Best Inkjet Printer for Direct CD and DVD Labeling?

[measekite]

zakezuke wrote:




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?

talk to the mfg. this guy writes as if he knows about everything. he
does not own an r800. that costs too much money.

 

[zakezuke]

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.

 

[cmashieldscapting]

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

 

[cmashieldscapting]

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 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]

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]

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]

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]

(e-mail address removed) wrote:



The ink does smear when printed on disk. I would like to know what disk
they recommend.




Not all 8 colors are used, matte black is not used in printing disk.




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.

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.

 

[cmashieldscapting]

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]

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

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.

 

[cmashieldscapting]

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.

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

 

[cmashieldscapting]

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]

Maybe he bought the thing used with no ink.

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.

certainly that is true.

 

[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.

 

[Hendo]

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:

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:

(e-mail address removed) 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:

Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Frank]

measekite wrote:




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

He makes up the answer. He has been lying in the ng now for years.
Frank

 

[Frank]

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:




Your answer is as follows:




Then 3 days later your answer changes. read below:




Your answer is as follows:




Sorry for the confusion.

Don't believe one word that meashershithead post as he is pathological liar.
Frank

 

[J. Clarke]

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?

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.

 

[measekite]

measekite wrote:




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?

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

 

[measekite]

measekite wrote:




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.