Kodak announces printer breakthrough

I would really rather have a 6 colors laser printer that can
handle photos as well or nearly as well as ink jets.

On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 18:08:51 -0500, Ron Baird wrote:

These printers also add an element of protection which leaves
the printer water resistant.

A removable vinyl cover or a little umbrella?


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.

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?

Paul D. Sullivan wrote:
I would really rather have a 6 colors laser printer that can
handle photos as well or nearly as well as ink jets.

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.
--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

Aren't those big machines at Costco and Walmart laser printers?

Paul D. Sullivan wrote:
I would really rather have a 6 colors laser printer that can
handle photos as well or nearly as well as ink jets.

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.

Per Ron Baird:
Kodak has been working on its inks for several years
and has a great technology at this point.

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

Paul D. Sullivan wrote:
Aren't those big machines at Costco and Walmart laser printers?

You mean for photos?
No.


Paul D. Sullivan wrote:
I would really rather have a 6 colors laser printer that can
handle photos as well or nearly as well as ink jets.

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.

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

Those huge ones that are like 18 feet long and 4 feet tall?

What are they if not laser?

Paul D. Sullivan wrote:
Aren't those big machines at Costco and Walmart laser
printers?

You mean for photos?
No.


Paul D. Sullivan wrote:
I would really rather have a 6 colors laser printer that can
handle photos as well or nearly as well as ink jets.

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.

On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 15:07:58 +1300, frederick wrote:


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?


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

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 Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

In article ,
Mark² mjmorgan(lowest even number 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.)

--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001

Al Dykes wrote:
In article ,
Mark² mjmorgan(lowest even number 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 Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson