Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : WDC/Sandisk Corporation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Stichnoth who wrote (8158)	11/16/1999 4:18:00 PM
From: Art Bechhoefer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 60323

I've seen 4x6 printers made by Olympus, which do not even require a computer. Just connect the card directly to the printer and you get acceptable quality without fuss. I 've never seen actual results, so I don't know how well they work, but they might be fine for a certain part of the market. Depending on what the paper costs, these printers might still be more expensive than the typical $0.39 or so charged by conventional photofinishers. But then you save on no need for film or film developing. I think the public wants a little more than that, and in particular, the capability to crop the image. As for larger prints, I find that prints up to 8x10 on photo quality inkjet paper (much cheaper than imitation photo paper) are decent enough, making these larger size prints really cheap in comparison with conventional 8x10 enlargements. Estimating the cost of an 8x10 on photo quality inkjet paper, I get something around $0.30, compared with at least $8 for a conventional enlargement. If I go to a photo type paper instead of the thinner inkjet stock, the price differential begins to drop, but it's still pretty good.