« [ ONE COLLECTION OF STUNNING PHOTOS ] | Main | [ RICOH CAPLIO R3 digital camera ] »
December 01, 2005
[ REVIEW—KODAK 1400 DIGITAL PHOTO PRINTER ]
Price: $890
Rating: 4.8
The low-down: Kodak’s new Professional 1400 Digital Photo Printer is a medium format thermal dye sublimation printer. It will print images up to 20cm by 30 cm.
Kodak depart from the inkjet norm to offer a printer based on different technology. For this printer there are no ink cartridges because the toner comes on a ribbon and the consumables -- paper and ribbon -- come together in a box of either 50 or 25 sheets with exactly the right length of ribbon to make the prints.
The word Professional in the model designation suggests that the printer is expensive and complicated. It is neither. At $890 it is competitive with the best Canon and Epson A4 printers. It is easy to use. And consumables are reasonably priced -- bought in 50 sheet boxes the paper and toner work out at about $3.80 per print.
The print quality is outstanding. What makes this printer particularly appealing to what Kodak call the AdAm (advanced amateur, would you believe?) is that every print is winner. If the monitor is correctly calibrated and the operator understands how Photoshop communicates with a printer, then every print will match the image on the PC screen.
The paper passes through the printer four times -- cyan, yellow and magenta, plus a protective coating which makes the print “last for a lifetime” according to Kodak. It takes about 90 seconds. Colour fidelity and resolution are very good. The gloss paper has a gorgeous surface. There is also a matte paper which we didn’t try.
The 1400 is not a general purpose printer. It is for photos only and is not suitable from writing a letter to Granny or printing out the manuscript of the Great Australian Novel. The 1400 does just one thing and does it well.
Like this: The sheer ease of use of the Kodak 1400 printer and the absolute consistency of results impresses. Black and white prints are excellent.
Dislike that: The Kodak 1400 is noisy. It has a PC processor-type fan sitting on top of the workings and it makes a racket. Also we had two mysterious malfunctions where the printing stopped and the computer claimed that the printer was not connected.
Parting shot: The Kodak Professional 1400 Digital Photo Printer is exactly right for anyone who wants consistently good results without having to nail down all the variables inherent in inkjet printers. Just load the paper, insert the toner ribbon and you can’t go wrong. Very highly recommended.
*
Posted by terry at December 1, 2005 07:58 AM
Comments
Please tell me what is meant by "noise" in digvital cameras.
Posted by: C. Short at December 13, 2005 10:04 AM
"Noise" is the electronic equivalent of grain. It is a term that was coined first to apply to video images -- the appearance of random coloured specks in video images captured in low light. In digital still cameras noise increases in line with increases in the ISO speed. The ideal camera would be able to take absolutely clean pictures at ISO6400 -- but in the real world most cameras start to show the effect of noise at ISO400. Still the best cameras manage to keep it under control.
Some cameras use internal noise reduction functions. Noise can also be reduced post-camera in various noise reduction, RAW processing or photo editing programs. With these programs the aim is to remove the offensive speckling without turning the image into a flat, plasticky looking picture.
Some people are obsessive about noise and worry about any evidence of it. Realists accept that for the time being noise is the tradeoff for high sensitivity in the sensor.
Also noise is more of a problem when a large number of light receptors [pixels] is squeezed onto a small area sensor. An 8 megapixel sensor in a compact digital camera is likely to be noisier than the same number of pixels in a digital SLR because the SLR has a larger sensor.
I have no idea why the effect is called "noise" when it doesn't make any sound. It is a silly and misleading word, but it is now the accepted term for the observable effect.
Posted by: Terry at December 13, 2005 04:15 PM