Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Kodak announces printer breakthrough

Reply
Thread Tools

Kodak announces printer breakthrough

 
 
frederick
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-07-2007
ASAAR wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 16:24:44 +1300, frederick wrote:
>
>>> I'm not familiar with Kodak's pro paper. If you are, do you think
>>> it's possible to use it produce 4" x 6" prints for 10 cents each, as
>>> Kodak claims these new printers can do?

>>
>> No. Kodaks consumer paper packs that I've seen say "Suitable for all
>> inkjet printers", but it is swellable-polymer coated and totally
>> unsuited to pigment printers, unless you like flat ugly photos that
>> scratch like instant lottery cards.
>> The pro paper comes in rolls / large sheets, is RC coated, probably made
>> by someone else and available at lower cost elsewhere. I doubt that you
>> could buy a 6x4.

>
> Then you're saying that the paper that would be best to use with
> Kodak's new printers (unless new paper is introduced next month)
> will have to be some other manufacturer's paper, designed for
> pigment ink? This is one of the reasons why I think that the 10
> cent cost per print must be based only on ink cost.
>

I don't know - but beware of headline / press releases. If everything
HP/Canon/Epson have said about improved reliability and efficiency over
the past few years had been true, then we'd all be printing for free now.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Mark≤
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-07-2007
frederick wrote:
> ASAAR wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 16:24:44 +1300, frederick wrote:
>>
>>>> I'm not familiar with Kodak's pro paper. If you are, do you think
>>>> it's possible to use it produce 4" x 6" prints for 10 cents each,
>>>> as Kodak claims these new printers can do?
>>>
>>> No. Kodaks consumer paper packs that I've seen say "Suitable for
>>> all inkjet printers", but it is swellable-polymer coated and totally
>>> unsuited to pigment printers, unless you like flat ugly photos that
>>> scratch like instant lottery cards.
>>> The pro paper comes in rolls / large sheets, is RC coated, probably
>>> made by someone else and available at lower cost elsewhere. I
>>> doubt that you could buy a 6x4.

>>
>> Then you're saying that the paper that would be best to use with
>> Kodak's new printers (unless new paper is introduced next month)
>> will have to be some other manufacturer's paper, designed for
>> pigment ink? This is one of the reasons why I think that the 10
>> cent cost per print must be based only on ink cost.
>>

> I don't know - but beware of headline / press releases. If everything
> HP/Canon/Epson have said about improved reliability and efficiency
> over the past few years had been true, then we'd all be printing for
> free now.


I haven't seen those kind of claims from Epson.
Epson HAS made some claims in the past that were a total fiasco...like the
dreaded "orange shift" in their supposedly (at the time) stable new ink
system (1270/870 printers).

Kodak is offering the Black in cart and color cart together for a mere $20
or so. That's SO much cheaper, that there has to be something to
it--especially for pigment ink. I think they've simply identified the huge
irritation factor people have developed with the US ink-jet market costs,
and are poised to make a real attack on that front. Good for them.

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark≤ at:
www.pbase.com/markuson


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Frank ess
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-07-2007
Mark≤ wrote:
> frederick wrote:
>> ASAAR wrote:
>>> On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 16:24:44 +1300, frederick wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I'm not familiar with Kodak's pro paper. If you are, do you
>>>>> think
>>>>> it's possible to use it produce 4" x 6" prints for 10 cents
>>>>> each,
>>>>> as Kodak claims these new printers can do?
>>>>
>>>> No. Kodaks consumer paper packs that I've seen say "Suitable for
>>>> all inkjet printers", but it is swellable-polymer coated and
>>>> totally unsuited to pigment printers, unless you like flat ugly
>>>> photos that scratch like instant lottery cards.
>>>> The pro paper comes in rolls / large sheets, is RC coated,
>>>> probably
>>>> made by someone else and available at lower cost elsewhere. I
>>>> doubt that you could buy a 6x4.
>>>
>>> Then you're saying that the paper that would be best to use with
>>> Kodak's new printers (unless new paper is introduced next month)
>>> will have to be some other manufacturer's paper, designed for
>>> pigment ink? This is one of the reasons why I think that the 10
>>> cent cost per print must be based only on ink cost.
>>>

>> I don't know - but beware of headline / press releases. If
>> everything HP/Canon/Epson have said about improved reliability and
>> efficiency over the past few years had been true, then we'd all be
>> printing for free now.

>
> I haven't seen those kind of claims from Epson.
> Epson HAS made some claims in the past that were a total
> fiasco...like the dreaded "orange shift" in their supposedly (at the
> time) stable new ink system (1270/870 printers).
>
> Kodak is offering the Black in cart and color cart together for a
> mere $20 or so. That's SO much cheaper, that there has to be
> something to it--especially for pigment ink. I think they've simply
> identified the huge irritation factor people have developed with the
> US ink-jet market costs, and are poised to make a real attack on
> that
> front. Good for them.


Maybe they noticed that last time Mr Epson took 15$-worth of ink to
clean the jets, I just quit cooperating. My former "customers"
noticed: no more "Sure" responses to "I'd really like a print of that,
can you ... " Now it's "I'll send you the URL of a printable version.
Download it or buy a print off FotoTime ... "

--
Frank ess

 
Reply With Quote
 
ray
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-07-2007
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 20:17:45 -0800, Mark² wrote:

> ray wrote:
>> On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 18:26:35 -0800, Mark² wrote:
>>
>>> frederick wrote:
>>>> ASAAR wrote:
>>>>> NPR's Marketplace reported shortly after 6:00 PM that Kodak
>>>>> announced a new line of printers that would potentially change the
>>>>> printer market. There was no technological breakthrough announced.
>>>>> Instead, Kodak plans to sell printers for higher prices, and cut
>>>>> the ink cost at least in half. The report added that it would
>>>>> allow Kodak's printers to make 4" x 6" prints for 10 cents vs. a
>>>>> typical 15 cent cost using online printing services. I didn't
>>>>> hear any mention of where the announcement was made or where it
>>>>> was reported. I'm guessing that it will have been reported in the
>>>>> Wall Street Journal and the New York Times, but I haven't spotted
>>>>> anything on the NYT home page, its Technology or Business
>>>>> sections, so it may have been announced too late to make it into
>>>>> these papers.
>>>>>
>>>> It is good news.
>>>>
>>>> I wonder who is making the printers for Kodak? Assuming that
>>>> Canon/Epson/HP wouldn't want to play the game, perhaps Brother or
>>>> Lexmark?
>>>> Epson have considerable room to move. US price of their consumables
>>>> is approximately 50% higher than Japan, and European customers pay
>>>> more than double. Epson advertise their printers (identical to
>>>> US/European
>>>> models, but with different model names/numbers) with JBMIA standard
>>>> photo yield data indicating prices more consistent with Kodak's new
>>>> claims than the expected $0.30 or more in the US market.
>>>
>>> I doubt it's Lexmark. I don't know of any pigment inks by them, and
>>> they couldn't produce a decent printer to save their lives.

>>
>> Rather a sweeping statement. I previously worked with a Lexmark laser
>> printer that was very solid and dependable and one of the faster
>> printers in the world. Blew the doors off the very expensive HP
>> network printer we also had.

>
> Who is talking about laser printers?
> Lexmark is usually the printer that is thrown in "for free" with computers
> from various manufacturers. Every single one I've come accross was
> crap...with ink carts that often didn't even include a black, rather they
> just mixed all the colors together to get black...which made for a soggy,
> crappy page. They are super cheap, and I've yet to see one perform well.
> If they've gota decent laswer printer, great! But the assumption here is
> photo printing.


The comment was "they couldn't produce a decent printer to save their
lives" - no qualification as to laser, inkjet or dot matrix.
I've not had any experience with Lexmark inkjets, but I know from
experience that some of their lasers are indeed top notch.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Mark≤
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-07-2007
ray wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 20:17:45 -0800, Mark≤ wrote:
>
>> ray wrote:
>>> On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 18:26:35 -0800, Mark≤ wrote:
>>>
>>>> frederick wrote:
>>>>> ASAAR wrote:
>>>>>> NPR's Marketplace reported shortly after 6:00 PM that Kodak
>>>>>> announced a new line of printers that would potentially change
>>>>>> the printer market. There was no technological breakthrough
>>>>>> announced. Instead, Kodak plans to sell printers for higher
>>>>>> prices, and cut the ink cost at least in half. The report added
>>>>>> that it would allow Kodak's printers to make 4" x 6" prints for
>>>>>> 10 cents vs. a typical 15 cent cost using online printing
>>>>>> services. I didn't hear any mention of where the announcement
>>>>>> was made or where it was reported. I'm guessing that it will
>>>>>> have been reported in the Wall Street Journal and the New York
>>>>>> Times, but I haven't spotted anything on the NYT home page, its
>>>>>> Technology or Business sections, so it may have been announced
>>>>>> too late to make it into these papers.
>>>>>>
>>>>> It is good news.
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder who is making the printers for Kodak? Assuming that
>>>>> Canon/Epson/HP wouldn't want to play the game, perhaps Brother or
>>>>> Lexmark?
>>>>> Epson have considerable room to move. US price of their
>>>>> consumables is approximately 50% higher than Japan, and European
>>>>> customers pay more than double. Epson advertise their printers
>>>>> (identical to US/European
>>>>> models, but with different model names/numbers) with JBMIA
>>>>> standard photo yield data indicating prices more consistent with
>>>>> Kodak's new claims than the expected $0.30 or more in the US
>>>>> market.
>>>>
>>>> I doubt it's Lexmark. I don't know of any pigment inks by them,
>>>> and they couldn't produce a decent printer to save their lives.
>>>
>>> Rather a sweeping statement. I previously worked with a Lexmark
>>> laser printer that was very solid and dependable and one of the
>>> faster printers in the world. Blew the doors off the very expensive
>>> HP network printer we also had.

>>
>> Who is talking about laser printers?
>> Lexmark is usually the printer that is thrown in "for free" with
>> computers from various manufacturers. Every single one I've come
>> accross was crap...with ink carts that often didn't even include a
>> black, rather they just mixed all the colors together to get
>> black...which made for a soggy, crappy page. They are super cheap,
>> and I've yet to see one perform well. If they've gota decent laswer
>> printer, great! But the assumption here is photo printing.

>
> The comment was "they couldn't produce a decent printer to save their
> lives" - no qualification as to laser, inkjet or dot matrix.
> I've not had any experience with Lexmark inkjets, but I know from
> experience that some of their lasers are indeed top notch.


If they have decent lasers, then good for them. That does offer some
perspective...to hear that they can indeed do SOMETHING that works. This
is a digital photography NG, so my thoughts are on photo printers. My
opinion of their inkjet stuff remains that they are total crap. If that
opinion is out of date, I'm ready to hear other's opinions.

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark≤ at:
www.pbase.com/markuson


 
Reply With Quote
 
frederick
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-07-2007
Frank ess wrote:
> Mark≤ wrote:
>> frederick wrote:
>>> ASAAR wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 16:24:44 +1300, frederick wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not familiar with Kodak's pro paper. If you are, do you think
>>>>>> it's possible to use it produce 4" x 6" prints for 10 cents each,
>>>>>> as Kodak claims these new printers can do?
>>>>>
>>>>> No. Kodaks consumer paper packs that I've seen say "Suitable for
>>>>> all inkjet printers", but it is swellable-polymer coated and
>>>>> totally unsuited to pigment printers, unless you like flat ugly
>>>>> photos that scratch like instant lottery cards.
>>>>> The pro paper comes in rolls / large sheets, is RC coated, probably
>>>>> made by someone else and available at lower cost elsewhere. I
>>>>> doubt that you could buy a 6x4.
>>>>
>>>> Then you're saying that the paper that would be best to use with
>>>> Kodak's new printers (unless new paper is introduced next month)
>>>> will have to be some other manufacturer's paper, designed for
>>>> pigment ink? This is one of the reasons why I think that the 10
>>>> cent cost per print must be based only on ink cost.
>>>>
>>> I don't know - but beware of headline / press releases. If
>>> everything HP/Canon/Epson have said about improved reliability and
>>> efficiency over the past few years had been true, then we'd all be
>>> printing for free now.

>>
>> I haven't seen those kind of claims from Epson.
>> Epson HAS made some claims in the past that were a total
>> fiasco...like the dreaded "orange shift" in their supposedly (at the
>> time) stable new ink system (1270/870 printers).
>>
>> Kodak is offering the Black in cart and color cart together for a
>> mere $20 or so. That's SO much cheaper, that there has to be
>> something to it--especially for pigment ink. I think they've simply
>> identified the huge irritation factor people have developed with the
>> US ink-jet market costs, and are poised to make a real attack on that
>> front. Good for them.

>
> Maybe they noticed that last time Mr Epson took 15$-worth of ink to
> clean the jets, I just quit cooperating. My former "customers" noticed:
> no more "Sure" responses to "I'd really like a print of that, can you
> ... " Now it's "I'll send you the URL of a printable version. Download
> it or buy a print off FotoTime ... "
>

If you are selling prints or your photos and ink cost is a concern, then
you are underselling your prints many many times over.
Incidentally, I have an Epson R1800, and the cost to run a manual
cleaning cycle - "level 1" is a little over $1. In 18 months I have
never needed to run a manual clean cycle. Epson printers of old are
another issue.
OTOH ink costs are way too high. Hopefully Kodak will "stir the pot"
enough for what appears to be a gentleman's agreement between the big
three to collapse.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mark≤
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-07-2007
frederick wrote:
> Frank ess wrote:
>> Mark≤ wrote:
>>> frederick wrote:
>>>> ASAAR wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 16:24:44 +1300, frederick wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not familiar with Kodak's pro paper. If you are, do you
>>>>>>> think it's possible to use it produce 4" x 6" prints for 10
>>>>>>> cents each, as Kodak claims these new printers can do?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No. Kodaks consumer paper packs that I've seen say "Suitable for
>>>>>> all inkjet printers", but it is swellable-polymer coated and
>>>>>> totally unsuited to pigment printers, unless you like flat ugly
>>>>>> photos that scratch like instant lottery cards.
>>>>>> The pro paper comes in rolls / large sheets, is RC coated,
>>>>>> probably made by someone else and available at lower cost
>>>>>> elsewhere. I doubt that you could buy a 6x4.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then you're saying that the paper that would be best to use with
>>>>> Kodak's new printers (unless new paper is introduced next month)
>>>>> will have to be some other manufacturer's paper, designed for
>>>>> pigment ink? This is one of the reasons why I think that the 10
>>>>> cent cost per print must be based only on ink cost.
>>>>>
>>>> I don't know - but beware of headline / press releases. If
>>>> everything HP/Canon/Epson have said about improved reliability and
>>>> efficiency over the past few years had been true, then we'd all be
>>>> printing for free now.
>>>
>>> I haven't seen those kind of claims from Epson.
>>> Epson HAS made some claims in the past that were a total
>>> fiasco...like the dreaded "orange shift" in their supposedly (at the
>>> time) stable new ink system (1270/870 printers).
>>>
>>> Kodak is offering the Black in cart and color cart together for a
>>> mere $20 or so. That's SO much cheaper, that there has to be
>>> something to it--especially for pigment ink. I think they've simply
>>> identified the huge irritation factor people have developed with the
>>> US ink-jet market costs, and are poised to make a real attack on
>>> that front. Good for them.

>>
>> Maybe they noticed that last time Mr Epson took 15$-worth of ink to
>> clean the jets, I just quit cooperating. My former "customers"
>> noticed: no more "Sure" responses to "I'd really like a print of
>> that, can you ... " Now it's "I'll send you the URL of a printable
>> version. Download it or buy a print off FotoTime ... "
>>

> If you are selling prints or your photos and ink cost is a concern,
> then you are underselling your prints many many times over.


On the other hand...if you're printing professionally, and you don't stop to
consider premium pigment ink costs...you're probably not being as careful in
your business as you should be.


> Incidentally, I have an Epson R1800, and the cost to run a manual
> cleaning cycle - "level 1" is a little over $1. In 18 months I have
> never needed to run a manual clean cycle. Epson printers of old are
> another issue.


Ya, although I still have my old 1270, and it still prints without clogging.
My main photo printer is the much larger 4000. This stuff from Kodak would
be useful to me as an all-around printer, but if the pigment inks are this
cheap, and still render colors well...I'd use it to snap off 4x6s to keep
the family happy.


> OTOH ink costs are way too high. Hopefully Kodak will "stir the pot"
> enough for what appears to be a gentleman's agreement between the big
> three to collapse.


That's my hope, too. At $150-300, I might try it...and if it doesn't work
for me...I'll give it to my parents...who are fed up with their microscopic
HP print cartridges.

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark≤ at:
www.pbase.com/markuson


 
Reply With Quote
 
Irwin Peckinloomer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-07-2007
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)
says...
> NPR's Marketplace reported shortly after 6:00 PM that Kodak
> announced a new line of printers that would potentially change the
> printer market. There was no technological breakthrough announced.
> Instead, Kodak plans to sell printers for higher prices, and cut the
> ink cost at least in half. The report added that it would allow
> Kodak's printers to make 4" x 6" prints for 10 cents vs. a typical
> 15 cent cost using online printing services. I didn't hear any
> mention of where the announcement was made or where it was reported.
> I'm guessing that it will have been reported in the Wall Street
> Journal and the New York Times, but I haven't spotted anything on
> the NYT home page, its Technology or Business sections, so it may
> have been announced too late to make it into these papers.
>
>

Still not such a deal as refilling cartridges on Canon (or other)
printers, getting you down to under 5c per 4x6.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ron Hunter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-07-2007
ASAAR wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 19:39:38 -0600, Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>> Saw it in the local paper today. The interesting aspect is that prices
>> for the cartridges, $9.99 for black and $14.95 for color. Both inks are
>> 'lifetime' type inks. The printers, however, are somewhat more
>> expensive, allowing them to make a profit on the printer, and sell the
>> cartridges for less profit.

>
> And isn't that what so many have been asking for? I wonder how
> much ink the cartridges hold. Still, $25 for both is a good deal
> less than the $66 it cost for a color and b/w cart. for my old HP
> printer, or twice that price for the cart's HP fills with more ink.
>


With most manufacturers giving away the printer (well, almost), and
making a killing on cartridges (the Gillette marking scheme), this new
line may cause a change in the whole industry. Go get'em Kodak!
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ron Hunter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-07-2007
ASAAR wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 16:00:56 +1300, frederick wrote:
>
>>> There was no point to miss. I didn't editorialize, but just
>>> repeated what was said by the "Marketplace" reporter. I do have
>>> doubts about the accuracy of the 4x6 price comparison, since unlike
>>> the ink kit for Epson's little printer, which allows total costs to
>>> be easily understood, Kodak's kit doesn't include any paper, or I
>>> should more accurately say that there is no kit. You just buy ink.
>>> But since as you said, the new Kodak printers supposedly now use
>>> pigment based ink, will this ink have also been formulated to work
>>> best with existing Kodak print paper which presumably was designed
>>> for dye based ink? Or was that a point that *you* missed?
>>>

>> Some of Kodak's pro papers work well with pigment printers. Their
>> consumer papers (Ultima and down) are completely disastrous.

>
> I'll have to check local stores (Staples, CC, BB, CompUSA, etc.)
> for the availability of the pro papers. I assume that B&H would
> have them, but most people would probably just pick up whatever's
> cheap. I recall seeing some name brand paper in Staples recently
> that made no mention of whether it was suitable for dye or pigment
> based ink, but just gave a rating similar to good, better, best, and
> a brief description, such as "use this paper for longer life". I'm
> not familiar with Kodak's pro paper. If you are, do you think it's
> possible to use it produce 4" x 6" prints for 10 cents each, as
> Kodak claims these new printers can do?
>

I suspect that is the ink price. Still, with HP selling packs of paper
and 'ink' for their 4x6 picture printers at $.50 a picture (down from
$.75), that still leaves a bit of room for a good paper.
IF I could print a few 4x6 pictures for $.15 each, I would much less
motivated to drive to Sam's Club and hassle with the kiosk for prints,
not that I do this often, to save only a couple of cents/picture.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Kodak Announces the World's Smallest Ultra-Wide-Angle Zoom Digital Camera newcamz.blogspot.com Digital Photography 48 08-12-2006 12:45 PM
Sigma Announces SD-30--30 Megapixel,Universal Lens Mount, Digital SLRSigma Announces SD-30--30 Megapixel,Universal Lens Mount, Digital SLR sigmaphotojapan@yahoo.com Digital Photography 6 04-01-2005 05:26 PM
Sigma Announces SD-30--30 Megapixel,Universal Lens Mount, Digital SLRSigma Announces SD-30--30 Megapixel,Universal Lens Mount, Digital SLR sigmaphotojapan@yahoo.com Digital Photography 5 04-01-2005 02:08 PM
A remarkable breakthrough: Sony DSC-F828 Jill Digital Photography 24 10-28-2003 05:52 AM
Re: Whitley Strieber's New Breakthrough Baron Maximillian von Schtuldeworfshiseundurheimhoppen Computer Support 0 10-19-2003 01:09 AM



Advertisments