Re: Printing 3-D

[P3D John Ohrt <johrt@xxxxxxx>]

P3D wrote:

> What I don't understand is
> that last fall's PC Magazine review of color ink jets included this model,
> but did not rate its photo ouput capabilites at the top of the heap.
> IMO, the small sample ouput they included in the magazine does not look
> anything like the excellent quality of the sample in the sales brochure.

Everybody stacks the deck with their samples.  What really counts is
overall performance against the type of imaging you may encounter.  Many
reviews fail to do this.  Also reviewers can get sucked into using
images created with a particular technology in mind.  Finally, far to
often the reviewers just don't have enough knowledge to conduct a
review.

Like they say, "The only benchmark that counts is your benchmark!"

 
> The print speed is not good.  The manufacturer's rating is 3 to 5 minutes
> *per page* "depending upon image" for color; 2 pages per minute B/W.  I
> don't know how this compares to dye-sub print speeds.

Far faster than a Fargo!

 
> It seems to me that the separately replaceable color cartridges would
> give the Alps an enormous *real-world* cost-per-page advantage over
> printers that require you to replace a $30 3-color cartridge every time
> any one color runs out.  (May be less true for photos than for business
> apps such as Excel charts or PowerPoint slides, however.)

I tend to agree.  But many cartridges are refillable with bulk ink.


 
> The "features" list states: "Deep, rich, fully saturated, photo-realistic
> images in 16.7 million colors."  I know what color depth specs mean for
> a video card and monitor, but being quite the novice in color printing,
> I don't know how to interpret this.  Is this spec any different from
> that of a traditional color ink-jet?

Sounds like a standard claim to me.


> As I mentioned in my first post about the Alps, there are horizontal
> bands in the output.  How noticeable they are varies with the angle
> to the light and the color (or patterns?) of the underlying image.
> My guess is that the size of each band is the same as the height of
> the ink ribbons.  I don't yet know whether this will be a significant
> problem if the printer is used to ouput stereo images.

You don't want banding in any event.  My guess is it would be much more
noticeable.

> Finally, there is also the model MD-4000 that includes an "integrated
> 600 dpi one-pass, 24-bit, TWAIN-compatible color scanner" for $200 more.
> Do the scanner-knowlegeable folks consider this good value, or would a
> separate scanner be a better choice?

A separate scanner is a better choice since it allows you to separate
the trade in times of the scanner from the printer, IMHO.  True, more
foot print problems on the desk but you can truly operate the devices
simultaneously, on different computers even.  $200 is not a bad price
increment for the capability.  But do you really want to save $50 bucks
that badly, ie to accept an unsatisfactory printer to get an entry level
scanner?

I'll bet you can get a new Epson under $300 that will give you better
quality than what you described!  Check out an Epson 400 (720x720).

Regards,
John
--
John Ohrt,  Regina, SK, Canada
johrt@xxxxxxx



------------------------------