I posted this on another website:
Ok,
So lets start talking about the new HP Z series 24" and 44" printers....
Is it a good idea to have a built in spectrophotometer? How much does this add to the cost of this new ' print system'..
I have seen posts that indicate printers that dont have this option are just that ....'just printers...'
I thought when creating paper/ink profiles with stand alone profile solutions you had to print and let the print dry and then take the reading to generate the profile to be used in your workflow.
It seems like this HP solution does this on the 'fly'....no drying time??? Is this now a new innovation that standalone profiling solutions cant take advantage of?
What about the old agrument about having all your eggs in one basket? Like the old comparisons for seperate stereo components vs buying an all in one 'console'.
Will HP sell a 'its just a printer' at a much lower cost and if so what are the advantages over the exsiting HP pprinters, the new Z series use the same pigments inks that the 9810 is using, so wheres the big improvement, other than bundling the profiling sensor in the printer????
The only thing I can think of is that maybe the overall cost of this solution is less than buying and existing printer of this size and buying the standalon profiling hardware and software seperately???
So wheres the 'new' beef here except for not saying "NO ICM' in the printer driver?
A.
NEW Z series HP Printers!!
Moderators: gcrogers, Kevgermany, Costas L
13 posts
• Page 1 of 1
NEW Z series HP Printers!!
by adydula » Wed Sep 27, 2006 6:19 pm
- adydula
- Posts: 145
- Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 4:24 am
by lnbolch » Wed Sep 27, 2006 8:29 pm
If you have inhabited the world of HP 8750 and Epson R2400 printers, issues that apply to them are of no relevance in the world of these printers. You must view them in an entirely different context. Most of these will go into printing companies, service bureaus, advertising agencies and professional printmakers hands. Almost none will be bought by enthusiasts. In a production environment, time is money. The best machine is the one that gets the job out in the shortest time with the least labour costs and has the longest possible period between breakdowns.
Generating profiles for printers manually, is very labour intensive. Colour patches must be read with great care, and this takes time. It means also that someone in the shop must learn to do it, an added expense in either time spent in training or hiring a technician with these skills. Doing profiles in-house, can be very expensive. Having them done externally, means a gap in time and may be even more of an expense. The print job will be delayed in any case, if there is no profile for the paper the customer wants, which may be unacceptable. If the printer can calibrate itself with little labour time, the feature will quickly pay for itself.
In an enthusiast environment, this would be a major issue. In a production environment, this would not even be a consideration. In the overall budget for a year, these costs would be a small fraction of one percent. Again time. For an enthusiast, time spent is for enjoyment and entertainment with his hobby. Efficiency does not matter since he is having fun. A wise manager will authorize the purchase of anything that will increase productivity and reduce labour costs, as long as the solution is not more expensive than the problem.
About the calibration process. In the past day's reading it was mentioned that if drying time was a consideration, it was no problem. Patches could be printed now and read the next day. I also got the impression if a short drying time was all that was needed, that could be set through software.
It is entirely automatic, so the technician can get the profiling started and go off and do something else in the meantime. To the shop owner, it is a big advantage again in time. It also means that if a customer wants a job printed on a specific stock - say Tyvek for outdoor display - it is easily accommodated.
Overall, any new printer from any of the big three will incorporate the latest printing technology their engineers will have developed. All three have substantial teams working on inks, so again, the latest or most reliable will be employed.
Every manager contemplating the replacement of a large format printer or adding a new one, will need to evaluate the efficiencies of these new machines. I doubt that "just a printer" would be considered unless it reduced labour costs enough to justify hand profiling. For a professional printmaker who only uses one specific paper, the profiling feature might actually rule these out. All the top printers will produce extremely fine quality images and graphics, so features, longevity and efficiency become the criteria for choosing.
Generating profiles for printers manually, is very labour intensive. Colour patches must be read with great care, and this takes time. It means also that someone in the shop must learn to do it, an added expense in either time spent in training or hiring a technician with these skills. Doing profiles in-house, can be very expensive. Having them done externally, means a gap in time and may be even more of an expense. The print job will be delayed in any case, if there is no profile for the paper the customer wants, which may be unacceptable. If the printer can calibrate itself with little labour time, the feature will quickly pay for itself.
The only thing I can think of is that maybe the overall cost of this solution is less than buying and existing printer of this size and buying the standalone profiling hardware and software separately???
In an enthusiast environment, this would be a major issue. In a production environment, this would not even be a consideration. In the overall budget for a year, these costs would be a small fraction of one percent. Again time. For an enthusiast, time spent is for enjoyment and entertainment with his hobby. Efficiency does not matter since he is having fun. A wise manager will authorize the purchase of anything that will increase productivity and reduce labour costs, as long as the solution is not more expensive than the problem.
About the calibration process. In the past day's reading it was mentioned that if drying time was a consideration, it was no problem. Patches could be printed now and read the next day. I also got the impression if a short drying time was all that was needed, that could be set through software.
It is entirely automatic, so the technician can get the profiling started and go off and do something else in the meantime. To the shop owner, it is a big advantage again in time. It also means that if a customer wants a job printed on a specific stock - say Tyvek for outdoor display - it is easily accommodated.
Overall, any new printer from any of the big three will incorporate the latest printing technology their engineers will have developed. All three have substantial teams working on inks, so again, the latest or most reliable will be employed.
Every manager contemplating the replacement of a large format printer or adding a new one, will need to evaluate the efficiencies of these new machines. I doubt that "just a printer" would be considered unless it reduced labour costs enough to justify hand profiling. For a professional printmaker who only uses one specific paper, the profiling feature might actually rule these out. All the top printers will produce extremely fine quality images and graphics, so features, longevity and efficiency become the criteria for choosing.
larry!
http://www.larry-bolch.com/
http://www.larry-bolch.com/
-
lnbolch - Posts: 919
- Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 10:16 pm
- Location: Edmonton, Alberta Canada
by adydula » Fri Sep 29, 2006 3:45 am
Larry,
Thanks for taking the time for such a nice reply. I understand and agree....time is money and these new printers are definitely not orientated around the hobbyist or even a prosumer....unless you have the money to play.
The technology is indeed exciting, but there are many wonderful ' just printer's that will continue to make wonderful prints and cause liots of use to smile in our labor intensive workflows...
Maybe this technology will move over into Photoshp and make our lives easier in this area (smile)....boy do I (we) spend a lot if time playing in that area of the hobby / business....
Yes I have inhabited the low end world of the Epson R2400 and recently ( abut a year now...) have a Epson 4800 and have thoroughly enjoyed what it is capeable of producing...if your careful, and consistent you can make really gereat prints that are quite repeatable as I know you are well aware of...
I enjoyed playing with Bill Atkinsons Boquet of Profiles that he developed using all that high dollar profiling euipment and it works well on the 4800...
I have hundreds of prints using different appers and profiles trying to see what all the differences are...and have settled down to a few favorites and am back to enjoying the photography and art form once again...and then along comes some new technology like these Z printers that are ery enticing....
But you know if its all that easy and consitent how much fun would that be at our level!!!
All the best
Alex
Thanks for taking the time for such a nice reply. I understand and agree....time is money and these new printers are definitely not orientated around the hobbyist or even a prosumer....unless you have the money to play.
The technology is indeed exciting, but there are many wonderful ' just printer's that will continue to make wonderful prints and cause liots of use to smile in our labor intensive workflows...
Maybe this technology will move over into Photoshp and make our lives easier in this area (smile)....boy do I (we) spend a lot if time playing in that area of the hobby / business....
Yes I have inhabited the low end world of the Epson R2400 and recently ( abut a year now...) have a Epson 4800 and have thoroughly enjoyed what it is capeable of producing...if your careful, and consistent you can make really gereat prints that are quite repeatable as I know you are well aware of...
I enjoyed playing with Bill Atkinsons Boquet of Profiles that he developed using all that high dollar profiling euipment and it works well on the 4800...
I have hundreds of prints using different appers and profiles trying to see what all the differences are...and have settled down to a few favorites and am back to enjoying the photography and art form once again...and then along comes some new technology like these Z printers that are ery enticing....
But you know if its all that easy and consitent how much fun would that be at our level!!!
All the best
Alex
- adydula
- Posts: 145
- Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 4:24 am
by lnbolch » Fri Sep 29, 2006 6:28 am
Alex
It might also be worth mentioning again something I somewhat glossed over, above. MTBF - Mean Time Between Failures. Much of the cost of these printers, or for that matter "professional" photo equipment, is that it is built to really last. It does not necessarily do the job better, but it does it for a lot longer.
As a working photographer, for 35mm my main camera system was based upon a Nikon F3 or one of its F-series predecessors. Someone who bought an entry-level camera and mounted the same lens would take an identical picture, at least for the first fifteen or twenty thousand. At that point, it would either need an overhaul in a camera repair shop or it would be too worn out to bother. An F-series Nikon probably would not need any maintenance below 250,000 exposures, and an overhaul would be good for another quarter of a million. Though the camera may have cost ten times as much as the entry-level body, it would probably outlast 30 of them, so it instead of being the most expensive Nikon, it proved to be the very cheapest.
When your tools are putting bread on your table, this is the prime reason for buying it - I could trust when I did a shoot, the editor or client would have pictures. Blow a shoot and lose a client. Professional equipment can be seen as income insurance.
I have never recommended an enthusiast buy such a camera. Unless one is doing a thousand exposures a week, it is simply bad economy. Cheaper bodies tend to have more buzzword enabled features, do a great job and cost less. Most enthusiasts would never wear out a mid-range camera.
The major new feature of the Z printers has been available to anyone with a decent pocketful of kopecks and loads of patience. While it is not automatic by any stretch of the imagination, colour management tools abound. With a reasonable investment, you can calibrate most any device in the image chain. While these printers can do it automatically, you can manually generate optimum profiles for any ink and paper combination with readily available equipment.
The R2400 is the high-end of consumer printers and capable of making prints that will be welcomed with open arms into galleries and museums. Many printmakers are generating substantial amounts of income with the R2400. In the art industry, gallery owners and curators are very aware of its archival prints. While the R2400 may be on the low-end of professional printers, the 4800 is clearly in the pro class due to its sturdy build.
Like the Nikon F3, few enthusiasts could afford to wear out an R2400. That is a lot of paper and ink! Unless it is a unquenchable lust for large prints, powerful enough to empty the wallet, there is little to be gained by going into the truly pro printers. In fact, the R2400 has one step higher resolution than the pro printers. It will do 5760 x 1440, while the pro printers are 2880 x 1440. Under certain circumstances, the R2400 may be able to print a slightly smoother gradient with a slightly higher degree of detail when prints are viewed at reading distance.
The other consideration for an enthusiast longing for pro equipment, is that before the printer is anywhere near worn out, there may well be new printing technology or features that are more desirable. There is little sense in buying a printer that will last ten years, when a generation is 18 months to two years. For the last eight years, you are stuck with ever more antiquated media.
No major gallery would accept my dye prints, and even 2200 prints might be questioned. Walk in with a portfolio of R2400 prints, and the gallery owner will be discussing content, not metamerism, bronzing and fading problems.
Of course, if the equipment gives you value for the money in pleasure, go for it. Hobbies are not meant to be practical. My synthesizer was top-of-the-line Yamaha along with a wind-controller, and cost far too much to justify buying, a decade back. Since then it has given me fifteen to twenty hours or more of pleasure a week. On an hourly basis, that is really cheap entertainment. It is still so good, that I have never gone shopping again. I just finished close to four hours of pleasure with it.
My main weapon of choice is still the old 1280 - dye-based printer. Yes, the prints will begin to fade in a few decades, but I will probably fade first. At this point, I have too many personal projects I wish to pursue to get into printmaking for sale. If the time comes that I do, I will buy whatever I need based upon the situation. At this moment, if I were to score a one-man show in a hot gallery, I probably would buy the 7800 to feed the market I would anticipate. I would certainly look at the HP Z-machines as well. However, since I would probably settle on a single paper-type, the built-in automated calibration would go to waste. Canon too has some that would be considered.
Perhaps too many years as a working photographer. I have little fascination for gear. If I did decided to go after the galleries, there would be no particular rush of pleasure in buying and using a 24" printer - more of a bother. There would be a rush when handed a cheque for my first print sale, but that too would be tinged with regret. For so much of my life, I have been a very responsible adult, putting off much of what I wanted to do "until the time was right".
I worked for the Man, and worked hard. After a fight with the Big "C", it was clear that if the "time was not right" right now - it certainly would not be any more right if I am pushing up daisies and feeding the worms. Plunging into a career as a printmaker, would again be workin' for the Man - even if the Man is me. I am the worst boss you could imagine, 12 hour workdays, seven days a week. I can not even begin to remember when I took a non-working holiday! I should form a union and picket me.
Compared to the conventional darkroom, the digital darkroom wins hands down. What I see on my monitor is what comes out on the paper, and the cost per print is a tiny fraction of a traditional print. Paper and ink is dirt cheap, and my time grows ever more valuable. It is lovely to spend 30 minutes in Photoshop instead of three days in the fume-room, to make a perfect print. (Most fume-room prints were "good enough".)
I do have a strong interest in the relationship of the artist to the medium, and have been using computers as a creative medium since the beginning. Steve Wozniak lent me one of the very first Apple computers. He once told me that I was the first person from an art background to ever use a personal computer. Of corse, techs had played with graphics before me. I think the main reason Woz lent me the machine was to see what an artist could do with it. Thus I still do keep up with what is happening in media, though I buy only when there is a specific need. I have never bought anything, just because it was the latest thing, unless it solved a specific, defined problem and would give me a clear edge.
adydula wrote:Thanks for taking the time for such a nice reply. I understand and agree....time is money and these new printers are definitely not orientated around the hobbyist or even a prosumer....unless you have the money to play.
The technology is indeed exciting, but there are many wonderful ' just printer's that will continue to make wonderful prints and cause liots of use to smile in our labor intensive workflows...
It might also be worth mentioning again something I somewhat glossed over, above. MTBF - Mean Time Between Failures. Much of the cost of these printers, or for that matter "professional" photo equipment, is that it is built to really last. It does not necessarily do the job better, but it does it for a lot longer.
As a working photographer, for 35mm my main camera system was based upon a Nikon F3 or one of its F-series predecessors. Someone who bought an entry-level camera and mounted the same lens would take an identical picture, at least for the first fifteen or twenty thousand. At that point, it would either need an overhaul in a camera repair shop or it would be too worn out to bother. An F-series Nikon probably would not need any maintenance below 250,000 exposures, and an overhaul would be good for another quarter of a million. Though the camera may have cost ten times as much as the entry-level body, it would probably outlast 30 of them, so it instead of being the most expensive Nikon, it proved to be the very cheapest.
When your tools are putting bread on your table, this is the prime reason for buying it - I could trust when I did a shoot, the editor or client would have pictures. Blow a shoot and lose a client. Professional equipment can be seen as income insurance.
I have never recommended an enthusiast buy such a camera. Unless one is doing a thousand exposures a week, it is simply bad economy. Cheaper bodies tend to have more buzzword enabled features, do a great job and cost less. Most enthusiasts would never wear out a mid-range camera.
Maybe this technology will move over into Photoshp and make our lives easier in this area (smile)....boy do I (we) spend a lot if time playing in that area of the hobby / business....
The major new feature of the Z printers has been available to anyone with a decent pocketful of kopecks and loads of patience. While it is not automatic by any stretch of the imagination, colour management tools abound. With a reasonable investment, you can calibrate most any device in the image chain. While these printers can do it automatically, you can manually generate optimum profiles for any ink and paper combination with readily available equipment.
Yes I have inhabited the low end world of the Epson R2400 and recently ( abut a year now...) have a Epson 4800 and have thoroughly enjoyed what it is capeable of producing...if your careful, and consistent you can make really gereat prints that are quite repeatable as I know you are well aware of...
The R2400 is the high-end of consumer printers and capable of making prints that will be welcomed with open arms into galleries and museums. Many printmakers are generating substantial amounts of income with the R2400. In the art industry, gallery owners and curators are very aware of its archival prints. While the R2400 may be on the low-end of professional printers, the 4800 is clearly in the pro class due to its sturdy build.
Like the Nikon F3, few enthusiasts could afford to wear out an R2400. That is a lot of paper and ink! Unless it is a unquenchable lust for large prints, powerful enough to empty the wallet, there is little to be gained by going into the truly pro printers. In fact, the R2400 has one step higher resolution than the pro printers. It will do 5760 x 1440, while the pro printers are 2880 x 1440. Under certain circumstances, the R2400 may be able to print a slightly smoother gradient with a slightly higher degree of detail when prints are viewed at reading distance.
The other consideration for an enthusiast longing for pro equipment, is that before the printer is anywhere near worn out, there may well be new printing technology or features that are more desirable. There is little sense in buying a printer that will last ten years, when a generation is 18 months to two years. For the last eight years, you are stuck with ever more antiquated media.
No major gallery would accept my dye prints, and even 2200 prints might be questioned. Walk in with a portfolio of R2400 prints, and the gallery owner will be discussing content, not metamerism, bronzing and fading problems.
I enjoyed playing with Bill Atkinsons Boquet of Profiles that he developed using all that high dollar profiling euipment and it works well on the 4800...
Of course, if the equipment gives you value for the money in pleasure, go for it. Hobbies are not meant to be practical. My synthesizer was top-of-the-line Yamaha along with a wind-controller, and cost far too much to justify buying, a decade back. Since then it has given me fifteen to twenty hours or more of pleasure a week. On an hourly basis, that is really cheap entertainment. It is still so good, that I have never gone shopping again. I just finished close to four hours of pleasure with it.
I have hundreds of prints using different appers and profiles trying to see what all the differences are...and have settled down to a few favorites and am back to enjoying the photography and art form once again...and then along comes some new technology like these Z printers that are ery enticing...
My main weapon of choice is still the old 1280 - dye-based printer. Yes, the prints will begin to fade in a few decades, but I will probably fade first. At this point, I have too many personal projects I wish to pursue to get into printmaking for sale. If the time comes that I do, I will buy whatever I need based upon the situation. At this moment, if I were to score a one-man show in a hot gallery, I probably would buy the 7800 to feed the market I would anticipate. I would certainly look at the HP Z-machines as well. However, since I would probably settle on a single paper-type, the built-in automated calibration would go to waste. Canon too has some that would be considered.
But you know if its all that easy and consitent how much fun would that be at our level!!!
Perhaps too many years as a working photographer. I have little fascination for gear. If I did decided to go after the galleries, there would be no particular rush of pleasure in buying and using a 24" printer - more of a bother. There would be a rush when handed a cheque for my first print sale, but that too would be tinged with regret. For so much of my life, I have been a very responsible adult, putting off much of what I wanted to do "until the time was right".
I worked for the Man, and worked hard. After a fight with the Big "C", it was clear that if the "time was not right" right now - it certainly would not be any more right if I am pushing up daisies and feeding the worms. Plunging into a career as a printmaker, would again be workin' for the Man - even if the Man is me. I am the worst boss you could imagine, 12 hour workdays, seven days a week. I can not even begin to remember when I took a non-working holiday! I should form a union and picket me.
Compared to the conventional darkroom, the digital darkroom wins hands down. What I see on my monitor is what comes out on the paper, and the cost per print is a tiny fraction of a traditional print. Paper and ink is dirt cheap, and my time grows ever more valuable. It is lovely to spend 30 minutes in Photoshop instead of three days in the fume-room, to make a perfect print. (Most fume-room prints were "good enough".)
I do have a strong interest in the relationship of the artist to the medium, and have been using computers as a creative medium since the beginning. Steve Wozniak lent me one of the very first Apple computers. He once told me that I was the first person from an art background to ever use a personal computer. Of corse, techs had played with graphics before me. I think the main reason Woz lent me the machine was to see what an artist could do with it. Thus I still do keep up with what is happening in media, though I buy only when there is a specific need. I have never bought anything, just because it was the latest thing, unless it solved a specific, defined problem and would give me a clear edge.
larry!
http://www.larry-bolch.com/
http://www.larry-bolch.com/
-
lnbolch - Posts: 919
- Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 10:16 pm
- Location: Edmonton, Alberta Canada
by adydula » Fri Sep 29, 2006 2:39 pm
Larry....
Sounds like you have been around for a while!!
And me lkewise...Been in the PC business since he beginning and before that the 35 mm wet chemistry world...when the Ataris', Apples and PC 1 evolved it was neat to be there and play with all this new stuff....
With the advent of the digital camera I knw it was just a matter of time before film, althought still awesome in its own right would wain in useage and popularity...it does make me smile when I go to the art shows ( not the museums high end snobby stuff)...but the 'Arts in the Park' kind of small show and still see local artisians, photographers still using film for their captures and still looking great....I am sure that this film 'niche' will hang around for a few more years to come.....
The new technology always has interested me, especially when it allows me to do at home something I could not do before, having the choices and controls...and seeing a print come out of a device and be matted and framed for the first time is still an amazing thing for me...
Last night I matted a print taken with a 'lowly' point and shoot, and it was a not that great jpeg to boot...but the final result was good enough to be placed in a position of promenance in our house...made ny wife smile.
Yes good output can come from low end stuff, but its nice to have cameras like a F series Nikon or a PRO level, high mtbf prnter. Good tools, good glass and good technique can lead to good output as well..
My dad never bought a nw tool unless it was needed to do a particular job. Some people just collect tools and never use them....
If the technology is afforadble many people will try the new toys in so many different ways and discover new ways of doing things....if the technology stays pricey then us that cant afford this stuff will be relegated to looking at the output of those that have it and think they are 'Gods'
Ita amazing that the low end digital cameras and printers have opended the door for so many if us and we now can produce museum quality prints in our own homes..if you do it right.
This must be a form of 'trickle down technology'
All the best
Alex
Sounds like you have been around for a while!!
And me lkewise...Been in the PC business since he beginning and before that the 35 mm wet chemistry world...when the Ataris', Apples and PC 1 evolved it was neat to be there and play with all this new stuff....
With the advent of the digital camera I knw it was just a matter of time before film, althought still awesome in its own right would wain in useage and popularity...it does make me smile when I go to the art shows ( not the museums high end snobby stuff)...but the 'Arts in the Park' kind of small show and still see local artisians, photographers still using film for their captures and still looking great....I am sure that this film 'niche' will hang around for a few more years to come.....
The new technology always has interested me, especially when it allows me to do at home something I could not do before, having the choices and controls...and seeing a print come out of a device and be matted and framed for the first time is still an amazing thing for me...
Last night I matted a print taken with a 'lowly' point and shoot, and it was a not that great jpeg to boot...but the final result was good enough to be placed in a position of promenance in our house...made ny wife smile.
Yes good output can come from low end stuff, but its nice to have cameras like a F series Nikon or a PRO level, high mtbf prnter. Good tools, good glass and good technique can lead to good output as well..
My dad never bought a nw tool unless it was needed to do a particular job. Some people just collect tools and never use them....
If the technology is afforadble many people will try the new toys in so many different ways and discover new ways of doing things....if the technology stays pricey then us that cant afford this stuff will be relegated to looking at the output of those that have it and think they are 'Gods'
Ita amazing that the low end digital cameras and printers have opended the door for so many if us and we now can produce museum quality prints in our own homes..if you do it right.
This must be a form of 'trickle down technology'
All the best
Alex
- adydula
- Posts: 145
- Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 4:24 am
by JSR » Fri Sep 29, 2006 3:12 pm
adydula wrote:And me lkewise...Been in the PC business since he beginning and before that the 35 mm wet chemistry world...when the Ataris', Apples and PC 1 evolved it was neat to be there and play with all this new stuff....
Cor, I only go back as far as ZX81s and tin-foil printers.
- JSR
- Posts: 1220
- Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 10:39 pm
- Location: UK
by gerund » Sat Sep 30, 2006 3:15 pm
A little more info on pricing on new HP Z large format printers at hp site
http://h71016.www7.hp.com/SubFamMatrix. ... 701&SBLID=
http://h71016.www7.hp.com/SubFamMatrix. ... 701&SBLID=
- gerund
- Posts: 15
- Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2006 7:50 pm
by Kevgermany » Sat Sep 30, 2006 7:22 pm
JSR wrote:adydula wrote:And me lkewise...Been in the PC business since he beginning and before that the 35 mm wet chemistry world...when the Ataris', Apples and PC 1 evolved it was neat to be there and play with all this new stuff....
Cor, I only go back as far as ZX81s and tin-foil printers.
First mainframe I worked on had a really big 1MB of memory... The older guys I worked with used to reminisce about 64K mainframes. This would have been before Sinclair brought out his watches and calculator, still have my old sinclair calculator somewhere...
Kev
Man is limited by his fears, not by his imagination.
Man is limited by his fears, not by his imagination.
- Kevgermany
- Site Admin
- Posts: 5269
- Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 9:11 pm
- Location: near Munich, Germany
by JSR » Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:30 pm
Kevgermany wrote:First mainframe I worked on had a really big 1MB of memory... The older guys I worked with used to reminisce about 64K mainframes. This would have been before Sinclair brought out his watches and calculator, still have my old sinclair calculator somewhere...
I remember being really proud of the ZX81. I knew someone who had the ZX80 and they were most upset that they couldn't upgrade the 1K RAM. Our ZX81 had the wobbly 16K RAMpack plugged into the back. Had fun writing programs to fill that up with!
I can't believe how excited we were about those tin-foil printers. We couldn't afford one ourselves but later on a friend had a Spectrum, and he had the tin-foil printer. Who on Earth dreamt up that rubbish?!
Ahh, the good ol' days...
- JSR
- Posts: 1220
- Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 10:39 pm
- Location: UK
by jo-1 » Mon Oct 02, 2006 1:05 pm
Hi Vincent, all
is there any *.ICC Profile to be downloaded for one of the "Z" series printers arround?
I'd like to compare the new "top of the class machines" with my DesignJet 130NR.
I'd be really interested how good the pigmented inks translate into the color gamut?
Vincent - do you have any idea or even better a Colorsync screenshot comparing the 30 / 90 / 130 with the new Z series?
btw. your tutorial on the HP website is really good!!
jo-1
is there any *.ICC Profile to be downloaded for one of the "Z" series printers arround?
I'd like to compare the new "top of the class machines" with my DesignJet 130NR.
I'd be really interested how good the pigmented inks translate into the color gamut?
Vincent - do you have any idea or even better a Colorsync screenshot comparing the 30 / 90 / 130 with the new Z series?
btw. your tutorial on the HP website is really good!!
jo-1
isn’t it funny, a ship that leaks from the top
ISO 9000 definition of quality: "Degree to which a set of inherent characteristic fulfills requirements"
I am the classic “Windows by Day, Mac by Night user"
ISO 9000 definition of quality: "Degree to which a set of inherent characteristic fulfills requirements"
I am the classic “Windows by Day, Mac by Night user"
-
jo-1 - Posts: 840
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 3:16 pm
- Location: Germany / Wiesbaden
by simonW » Tue Oct 10, 2006 9:51 pm
Hi,
My first computing experience was with a 4k memory PDP-8 - at start you keyed in the boot program in binary on an array of switches. I quickly moved to a 16k machine with a non-volatile boot - I though it was all a computer geek could ever want.
To answer adydula's very first question in this thread
The saving is likely to be small. The costly mechanical parts will have been designed to carry the LED/optosensor array and the rest is just some electronics. Omitting these from a batch of printers is unlikley to reduce the cost by much unless the production volume is huge - which is unlikely for a pro printer.
On balance if I were HP I wouldn't even think about selling a vanilla version of this printer.
On reliability the mechanics are almost certainly the least reliable part (compared to the electronics), so adding the electronics for the spectrophotometer is unlikley to make any significant difference to reliability.
A question I would ask however, is how does one know the spectrophotometer is still in calibration after a few years tough pro use?
SW
My first computing experience was with a 4k memory PDP-8 - at start you keyed in the boot program in binary on an array of switches. I quickly moved to a 16k machine with a non-volatile boot - I though it was all a computer geek could ever want.
To answer adydula's very first question in this thread
Is it a good idea to have a built in spectrophotometer? How much does this add to the cost of this new ' print system'..
The saving is likely to be small. The costly mechanical parts will have been designed to carry the LED/optosensor array and the rest is just some electronics. Omitting these from a batch of printers is unlikley to reduce the cost by much unless the production volume is huge - which is unlikely for a pro printer.
On balance if I were HP I wouldn't even think about selling a vanilla version of this printer.
On reliability the mechanics are almost certainly the least reliable part (compared to the electronics), so adding the electronics for the spectrophotometer is unlikley to make any significant difference to reliability.
A question I would ask however, is how does one know the spectrophotometer is still in calibration after a few years tough pro use?
SW
- simonW
- Posts: 49
- Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 9:56 pm
- Location: Oxford, UK
by Vincent » Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:48 pm
jo-1 wrote:Hi Vincent, all
btw. your tutorial on the HP website is really good!!
jo-1
I haven't seen this video yet, do you have a link to it. It was filmed in Ohio at Gretags offices last August.
I will be getting a Z3100 (12 inks) sometime in October, and will be able to answer many questions. Look out for a major change on photo-i very shortly.
Vincent - editor of www.photo-i.co.uk
-
Vincent - Site Admin
- Posts: 2115
- Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 5:52 pm
- Location: London - UK
by jo-1 » Mon Oct 16, 2006 1:15 pm
sure!
http://h30267.www3.hp.com/country/us/en ... seq=309016
hope this works - because it's in the DesignJet user area
looking forward to your review
jo-1
http://h30267.www3.hp.com/country/us/en ... seq=309016
hope this works - because it's in the DesignJet user area
looking forward to your review
jo-1
isn’t it funny, a ship that leaks from the top
ISO 9000 definition of quality: "Degree to which a set of inherent characteristic fulfills requirements"
I am the classic “Windows by Day, Mac by Night user"
ISO 9000 definition of quality: "Degree to which a set of inherent characteristic fulfills requirements"
I am the classic “Windows by Day, Mac by Night user"
-
jo-1 - Posts: 840
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 3:16 pm
- Location: Germany / Wiesbaden
13 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest