DVD printing POLL- Canon or Epson?

[archaeo]

For this poll, assume the CD/DVD tray printing option is enabled in the Canon Pixma series, and ALL models are available through various sellers. (Please post your own printer model# in the comments)

Given the following criteria, which printer(s) do you prefer based on your OWN experience?


criteria (in order of importance):

A) Quality and color accuracy of printed disc image

B) Reliability and consistency of ink jets and heads performance

C) Accuracy and reliability of aligning printed images on discs


Note that I have NOT included ink costs, or refilling options since this is well discussed in other threads.

[SCDVD]

Canon prints are brighter than Epson's. Some would argue that the more vivid color looks better. Others would argue just as strongly that Epson prints are more realistic and lifelike. The new Epson 260 uses a new ink called Claria that is brighter and also water resistant with some claims of very long life. I have found the printing alignment of discs printed on Epson is excellent. The Epson printers do an alignment "dance" when the disc caddy is loaded. The purpose of this "dance" is to set the alignment based on the caddy's position in the printer. The Epson disc caddy has some white reference marks on it that the printer uses to precisely set the alignment. This dynamic alignment avoids the problems associated with having to have a prealigned printer.

I have no experience with printing CDs on a Canon printer. Epson's patent precludes Canon from selling printers that print on CDs in the US so Canon CD printers are not available here.

[stiltman]

Only have experiences with Epson printers

R200, had a bad disc caddy. Cuased caddy to be ejected often
R220, has a better caddy design. Rarely have caddy ejected

Both printer have the same ink and print the same. Both look good on all surfaces, but I add a little more ink to the silver tops

[MOVIEGEEK]

I also have a Epson R220 and am happy with the results,I have never used a Canon printer so I can't compare.

[dun4cheap]

My epson R200 and R300 have worked without major problems. I use CIS systems on both and have printed well over 3-4 thousand disc on them.

This is not an exageration.

However, I would like to see other companies able to make DVD printers in the US. In the end it can only mean better quality.

[SCDVD]

I would like to see other companies able to make DVD printers in the US. In the end it can only mean better quality.

Very true! Unfortunately, Epson has a patent on the CD/DVD media printing scheme that allows them to own the US market. Their legal counsel and stock holders aren't too concerned about things like "beneficial" competition. In fact, their patent allows them to avoid it! I don't understand how Canon isn't restrained from selling their CD/DVD printers in Europe and other parts of the world but they aren't able to sell them in the US. I thought there were a number of International agreements regarding patents.

Adam, if you read this, maybe you can shed some light on this.

[adam]

Copyrights, trademarks, and patents are national rights meaning that they only govern acts done in the country where the intellectual property right exists. So you can only violate a US patent by using that invention in the US.

International agreements such as the TRIPS treaty and the WTO agreements allow you to enforce that national right in signatory or member countries, but the infringement must still have occurred in the country where your national rights exist.

So... Epson has a US patent on a CD/DVD printer but apparantly not in most other countries. If someone sold an infringing printer in the US than Epson could clearly sue them in the US because that is where their patent is filed. But they could also sue them in any other country that is a WTO member or a TRIPS signatory and they could force the courts of that nation to enforce their US patent, and to apply US law to boot. But since the patent is only valid in the US, they cannot stop anyone from selling that very same invention in other countries where they don't have a patent. If they wanted to do that they would have to file a similar patent in that country as well.

The whole point of a patent is to grant a monopoly and completely eliminate all competition. It's a tradeoff. It's literally anti-competitive and BAD for the consumer in the short run. But the upside is that it promotes invention and gives companies the monetary incentive necessary to invest millions and billions of dollars into research and development. So in the long run it is actually a good thing. Long story short, we have to wait on Epson's patent to expire before we'll see other CD/DVD printers in the US.

[archaeo]

Long story short, we have to wait on Epson's patent to expire before we'll see other CD/DVD printers in the US.

adam,
(this gets a little off topic from my poll query, but I find it interesting..)

I assume that once you buy a US Canon printer that has the capabilities to print CD/DVD, and mod it to do so, you are not violating any epson patent laws, only negating any warranty from Canon. As everyone can see (if they look for it), the guides to do this simple mod are very open and accessible to the public. However, my question is this - what if a second party starts to mod the Canons and starts selling them on, say ebay? Would they then have epson attorneys coming after them for patent law issues?

[adam]

I don't know the details of Epson's patent but if there are no other manufacturers of CD/DVD printers in the US, than I have to assume it's broad enough to cover any printer that can print on CD/DVD media. So a Canon printer modified to print on CDs/DVDs would in fact violate Epson's patent. This would be true whether the modification was done by Canon, some 3rd party, or Joe Blow consumer with his soldering iron. Patents are not like trademarks, there don't have to be commercial implications. Tinkering in your basement and making use of an "invention" that is patented actually does violate that patent but, like with most infringements, its just the type of thing that doesn't show up on anyone's radar.

If 3rd party companies were making enough money modifying printers to print on CDs/DVDs, or selling modification kits for this purpose, than hell yeah Epson would sue them.

[edDV]

Can't comment on Epson. I've been boycotting them since their decision not to do an XP driver for the 636U scanner. May they burn in hell.

[kip]

I have the R220, Canon iP4000 and the HP D5160. For me the Canon is the best choice; quicker dry time and easier on ink. The Label software on the canon and Epson are about the same, the included software with the HP flat sucks. The HP does a nice enough job when used with Acoustica label maker which also supports the Epson and the Canon.

[archaeo]

I have the R220, Canon iP4000 and the HP D5160. For me the Canon is the best choice; quicker dry time and easier on ink.

kip,

how does the quality compare disc to disc between the epson 220 and the ip4000? Are they virtually the same, or do you see a difference when printing at the best/highest resolution?

[MOVIEGEEK]

Can't comment on Epson. I've been boycotting them since their decision not to do an XP driver for the 636U scanner. May they burn in hell.

http://www.scanner-drivers.com/drivers/46/46458.htm

[edDV]

Can't comment on Epson. I've been boycotting them since their decision not to do an XP driver for the 636U scanner. May they burn in hell.

http://www.scanner-drivers.com/drivers/46/46458.htm

Yes thanks. I have that and it works for basic scanning. It was adapted by another frustrated 636U owner. Unfortunately this driver won't support the 2 1/4 and 35mm film scanner adapter option. That option alone cost me $125.

As the equally frustrated driver author said

Please notify Epson that their failure to support this scanner sucks, that you will no longer buy Epson products.

Those upgrading to Vista should be aware Epson may leave you stranded.