Epson wins litigation - aftermarket carts already in short supply

Thanks for the second link! I couldn't get to the correct info on the
first link from Chipworks, will have to dig a bit further.

From reading the second link's info, I was able to correct an error in
my thinking about the Kodak printer's ink design.

I have been assuming (incorrectly) that the two cartridges were Black,
and color containing CcMmY inks. That is NOT correct, and it also
explains somewhat why the ink usage may be more even than I had anticipated.

The inks used in the Kodak inkjets are as follows:

Black Cartridge: Text black ink only

Color Cartridge: Cyan, Magenta, Yellow, Photo Black and Clear coat.

In other words, the Kodak printer design is actually four color, not a
six color printer. The set up probably means the ink colors will run
out about the same time, although I'd guess the photo black may have
left over ink if they are supplied in equal volumes per color.

The clear coat probably both helps to give an even surface regardless of
ink coverage, and might also protect the ink surface from abrasion.

I was surprised to read how large the ink droplets were. There are two
nozzle or drop sizes, one is 2.7 picolitres and the other is 6.5
picolitres. Those are rather substantial sizes for a high color load
ink which is used in this setup. Canon and Epson 4 color printers use
as small as 1 picolitre droplets.

Anyway, this is all quite interesting, and I'm disappointed people who
knew were unable or unwilling to correct my assumptions to set the
record straight, since this stuff appears to not be under NDA.

Thanks for helping to set the record and my assumptions straight.


Art

zakezuke wrote:

On Sep 14, 2:10 pm, "Ron Baird" wrote:

Hi Zake,

Not really Zake, the technology was developed right here in good ol
Rochester and other parts of Kodak. We have an excellent technology base.
Many find it quite interesting.

As to web sites and what is offered for detail, Kodak has that as well. Try
visiting the following as well as searching through Kodak web pages.
Interesting.

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/rese...ex.jhtml?pq-pa...


This is a great example of marketing speak. Asking about aspects of
the technology only to get back a response "many find it quite
interesting" is in most circles rude.

This website is the best example of a complaint about Kodak. For
example it doesn't specify whether or not are using thermal or
micropiezo on the current generation ezshare 5x00 series of printers.
All data suggests it's thermal based... your link is rather useless.

https://www.chipworks.com/blogs.aspx...&blogyear=2007
http://cathieburke.1000nerds.kodak.c...sp?item=488521

Here is some actual information on Kodak's "proprietary" technology.
It looks like they are out sourcing the manufacturing of the
printhead (6J2032) to www.st.com (STMicroelectronics). While similar
to canon/hp, their 1000nerds site suggests they are using glass rather
than resins for the nozzles. Again going cmos rather than bonding is
a move canon and hp made long ago. HP is already at one die. What's
not clear is how the bubble is dissipated.

I'll have to comb though the patents at a later time... but the big
user concern is with head clogging.

On Sep 15, 1:05 am, Arthur Entlich wrote:

I have been assuming (incorrectly) that the two cartridges were Black,
and color containing CcMmY inks. That is NOT correct, and it also
explains somewhat why the ink usage may be more even than I had anticipated.

The inks used in the Kodak inkjets are as follows:

Black Cartridge: Text black ink only

Color Cartridge: Cyan, Magenta, Yellow, Photo Black and Clear coat.

I was rather surprised my self. Since it uses pigments I would have
also expected it to be CcMmYK. Also the setup would seem to be
similar to canon in the fact their general purpose models only use
small nozzles on Cyan and Magenta.

I was surprised to read how large the ink droplets were. There are two
nozzle or drop sizes, one is 2.7 picolitres and the other is 6.5
picolitres. Those are rather substantial sizes for a high color load
ink which is used in this setup. Canon and Epson 4 color printers use
as small as 1 picolitre droplets.

In all fairness the Pixma Pro 9500 only offers a 3pl min drop size,
the only other thermal based pigment printer I'm aware of, and even
that was delayed almost a year.

I'm not sure Epson offers 4 color printers other than their Stylus
series, which those are also 3pl. These printers however are not
marketed as lab quality photo printers. They have printers as low as
1.5pl but near as i'm aware they don't include their 4 color
printers.

Anyway, this is all quite interesting, and I'm disappointed people who
knew were unable or unwilling to correct my assumptions to set the
record straight, since this stuff appears to not be under NDA.

Kodak is a very young player in this market. I think their first
volley of marketing simply didn't include technical specs to share, so
the natural response was "proprietary and efficient". Polite but 100%
useless.

Greetings Zake,

I am sure you have considerable references at hand Zake, and are aware of
the technologies that are common to many, as noted in your review. That is
the point. Kodak has new technology that is used and so will not be making
that public. Most of the tech world is aware of the way inkjet printers
work.

Kodak overcame the clogged head issue some time ago and that is included in
the recent release of printers. As you note in your references, the 1000
Nerds (Kodak blog) specific informatinon is not released.

Nothing rude nor am I 'marketing.' I am just trying to make it clear that
the information is proprietary.

You seem to have a problem with Kodak? If so, I am glad to share with you
here. Let me know if you had any bad experiences.

Ron Baird
Eastman Kodak Company




"zakezuke" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Sep 14, 2:10 pm, "Ron Baird" wrote:
Hi Zake,

Not really Zake, the technology was developed right here in good ol
Rochester and other parts of Kodak. We have an excellent technology base.
Many find it quite interesting.

As to web sites and what is offered for detail, Kodak has that as well.
Try
visiting the following as well as searching through Kodak web pages.
Interesting.

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/rese...ex.jhtml?pq-pa...

This is a great example of marketing speak. Asking about aspects of
the technology only to get back a response "many find it quite
interesting" is in most circles rude.

This website is the best example of a complaint about Kodak. For
example it doesn't specify whether or not are using thermal or
micropiezo on the current generation ezshare 5x00 series of printers.
All data suggests it's thermal based... your link is rather useless.

https://www.chipworks.com/blogs.aspx...&blogyear=2007
http://cathieburke.1000nerds.kodak.c...sp?item=488521

Here is some actual information on Kodak's "proprietary" technology.
It looks like they are out sourcing the manufacturing of the
printhead (6J2032) to www.st.com (STMicroelectronics). While similar
to canon/hp, their 1000nerds site suggests they are using glass rather
than resins for the nozzles. Again going cmos rather than bonding is
a move canon and hp made long ago. HP is already at one die. What's
not clear is how the bubble is dissipated.

I'll have to comb though the patents at a later time... but the big
user concern is with head clogging.

zakezuke wrote:

On Sep 15, 1:05 am, Arthur Entlich wrote:


I have been assuming (incorrectly) that the two cartridges were Black,
and color containing CcMmY inks. That is NOT correct, and it also
explains somewhat why the ink usage may be more even than I had anticipated.


Just to clarify the above statement, which I now realize was poorly
constructed, what I meant was that the efficiency of the total ink usage
in the cartridge might be improved, since it uses a 4 color system,
where, in general, the inks get used pretty evenly (although yellow does
seem to often run low first). We still don't know if the ink volumes
are the same per color or not. It would also seem that the clear coat
volume should be higher than the colored inks, since it likely coats the
whole page, although, perhaps it only coats areas with either higher or
lower ink coverage, depending upon the gloss factor in the inks. Still
a lot of unanswered questions there.


The inks used in the Kodak inkjets are as follows:

Black Cartridge: Text black ink only

Color Cartridge: Cyan, Magenta, Yellow, Photo Black and Clear coat.


I was rather surprised my self. Since it uses pigments I would have
also expected it to be CcMmYK. Also the setup would seem to be
similar to canon in the fact their general purpose models only use
small nozzles on Cyan and Magenta.


I was surprised to read how large the ink droplets were. There are two
nozzle or drop sizes, one is 2.7 picolitres and the other is 6.5
picolitres. Those are rather substantial sizes for a high color load
ink which is used in this setup. Canon and Epson 4 color printers use
as small as 1 picolitre droplets.


In all fairness the Pixma Pro 9500 only offers a 3pl min drop size,
the only other thermal based pigment printer I'm aware of, and even
that was delayed almost a year.


In the dye ink area, both Epson and Canon have 1 picolitre droplet sizes
for their some of their 4 color printers. Dot volume is more important
in 4 color printers than others, since they only use the full color load
inks, and a larger dot of ink in low density areas can be quite
noticeable. Black ink dots in the 3 PL size can show up in low density
areas as graininess. However, since I again don't know how Kodak is
accomplishing their results, they might use lower color load inks and
multiple passes or build up with several dots to avoid this problem.
Living in Canada, where the printers aren't even distributed, it is hard
to comment since I have yet to see any output samples.

Epson has a number of pigment 4 color printers. Their whole C and CX
line up of printers and all in one, all use CMYK pigment inks. These
are their low end product lines, and I cannot find any reference to the
dot sizes they are using. Unlike most thermal head designs which
require a different nozzle for each ink volume dot, the piezo head can
generate multiple sized dots by changing the vibration frequency and
length of the electronic pulse to the actuator. The 6 color Epson models
really don't require a dot smaller than 3 pl, but the four color
printers can benefit from a still smaller dot.

I can't say I am sorry that some of this information no longer makes
fascinating reading, because much of these specs (dot resolution and
density, dot size or volume, number of nozzles, numbers of colors,
number of passes, etc.) really have to be taken into context of the
specific technology involved. At the end of the day, the image quality
is what counts. However, for people who benefit from the more detailed
information, it would at least be nice for it to be available.

I'm not sure Epson offers 4 color printers other than their Stylus
series, which those are also 3pl. These printers however are not
marketed as lab quality photo printers. They have printers as low as
1.5pl but near as i'm aware they don't include their 4 color
printers.



The older Stylus (where they actually listed the picolitre volumes) did
indeed go down to 1 pl for the color versions, as did/do the 4 color
Canon models (dye inks).

Anyway, this is all quite interesting, and I'm disappointed people who
knew were unable or unwilling to correct my assumptions to set the
record straight, since this stuff appears to not be under NDA.


Kodak is a very young player in this market. I think their first
volley of marketing simply didn't include technical specs to share, so
the natural response was "proprietary and efficient". Polite but 100%
useless.


I understand this is a very competitive market, but once the printer
gets into the hands of consumers, it is also in the hands of competitors
who probably know exactly how it works within hours. At that point, I'm
not sure what the point is of being unresponsive to questions, and
playing coy about this kind of information (such as how many colors it
uses). It also gives a false impression, since Kodak speaks of a black
cartridge and a 5 compartment color cartridge. Clear coat isn't a color,
and the use of two blacks, one photo and one text, might be helpful in
evaluating the printer as well.

I think that other than maintaining silence to protect against theft of
ideas, it is best to make other information as transparent as possible,
of those who are interested.

Art

This is not a Forum to promote Kodak as an employee.

Ron Baird wrote:
Greetings Zake,

I am sure you have considerable references at hand Zake, and are aware of
the technologies that are common to many, as noted in your review. That is
the point. Kodak has new technology that is used and so will not be making
that public. Most of the tech world is aware of the way inkjet printers
work.

Kodak overcame the clogged head issue some time ago and that is included in
the recent release of printers. As you note in your references, the 1000
Nerds (Kodak blog) specific informatinon is not released.

Nothing rude nor am I 'marketing.' I am just trying to make it clear that
the information is proprietary.

You seem to have a problem with Kodak? If so, I am glad to share with you
here. Let me know if you had any bad experiences.

Ron Baird
Eastman Kodak Company




"zakezuke" wrote in message
oups.com...

On Sep 14, 2:10 pm, "Ron Baird" wrote:

Hi Zake,

Not really Zake, the technology was developed right here in good ol
Rochester and other parts of Kodak. We have an excellent technology base.
Many find it quite interesting.

As to web sites and what is offered for detail, Kodak has that as well.
Try
visiting the following as well as searching through Kodak web pages.
Interesting.

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/rese...ex.jhtml?pq-pa...

This is a great example of marketing speak. Asking about aspects of
the technology only to get back a response "many find it quite
interesting" is in most circles rude.

This website is the best example of a complaint about Kodak. For
example it doesn't specify whether or not are using thermal or
micropiezo on the current generation ezshare 5x00 series of printers.
All data suggests it's thermal based... your link is rather useless.

https://www.chipworks.com/blogs.aspx...&blogyear=2007
http://cathieburke.1000nerds.kodak.c...sp?item=488521

Here is some actual information on Kodak's "proprietary" technology.
It looks like they are out sourcing the manufacturing of the
printhead (6J2032) to www.st.com (STMicroelectronics). While similar
to canon/hp, their 1000nerds site suggests they are using glass rather
than resins for the nozzles. Again going cmos rather than bonding is
a move canon and hp made long ago. HP is already at one die. What's
not clear is how the bubble is dissipated.

I'll have to comb though the patents at a later time... but the big
user concern is with head clogging.

Ron,

I don't feel that Zake has "a problem" with Kodak, per se. I think he
is feeling similarly to myself, that some information that should be
readily accessible to those who wish to learn more is not so.

For example, the number of ink colors and other components in the
cartridges doesn't need to be kept secret. As I stated in an earlier
posting, once the product is on the market, the competition knows it all
anyway, so there is no longer a secret to be held.

When I asked about the volume of the ink colors, assuming there were
light magenta and cyan inks involved, and the associated problem of
their being used up first in a ganged cartridge, why couldn't you have
posted that the Kodak inkjet models didn't use a light color load ink
set, but instead were using 4 colors, inclusive of a clear coat and two
blacks, one for text and one for photo use. That kind of omission is the
kind of thing that makes me distrustful. It couldn't have possibly been
NDA at that point.

You state that the head clogging issue has been resolved, but there was
no acknowledgment that I saw that it ever officially existed, other than
by people who complained about it here. There is no information on how
it was resolved, and if owners of earlier models were offered upgrades.
Was it a software issue requiring a new firmware download, a change of
ink formulation, or a hardware change? No one is asking for Kodak to
reveal the exact fix or design change, but a simple announcement that
stated "We have been made aware of some clogging problems with our early
release printers, and this have been addressed with new ink
formulations, new firmware which resolves the issue a new head
design, etc", and then supplied some instructions on what early
adopters needed to do to resolve the problem would be a great outreach.

Instead, I read of head clogs, and although the product isn't yet in
Canada, I was left thinking this was still a problem and as a result I
can't recommend the product line. Same with the cartridge issue. I was
left suggesting people be weary of the ganged color cartridge because it
probably contained multiple color load inks and that the low load inks
would likely run out early leaving a lot of wasted ink in the cartridge.
I know your comment was that what is important is the print yield, so
just "be happy", but many people have become more sensitive to waste
issues, having to dump ink, which is in many formulations is considered
toxic waste because of the glycols and other chemicals in it, and also
issues of basic design efficiencies are involved, will leave some people
wondering if the printers are a good purchase or not.

I support the idea of a new player in this market, and one which is
trying a different business model when it comes to ink supply and
consumables, and honestly, I wish you best of luck, because I would like
to see the competition given a run for their money to change their
business models as well. I appreciate having you on this newsgroup as a
source of Kodak information, and don't consider your answering questions
or putting rumors or incorrect assumptions to rest as "advertising", but
when the information is very selective and guarded unnecessarily, it
makes me nervous about what else I am not being told.

Best wishes,

Art


Ron Baird wrote:

Greetings Zake,

I am sure you have considerable references at hand Zake, and are aware of
the technologies that are common to many, as noted in your review. That is
the point. Kodak has new technology that is used and so will not be making
that public. Most of the tech world is aware of the way inkjet printers
work.

Kodak overcame the clogged head issue some time ago and that is included in
the recent release of printers. As you note in your references, the 1000
Nerds (Kodak blog) specific informatinon is not released.

Nothing rude nor am I 'marketing.' I am just trying to make it clear that
the information is proprietary.

You seem to have a problem with Kodak? If so, I am glad to share with you
here. Let me know if you had any bad experiences.

Ron Baird
Eastman Kodak Company




"zakezuke" wrote in message
oups.com...

On Sep 14, 2:10 pm, "Ron Baird" wrote:

Hi Zake,

Not really Zake, the technology was developed right here in good ol
Rochester and other parts of Kodak. We have an excellent technology base.
Many find it quite interesting.

As to web sites and what is offered for detail, Kodak has that as well.
Try
visiting the following as well as searching through Kodak web pages.
Interesting.

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/rese...ex.jhtml?pq-pa...

This is a great example of marketing speak. Asking about aspects of
the technology only to get back a response "many find it quite
interesting" is in most circles rude.

This website is the best example of a complaint about Kodak. For
example it doesn't specify whether or not are using thermal or
micropiezo on the current generation ezshare 5x00 series of printers.
All data suggests it's thermal based... your link is rather useless.

https://www.chipworks.com/blogs.aspx...&blogyear=2007
http://cathieburke.1000nerds.kodak.c...sp?item=488521

Here is some actual information on Kodak's "proprietary" technology.
It looks like they are out sourcing the manufacturing of the
printhead (6J2032) to www.st.com (STMicroelectronics). While similar
to canon/hp, their 1000nerds site suggests they are using glass rather
than resins for the nozzles. Again going cmos rather than bonding is
a move canon and hp made long ago. HP is already at one die. What's
not clear is how the bubble is dissipated.

I'll have to comb though the patents at a later time... but the big
user concern is with head clogging.

On Sep 17, 5:28 pm, Arthur Entlich wrote:


The older Stylus (where they actually listed the picolitre volumes) did
indeed go down to 1 pl for the color versions, as did/do the 4 color
Canon models (dye inks).

I'll take your word on this, your experience base with Epson is far
superior to mine. My info is based on the current generation C series
which doesn't seem to go below 3pl.

On the flipside, I'm not sure why I upgraded from the beast that is
the 1520 to the 1280.... with the exception of borderless mode and
ease of feeding the 1520 with a fixed 20pl drop size looked better in
my eyes.

But yes, Canon offers 1pl in 4 color printers.

On Sep 17, 2:15 pm, "Ron Baird" wrote:

Kodak overcame the clogged head issue some time ago and that is included in
the recent release of printers. As you note in your references, the 1000
Nerds (Kodak blog) specific informatinon is not released.

Nothing rude nor am I 'marketing.' I am just trying to make it clear that
the information is proprietary.

What colors are in the tanks can't be considered proprietary since
Kodak doesn't own a patent on the primary colors for print. This is
not their property. Now if they used another system of subtractive
primaries, that would be proprietary. But CMYK printing is rather the
standard, as is CcMmYK.

The information on 1000 Nerds would suggest some of the information we
are looking for is not protected by any NDA.

The part that some circles would consider rude is suggesting on a
person's field of business would affect how they would know what
information on a printer would be released or not.

As for issues with clogging, I have seen that complaint from some
users. It's an inkjet and more over it's a pigment thermal inkjet.
The real question is how long will it operate without the head drying
out and how much a replacement head will be. Given Kodak, based on
the info i've been able to gather, is using glass rather than resins
for the nozzle plate, this might push the value of the printhead
higher than canon or hp.

You seem to have a problem with Kodak? If so, I am glad to share with you
here. Let me know if you had any bad experiences.

The only real problem I have at present is Kodak's unwillingness to
share basic information on their printers. As you said some people
find it "interesting". People like me like to stay tuned in on
current products an options.

But in terms of raw cost per page, I lack data on the current
generation Kodaks in terms of color use, doubly so since there is some
debate whether you can use standard photo papers and get good
saturation or must go with their more expensive barcoded paper. In
terms of raw cost of ink per page for black in fax AIOs it would seem
to be in-between the Pixma mp830 (3.2c/page) and the HP Officejet pro
L7580 (88 2.5c/page 88xl 1.5c/page).
[http://www.druckerchannel.de/artikel...D=1969&ps11=1]
[http://reviews.cnet.com/multifunctio...officejet-pro-
l7680/4864-3181_7-32331470.html?
ctype=msgid&messageSiteID=9&messageID=2445628&cval =2445628]

But in general I don't have a problem with Kodak. Even their attempt
to enter the 8mm market I welcomed with open arms. Kodak was ahead of
the curve in thought but the market just wasn't there. I welcome
another player on the inkjet front, esp anyone who will compete with
Epson on pigments. I don't quite buy into the marketing as far as the
cheapness of the ink, but wait more data on the color to make an
informed judgment. I do agree Kodak is at least addressing the issue
of the cost for the ink somewhat in using the same tanks for the $150
model as the $300 model.

I do have a problem with turn key technology, and having to dig though
a blog site to get technical info that should be somewhere.

Hi Art,

Thank you for the help. I see your point and will be more specific and
provide the detail available in a different way in the future. I apologize
to anyone reading this for the lack of accuracy and casual response. I
appreciate the feedback which will make my responses much more
informational.

The clogged head issue is something common to a lot of printers in the past
and my reference was to that fact.

About the technology used in the printers, we have lots of information and I
will sort through what is available and what may not be. If anything can be
shared I will be glad to share it. I do see how my response was not what
would have been best for the question posed, so thanks for enlightening me.

Let me send you to the Kodak Coporate site that offers some good information
on Inventions, in fact go to the Kodak home page, click on Corporate, then
on the Inventions tab. After a review of the content there you will have a
good idea of what is involved in these new printers. It will give you a lot
of detail that I am sure you will enjoy reviewing. It may answer some of the
questions you have about these new printers. If not, let me know
specifically what you want to know and I will provide an answer if it is
available.

Talk to you soon, always glad to help. If you use one of these printers,
which you likely already have, I am quite sure you will enjoy it.

Ron Baird
Eastman Kodak Company




"Arthur Entlich" wrote in message
news:1MFHi.194509$fJ5.160393@pd7urf1no...
Ron,

I don't feel that Zake has "a problem" with Kodak, per se. I think he is
feeling similarly to myself, that some information that should be readily
accessible to those who wish to learn more is not so.

For example, the number of ink colors and other components in the
cartridges doesn't need to be kept secret. As I stated in an earlier
posting, once the product is on the market, the competition knows it all
anyway, so there is no longer a secret to be held.

When I asked about the volume of the ink colors, assuming there were light
magenta and cyan inks involved, and the associated problem of their being
used up first in a ganged cartridge, why couldn't you have posted that the
Kodak inkjet models didn't use a light color load ink set, but instead
were using 4 colors, inclusive of a clear coat and two blacks, one for
text and one for photo use. That kind of omission is the kind of thing
that makes me distrustful. It couldn't have possibly been NDA at that
point.

You state that the head clogging issue has been resolved, but there was no
acknowledgment that I saw that it ever officially existed, other than by
people who complained about it here. There is no information on how it
was resolved, and if owners of earlier models were offered upgrades. Was
it a software issue requiring a new firmware download, a change of ink
formulation, or a hardware change? No one is asking for Kodak to reveal
the exact fix or design change, but a simple announcement that stated "We
have been made aware of some clogging problems with our early release
printers, and this have been addressed with new ink formulations, new
firmware which resolves the issue a new head design, etc", and then
supplied some instructions on what early adopters needed to do to resolve
the problem would be a great outreach.

Instead, I read of head clogs, and although the product isn't yet in
Canada, I was left thinking this was still a problem and as a result I
can't recommend the product line. Same with the cartridge issue. I was
left suggesting people be weary of the ganged color cartridge because it
probably contained multiple color load inks and that the low load inks
would likely run out early leaving a lot of wasted ink in the cartridge. I
know your comment was that what is important is the print yield, so just
"be happy", but many people have become more sensitive to waste issues,
having to dump ink, which is in many formulations is considered toxic
waste because of the glycols and other chemicals in it, and also issues of
basic design efficiencies are involved, will leave some people wondering
if the printers are a good purchase or not.

I support the idea of a new player in this market, and one which is trying
a different business model when it comes to ink supply and consumables,
and honestly, I wish you best of luck, because I would like to see the
competition given a run for their money to change their business models as
well. I appreciate having you on this newsgroup as a source of Kodak
information, and don't consider your answering questions or putting rumors
or incorrect assumptions to rest as "advertising", but when the
information is very selective and guarded unnecessarily, it makes me
nervous about what else I am not being told.

Best wishes,

Art


Ron Baird wrote:

Greetings Zake,

I am sure you have considerable references at hand Zake, and are aware of
the technologies that are common to many, as noted in your review. That
is the point. Kodak has new technology that is used and so will not be
making that public. Most of the tech world is aware of the way inkjet
printers work.

Kodak overcame the clogged head issue some time ago and that is included
in the recent release of printers. As you note in your references, the
1000 Nerds (Kodak blog) specific informatinon is not released.

Nothing rude nor am I 'marketing.' I am just trying to make it clear that
the information is proprietary.

You seem to have a problem with Kodak? If so, I am glad to share with you
here. Let me know if you had any bad experiences.

Ron Baird
Eastman Kodak Company




"zakezuke" wrote in message
oups.com...

On Sep 14, 2:10 pm, "Ron Baird" wrote:

Hi Zake,

Not really Zake, the technology was developed right here in good ol
Rochester and other parts of Kodak. We have an excellent technology
base.
Many find it quite interesting.

As to web sites and what is offered for detail, Kodak has that as well.
Try
visiting the following as well as searching through Kodak web pages.
Interesting.

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/rese...ex.jhtml?pq-pa...

This is a great example of marketing speak. Asking about aspects of
the technology only to get back a response "many find it quite
interesting" is in most circles rude.

This website is the best example of a complaint about Kodak. For
example it doesn't specify whether or not are using thermal or
micropiezo on the current generation ezshare 5x00 series of printers.
All data suggests it's thermal based... your link is rather useless.

https://www.chipworks.com/blogs.aspx...&blogyear=2007
http://cathieburke.1000nerds.kodak.c...sp?item=488521

Here is some actual information on Kodak's "proprietary" technology.
It looks like they are out sourcing the manufacturing of the
printhead (6J2032) to www.st.com (STMicroelectronics). While similar
to canon/hp, their 1000nerds site suggests they are using glass rather
than resins for the nozzles. Again going cmos rather than bonding is
a move canon and hp made long ago. HP is already at one die. What's
not clear is how the bubble is dissipated.

I'll have to comb though the patents at a later time... but the big
user concern is with head clogging.

Hi Zake,

Well I guess I got my foot stuck in the wrong place.

Sorry for the casual response Zake, I appreciate your very legitimate
interest and question. I should have known better considering I have done
this for so long. My apologies. I have posted a similar response to Art. You
may want to review the site I referred him to as well. It is quite good and
informational and may answer some of your questions. Of course, I also offer
you the same help and information I gave him, you certainly are entitled to
anything I have available to me.

Thanks for understanding, talk to you soon.

Ron Baird
Eastman Kodak Company



"zakezuke" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Sep 17, 2:15 pm, "Ron Baird" wrote:

Kodak overcame the clogged head issue some time ago and that is included
in
the recent release of printers. As you note in your references, the 1000
Nerds (Kodak blog) specific informatinon is not released.

Nothing rude nor am I 'marketing.' I am just trying to make it clear that
the information is proprietary.

What colors are in the tanks can't be considered proprietary since
Kodak doesn't own a patent on the primary colors for print. This is
not their property. Now if they used another system of subtractive
primaries, that would be proprietary. But CMYK printing is rather the
standard, as is CcMmYK.

The information on 1000 Nerds would suggest some of the information we
are looking for is not protected by any NDA.

The part that some circles would consider rude is suggesting on a
person's field of business would affect how they would know what
information on a printer would be released or not.

As for issues with clogging, I have seen that complaint from some
users. It's an inkjet and more over it's a pigment thermal inkjet.
The real question is how long will it operate without the head drying
out and how much a replacement head will be. Given Kodak, based on
the info i've been able to gather, is using glass rather than resins
for the nozzle plate, this might push the value of the printhead
higher than canon or hp.

You seem to have a problem with Kodak? If so, I am glad to share with you
here. Let me know if you had any bad experiences.

The only real problem I have at present is Kodak's unwillingness to
share basic information on their printers. As you said some people
find it "interesting". People like me like to stay tuned in on
current products an options.

But in terms of raw cost per page, I lack data on the current
generation Kodaks in terms of color use, doubly so since there is some
debate whether you can use standard photo papers and get good
saturation or must go with their more expensive barcoded paper. In
terms of raw cost of ink per page for black in fax AIOs it would seem
to be in-between the Pixma mp830 (3.2c/page) and the HP Officejet pro
L7580 (88 2.5c/page 88xl 1.5c/page).
[http://www.druckerchannel.de/artikel...D=1969&ps11=1]
[http://reviews.cnet.com/multifunctio...officejet-pro-
l7680/4864-3181_7-32331470.html?
ctype=msgid&messageSiteID=9&messageID=2445628&cval =2445628]

But in general I don't have a problem with Kodak. Even their attempt
to enter the 8mm market I welcomed with open arms. Kodak was ahead of
the curve in thought but the market just wasn't there. I welcome
another player on the inkjet front, esp anyone who will compete with
Epson on pigments. I don't quite buy into the marketing as far as the
cheapness of the ink, but wait more data on the color to make an
informed judgment. I do agree Kodak is at least addressing the issue
of the cost for the ink somewhat in using the same tanks for the $150
model as the $300 model.

I do have a problem with turn key technology, and having to dig though
a blog site to get technical info that should be somewhere.