels like a prototype, which fair enough it’s a first gen machine so you expect some issues.

But then instead of fixing all the weird issues with the 1640, they proceed to release the 1650 and have the audacity to ship that unfinished too. I really don’t get that at all.
 
S

Sign Design OC

New Member
My 1650 was installed back in November and I have come to the conclusion that the printer is great, but it is very reliant on the media profiles. If the media isn't profiled correctly you will see all kinds of issues that seem to be mechanical but are not. I had similar issues with the "gloss banding" and it turned out that there was way too much ink being laid down. There are many (almost too many) settings like temperature, print strategy, multiple vacuum zones and step adjustments that all factor in. Makes it hard to know where to start. Canon has a bunch of profiles available for download but I have had mixed results with many of them and that is my big complaint. They expect us to take the time (and have the expertise) to dial each profile in. Once this is done, the printer does a really nice job. Very happy with the support team. I'm glad I went with it and would do it again. Just have them profile your materials when they do the initial install!
 
I

iPrintStuff

Prints stuff
Daniel Jolly said:
Hi there - any more feedback from the newly installed 1650 printers? I'm considering one myself. Thanks!
Click to expand...

What’s your main use for it? Do you go through a lot of rolls? I.e. do you need the speed? The 1640 I have is great but if we weren’t as busy a mimaki UCJV probably would’ve been on the cards as we need to be able to print roughly 4-8 rolls a day
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top