Kodak re-enters inkjet biz

Greetings Rebel,

I am quite confident of the configuration of the new Kodak printers. You
should try it at a dealer (Best Buy for example). The way the printer is
built will save you a lot of ink and cost.

You won't be sorry for the review.

Ron Baird
Eastman Kodak Company


"rebel" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 18:24:57 +1100, "DRS"
wrote:

"Ron Baird" wrote in message
r.com
Greetings DK,

There is a cleaning process similar to other printers, but it does
not use a lot of ink in the doing. Kodak also has set aside specific
parts of the head to cover for any clogs that might occur
temporarily. So, you are not going to miss out on any printing.
Prints will continue to be excellent. As the clog is cleared, things
return to normal.
Actually, Kodak has included two cleaning options Normal clean and a
Deep Clean. The Deep Clean is not generally needed and so is rarely
suggested. If you run into a problem, it can be used in extremes.

And if that fails, what then? I would have thought a smart company would
learn from Epson's mistake.

Indeed. Having owned and compared Epson and HP inkjets, it's all cheese
and
chalk. The Epson shat all over the HP for print quality, but the HP would
always fire up after a month of inactivity. And getting fresh nozzles
with
every (new) cart - even though I paid for that privilege - was better than
the
inevitable declogging and the cost of new Epson print heads. Eventually
sold
both Epsons, run a pair of HP's now

I have prayed long and hard for a printer manufacturer to do two things:

(a) abandon the "give them the razor, sell them the blades" business
model; and
(b) provide nozzles in the consumable cartridge.

When I heard that Kodak were heading for (a) I held my breath, but alas no
(b).

Greetings Yianni,

Not available information. I can tell you, however, that the general clean
process will do what is necessary and at the least loss of ink.

Talk to you soon.

Ron Baird
Eastman Kodak Company


"Yianni" wrote in message
news:1171379160.847332@athnrd02...
Just for my curiocity, what method does this printer use for cleaning the
printhead? It uses any type of pump, or like HP printers without a pump?


--
Yianni

(Remove the number nine from my email address to send me email)



"Ron Baird" wrote in message
. com...

Greetings DK,

There is a cleaning process similar to other printers, but it does not
use a lot of ink in the doing. Kodak also has set aside specific parts of
the head to cover for any clogs that might occur temporarily. So, you are
not going to miss out on any printing. Prints will continue to be
excellent. As the clog is cleared, things return to normal.

Actually, Kodak has included two cleaning options Normal clean and a Deep
Clean. The Deep Clean is not generally needed and so is rarely suggested.
If you run into a problem, it can be used in extremes.
To clean printhead from computer

1 Start the AiO Home Center (software that comes with the printer)
2 Click to open the Help panel.
3 Under General Links, click Maintenance.
4 Click Printhead Cleaning.

To clean printhead from control panel pf the software,

1 Press Menu to display the Main Menu.
2 Press ?? until Clean Printhead is selected.
3 Press OK to go to the Clean Printhead menu.
4 Press OK to perform a Basic Clean.

or

Press ?? to select Deep Clean and press OK to perform a Deep Clean
(rarely needed).


Talk to you soon,

Ron Baird
Eastman Kodak Company

"DK" wrote in message
...


I really like the idea of getting all new nozzles when I get a new
cartridge. Kodak does NOT give you new nozzles with ink.

So how will Kodak handle the nozzles getting clogged?




On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 11:06:24 GMT, Arthur Entlich
wrote:

Some of you may recall that years ago, Kodak brand inkjet printers were
on the market. They were actually rebranded HP models with some
firmware changes.

Well, Kodak is introducing three new "all in one" printer models today,
and I suspect they are not being made by one of the major inkjet
manufacturers, because Kodak is taking the currently used business
model, and turning the clock back to the old days of cheap ink and only
slightly more costly printers. Whether this will lead the charge toward
a decline in other OEM ink cartridges is hard to tell. I suppose it all
depends upon how well received the hardware becomes.

The new "all in one models" sell for $150, $200 and $300 US (list). They
use a permanent thermal ink head with 3840 nozzles. They use two ink
cartridges, a five color (CcMmY) and a black cartridge. The ink head is
thermal (like Canon, HP and Lexmark) and the inks are Kodak's own and
are pigment. They claim the inks provide a wider gamut than wet lab
prints.

The interesting part is the cost of the cartridges. The black cartridge
is $10 and the five-color one is $15US (list). Kodak claims that the
cost is about half that of other OEMs for the same amount of ink or
yield. They also claim the cost of producing a 4x6 borderless print is
now under 10 cents US inclusive of glossy paper. With these printers,
Kodak is introducing new papers using microporous technology for
"instant dry" capability.

The permanence and other qualities of the prints are a bit vague in the
news releases, but words like "lifetime" and "normal home display
conditions" are being used.

Personally, I applaud a new player on the scene, and one that is pushing
to reverse the trend of more and more costly inks supplies. No word on
if the cartridges are "chipped", how long the 'permanent' head will
last, nor if the permanent head is replaceable and at what cost if it
is.

Art

This person is spending a lot of time on PR (ADVERTISING) for the
company he works for. This is not a forum for company advertising no
matter what the excuse. And he knows he is doing it.

Ron Baird wrote:
Greetings Rebel,

I am quite confident of the configuration of the new Kodak printers. You
should try it at a dealer (Best Buy for example). The way the printer is
built will save you a lot of ink and cost.

You won't be sorry for the review.

Ron Baird
Eastman Kodak Company


"rebel" wrote in message
...

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 18:24:57 +1100, "DRS"
wrote:


"Ron Baird" wrote in message
. com

Greetings DK,

There is a cleaning process similar to other printers, but it does
not use a lot of ink in the doing. Kodak also has set aside specific
parts of the head to cover for any clogs that might occur
temporarily. So, you are not going to miss out on any printing.
Prints will continue to be excellent. As the clog is cleared, things
return to normal.
Actually, Kodak has included two cleaning options Normal clean and a
Deep Clean. The Deep Clean is not generally needed and so is rarely
suggested. If you run into a problem, it can be used in extremes.

And if that fails, what then? I would have thought a smart company would
learn from Epson's mistake.

Indeed. Having owned and compared Epson and HP inkjets, it's all cheese
and
chalk. The Epson shat all over the HP for print quality, but the HP would
always fire up after a month of inactivity. And getting fresh nozzles
with
every (new) cart - even though I paid for that privilege - was better than
the
inevitable declogging and the cost of new Epson print heads. Eventually
sold
both Epsons, run a pair of HP's now

I have prayed long and hard for a printer manufacturer to do two things:

(a) abandon the "give them the razor, sell them the blades" business
model; and
(b) provide nozzles in the consumable cartridge.

When I heard that Kodak were heading for (a) I held my breath, but alas no
(b).

Greetings Art,

It is apparent that you are involved in the printer/imaging world. I will
dispense with the technical jargon and simply assure you that the Kodak
printers are very well engineered and has all the issues you mention
covered. Our folks have been reviewing the market for quite some time and
this offering is the result of a considerable amount of work on many teams.
They are aware of all the points you have made.

The information I have reviewed but cannot share here bears this out. I am
pretty sure that you will find this to be true as these new products move
through the marketplace.

I will share your comments, however as they are valued.

Actually, I recall all of the products you mentioned as I worked at Kodak
when they were released, including the 126 format (37 year life). In some
cases they were around for some time and made a lot of money for the
company.

Kodak Home Photo CD players (In a focus group, I warned them not to try this
on their own, and instead to license it to other CD player manufacturers,
but they didn't listen) - It did eventually make it to the Professional
arena
Kodak 8mm video equipment (went hand in hand with Kodavision equpment -
released in 1984). We stopped offering batteries for it in 1997.
Kodak Broadcast and regular video tape (The broadcast quality was great
tape) - Some of the best tape on the market released in 1984 disc in 1994
Kodak Gold Ultima CD-R blanks (great CD blanks, BTW) - Also great CDs
Kodak Ektaflex PCT process (easy to use, faded almost as easily) -
interesting process to make it easier to prnts.
Kodak Instant Film and Cameras (they got sued on that one and had to refund
everyone's money after Polaroid successfully won an injunction) - law suit
was patent related and it was Kodaks decision to give money back not a part
of the law suit.
Kodak Disk/126/110/APS film cartridges and cameras (trying to recreate the
phenomenon of 135mm film or improve upon it never did quite work, but then
again, the money was in selling cheap cameras and forcing labs to buy new
add-ons to process and print these usually inferior formats) - Brought
general picture taking to many millions.

Talk to you soon, Art,

Ron Baird
Eastman Kodak Company




"Arthur Entlich" wrote in message
news:nvkAh.970962$R63.29106@pd7urf1no...
Your comments are fair, but only to a point.

Epson makes dozen of printer models, and they differ considerably in ink
types and in clogging frequency. Further, as good as HP printers have
become, Epson still has them beat in several areas. For specific usage,
each brand and approach will prove to have better or worse
characteristics.

You fairly state that the Epson print quality was considerably superior,
and that the cost for having a new head with each ink refill was costly.

You obviously were more than willing to live with both those factors. Not
everyone is, however, nor do they have to to get a printer that has the
good characteristics that Epson can offer. You just have to pay more for
the printer, as you also alluded to.

The Epson R800, for instance has a very low risk of clogging with the OEM
inks. It can be fitted with a bulk ink unit, and bulk inks can be
purchased to keep costs lower. Depending on the brand, some also have low
head clogging tendencies.

The Epson head is permanent for a reason. The piezo technology allows for
very accurate and controllable dot placement, variable dot technology, the
ability to handle a fairly wide variety of viscosities and ink
formulations (including dye and pigment), and the inks can often be
designed to handle quite a number of paper types.

Overall, the Ultrachrome inks (pigment) offer a very low risk of clogging,
The dye inks a moderately low risk, including the newer long lived Claria
inks. The one poor (in my opinion, very poor) ink formulation is the
Durabrite inks. These fast drying pigment inks do indeed clog rapidly in
dryer climates, or if the printer sits unused for a week or more. In
general those printers which use that ink formulation is the "C and CX
series printers and all in ones, and they typically sell very
inexpensively.

As to how well Kodak has accomplished there design, we'll have to wait and
see. They use a pigment ink with a semi-permanent thermal head. This is
somewhat similar head design to the Canon printers, although Canon has
only released pigment color inks for their higher end professional wide
carriage printers so far.

I hope Kodak has done this well, and will signal changes throughout the
industry. Keeping in mind Kodak wants to win the "hearts and minds" of
the consumer with their product and that they are taking a big hit of the
consumables, they better have the engineering correct on the head design
or they will rapidly take a bath when the warranty returns start coming
in, and being that they are selling all in one units, they will be
attracting a demographic that just wants things to work without hassling.

I do wish them luck, and hope they do not fall into a "Kodak Moment" which
was Kodak's tendency to get into a new market only to abandon it a year or
so later. I can think of a good half dozen major areas Kodak has entered
with gusto only to suddenly pull the plug. It is a bit of a wonder they
have clients willing to risk investing in new equipment from them with
this background.

Ones I recall offhand....

Kodak Home Photo CD players (In a focus group, I warned them not to try
this on their own, and instead to license it to other CD player
manufacturers, but they didn't listen)
Kodak 8mm video equipment
Kodak Broadcast and regular video tape (The broadcast quality was great
tape)
Kodak Gold Ultima CD-R blanks (great CD blanks, BTW)
Kodak Ektaflex PCT process (easy to use, faded almost as easily)
Kodak Instant Film and Cameras (they got sued on that one and had to
refund everyone's money after Polaroid successfully won an injunction)
Kodak Disk/126/110/APS film cartridges and cameras (trying to recreate the
phenomenon of 135mm film or improve upon it never did quite work, but then
again, the money was in selling cheap cameras and forcing labs to buy new
add-ons to process and print these usually inferior formats)

One can always hope Kodak has done this one (the inkjet game) correctly.

Art

rebel wrote:

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 18:24:57 +1100, "DRS"
wrote:


"Ron Baird" wrote in message
er.com

Greetings DK,

There is a cleaning process similar to other printers, but it does
not use a lot of ink in the doing. Kodak also has set aside specific
parts of the head to cover for any clogs that might occur
temporarily. So, you are not going to miss out on any printing.
Prints will continue to be excellent. As the clog is cleared, things
return to normal.
Actually, Kodak has included two cleaning options Normal clean and a
Deep Clean. The Deep Clean is not generally needed and so is rarely
suggested. If you run into a problem, it can be used in extremes.

And if that fails, what then? I would have thought a smart company would
learn from Epson's mistake.


Indeed. Having owned and compared Epson and HP inkjets, it's all cheese
and
chalk. The Epson shat all over the HP for print quality, but the HP
would
always fire up after a month of inactivity. And getting fresh nozzles
with
every (new) cart - even though I paid for that privilege - was better
than the
inevitable declogging and the cost of new Epson print heads. Eventually
sold
both Epsons, run a pair of HP's now

I have prayed long and hard for a printer manufacturer to do two things:

(a) abandon the "give them the razor, sell them the blades" business
model; and
(b) provide nozzles in the consumable cartridge.

When I heard that Kodak were heading for (a) I held my breath, but alas
no (b).

"Arthur Entlich" wrote in message
news:4BlAh.971030$R63.778318@pd7urf1no
You are making a lot of assumptions here, such as.

1) You have the right to "request" that people not top post, and very
patronizing in your "request".

I most certainly have the right to ask someone to stop doing something that
inconveniences myself and others. It's not the least patronising. OTOH,
top posting is selfish and inconsiderate to everybody.

I'm not sure, I think that both thermal and piezo printheads could use a
pump for cleaning. I know little about canon printers, I thought they
include a pump, is that wrong?

--
Yianni

(Remove the number nine from my email address to send me email)



"Arthur Entlich" wrote in message
news:YNlAh.962858$5R2.806261@pd7urf3no...

Although I'm guessing, since its a thermal head design, it shouldn't
require a pump. Thermal heads tend to unclog by activating the resistors
which are used to heat the nozzles. In effect the ink within the very
small nozzle area is boiled, and that is usually adequate to make enough
pressure to pop any dried ink out.

Epson requires a vacuum pump because the ink head and ink are not heated,
but use a more passive vibration system to pump the ink out of the head.
Since it is a pretty non-vigorous process, if the nozzle is clogged, the
vibrating liquid is not sufficient to push a dried plug of ink out of the
nozzle area, so instead vacuum is applied to the outer surface of the head
to try to pull the clog out.

Art

Yianni wrote:

Just for my curiocity, what method does this printer use for cleaning the
printhead? It uses any type of pump, or like HP printers without a pump?

I'm not sure, I think that both thermal and piezo printheads could use a
pump for cleaning. I know little about canon printers, I thought they
include a pump, is that wrong?

I check a manual, I saw that at least the old Canon S6300 model has a pump.
I thought all Canon printers have a pump (I'm not sure for this). I know
that HP printers don't have a pump (may because of a pattent issue or HP
found a better way to clean the printheads?).

Ron Baird wrote:

I am quite confident of the configuration of the new Kodak printers. You
should try it at a dealer (Best Buy for example). The way the printer is
built will save you a lot of ink and cost.

Please stop top-posting, reading your messages is like hearing half of a
phone conversation. At least edit the text to just those sections to
which you are responding.

I'm curious about the new printers, but the web page is very light on
details. You'd think a photographic company would have some detailed
closeup photos.

Obviously the new printers are not host-based, but will programming
information be available so they can be used under Linux and other
operating systems?

--
Warren Block * Rapid City, South Dakota * USA

Ron Baird wrote:
Greetings Art,

It is apparent that you are involved in the printer/imaging world.

And it is equally apparent that you are advertising for Kodak on a
newgroup that is not appropriate for you to advertise.
I will
dispense with the technical jargon and simply assure you that the Kodak
printers

snip

He has the right to request people not top post for any reason. Just
like others have the right to top post for different reasons.

DRS wrote:
"Arthur Entlich" wrote in message
news:4BlAh.971030$R63.778318@pd7urf1no

You are making a lot of assumptions here, such as.

1) You have the right to "request" that people not top post, and very
patronizing in your "request".


I most certainly have the right to ask someone to stop doing something that
inconveniences myself and others. It's not the least patronising. OTOH,
top posting is selfish and inconsiderate to everybody.