Alps MD1300
Addison Liu
need some opinion on it. Thanks..
Ronald Lamb
>Has any one use this printer? Is it any good? I am thinking to get and I
>need some opinion on it. Thanks..
>
>
I seen this demonstrated at a local computer store and it seemed very slow.
It also would lay down each color separately. It would do this by laying
down
the first color, reversing, laying down the second color, reversing, and
finally
laying down the third color and reversing. I don't know about how error
prone
this method is but the output in both dye sub mode and micro dry mode was
incredible.
I also checked ALPS web site http://www.alps.com and seen that a new printer
the MD 5000 is coming out. There is no information on the site on the
actual
speed of the printer but it is capable of 2400 dpi printing, and has 7
printer
cartridges instead of 4.
If the stats are good enough then I will probably buy it. But the speed of
the
MD 1300 is too slow for me.
Ron
JMW
Good photo quality.
But an HP deskjet with PhotoREtII and Colorsmart makes better photographs on
HP Premium Glossy Paper..
I speak from experience. I just sold my MD1300 and replaced it with an HP .
Very happy I made the switch...
JCurts2318
Jim
Wes
a fabulous job in the dye sub mode. As good as most photographs.
Lon Stowell
Wee-Kiat Kong <wkk...@senet.com.au> wrote:
>Do you mean the HP produces better quality compared to Alps in Micro Dry mode
>or in Dye-sub mode?
>
>The dye-sublimation mode used by the Alps should clearly produce better
>images than most inkjets.
I have yet to find an inkjet that gets anywhere near the ALPS in
dye-sub mode. On any inkjet or laser, you can see the halftoning
dots in any area of very light tones. On the ALPS you see a
continuous tone image that looks like a photograph. No dots,
even under 10x magnification or higher. The better laser and photo
drivers can look pretty darned good from a foot or so away, but
if anyone tries to tell you they look like a dye-sub output, ask
for an actual sample--it just ain't that good in the light areas.
The ALPS does require abundant spare time and patience tho.
Wee-Kiat Kong
or in Dye-sub mode?
The dye-sublimation mode used by the Alps should clearly produce better
images than most inkjets.
PH3JL
compared to an inkjet or laser but this is a machine that is like a thermal wax
or die sublimation printer. Quality is great, you can print glossy, metalic,
and white. To my knowledge, no inkjet or laser can do that. Paper choices could
be broader. I use my Epson for 90% of my printing but when I need a profesional
glossy output, I use my ALPS. I just finished a job of 200 brochures for a
customer with 100% color coverage and cost is approx. $1.01 per side for ink.
If you run out of a color, just replace the color, not 3 to 5. Ink can be hard
to find, best bet is order direct from ALPS in packs of 4 (1 each color) or
quantities of 4 or more of a color. They will knock 50 cents per cartridge off.
Shipping is abount $6.80 for second day UPS. If that type of printing is what
you need, buy it. If you don't need glossy, metalic, or white ink, buy
something else. PS ink is waterproof, paper will disolve before ink will, and
the ink comes out dry
JMW
because of the slow print times...
When you see the results from the HP Deskjet with PhotoREt II and what it
can do in less than half the time, the decision to sell the Alps became an
easy one...
I have absolutely no regrets about selling my MD-1300...
(and I don't work for HP) :)
-james
JCurts2318 wrote in message
<19981102184518...@ng-fb2.aol.com>...
JMW
Check out the November issue of PC Magazine.
The HP2000Cse scored BETTER than the Alps MD -1300 in the "Jury Analysis of
PHOTO OUTPUT."
Then went on to say that the "HP produced arguably better photos than that
of the Thermal-Dye printer..."
Now I speak from my personal experience. I've seen the results of the
PhotoREt II Desket on HP Premium Glossy Paper. I've seen the crosshatched
continuous tone output from the MD-1300....and I prefer the HP...
Lon Stowell wrote in message <71m3aq$s5a$1...@triton.dnai.com>...
Lon Stowell
JMW <j...@wcoil.com> wrote:
>FOR YOUR INFORMATION...
You mean "in your opinion", but thanks anyway.
>
>Check out the November issue of PC Magazine.
Ummm, it takes a real leap of faith to buy color printers based
on some magazine review rather than simply going out and running
sample images thru them. Particularly since the standards of
the magazine reviewers may be radically different than your own,
especially true in the case of photography grade output.
>The HP2000Cse scored BETTER than the Alps MD -1300 in the "Jury Analysis of
>PHOTO OUTPUT."
>
>Then went on to say that the "HP produced arguably better photos than that
>of the Thermal-Dye printer..."
I like the word arguably. I've seen the HP output, thanks.
If you think it looks like a photograph, you are no photographer
or have really bad eyes or don't check prints with a photog's
magnifier. [Actually the HP's dither pattern is easily seen
in lighter shades with the naked eye.]
>Now I speak from my personal experience. I've seen the results of the
>PhotoREt II Desket on HP Premium Glossy Paper. I've seen the crosshatched
>continuous tone output from the MD-1300....and I prefer the HP...
Well, I also speak from experience, and have the prints from
both machines setting right in front of me. So all that leaves
us at is that either we were looking at radically different
production samples or we have radically different standards
for reproduction of photographs.
Some folks read reviews and believe them. Others go try the
darned things themselves to see if they meet their own standards,
using photo material that is touch on any half-toning output
device. Most of the modern ink squirters look surprising
good on saturated colors, even fountain fill style color
blends. Still have yet to see one that can beat a continuous
tone [even of lower resolution] on very thinly populated color
areas.
YMMV. Advice is to never believe a mag review any more than
a newsgroup posting.
Andrew Zydel
The photo quality prints that come from this printer at 600 dpi are amazing.
My prints look as if they came from a lab. There isn't an ink jet printer on
the market that comes close to it - regardless of the brand, paper or mode
used. I am extremely satisfied with it.
Also it prints unexpectedly crisp black and white documents. I purchased the
printer to handle the color graphics (photos) I work with since my HP Ink
jet can't really cut it. The HP was to handle my black and white documents.
The Alps quality surpasses the HP hands down.
Ronald Lamb wrote in message ...
Michael Greer
Andrew Zydel wrote:
> I own an Alps MD-1300 printer.
> The photo quality prints that come from this printer at 600 dpi are amazing.
> My prints look as if they came from a lab. There isn't an ink jet printer on
> the market that comes close to it -
I respectfully disagree. IF the 1300 produces a band free print, it is indeed a
superior print. However, even in this case, I disagree with the characterization
of "There isn't an ink jet printer on
the market that comes close to it". "close" is relative to application. Most
people view pictures for the enjoyment of it. Most people don't study prints. I
submit that they isn't a whole lot of difference between an Alps print and a
high quality 6 ink inkjet print in this application. That is, most people will
not notice any image quality defiencies of the inkjet print because most people
don't study prints. Unless you are speficically looking for difficiencies, they
will not leap out and grab you.
Also, the Alps dye sub mode is very limited in print material. With an inkjet,
you can print on many different material, i.e. canvas. Inkjets are much more
flexible in thsi regard. This doesn't mean that the Alps is not the best choice
for many people. It is. But, as always, the buyer needs to really understand
his/her requirements before choosing.
--
Come visit my site for information on digital photography and other
interesting topics. The site isn't finished yet, but I'm working on it.
http://www.greer.simplenet.com
Mike Greer
Andrew Zydel
grabbing those who see it work! I have never received so many compliments.
The Alps printer requires special paper for dye sub modes. In other modes,
it uses plain paper. It uses gold and silver inks as well.
"Most people view pictures for the enjoyment of it." Boy, are they enjoying
mine!
JMW
I'm afraid you are mistaken, I did own an Alps MD -1300.
I also own an HP. IMO, the HP is better at reproducing photos.
FYI, PC Magazine agrees with this statement...
My statement is from my personal experience...not from a news article...
PC magazine's remarks were from experience also (unless they lied?)...
If you don't agree, that's fine... But you are outnumbered on opinions here
(if you include all those who participated in the "jury" of PC magazine).
If you want the real truth, none of them compare to a real photograph...
Many of us just happen to think that the HP does the best job between the
two...
Lon Stowell wrote in message :
JMW
Rebel wrote in message ...
>I saw that issue. The idea I got from the article was that PC Magazine did
>not use the Alps in dye sub mode.
What gave you that opinion? The output from my MD-1300 looked pretty bad in
the non-photo mode. I just can't imagine them using something that looks so
bad to compare to todays modern injets in their photo mode...
Lon Stowell
>You should have read the entire thread before commenting...
>
>I'm afraid you are mistaken, I did own an Alps MD -1300.
>
>I also own an HP. IMO, the HP is better at reproducing photos.
>
>FYI, PC Magazine agrees with this statement...
May I respectfully point out that Jesse Ventura just won
the governorship of Minnesota.
So much for mass judgements.
The advice to everyone else stands. LOOK at the printed output
of the Alps in dye sub mode. If you still think some ink squirter
is better, for goodness sake buy the ink squirter.
But go look for yourself, don't take advice from someone whose
tastes and/or standards in photo quality are not the same as
your own. This is particularly important for those in the
photo business, not the computer business.
Richard Roland
>In article <%HO%1.1006$XJ.34...@newsread.com!newshog.newsread.com>,
>JMW <j...@wcoil.com> wrote:
> YMMV. Advice is to never believe a mag review any more than
> a newsgroup posting.
>
If you want to put it to a real popularity vote, and not a biased sample
group, I vote for the MD-1300.
I have also used both. It's not even close.
Do you work for or own stock in HP??
Lon Stowell
Dunno what the heck you are talking about. The MD-1300 looks more
like a photo than the HP output to my eyes. What would give you
the oddball impression that I work for or care about the HP?
[I don't, I do like many of the HP products, particularly their
papers, but just happen to disagree very strongly with the other
poster who seems to take every opportunity to complain about
banding in the ALPS.]
Michael Greer
Andrew Zydel wrote:
> The differences between the Alps printer and others are leaping out and
> grabbing those who see it work!
Well, let's put it this way. I have many Epson Photo EX prints hanging up in my
office. I spray them with an acrylic coating on photo base paper. The finish
I'm able to obtain (after practicing many different techniques) produces
results that I've rarely seen from any professional lab. Invariably, people ask
me where I got them printed. When i tell them I do my own prints, they
sometimes don't believe me. Many still can't tell even when they get on top of
the print that it's an inkjet print. The point is that if they can't tell the
difference between my EX prints and a "real" photograph, they sure aren't going
to be able to tell the difference between my EX prints and an Alps print.
I do not hesitate to believe for one second that the same reaction isn't being
realized by Alps and Photosmart owners. I know it is. Simply because I get
tremendous reaction from my prints doesn't mean that other printers/technology
aren't capable of the same types of reaction. We have a tendency to annoint one
product as great while the competition is trash. That just isn't true.
> I have never received so many compliments.
Neither have I.
> The Alps printer requires special paper for dye sub modes. In other modes,
> it uses plain paper. It uses gold and silver inks as well.
Yes, it's a fantastic machine. But it's not the best machine for everybody.
Even if their main interest is photographic printing.
> "Most people view pictures for the enjoyment of it." Boy, are they enjoying
> mine!
I'm sure they are. But that fact doesn't prevent them from enjoying output from
other printers.