Digital BW, The Print

In a message dated 8/20/2005 11:31:23 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com writes:

I  suspect in another year,
we'll see another 4000 series printer, maybe one  that dosen't require
swapping out inks when we switch from luster to matte  papers.  Geesh,
I can't believe Epson did that, a step backwards  IMO.
 
Historically, Epson has used their freshly tooled platforms twice. The 5000  
dye became the 5500 pigment printer, the 1270 became the 2000P, then the 
unsold  200Ps became the silver 1280 when those wouldn't sell at the price.
 
the 4000 platform became the 4800. They only had 8 cynlinders to work with  
so the LLK took over the MK. That was the compromise. It's much cheaper to buy 
a  second printer if you want to print matte and glossy black. What else would 
you  expect them to do?
 
Think of the guys with 9600's that did that. An ink change with feeder  tubes 
is just not economical. Epson's choice to go with the glossy preference  for 
the 4800 is pure economics. PK outsells MK 10:1. So that's where they put  
their money. They probably feel that most people will stick to a 4000 for MK and  
a 4800 for PK with the K3. Besides, you don't get the full dynamicc range, 
Dmax,  sharpness, and color saturation of the gloss family of papers with ANY 
matte  papers.
 
It's a different aesthetic, I know and it has it's loyal following, but  like 
any corporation designed to make a profit, the bean counters decide where  
the new tooling money goes and when. The 4800 wasn't it.
 
The more radical improvements will come from the 7800/9800 because those  
printer have had to operate as relatively slow, single pass printers (the 4000  
series has tighter head alignement schemes). Now they will benefit from the 
same  head technology as the 4000/4800, which is good news because big roll stock 
 printers need to get a lot more ink, faster, than these little desktop units 
or  the 4000/4800 machines. They'll take your ink money either way.
 
Claude







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]