Re: filmscanners: real value?

["Ian Jackson" <Ian_Jackson@blueyonder.co.uk>]

Laurie,

Re point (2) The Olympus P400 also laminates

> (3)  Inkjets have reached the level where there quality and other features
> come very close to those, if not in some instances surpass those, of
> inkjets.

Eh!

Ian

----- Original Message -----
From: "Laurie Solomon" <laurie@advancenet.net>
To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 4:53 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: real value?


> Ian,
>
> Partial possible answers to your question are:
>
> >I wonder why there are so few people film scanning then printing with dye
> >sublimation printers?
>
> (1)  Dye sublimation printers may be too costly as compared to inkjet
> printers both to purchase and to operate given the cost of expendables.
> (2)  Dye sublimation prints are even more fragile than inkjet prints in
> terms of longevity in the case of resistance to heat and water among other
> factors so I am told.
> (3)  Inkjets have reached the level where there quality and other features
> come very close to those, if not in some instances surpass those, of
> inkjets.
> (4)  There is more development going on in regard to inkjet and laser
> technologies than in dye sublimation technologies, which it appears -
> relatively speaking - has been orphaned, which makes people uncomfortable
in
> investing in a product that might be abandoned in the near future so as to
> make getting expendables difficult and expensive.
>
> >B&W - I see no mention of this is any Dye sub printer literature
>
> (1) Expense of printers and expendables as noted above.
> (2) Difficulty getting good black and white tonal range using just the
black
> on the dye sub black dye ribbon and getting rich blacks when trying to
> obtain black from a mixture of the other color dyes.
> (3) Not archival enough to be used for anything more than mere proofing.
>
> >Where do I find an A3 Dye sub printer under 2000 UK Pounds?
>
> I have no response to this. :-)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> [mailto:owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Ian Jackson
> Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 6:01 AM
> To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> Subject: Re: filmscanners: real value?
>
>
> Michael,
>
> I've got to be careful here as this is a scanners BBS not a printer BBS
but
> 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
> > > >
> > > >
> >
>