Kodak enters the ink-jet printer race

[Ian]

• From the launch event illustrated report
• Official Kodak US and UK press releases

Two and half years ago I learned from the, then outgoing, CEO of Kodak that Kodak was building an ink-jet printer manufacturing infrastructure. I was told to expect its launch during 2006. Nothing was announced last year and Kodak went quiet on the subject when asked.

Well, the newswires this morning are reporting that Kodak is officially launching its ink-jet business today. I'm, due at a briefing with Kodak today and will bring back news this afternoon. Meanwhile, a press release has been received and that will be published in our press release archive shortly.

Ian

[Ian]

Kodak's consumer products boss in Europe, Jaime Cohen Szulc, with one of the new Kodak ink-jet printers, posing for DPNow

Just got back from the UK launch event. The key messages are:

• Launch products will be all-in-one printer/scanner/copier and (top model) fax capable, with PC-connected or stand alone photo and plain paper document printing, up to A4 paper size. US pricing is $199 for the basic model (without fax). Both feature a good-sized, tilting colour screen.
• Halved cost per print compared with cheapest competitor (at least as little as 7p per 6x4 print).
• Only two ink tanks; black (£6.99) and colour (five ink colours - £9.99).
• Pigmented ink with 'nano' particle pigment particles and smart gloss optimiser that only covers areas not printed in colour or black.
• Print head has just under 4,000 nozzles and drop sizes are as small as 2.5pl. Both plain paper and photo printing are respectably fast.
• Front loading HP-style for paper.
• Available from around May.

Ian

[Stephen]

One can't help wondering what the effect on the market will be when these machines are available. It seems they are in direct competition with the likes of HP. So if these price points for inks are maintained will it drive down the cost of cartridges from the other manufacturers. If so it can't be a bad thing

[JSR]

It'll be interesting to see where this leads. If the 7p for a 6"x4" is photo quality and not draft, it puts this printer in direct competition with labs and that can't be a bad thing.

However, given Kodak's history with being less than accurate with their terminology ("lifetime", "archival", for example), I think we need to wait to see if their claims are upheld in the real world.

Can't wait to see some reviews of these printers.

Quick question, though. If this is a two tank printer with a single K and a 5-tank for CcMmY, then where does the gloss optimiser fit in? Nice to see a GOP in there, though, as no other manufacturer seems to feel the need for one...

smart gloss optimiser that only covers areas not printed in colour or black

What other type is there?

[Ian]

Originally Posted by JSR

It'll be interesting to see where this leads. If the 7p for a 6"x4" is photo quality and not draft, it puts this printer in direct competition with labs and that can't be a bad thing.

However, given Kodak's history with being less than accurate with their terminology ("lifetime", "archival", for example), I think we need to wait to see if their claims are upheld in the real world.

Can't wait to see some reviews of these printers.

Quick question, though. If this is a two tank printer with a single K and a 5-tank for CcMmY, then where does the gloss optimiser fit in? Nice to see a GOP in there, though, as no other manufacturer seems to feel the need for one...


What other type is there?

I believe the photo colours and gloss optimiser are all in the one big photo colour tank.

Pretty sure the Epson R800/1800 gloss optimiser covers the whole printed area, but I'll check with Epson.

Ian

[JSR]

Originally Posted by Ian

I believe the photo colours and gloss optimiser are all in the one big photo colour tank.

Given that the colour tank only contains 5 inks (both in your report and Kodak's website), the gloss optimiser could only be in there if there are just 4 colours. I wonder which one it replaces? Or is it a 6-colour tank?

Originally Posted by Ian

Pretty sure the Epson R800/1800 gloss optimiser covers the whole printed area, but I'll check with Epson.

Not on my R1800 it doesn't.

As I'm interested in this cost-of-print thing, I've been browsing Kodak's site. It's proving very enlightening.

Your news report suggests that a 6"x4" will cost 7p, but that's not true. Check out: http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQueri...q-locale=en_GB in which it states that a 6"x4" will cost 10p just for the ink - you have to add in the paper cost. That means that, rather than be half the price of the lowest competitor, the Kodak printer will be more expensive than the 12.5p print from my Picturemate.

It looks like there will be a value pack (http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQueri...q-locale=en_GB) which alleges 7p per print but that'll only be true if the pack is available for £12.60 including postage as this is a 180 print pack (180x0.07=£12.60) but so far there's no price on the website. The value pack comes with just a colour ink, not the black which would add extra cost. Then there are the other questions - how long do the printheads last, how much do they cost when replacing, how do these affect print price?

It is also noteable that Kodak's disclaimer says "Comparative information based on test results using KODAK ULTRA Premium Photo Paper and ISO 24711 testing standards." This is a relatively new ISO standard, as I understand it, and may not be useful for comparison of costs. For example, I know that my PM produces a full photo for 12.5p but the ISO 24711 states both "This International Standard is only intended for the measurement of ink cartridge page yield when printing on plain paper. No other claims can be made from this testing regarding quality, reliability, etc." and "This International Standard is not for use with printers <..> designed or configured to print photos." So how can Kodak claim that according to the ISO 24711, their new printers print 6"x4" photos for 7p? Are we going to find that the 7p figure is actually a "draft" print cost?

As I say, it'll be interesting to see the real cost when the water settles. There's surprisingly little info about ink capacity, there is only that link to the ISO 24711 rather than any useful comparative data. I hope Kodak are not just trying to blind everyone with technicalities and we'll find that, in real world terms, their print cost is no better than anyone else's.

[Ian]

The 7p (10 cents US) per print cost is based on the cost of a Kodak Photo Value Pack (bulk paper plus ink) and is a per print cost, not just ink or paper, though the figure does not include the cost of purchasing the printer. This is explained in the press release. The UK press release has been added to the US one we published yesterday morning.

I don't think the black ink from the single colour black cartridge is used for photo printing; it's for document printing on plain paper only. So I assume the gloss optimiser is contained in the colour cartridge, but I will check with Kodak and report back.

In my report I did say that the print head is designed to be a life time part, but can be DIY replaced should it fail. This is much the same policy as Canon.

The 7p per print cost is based on a thinner paper than the premium Ultra paper. The cost per print using Ultra paper is 10p per print.

We were told that these are conservative figures and it's likely that the Value Pack paper will run out before the ink does. Which is the experience that Epson PictureMate users have.

We were told that there is no 'draft' quality mode, or at least that there is no mode comparable to the poor quality of other printers when used in their draft modes. That said, I have been using a Canon Pixma Pro 9000 recently and its draft mode is really very good.

The prints look good on the lustre finish paper, but I'm not very impressed with glossy - it's a dull shine. Epson pigment glossy, even without gloss optimiser, is definitely better compared to the samples we were shown and, tellingly, only lustre finish sample prints were in our press packs to take home.

Ian

[JSR]

In my view, anything that gives the other players a kick in the wallet when it comes to ink costs has to be a good thing. I've already seen some posts on other forums from people saying "I'm buying one of them when they come out..." purely on the grounds of Kodak's headline-grabbing claims. You can bet your life that the likes of HP/Canon/Epson will be looking into their real ink costs and not just buying into the claims. We should be doing the same. There are no end of erroneous print-cost claims scattered around the internet.

It's a bit concerning to hear that the black probably won't be used for photos. I know it's not a useable comparison but I've compared prints from my PM with a friend's HP Photosmart. The PM uses 6 inks (including black), the HP uses a tri-colour (no black). My main complaint with the HP is that the lack of a black drags down the quality enormously. It just cannot cope with shadows, dark colours, and the prints just don't have the "leap off the page" sparkle of the PM. I'm convinced that just adding a K to the CMY would make all the difference. (Daftest of all is that the HP has a "black&white" print option - but with no black ink. )

Still, maybe Kodak really does have something revolutionary to bring to the table. The inkjet market must be a tough one to get into. I'm sure most people will hesitate to believe the claims, but if there's one way to get the mass public buying your printer it's to appeal to their wallets - whether the claims are true or not.

We were told that there is no 'draft' quality mode, or at least that there is no mode comparable to the poor quality of other printers when used in their draft modes. That said, I have been using a Canon Pixma Pro 9000 recently and its draft mode is really very good.

I only mentioned the subject of a draft mode because Kodak cite the ISO 24711 which appears to be a standard based on plain paper printing and not for photo printing. If Kodak claim a 7p print cost and cite this standard, you can see where the confusion arises. I haven't read the entire standard, just the opening couple of pages I could find on the internet. It may well be that Kodak derives their print cost from the standard and then uprate to the equivalent of a photo, but they don't say that.

[Ian]

I only mentioned the subject of a draft mode because Kodak cite the ISO 24711 which appears to be a standard based on plain paper printing and not for photo printing. If Kodak claim a 7p print cost and cite this standard, you can see where the confusion arises. I haven't read the entire standard, just the opening couple of pages I could find on the internet. It may well be that Kodak derives their print cost from the standard and then uprate to the equivalent of a photo, but they don't say that.

OK, don't forget that this is a document printer as well, so the ISO standard quoted may simply referring to plain paper printing, rather than photos.

Ian

[JSR]

Originally Posted by Ian

OK, don't forget that this is a document printer as well, so the ISO standard quoted may simply referring to plain paper printing, rather than photos.

Ian

It may well do so. One of the Kodak pages (http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQueri...q-locale=en_GB), however, says "Just 10p per 6x4 photo" with a dagger mark pointing you to the smallprint that says "...based on test results using ... ISO 24711 testing standards." A plain paper testing standard cited for a photograph. Maybe I'm just easily confused?

I'm not complaining at Kodak for this, afterall the ISO standard is meant to make things easier for us (the user). But you can only get the ISO standard if you pay for it, which means that for most of us (the user), it's just a number that manufacturers can hide behind. Rather than "ISO 24711" making Kodak look good, it actually makes you wonder what they're hiding. That's the fault of the ISO, not Kodak. ISO numbers aren't making it easier, they're making things more confusing.

In the old days, ink cartridges tended to have a "page capacity at 5%" which gave a general comparative guideline. Even if one manufacturer bent the rules in their favour, you can be sure others were doing the same so the comparison still stood. Some arbitrary ISO number that no one except the manufacturers and the wealthy know about is of little use, and any statement/claim based on such shaky foundations is therefore questionable.

[Ian]

OK, confirmed points from Kodak:

The colour cartridge contains photo black, cyan, magenta and yellow inks, plus the gloss optimiser, which is described as a protective gloss 'ink'.

The black-only cartridge is not used for photo printing, only for documents and mixed graphics on plain paper.

Here are the value pack details (UK prices):

Photo Value pack: £11.99. 180sheets of 165gsm gloss photo paper + 1 colour cartridge. Cost per photo: 7p

Premium Photo Value Pack: £12.99 135 sheets of 240gsm gloss photo paper + 1 colour cartridge. Cost per photo: 10p

Is that clear enough now?

Ian

PS you were right, Epson confirms that their R800/R1800 gloss optimiser only covers unprinted areas too, though it does have the appearance of a final topcoat - a bit like dye-sub prints.

[JSR]

Originally Posted by Ian

OK, confirmed points from Kodak:

The colour cartridge contains photo black, cyan, magenta and yellow inks, plus the gloss optimiser, which is described as a protective gloss 'ink'.

The black-only cartridge is not used for photo printing, only for documents and mixed graphics on plain paper.

Here are the value pack details (UK prices):

Photo Value pack: £11.99. 180sheets of 165gsm gloss photo paper + 1 colour cartridge. Cost per photo: 7p

Premium Photo Value Pack: £12.99 135 sheets of 240gsm gloss photo paper + 1 colour cartridge. Cost per photo: 10p

Is that clear enough now?

Ian

PS you were right, Epson confirms that their R800/R1800 gloss optimiser only covers unprinted areas too, though it does have the appearance of a final topcoat - a bit like dye-sub prints.

Thanks, Ian, yes that clears things up nicely.

It's surprising to see that this is effectively a 4-colour printer, given that it's pigment. With a "5-ink colour cartridge" (as it's described) you immediately think this is a 6-colour printer like rival products. But then I guess it's easier for Kodak to determine how much ink to put in the carts for a print-price target if there are less inks to worry about.

The description of "protective gloss ink" is a bit confusing, too. If the GOP is a "smart" GOP that only covers unprinted parts of the paper (like Epson), then in what way is it "protective"? Protective of the paper, but not of the print, perhaps? In my mind a "protective" coat is like those dye-subs that have a protective fade-resistant overcoat which makes up for the inherent weaknesses of the dye-sub inks, but that's not the way this "smart" GOP was described.

Anyway, thanks for getting some answers. Think I'll stick with my colour lasers for cheap printing if we're only talking CMYK...

[Ian]

Originally Posted by JSR

Thanks, Ian, yes that clears things up nicely.

It's surprising to see that this is effectively a 4-colour printer, given that it's pigment. With a "5-ink colour cartridge" (as it's described) you immediately think this is a 6-colour printer like rival products. But then I guess it's easier for Kodak to determine how much ink to put in the carts for a print-price target if there are less inks to worry about.

The description of "protective gloss ink" is a bit confusing, too. If the GOP is a "smart" GOP that only covers unprinted parts of the paper (like Epson), then in what way is it "protective"? Protective of the paper, but not of the print, perhaps? In my mind a "protective" coat is like those dye-subs that have a protective fade-resistant overcoat which makes up for the inherent weaknesses of the dye-sub inks, but that's not the way this "smart" GOP was described.

Anyway, thanks for getting some answers. Think I'll stick with my colour lasers for cheap printing if we're only talking CMYK...

The photo print quality on lustre finish paper is definitely superior to colour laser - even on glossy paper, except the gloss is not very glossy. There is no obvious sign of early CMYK ink-jet coarseness.

Ian

[JSR]

Originally Posted by Ian

The photo print quality on lustre finish paper is definitely superior to colour laser - even on glossy paper, except the gloss is not very glossy. There is no obvious sign of early CMYK ink-jet coarseness.

Ian

I'm just acknowledging that the product range isn't for me. Some of today's colour lasers don't exhibit courseness or dithering, their only limitation is when it comes to prints on thick glossy paper which obviously lasers can't yet cope with - the limitation is no longer quality of print.

My Brother MFC all-in-one is a CMYK dye model but you wouldn't want to use it for photos, even though it can do an adequate job at them. Funnily enough, you can get decent quality out of that Brother but it's the extremely silly HP-style front feed paper tray that puts you off. Whoever thought of stacking glossy paper upside down in the tray then having it dragged around a 180° bend? That's barmy. (It's also a topic for another time... )

I suspect when the smoke clears, these Kodaks will turn in a fine performance as "jack of all trades" and will appeal to those who require multi-function units that work well as opposed to dedicated units that excel. Glad we got through the hype.