Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

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

Reply
Thread Tools

Kodak announces printer breakthrough

 
 
Paul D. Sullivan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-09-2007
Here's what they use:

http://www.noritsu.co.jp/english/pro...qss3101_1.html

Here's a bit about the engine:

State-of-the-Art Laser Engine The QSS-3101-1Digital is equipped
with a laser engine that employs Noritsu Koki's
multi-paper-matching technology to make high-quality prints of
300dpi on both digital paper and conventional photographic paper,
in various sizes up to 12 x 18 inches.



> Paul D. Sullivan wrote:
>> Those huge ones that are like 18 feet long and 4 feet tall?
>>
>> What are they if not laser?

>
> They aren't laser.
> Laser just can't deal with glossy/semi-gloss paper like that.
> It would likely melt the paper coating along with the toner.
>
> Next time you're in Costco...just ask them.



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Paul D. Sullivan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-09-2007
Found this on the Fuji line that Walmart uses:

http://www.majid.info/mylos/weblog/2002/03/20-1.html

These prints are made on real photographic paper (Fuji Crystal
archive, rated at 25 years) by a Fuji Frontier laser photo
printer which exposes the photo paper by passing red, green and
blue lasers on it, and the print is then developed
conventionally.

> In article <l2Syh.612$(E-Mail Removed)>,
> MarkČ <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>> Paul D. Sullivan wrote:
>>> Those huge ones that are like 18 feet long and 4 feet tall?
>>>
>>> What are they if not laser?

>>
>> They aren't laser.
>> Laser just can't deal with glossy/semi-gloss paper like that.
>> It would likely melt the paper coating along with the toner.
>>
>> Next time you're in Costco...just ask them.
>>

>
>
>
> As of a couple years ago, the fanciest printers were normal
> silver-wet process paper chemistry and processing but instead
> of being exposed by shining light through a negative, the
> image is raster-scannned with laser from a digital image. The
> computer can do color and contrast adjustment as needed on
> each spot on the page.
>
> (I expected to see someone that actually knows waht he's
> talking about step in and answer this.)



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Paul D. Sullivan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-09-2007
http://www.majid.info/mylos/weblog/2002/03/20-1.html

These prints are made on real photographic paper (Fuji Crystal
archive, rated at 25 years) by a Fuji Frontier laser photo
printer which exposes the photo paper by passing red, green and
blue lasers on it, and the print is then developed
conventionally.

> Al Dykes wrote:
>> In article <l2Syh.612$(E-Mail Removed)>,
>> MarkČ <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>>> Paul D. Sullivan wrote:
>>>> Those huge ones that are like 18 feet long and 4 feet tall?
>>>>
>>>> What are they if not laser?
>>>
>>> They aren't laser.
>>> Laser just can't deal with glossy/semi-gloss paper like
>>> that. It would likely melt the paper coating along with the
>>> toner. Next time you're in Costco...just ask them.
>>>

>>
>>
>>
>> As of a couple years ago, the fanciest printers were normal
>> silver-wet process paper chemistry and processing but instead
>> of being exposed by shining light through a negative, the
>> image is raster-scannned with laser from a digital image. The
>> computer can do color and contrast adjustment as needed on
>> each spot on the page. (I expected to see someone that
>> actually knows waht he's
>> talking about step in and answer this.)

>
> I didn't pretend to know... I just knew that it wasn't a
> conventional laser printer process as he seemed to guess... My
> impression has been that they use a chemical process, too,
> but I've never used them even one time...so I don't know. I
> print all my own stuff at this point, and have yet to ever
> have someone else print a digital image for me. I've also
> seen them (at Costco) sitting at what appears to be a much
> smaller ink-jet of some type.



 
Reply With Quote
 
MarkČ
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-09-2007
Paul D. Sullivan wrote:
> Here's what they use:
>
> http://www.noritsu.co.jp/english/pro...qss3101_1.html
>
> Here's a bit about the engine:
>
> State-of-the-Art Laser Engine The QSS-3101-1Digital is equipped
> with a laser engine that employs Noritsu Koki's
> multi-paper-matching technology to make high-quality prints of
> 300dpi on both digital paper and conventional photographic paper,
> in various sizes up to 12 x 18 inches.


Hmmm.
Isn't this describing a film-processing machine? I thought you were talking
about what they use when people upload their memory cards.

If it prints at 300dpi using a laser printer... No thanks.
This might explain why I was silently displeased with some prints my brother
recently showed me. I could see individual dots from whatever device
created the print. Perhaps it was this machine??

Hmmm.


>
>
>
>> Paul D. Sullivan wrote:
>>> Those huge ones that are like 18 feet long and 4 feet tall?
>>>
>>> What are they if not laser?

>>
>> They aren't laser.
>> Laser just can't deal with glossy/semi-gloss paper like that.
>> It would likely melt the paper coating along with the toner.
>>
>> Next time you're in Costco...just ask them.


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


 
Reply With Quote
 
MarkČ
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-09-2007
Paul D. Sullivan wrote:
> http://www.majid.info/mylos/weblog/2002/03/20-1.html
>
> These prints are made on real photographic paper (Fuji Crystal
> archive, rated at 25 years) by a Fuji Frontier laser photo
> printer which exposes the photo paper by passing red, green and
> blue lasers on it, and the print is then developed
> conventionally.


Ah. Then you're not talking about toner at all.
You're talking about light-exposed, chemically developed photo paper.
That's not the same as what people usually mean when they say "laser
printer."

>> Al Dykes wrote:
>>> In article <l2Syh.612$(E-Mail Removed)>,
>>> MarkČ <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>>>> Paul D. Sullivan wrote:
>>>>> Those huge ones that are like 18 feet long and 4 feet tall?
>>>>>
>>>>> What are they if not laser?
>>>>
>>>> They aren't laser.
>>>> Laser just can't deal with glossy/semi-gloss paper like
>>>> that. It would likely melt the paper coating along with the
>>>> toner. Next time you're in Costco...just ask them.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> As of a couple years ago, the fanciest printers were normal
>>> silver-wet process paper chemistry and processing but instead
>>> of being exposed by shining light through a negative, the
>>> image is raster-scannned with laser from a digital image. The
>>> computer can do color and contrast adjustment as needed on
>>> each spot on the page. (I expected to see someone that
>>> actually knows waht he's
>>> talking about step in and answer this.)

>>
>> I didn't pretend to know... I just knew that it wasn't a
>> conventional laser printer process as he seemed to guess... My
>> impression has been that they use a chemical process, too,
>> but I've never used them even one time...so I don't know. I
>> print all my own stuff at this point, and have yet to ever
>> have someone else print a digital image for me. I've also
>> seen them (at Costco) sitting at what appears to be a much
>> smaller ink-jet of some type.


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


 
Reply With Quote
 
Ron Baird
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-12-2007
Greetings LJC,

I agree the cost is very attractive and, in fact, a manifestation of the
technology and hard work that Kodak has put into these printers over the
last 5 years. Kodak paper that you can find anywhere with the term Photo in
the name will offer the advantage of the printer being able to read the
paper backing. It will be able to determine what paper is being used and set
itself for that paper. Nice feature that will improve anyones results.

The scanner is also pretty good and can scan at resolutions of 75, 150, 200,
300, 600 or 12000. The prints are water resistant and will last longer than
I will (about 100 years or more). The results of the printer are excellent
and I will match them agains any of the other printers out there.

Check them out at local stores and see for yourself. Best Buy for the time
being and others as we move ahead.

Talk to you soon,

Ron Baird
Eastman Kodak Company




"Little Juice Coupe" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:45c93eae$0$80077$(E-Mail Removed)...
> At $14.99 for the 5 color ink cartridge compared to 5 color ink cartridges
> for say the Epson 320 that is a lot cheaper than half. The question is
> what are you paying for in the printer. Cheap and lame scanner, fax,
> document scanner, copier function or a good quality high resolution photo
> printer. My bet the ink maybe cheaper but the print quality isn't going to
> cut the mustard. Also, no mention on available papers, how long the print
> live or anything else.
>
> Since Kodak these days aren't exactly known for top of the line consumer
> products, I think I would pass.
>
> ljc
>
>
> "ray" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news(E-Mail Removed)...
>> On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 19:12:57 -0500, 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's on several major newspapers - do a simple web search - I think I
>> found it on the Washington Post site - also info on the Kodak site. They
>> are introducing three 'all-in-ones'. Cost of consumables is about 1/2 of
>> the major players. One downer is that the color cartridge has all five
>> colors in one package.
>>

>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Ron Baird
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-12-2007
Greetings ASAAR,

You are correct the information on the Kodak site as noted on the page is
based on ink costs. Look to the bottom left of the page to see these
references.and how this is done. Not much different than others. We do not
include paper as we are not sure if someone will be using Kodak
paper.....although they should

Also, the paper that has been out in the marketplace for some time now,
about a year or more, that has the work Photo in the name, will work
perfectly in these new printers. In fact, the backing of the paper is read
by the printers to set it for best results. Check one out at your local Best
Buy etc.

Talk to you soon,

Ron Baird
Eastman Kodak Company





"ASAAR" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> 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.
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
MarkČ
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-12-2007
Ron Baird wrote:
> Greetings ASAAR,
>
> You are correct the information on the Kodak site as noted on the
> page is based on ink costs. Look to the bottom left of the page to
> see these references.and how this is done. Not much different than
> others. We do not include paper as we are not sure if someone will be
> using Kodak paper.....although they should
>
> Also, the paper that has been out in the marketplace for some time
> now, about a year or more, that has the work Photo in the name, will
> work perfectly in these new printers. In fact, the backing of the
> paper is read by the printers to set it for best results. Check one
> out at your local Best Buy etc.
>
> Talk to you soon,
>
> Ron Baird
> Eastman Kodak Company


When will they actually be available?
I see only "pre-order" on the Best Buy web site.
Should they be in stock already?


>
>
>
>
>
> "ASAAR" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> 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.


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


 
Reply With Quote
 
Ron Baird
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-12-2007
Greetings Ron,

If you check out the following page, you will see that you can get a kit for
$17.99 which works out to be around .10 a print. The pack has the ink and
paper. Pretty good deal for making some 4x6 prints.
http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQueri...q-locale=en_US

Might be even better deals as the printers come to the marketplace more
readily.

Talk to you soon.

Ron Baird
Eastman Kodak Company



"Ron Hunter" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
> 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
 
Ron Baird
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-12-2007
Greetings Paul,

The print head is secured in the printer. It is, however, replaceable,
though it is unlikely that you would need to replace it. It can be done and
it is not all that expensive. I do not know the exact cost.

Ron Baird
Eastman Kodak Company




"Paul D. Sullivan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:9xlyh.9721$_d4.7783@trndny05...
> But isn't the print head built into the printer? Is there a benefit to
> that long-term? Hope it would be a low-cost user replaceable option.
>
>> 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.

>
>



 
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