Canon Ij Setup imagePROGRAF PRO-1000 Free Drivers

Canon Ij Setup imagePROGRAF PRO-1000 Free Drivers

Canon Ij Setup imagePROGRAF PRO-1000 Free Drivers

Canon Ij Setup imagePROGRAF PRO-1000 Free Drivers – Canon ImagePROGRAF PRO-1000 Printer Review What’s in a name? Canon manufactures several series of printers. This printer features considerable technological innovation and it sits within the Canon imagePROGRAF series, not to be confused with Canon’s Pixma Pro series. So wherever you see reference here to the “Pro-1000”– the subject of this review, please remember it is shorthand for an imagePROGRAF model, not a Pixma Pro.

For quite some time now inkjet printing technology has reached a stage of maturity whereby it’s fair to say that “the printer is as good as the printer”. If the print-maker delivers a well-prepared file to the printer, it will deliver – and really well. Readers may recall that I made essentially the same point when I reviewed the Epson SureColor P800 printer last summer, being their first new 17-inch entry replacing the 3880.

A Short Video Introduction With Kevin Raber and Mark Segal Canon Ij Setup imagePROGRAF PRO-1000 Free Drivers

Now Canon has issued the image PROGRAF PRO-1000 17-inch desktop that establishes itself as a serious contender in this niche. Canon has put a new inkset and new technologies into this printer; it is the first in a new line of image PROGRAF models, to be expanded with wider format printers that will be introduced at WPPI in the near future. As readers would have surmised from Kevin’s article introducing LuLa’s renewed emphasis on printing, we thought it important to examine this new printer and tell you what we think of it. (note that in the linked article you can see the set-up of the printer as well as the Canon PRO-1000 print head prior to being installed. In a nutshell, we think it’s a fine printer with a lot going for it. It has every appearance of being a very solid machine, the print quality is superb, the in-built features are most interesting and the user-friendliness is very good. For example and starting from “scratch”, initial set-up is both very well documented and easy to implement. I have no hesitation recommending this printer to anyone who’s serious about print-making, and satisfied with maximum print dimensions of 17×23.4 inches.

The conclusion of this article out of the way (if you’re in a hurry), for those wanting to read on, let’s look at what this printer does and some aspects of how to use it.

Reviewing a printer, like reviewing paper, is difficult because what matters most is the results and results have an important subjective element. You almost need to see and handle the prints to really know the quality; but you obviously can’t do that from an article on the Internet. To help overcome this inevitable problem, I use both objective and subjective evaluation approaches to address the fundamental factors about print quality: gamut (how big is the box of crayons it can make colours with), resolution (how sharply can it reproduce fine detail), gradations (how smooth are the tonal transitions in skies, skin tones, shadows), accuracy (does the print resemble in tone and hue what I see on my soft-proofed display) and maximum black (the blacker the maximum black the better, because this allows for rendering more refined shadow detail in the very dark portion of the tonal range and richer-looking blacks). Canon Ij Setup imagePROGRAF PRO-1000 Free Drivers

Secondly, I look at usability features – is the printer a pleasure or a pain to use, and are there tips for making it as pleasant as it can be. This category of questions covers factors such as paper dimensions and paper feeds, use of third party papers, the printer driver, ancillary software and printer maintenance. I shall have a few things to say about all of the above.

Canon Ij Setup imagePROGRAF PRO-1000 Free Drivers, Canon USA made a printer and several Canon paper types available to Kevin in Indianapolis where I did most of the testing. Thanks also to Canon Canada for hosting me several times at their printer lab in Mississauga Ontario for some follow-up work, and for lending me a printer to complete verifications. After reading the profiles for the provided Canon papers (Pro Luster, Pro Semi-Gloss and Pro Premium Matte), I determined that the Luster and Semi Gloss are close enough to focus on the Pro Luster for the gloss category and the Pro Premium Matte paper for the matte category. I also tested Canson Baryta Photographique and Ilford Gold Fibre Silk in this printer for reasons given below. During this testing I made quite a few prints and many measurements. I shall report the most insightful outcomes in this article.

Gamut and maximum Black depend largely on the inks, the profiles, the paper and how the printer lays down ink on paper. I evaluate the gamut and the maximum black by reading the profile data with ColorThink Pro. I examined the Canon profiles for their own papers, as well as profiles for Canson Baryta Photographique (CBP) and Ilford Gold Fibre Silk (IGFS). I also measure the Black and the dark shadow tones that are printed on paper, as this is the output relevant to print appreciation. Canon Ij Setup imagePROGRAF PRO-1000 Free Drivers

CBP is of interest because Canon provides Canson’s profile for this paper and the Pro-1000. In fact, a very nice feature of this printer – Canon provides a number of PRO-1000 profiles for third party papers which you can obtain from the Canon website and load into your OS Profiles folder. The current ones are shown in Figure 2 below. Canon advises that they will be adding more profiles for other third party papers. I really appreciate Canon’s openness to actually facilitate the use of third party papers.

 

As I noted in my P800 Review, the 4900 remains the gamut king at the least in respect of IGFS paper. Gamut-wise, the PRO-1000 and the P800 are more similar to each other than is either of those models to the 4900. The PRO-1000 on the whole shows moderately more gamut for the same paper compared with the P800 – but not uniformly. Gamut shapes differ, hence there is no one printer/paper combination that has more colour gamut in all three primaries.

This, however, is the point at which I need to caution about how much to read into this data. The prints on the same Luster media from all three printers “on the whole” come out looking so similar to each other that I found it necessary to write the Printer/Paper combination on the back of each sheet to keep them sorted. In other words, numerical differences can seem big or small in our minds, without necessarily corresponding to differences we see looking at the prints.

There are two reasons for this dichotomy: firstly, a great many photos don’t need the huge gamut of an Epson 4900 to look great, and secondly, where gamut differences between printers/papers are not large, even to seasoned observers (and we did some “blind tasting” discussed below) telltale signs of which prints come from which printer are few and far between. As I mentioned in my Epson P800 review, how one edits the files makes a far bigger difference to print appearance than any of this data – except for the difference between Luster paper and Matte paper, where the statistical gamut differences are very large and readily noticeable by comparing prints. Perhaps of some interest, my custom profiles for the PRO-1000, IGFS and Canon ProLuster paper, show the widest gamut of all the papers I measured for the PRO-1000. I make my custom profiles with an X-Rite Pulse Elite spectrophotometer and software, which X-Rite discontinued some years ago as part of its counter-productive obsolescence programming. These profiles perform as well as i1Profiler 2 profiles I have ordered from a professional provider for comparison testing.

 

Based on the profile readings reported in Figure 3, the Canon PRO-1000 shows the deepest black of those compared. That said, whether anyone would actually see a meaningful difference between values of 1 and 3 is questionable. Nonetheless, in theory at least, the lower the value the better, because it means that tones within that very dark range are less likely to be “squished”. For example, if the darkest value for the PK papers happens to be 4 (e.g. IGFS in an Epson 4900), any values in the range of 1, 2, 3 are squished to 4 because the profile can’t render anything less than L*4.

At a minimum value of L*4, when doing a direct comparison of output, one does begin to notice (in the printer test target image) that the Black is not quite as intense as that having a value of L*1; but I must emphasize – you need to be looking comparatively and carefully, being mindful of what you’re looking for in order to see it. It doesn’t hit you in the face. What does hit you in the face is the Matte paper minimum black of L*18 or so, compared with any of the others. This doesn’t mean matte paper is somehow inferior – it suits some subject matter beautifully, just not as “Black”.

I did not report data on the neutrality of the Black and White points as read from the profiles, largely because it is unremarkable. The majority of a* and b* values (L*a*b*) are 0, while some are 1 or 2. We’ll be looking further into grayscale neutrality in the discussion of real outputs below.

In discussing real outputs, one of the first questions that come to mind is whether the printer is actually laying down the recipe the print-maker ordered-up. We get an indicative evaluation of this by printing a target (using Absolute Rendering Intent) with patches of known file values, such as the X-Rite ColorChecker (Figure 6 – in our case augmented with some additional grayscale patches), measuring the colour values of the patches with a high quality calibrated spectrophotometer and comparing these measurements with the original file values. The smaller the differences, the more accurately the printer/profile combination is rendering these colours.

For example, based on Bruce Lindbloom’s L*a*b* values for the 24-patch GMCC, we know that the L*a*b* file value of red (third row, third patch from the left) is supposed to be 42.1, 53.38, 28.19. With my custom profile for the Epson 4900/IGFS paper, the measured value I obtained was [42.1, 54.67, 28.13]. The absolute differences between the file values and the printed values are [0.1, 1.29, 0.06], producing a dE for the colour as whole of 1.3 (which is pretty good). Canon Ij Setup imagePROGRAF PRO-1000 Free Drivers

Using an Excel spreadsheet, do this 24 times over (once for each patch), compute the average of the 24 per-colour dE and the result is the overall dE for the chart. Using this very basic version of dE measurement, an overall result of 2.0 or less should be considered highly satisfactory in respect of “unremarkable inaccuracy”; even up to 3.0 is pretty good. The best result I ever achieved making these measurements is for this 4900/IGFS combination (overall dE=1.07), where the whole calculation set is shown in Figure 7.

Canon Ij Setup imagePROGRAF PRO-1000 Free Drivers Before getting too excited about or overly reliant on these numbers, there are at least three important qualifications to bear in mind:

(1) Only 24 patches are being measured. The printer can produce millions of colours, hence a patch set like this can be only of indicative value. There may a much larger optimal number of patches for creating a better representative sample of colours, but if there were I don’t know it and the work required to produce a result is directly proportional to the amount of measuring one needs to do.

(2) Output from most spectrophotometers varies. This cuts in two ways. Firstly, there is measurement variance of the same patch with the same instrument taking one reading after another (which can be mitigated taking many readings and averaging them) and secondly, inter-instrument variance – for example, ideally the instrument used for taking the measurements should be the same instrument used for making the profile. With custom profiling one can do this; otherwise not.

(3) The dE formula used is the most basic variant and does not take into account how human visual perception of colour differences could vary between colours – using dE(1976) each colour has the same weight.

In sum, I consider this kind of testing to be of comparative indicative value, and not the last word on perceived colour accuracy.

A lot of introduction (but necessary) to convey a few simple outcomes: the Canon PRO-1000 printer can score pretty high on this test.

graphic-at-5.36.47-PM

The result I obtained from the PRO-1000 using Canon Pro Luster paper with my custom profile is excellent; the result from Canon’s packaged profile somewhat less so – to be expected, because it is a canned profile most likely made with a different instrument than the one I use for measuring outcomes. Small differences between these results are insignificant in light of both the above-mentioned qualifications on the procedure itself, and the fact that in real world prints, many of these differences would be hard to see, even looking for them. The bottom line here is that using good ICC profiles in a good colour management set-up from the monitor to the printer/paper combination, one should expect quite accurate results from this printer.

Turning to the more limited field of measurement for Black and White rendition, I use one or both of two sources: the supplementary B&W batches at the bottom row of the target in Figure 6, or the B&W ramp of patches in the Outback printer target shown in Figure 8.

The black point is the circled black patch in the upper right, and the shadow/highlight ramps are the circled area at the bottom of the target. The table below shows the maximum Black values and the average of the a* and b* values of the patches in the two ramps of Figure 8 (shadows and highlights).

Canon Ij Setup imagePROGRAF PRO-1000 Free DriversThe first row of data labelled “K” is the deepest L* value of  Black that the Pro-1000 reproduced on the respective paper/profile combination, the best result being a stellar 0.94 for Canon Pro-Luster paper printed with Printer Color Management in Canon’s B&W driver mode. This is the deepest printed Black I’ve ever seen on any printer I’ve tested. For comparison, I also printed the same ramp by converting the RGB target to B&W using a B&W Adjustment Layer in Photoshop with Photoshop Color Management and the resulting Black level is 1.53, while that from the RGB file with no conversion is 1.64. All are fine results. These levels of Black rendition assure a very rich fulsome Black and ample room for shadow detail in the tonal range immediately above. Of course for the matte paper, maximum black is only at L* 16.71, which is quite typical for MK papers. MK papers simply do not deliver as deep a black as PK papers can. The “a” and “b” numbers show the deviance from zero for each of the two colour dimensions in the L*a*b* colour model. For these dimensions, the value 0 is neutral (gray).

The number in the yellow box is the average absolute deviation from zero of the a* and b* values for all the patches in the two measured ranges for each paper/profile. This data indicates that on the whole the PRO-1000 preserves neutrality very well in the shadows and highlights. (By the way, the PRO-1000 Manual indicates that B&W mode may also use non-B&W inks.) The best overall outcome was for IGFS using my custom profile (0.55). The highlights ramp values for Canon Luster emerged to be relatively cool, ranging between -2.16~-2.22 (although shown as absolute values in the Figure 9 table), reflecting the underlying tone of that paper.

OK – we’ve seen almost enough with targets, data and profile graphics to indicate that we should expect fine prints of real world photographs from this printer, and indeed we get them. This discussion will now focus on outcomes (prints) and printer features. The outcomes of interest are the usual – colour gamut, smoothness of tonal gradations, tonal separation in the deep shadow zone, rendition of fine detail, and Black and White (BW) rendition.

Starting with colour gamut, and reverting back to the discussion around Figure 3 about the extent to which statistical gamut differences (measured from profiles) matter to the appearance of real photos on paper, I said back there “not much”. But that didn’t mean to say “none at all”. So I would first like to show the exceptional kind of gamut condition in which there is a real difference between the Epson 4900 (with its Orange and Green inks) on the one hand, versus the Canon PRO-1000 and the Epson P800 on the other hand, which do not have these inks. After this demo, I’ll discuss the 98% or so of photos for which one would be hard put to see meaningful differences arising from gamut volume data between these three printers for the same wide gamut paper (in my case IGFS).

The exceptional gamut rendition conditions are very small ranges of brilliant green and dark yellow, which can benefit from the 4900 gamut. I’ve looked at this with both “real world photographs” and Andrew Rodney’s printer evaluation target (especially the balls at the bottom – indeed a “ballsy” torture test ☺). The first real world photograph is the green forest photo from Bill Atkinson’s printer test page. I printed it “as is” on IGFS (i.e. no adjustments except selection of the correct profile for each printer). Figure 10A-C shows this rendered (my profiles) for the Epson 4900, Canon PRO-1000 and Epson P800 printers. I scanned the actual prints in an Epson V850 using SilverFast Ai8 Studio without making any tone or colour adjustments. Hence it is all “unadulterated” printer output (except for JPEG conversion and resampling) from the original file.

I have not provided the example for the dark yellows because the differences are too subtle to be rendered meaningfully here. However, I do provide the results of printing Andrew Rodney’s image of the balls (Figure 12). Look carefully and come to your own conclusions. (My conclusions: the most obvious difference is with Green, and that has a diminished impact on Cyan; the rest of it seems pretty much awash.) Canon Ij Setup imagePROGRAF PRO-1000 Free Drivers
Purposes: As We beleieve the review is complete about Canon Ij Setup imagePROGRAF PRO-1000 Free Drivers.

Canon Ij Setup imagePROGRAF PRO-1000 Free Drivers driver complete Installation instruction

Some people believe that setting up a printer on the computer or PC can be very difficult. Here ijsetupcanon.info present the easy steps to set up Canon Ij Setup imagePROGRAF PRO-1000 Free Drivers to your Windows computer/laptop without CD, because we acknowledege that every printer come wit CD installer in its box. Follow the steps below:

  1. if you have CD please Insert the CD into CD/DVD slot and Follow the installation wizard
  2. if you don’t have the CD, please download the driver below based on your Operating System
  3. Double click on the downloaded driver software and Follow the installation wizard
  4. When the installation is completed, make sure the printer works correctly by printing a test paper.
  5. if it works correctly, the printer is ready to use.

Operating system support:

MS Windows Server 2003, MS Windows 7, MS Windows Vista SP1, MS Windows XP SP3, MS Windows Server 2008, MS Windows Vista SP2, MS Windows Server 2008 R2, MS Windows 7 SP1, MS Windows Server 2003 R2, MS Windows Server 2012, Windows 8, Windows RT, Android, iOS, Windows 8.1, MS Windows Server 2012 R2, Apple Mac OS X 10.6.8 – 10.9

Canon Ij Setup imagePROGRAF PRO-1000 Free Drivers Links

Download
Category
Windows all versions 32bit
Windows all versions 64bit

Download
Category
OS X 10.9,OS X 10.8
Mac OS X 10.6

Download
Category
Linux (RPM/DEB)

Canon Ij Setup imagePROGRAF PRO-1000 Free Drivers