Kodak announces printer breakthrough

Discussion in 'Kodak' started by ASAAR, Feb 7, 2007.

  1. ASAAR

    ASAAR Guest

    It probably is. If the print head was built into the ink
    cartridges, as is done with my HP carts, Kodak probably would have
    to charge quite a bit more than $10 and $15 for their cartridges.
    If the printers are like most, it only makes sense to replace print
    heads for very expensive printers. These new Kodaks aren't dirt
    cheap, but they're not particularly expensive either. Unless Kodak
    had *really* changed direction and will make head replacement simple
    and inexpensive, replacing the entire printer is probably almost as
    cost effective, and you end up with not just a new print head, but a
    completely new printer with a new warranty, and maybe a starter
    cartridge or two tossed in. Considering the much greater longevity
    of non-replaceable print heads, there should be enough savings from
    lower ink costs to pay for a new printer several times over if it
    comes to that.
     
    ASAAR, Feb 7, 2007
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. ASAAR

    Mark² Guest

    Kodak's claims appear to be legitimate.
    Here's a link to the ink, as well as ink/4x6 paper packs:
    http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=10599&pq-locale=en_US
    That 180 sheets AND a the 5-color, pigment ink cartridge for $17.99.
    That literally blasts the competition.
    The Higher quality paper pack is 135 sheets + ink cartridge for $19.99.
    Still a bargain, price-wise, and it's pigment ink. That puts it head and
    shoulders over any offering from HP, Canon or Epson in this segment for
    affordability.
     
    Mark², Feb 8, 2007
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. I work for Kodak and I can't fathom how Kodak can think that they can
    take market share from HP, Epson, & Canon printers. I for one will
    never purchase a Kodak printer.
     
    Michael Calverley, Feb 8, 2007
    #23
  4. ASAAR

    Mark² Guest

    I print serious stuff on high end, large format Epson printers. But for
    small stuff, it wouldn't bother me a bit to find a solution that produced
    stable (pigment ink), quick and inexpensive small prints...to keep my family
    off my back (always asking for more 4x6 prints than I care to run through my
    bug Epson). I'm not normally a fan of much from Kodak... I don't like
    their cameras...and wasn't a big fan of their film, either. But These kind
    of all-purpose ink-jets are open game. -If they can produce high quality
    prints...or even as good as competing all-in-ones (which wouldn't be hard at
    all...), I'll buy one simply for convenience & cost savings for non-serious
    printing. The quality they produce remains to be seen... I'm just glad
    someone is trying to buck the trend...
     
    Mark², Feb 8, 2007
    #24
  5. You may be right. I have had two Epson photo printers and both
    use up tons of ink cause I have to do that "head cleaning" thing
    all the time. I would think it would be good to have new print
    heads every time you buy ink. But maybe there is no correlation.
    Maybe Epson just builds bad print heads that clog easily.
     
    Paul D. Sullivan, Feb 8, 2007
    #25
  6. I read in an article that Kodak said they were able to charge
    less for the ink because they did have a dedicated print head
    built in to the printer itself.

    My concern would be how that would affect quality.

    I don't know which Epson or HP or Lexmark printers have built-in
    print heads and which don't, so it's hard for me to judge.

    But whatever Epson has done on the Epson Photo printers that I
    have bought, I'm probably going to avoid them in the future
    because I end up using a ton of ink just to get it "unclogged"
    and working. It is extremely frustrating. Epson Photo 780
    printed great stuff - when it printed. But it was just a money
    pit of wasted ink. :(
     
    Paul D. Sullivan, Feb 8, 2007
    #26
  7. For Me the deal killer is that all that Kodak is putting out are
    all in one printes. I don't want an all in one swiss army knife
    printer. I want a photo printer, that works well, dosn't eat my
    lunch in ink costs and is easy to use. So far the cost of ink from
    Kodak is the only thing it has going for it. Also is the cost of ink
    in the real world going to be that low. With all the colors in one cart
    I will be dumping a lot of usable ink when I replace cart because I've
    used up all the black. My photos often have a black background and I use
    up black ink cart at a 2 to 1 rate over any other color in my current
    printer. I hope it works for Kodak, but I don't think I'm buying one.

    John Passaneau
     
    John Passaneau, Feb 8, 2007
    #27
  8. Was the Canon a good investment?
     
    Paul D. Sullivan, Feb 8, 2007
    #28
  9. ASAAR

    ray Guest

    Interesting. I hated the Canon BJC5000 so much I bought an Apollo (HP).
    Later an Epson R320 - really like that Epson.
     
    ray, Feb 8, 2007
    #29
  10. ASAAR

    Ron Baird Guest

    Greetings All,

    I have completed some classes on the new printers, and I think you are going
    to find that what was noted is true. The prints are excellent and the
    printers are as well. Kodak has been working on its inks for several years
    and has a great technology at this point. I am sure you will like them and
    the results. As to the paper, I believe the paper that was released about a
    year ago will be excellent in these printers. So, most of the Kodak paper
    you might find on shelves will do the job and do it well. These printers
    also add an element of protection which leaves the printer water resistant.
    Very nice, and the prints will last as long as noted.

    Following is information that you may find interesting. I will be reviewing
    more and will be around to share on posted issues. Talk to you all soon.

    From an article about this new release. "Actually, Kodak has been around
    inkjet for about 15 years. In order to get into this business, you've got
    to have unique talent, intellectual property portfolio, funding, strategic
    partners and the path to the channels. Kodak has the unique ability as a
    corporation to bring all of these elements to the table. The company's IP
    portfolio is impressive, including over 1,000 patents in inkjet printing
    alone. And over 900 more patents in image science. So we didn't approach
    this project with empty pockets. We came with a rich portfolio, a very
    strong team from both inside the company and of those we recruited. We were
    able to acquire 65 engineers from other companies about mid-way into the
    program."

    This isn't a one-time deal. This inkjet technology could lead us down
    several paths with a wide portfolio of products in the next five years.
    Stay tuned.

    Ron Baird
    Eastman Kodak Company
     
    Ron Baird, Feb 8, 2007
    #30
  11. Cool - thanks.
     
    Paul D. Sullivan, Feb 8, 2007
    #31
  12. ASAAR

    ASAAR Guest

    A removable vinyl cover or a little umbrella? :)

    Most welcome would be some serious photo printers that don't clog
    if used intermittently, and would use large ink cartridges or allow
    switching to tanks. Make large prints inexpensive enough and Kodak
    will sell lots of paper and buckets of ink. (and while the ink
    still ain't exactly cheap, it's getting a lot better). Is there any
    chance that there'll be some models that will be able to print on
    CD/DVD disks, especially if it's without the smearing problems I've
    heard that's plaguing another brand? Anyway, as you've no doubt
    seen, your new printers are being enthusiastically welcomed, sight
    unseen, by people who own other manufacturer's printers. I'm sure
    that Kodak did enough research to count on this reaction. It's also
    nice knowing that we'll be seeing more of you around these parts! :)

    BTW, I know someone that's got a very small business selling cakes
    and cookies and things, using what she says are fairly large Kodak
    printers to ornament them with photos and designs using edible ink.
    I tried searching for these printers but only came up with people
    selling mostly standard consumer grade Canon printers. Are you
    familiar with these Kodak printers or do you know of any web pages
    that have non-restricted information about them?
     
    ASAAR, Feb 8, 2007
    #32
  13. I would really rather have a 6 colors laser printer that can
    handle photos as well or nearly as well as ink jets.
     
    Paul D. Sullivan, Feb 9, 2007
    #33
  14. ASAAR

    Mark² Guest

    I don't know that you'll get that, since you can't really "mix" melted
    plastic (toner) the way you can "mix" inks.
    Laswer an entirely different application process.

    Someone else can correct me there, but I think it really comes down to toner
    limitations.
     
    Mark², Feb 9, 2007
    #34
  15. Aren't those big machines at Costco and Walmart laser printers?
     
    Paul D. Sullivan, Feb 9, 2007
    #35
  16. Per Ron Baird:
    Is wax dead?

    Some years back, I did a high school reunion book on printers that used chunks
    of colored wax instead of ink and thought the results were pretty good - or at
    least good enough for me.

    What keeps me thinking of wax is the apparent simplicity - just those solid
    blocks of "stuff" - No ink capsule, no little plastic sheets to protect the ink
    jets, and so-forth.

    Seems like if it were made more cost-competitive it would be an attractive
    alternative.
     
    (PeteCresswell), Feb 9, 2007
    #36
  17. ASAAR

    Mark² Guest

    You mean for photos?
    No.
     
    Mark², Feb 9, 2007
    #37
  18. Those huge ones that are like 18 feet long and 4 feet tall?

    What are they if not laser?
     
    Paul D. Sullivan, Feb 9, 2007
    #38

  19. The print head technology and ink are Kodak's. The
    printers are built in China (like everything else these days.)

    This I know for a fact. Though I also know that the technology
    *looks* a whole lot like Canon's ie., it's a fixed thermal
    (not piezo) head.

    A company called Sigmatel (my employer) makes the controller
    chip.


    rafe b
    www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    Raphael Bustin, Feb 9, 2007
    #39
  20. ASAAR

    Mark² Guest

    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.
     
    Mark², Feb 9, 2007
    #40
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.