Re: filmscanners: real value?

[Arthur Entlich <artistic@ampsc.com>]

I don't know if it is worldwide, but I believe ALPS has abandoned their 
dye sub product line, perhaps only supporting it with consumables.  They 
weren't very popular in Canada, and I only saw one dealer who carried 
them for a short time.  The main problems ALPS had were they took too 
long to get the units out, they were a bit too costly and slow, they 
couldn't resolve the banding problem with the ribbons, and they didn't 
or couldn't license out the technology, so companies with more bucks 
behind them, like HP, Canon, IBM (Lexmark) and Epson were able to create 
a very strong market following.  Finally, inkjet printers have improved 
their output so much that dye sub has been pretty much been left in the 
dust, considering other aspects.  Dye sub is probably best for 
self-contained units not requiring a computer, for smaller format 
prints.  The Canon "Home Lab" is an example.

Art

Gordon Tassi wrote:

> Ian:  I had looked at a some ALPS Electric dye sub printers before getting my
> Epson.  Based on the prices I saw, I would say the 2000 UK Pounds would be at
> the very top of the line.  Their web site ( Search for "ALPS Electric") shows
> OEM and retail printers..  Their global section shows an office in the U.K. 
>(At
> Milton Keynes, I believe).  The costs shown in the site are the costs to 
>produce
> a photo, not not the cost of the machine.  The cost of a low end printer is 
>the
> US is about $500.  ( I found them at www.alpsusa.com)
> 
> They do show black and white and color.  They seem to print slower than an
> inkjet.
> A friend of mine has one and says that the dpi and dimension of the computer
> output will be the same as the printer output, with the upper limit of the
> printer's capability being the restriction.
> 
> Gordon
> 
> 
> Ian Jackson wrote:
> 
> 
>> Michael,
>> 
>> I wonder why there are so few people film scanning then printing with dye
>> sublimation printers?
>> 
>> Surely these would fully complement say a 4000 dpi scanner?
>> 
>> My only questions are:
>> 
>> (1) B&W - I see no mention of this is any Dye sub printer literature
>> (2) Where do I find an A3 Dye sub printer under 2000 UK Pounds?
>> 
>> Ian
>> 
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Michael Moore" <miguelmas@uswest.net>
>> To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
>> Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 8:26 PM
>> Subject: Re: filmscanners: real value?
>> 
>> 
>>> Ian,
>>> I totally agree. HP has fallen victim to the same short term marketing
>> 
>> mentality
>> 
>>> that infects too many of today's manufacturers and service providers. That
>> 
>> said,
>> 
>>> I do think that their printers at least are much better made than
>> 
>> Epson's...
>> 
>>> What I would really like to see is the old HP mentality applied to their
>>> printers, etc., so that we would have truly professional equipment, both
>> 
>> in
>> 
>>> manufacture and design... I will also reply to Art's comment about the
>> 
>> price
>> 
>>> comparison between HP and Epson... wheteher it's the 740, the 870, or the
>> 
>> 2000,
>> 
>>> they all have the print head as part of the printer, so if the darned
>> 
>> thing
>> 
>>> clogs beyond repair, you're scr.... (my spell-checker just kicked in).
>>> As for HP, ain't nobody that I know making third party archival
>> 
>> pigment/inks for
>> 
>>> the darn thing.... Just give me a Fuji Frontier...
>>> 
>>> Mike Moore
>>> 
>>> Ian Jackson wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Michael Moore wrote.....
>>>> 
>>>> Michael,
>>>> 
>>>> I respect your comment about HP assuming you meant the same
>>> 
>> oscilloscopes,
>> 
>>>> power supplies etc,   that I also used.  However HP's Computers,
>>> 
>> printers,
>> 
>>>> software and service FOR THOSE PRODUCTS,  are just not in the same
>>> 
>> league.
>> 
>>>> Somehow I feel you would not disagree?
>>>> 
>>>> Ian
>>>> 
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Arthur Entlich" <artistic@ampsc.com>
>>>> To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 11:39 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: filmscanners: real value?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Michael Moore wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> I cut my electronics teeth on HP when I trained as an electronics
>>>>> 
>> tech
>> 
>>>> in Th
>>>> 
>>>>>> US Navy... Their stuff was always built to last... Last summer I
>>>>> 
>> bought
>> 
>>>> an HP
>>>> 
>>>>>> 932C... it's built much better than my Epson 740... plus the
>>>>> 
>> cartridges
>> 
>>>> come
>>>> 
>>>>>> with the nozzles built in so if a print head clogs, you just replace
>>>>> 
>> the
>> 
>>>>>> cartridge... I bought it to replace an Epson that had a clogged
>>>>> 
>> print
>> 
>>>>>> head...(third party inks!)... I thinks it's a load of bull that
>>>>> 
>> things
>> 
>>>> can't
>>>> 
>>>>>> be made to last...
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Mike M
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Didn't the 932C cost a good deal more than the 740 (I'm not on top of
>>>>> the prices on these)?  And yes, most anything can be made to last, it
>>>>> costs more R&D and usually more in material and manufacturing expense
>>>> 
>> to
>> 
>>>>> do so.  That's not my point.  Making a car last (say a Ford Model T)
>>>>> that can't go above 30 miles an hour, other than as a collectable,
>>>>> doesn't make good sense in a world that demands cars that can go 80
>>>> 
>> mph
>> 
>>>>> for practical considerations. The same is true (and more so) of high
>>>>> tech.  If you owned a 10 megabyte harddrive and it was built to last
>>>> 
>> for
>> 
>>>>> 50 years, would you still be using it today? Not likely.  The darn
>>>> 
>> thing
>> 
>>>>> has more value in aluminum and gold than in either practical use or
>>>>> resale value.
>>>>> 
>>>>> BTW, I have a perfectly good 10 meg hard drive I'll sell you (weighs
>>>>> about 15 pounds -- you pay postage, too)  And if you'd like that one,
>>>>> you'll really appreciate my dual drive Bernoulli with disks (which are
>>>>> 12" wide and hold 5 or 10 megs each... it weights about 50 pounds.)
>>>> 
>> and
>> 
>>>>> is bigger than a tower computer ;-)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Art
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>