Re: Pigmented inks was Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?

[Photoscientia <photoscientia@photoscientia.co.uk>]

Hi Art.

Arthur Entlich wrote:

> Epson tries to walk a fine line on this matter.  One the one hand, they
> are absolutely within their rights to refuse service, or charge for
> service for any printer returned during warranty which has head problems
> which could be related to the ink used, and in fact, I would go as far
> as saying they should do so.

Do you work for Epson by any chance Art?

If Epson charged a reasonable price for the 20 pence worth of ink you get in a
cartridge, or simply put a reasonable quantity of ink in them, then their
customers wouldn't feel quite so cheated, and so wouldn't feel the need to
exact some recompense from Epson by what you term 'deception'.

I have absolutely no sympathy for Epson, and I don't think anybody should have.

I recently bought one of their so-called 1200dpi flatbed scanners, which had
worse image sharpness than the cheap 600dpi Mustek that I had intended to
replace. The 1200dpi was simply 'empty resolution' containing no detail,
because they had obviously skimped on the optical system, and the image had the
same appearance as 600dpi interpolated to 1200.
Another half-arsed Epson design job, which in my view was again falsely
advertised.
The box clearly stated 'true 1200 dpi optical resolution', and this was plainly
nonsense, since the lens couldn't actually resolve anything near that. I tested
it with a resolution test plate, and it struggled to about 600dpi. Contrary to
popular belief, this isn't due to the glass in the way. Removing the glass
platen gave the same result. It just has a poor lens.

I see Canon will be pouring millions into R&D on their printer range over the
next few years.
Good luck to them!

Regards,     Pete.