What's a good printer for minimal usage ?

[beanflying]

Tend to agree on the multifunction devices I sort of got used to having it on the top of my last Canon Inkjet in a flatish form factor. They are a bit of a space monster for 'reasons' on Laser Printers it seems rather than integrated tightly into the body and the extra height in my case on a shelf is a bit of a deal breaker.

HOWEVER 

I found 60mm extra height was available and this one claims to be an actual Laser over an LED with apparently better Colour rendition (not essential) for about $70 AUD extra so I spent a decent bottle of Scotch more and got a Brother HL-L8260CDW over it's cheaper sibling.

[wraper]

People dismiss ink/toner subscriptions so readily, but don’t consider that for some usage patterns, they’re actually a really good deal. I’m not saying that they’re the right thing for everyone, but it’s dumb to reject them categorically without even knowing what they do.

The big problem I have with it is that in the case of HP at least, once you opt into the subscription plan you cannot opt out, it makes some change to the firmware of the printer that from what I read is not possible to reverse. It is also not clear when you go to buy the thing that some models REQUIRE the subscription plan. On top of that I seem to recall that if you cancel, the ink/toner you have already received is bricked and unusable.

If it was an optional thing that one could freely opt in/out of freely then I wouldn't have an issue with it. Also given my overall experience with subscription tech/software I feel justified in rejecting such things categorically. I have a severe allergy to recurring subscription fees, there's a reason printer makers are pushing these plans and it's not because it earns them less profit.

You still can use the printer but will need to buy normal cartridges. Which BTW even for XL version have lower capacity than this instant ink nonsense. So HP artificially limits the capacity that you can normally buy. The predatory practice is not a subscription as such, it would be totally fine is they charge for new cartridges sent. However they effing turn consumable into service with tiers of how many pages you are allowed print per month, not even charge you for actual pages printed. 

[magic]

Even that ancient 300dpi SCSI flatbed still provided adequate performance for what I use a scanner for, and unlike a lot of modern flatbeds it could scan 3D objects with a surprising amount of depth.

In optics, depth is inversely correlated with resolution.
You are not guaranteed depth in a low resolution scanner, but you are guaranteed little depth in something that can resolve single digit microns.

[tooki]

People dismiss ink/toner subscriptions so readily, but don’t consider that for some usage patterns, they’re actually a really good deal. I’m not saying that they’re the right thing for everyone, but it’s dumb to reject them categorically without even knowing what they do.

The big problem I have with it is that in the case of HP at least, once you opt into the subscription plan you cannot opt out, it makes some change to the firmware of the printer that from what I read is not possible to reverse. It is also not clear when you go to buy the thing that some models REQUIRE the subscription plan. On top of that I seem to recall that if you cancel, the ink/toner you have already received is bricked and unusable.

If it was an optional thing that one could freely opt in/out of freely then I wouldn't have an issue with it. Also given my overall experience with subscription tech/software I feel justified in rejecting such things categorically. I have a severe allergy to recurring subscription fees, there's a reason printer makers are pushing these plans and it's not because it earns them less profit.

No, you’re confusing HP+ (permanent agreement to never use third party ink, in exchange for some feature goodies) and Instant Ink (ink subscription). You can sign up for and cancel Instant Ink whenever you want, as I understand it. But yeah, the Instant Ink cartridges are coded as such, so the printer won’t print to them without an active subscription, but that seems fair, since you’re paying per page, not per cartridge.

See my post above where I explain HP+.

[tooki]

However they effing turn consumable into service with tiers of how many pages you are allowed print per month, not even charge you for actual pages printed. 

So… the same as your cellphone minutes or megabytes.

Just like some cellphone plans, the instant ink subscription lets you roll over a few months worth of unused pages, so to an extent, it lets you subscribe to your average page count, but go under or over in a given month without paying more.

I haven’t done the math to see if such a subscription would be right for me (since I don’t have a printer where that’s available), but I don’t think they’re a bad deal for everyone. (Especially with inkjets, the subscriptions have advantage that high-coverage pages like large photos don’t cost extra, nor does head cleaning.)

[tooki]

Even that ancient 300dpi SCSI flatbed still provided adequate performance for what I use a scanner for, and unlike a lot of modern flatbeds it could scan 3D objects with a surprising amount of depth.

In optics, depth is inversely correlated with resolution.
You are not guaranteed depth in a low resolution scanner, but you are guaranteed little depth in something that can resolve single digit microns.

It has nothing to do with depth-vs-resolution as such.

It is simply because of the scanner type used: nearly all consumer scanners (and all document scanners) use “CIS” sensors (“contact image sensor”), which have practically no depth of field. They use an array (molded plastic, I assume) of tiny lenses in nearly direct contact with the platen or paper. They’re cheaper, they’re more compact, and they need less power, so they’re widespread now. The other option, which is what all scanners were before CIS took over, is CCD, where mirrors and a large lens focuses the line onto the CCD image sensor. These have much larger depth of field, and in some cases can also switch in a different lens to allow film scanning.

Either one of these technologies is capable of plenty of resolution (e.g. 1200dpi).

[wraper]

However they effing turn consumable into service with tiers of how many pages you are allowed print per month, not even charge you for actual pages printed. 

So… the same as your cellphone minutes or megabytes.

Just like some cellphone plans, the instant ink subscription lets you roll over a few months worth of unused pages, so to an extent, it lets you subscribe to your average page count, but go under or over in a given month without paying more.

I haven’t done the math to see if such a subscription would be right for me (since I don’t have a printer where that’s available), but I don’t think they’re a bad deal for everyone. (Especially with inkjets, the subscriptions have advantage that high-coverage pages like large photos don’t cost extra, nor does head cleaning.)

The difference with cellphone is that it's a service by its nature, something virtual. The problem with instant ink and overall trend is that they try to get rid of your ownership rights of physical items and basically put a tax on you, which does not seem to be that high on a first glance unless you actually calculate cost of ownership. Everything must be an effing subscription which is paid automatically, so you don't actually notice every time you lose money.

[tooki]

However they effing turn consumable into service with tiers of how many pages you are allowed print per month, not even charge you for actual pages printed. 

So… the same as your cellphone minutes or megabytes.

Just like some cellphone plans, the instant ink subscription lets you roll over a few months worth of unused pages, so to an extent, it lets you subscribe to your average page count, but go under or over in a given month without paying more.

I haven’t done the math to see if such a subscription would be right for me (since I don’t have a printer where that’s available), but I don’t think they’re a bad deal for everyone. (Especially with inkjets, the subscriptions have advantage that high-coverage pages like large photos don’t cost extra, nor does head cleaning.)

The difference with cellphone is that it's a service by its nature, something virtual. The problem with instant ink and overall trend is that they try to get rid of your ownership rights of physical items and basically put a tax on you, which does not seem to be that high on a first glance unless you actually calculate cost of ownership. Everything must be an effing subscription which is paid automatically, so you don't actually notice every time you lose money.

None of those HP printers require you to use an ink subscription. You are perfectly free to choose to buy cartridges instead.

I don't think the ink subscriptions are inherently bad, given that the page costs are not crazy high in actuality. As I already said twice, for some people's usage patterns, it'll make no sense at all, but for some people it's actually a better deal. It's disingenuous to a) call it a mandatory tax when it's actually nothing of the sort, and b) ignore the fact that it's actually not a bad deal for some users.

[ejeffrey]

I strongly dislike the multifunction devices that have been all the rage for the last 10 years or so. Bolt the cheapest scanner to the cheapest printer and then when one of them breaks you have to replace BOTH devices, winning! Some of them won't even scan if there are not working cartridges in the printer.

I have a standalone flatbed scanner that I get out when I need it. It's pretty ancient but works fine and was a replacement for an even more ancient scanner I retired due to lack of driver support in my OS, which itself was a replacement for an even more ancient scanner replaced for the same reason. I bought that one new way back when I got my first fast food job around the time scanners plummeted in price to around 10% of what they had always been. Even that ancient 300dpi SCSI flatbed still provided adequate performance for what I use a scanner for, and unlike a lot of modern flatbeds it could scan 3D objects with a surprising amount of depth.

I'm a huge fan of multi-function printers, mostly for 2 reasons.  First is that they automatically are a low volume photocopier, which is pretty convenient.  Second is that the scanner is network attached and can usually be used independent of a computer.  You can scan to a flash drive, email, scan to cloud service, or to a local file server.  That basically means completely avoiding the need for any driver or software configuration at least for basic use, and is easy access for multiple household members.  I think there are more network attached scanners now, but they used to be uncommon at least at the affordable end.  Also, I'd rather not have two permanently installed network devices taking up space, or need to get the scanner out of storage and set it up for the occasional use.

I have a Brother MFC-9340 with both a flatbed and duplex sheet feed scanner.  For my needs, I wouldn't really consider going back to a dedicated printer.

I do have a flatbed photo/negative scanner, but for most of my use it's totally unnecessary, and I haven't gotten it out in years.

[beanflying]

......

I found 60mm extra height was available and this one claims to be an actual Laser over an LED with apparently better Colour rendition (not essential) for about $70 AUD extra so I spent a decent bottle of Scotch more and got a Brother HL-L8260CDW over it's cheaper sibling.

$0.02 review and install.

Arrived undamaged in a very large, damaged and open box because one strip of tape was used to keep it closed for the 1000+km trip

Bonus points for really heavy Carboard carriers and minimal plastic/foam packaging.

Painless install, plugged the printer into the power and hub, downloaded the W10 32bit stuff from Brother (came with a CD but I don't speak CD anymore), auto detect updated on the junk Atom WiFi pc in the bedroom and it spat out printed stuff over the network and I dropped a few things off random tablets and phones with no extra apps needed 

On my main PC I didn't bother to install the software and drivers and just left Windoze do it's thing, auto detected it and installed what it needed to make it work.

Apart from being HUGE compared to my last Inkjet an easy install and use. Colours seem not to bad but I will have a better look later.

Back to playing inside the Plasma Cutter 

[paulca]

A few thoughts.  First.  How many amps is going through THAT inductor?  It looks like something electro boom would make.

LED Laser or Laser LED or both?  Always confuses me.

[beanflying]

45A Plasma Cutter so around there maximum. I only have a block circuit diagram and need to do some more digging yet so I can read the Arc voltage safely into a CNC controller and not fry it or just buy a divider and KISS. Fairly likely they are doing that in the internal circuitry so a little reverse engineering is needed 

Brother called the cheaper model 3230CDW a "Colour wireless LED Laser printer" and "Electrophotographic LED Printer" in the manual while the one I brought comes with a Class 1 rating and they call it a 'Color Laser' and '.Electrophotographic Laser Printer' in the manual
 

The cheaper one gets a bit of a beat up in the reviews for colour rendition and is also a bit slower but short of stripping both that is about all I based my extra few $ spend on. Part of that thinking was heat is part of the process and Lasers are likely a better more accurate point source over an LED here helping out the colour thing but 

[tooki]

LED Laser or Laser LED or both?  Always confuses me.

Either laser or LED. Fundamentally the same thing: Xerographic printing, that is, dry toner printing using a photosensitive drum. The difference is how the image is projected onto the drum: using a laser that scans across, or using an array of LEDs. Both can produce excellent output, and I’d say that the print quality depends more on the quality of the implementation than on the illumination technology chosen. LED printers can be made a bit more compact, however, since there’s no need for a scanning mechanism and associated optical path.

[tom66]

LED printers fascinate me.  If it's a 600 dpi printer, you need over 5000 LEDs to image a typical row of A4.  Are they using an OLED module or just discrete LEDs in some kind of custom package?   Is the module small and scaled to fit the page with lenses, or is it the size of the page?   I wonder if you could 'burn in' your printer's elements by using certain LEDs more - and how long it would take before this effect could be noticed.

Early DLP projectors had a way of doubling resolution by 'shaking' the DLP chip up and down slightly, effectively creating an interlaced pattern.  Maybe vibrating the drum could achieve some kind of micro-resolution improvement.

[james_s]

The one I took apart many years ago had an integrated bar with the LED dies. Looks like they haven't really changed.

[tooki]

LED printers fascinate me.  If it's a 600 dpi printer, you need over 5000 LEDs to image a typical row of A4.  Are they using an OLED module or just discrete LEDs in some kind of custom package?

Neither. The LED assembly is, if I understand it correctly, assembled out of a few LED arrays, which are essentially “ICs” of LEDs, much the same way that we build billions of MOSFETs, diodes, etc. into a processor die (or pixels in an image sensor), we can make hundreds of LEDs within a single die.

Modern LED printers have 1200dpi printheads, so about 10,200 LEDs across an 8.5” maximum page width.

See https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/led-_laser_-printer-illumination-bar-hacking/ where there is more discussion on the technology, including very informative source documents.

Is the module small and scaled to fit the page with lenses, or is it the size of the page?

It is the width of the page and uses lenses. But the lenses are tiny and numerous. See the PDF attached to one of my replies in the thread linked above.

Early DLP projectors had a way of doubling resolution by 'shaking' the DLP chip up and down slightly, effectively creating an interlaced pattern.  Maybe vibrating the drum could achieve some kind of micro-resolution improvement.

You really wouldn’t want to vibrate the imaging drum, as I would think that would blur and dull the image by physically shaking the toner that’s on it.

The now-discontinued Xerox wax printers (which were basically inkjet printers with page-wide printheads that sprayed molten wax instead of aqueous ink, and sprayed it onto a transfer drum rather than directly onto the paper) oscillated the entire head assembly horizontally to do exactly what you are thinking. (IIRC, it oscillated the width of 6 dots at the standard 600dpi, so that the printhead itself only needed to behave nozzles 1/100” apart.)

It’s unnecessary on LED printers since getting 1200dpi out of a semiconductor is trivial, by making the diodes small enough and really close together.

[westfw]

Packing 5000-10000 LEDs across 200mm isn't that much more amazing than the way they can pack in inkjet nozzles!

[tooki]

Incidentally, the CIS (contact image sensor) scanner elements that are used in most scanners today (both flatbed and ADF) are essentially the same construction, just with linear image sensors instead of linear LED arrays. The page-wide arrays of tiny lenses look almost identical. Scanners of course also have a second line of tiny lenses for the LED light source used to illuminate the paper. In some scanners, the sensors are RGB and white light is used; in others (most, I think), the sensor is monochrome and they use RGB LEDs to sequentially scan each color (so quickly that it looks like white light to the naked eye) with a single pass.

(Anyone remember 3-pass scanners, which used color filters to scan RGB in completely separate passes, and grayscale by leaving out the filter? You didn’t dare touch the scanner mid-scan because even tiny misalignment of the scan passes would ruin the scan…)

[tooki]

Packing 5000-10000 LEDs across 200mm isn't that much more amazing than the way they can pack in inkjet nozzles!

Absolutely!

1200dpi is much more impressive in a micromechanical semiconductor like inkjet than in LEDs, if you ask me!

[james_s]

(Anyone remember 3-pass scanners, which used color filters to scan RGB in completely separate passes, and grayscale by leaving out the filter? You didn’t dare touch the scanner mid-scan because even tiny misalignment of the scan passes would ruin the scan…)

I still have a HP 3 pass scanner in my mom's garage, it uses three separate CCFL lamps to illuminate the image. I remember working on another scanner maybe 20 years ago that had a color filter drum with a stepper motor, I don't remember if it was 3 pass or if rotated the filters as it went along. The first scanner I actually owned was a single pass color flatbed I bought for around $150 back in 1997 shortly after I got my first job. The price of flatbeds dropped massively right around then, previously they were >$1k.

[tooki]

The first scanner we had was a UMAX Astra 600S (the SCSI version), which cost around $300 in the mid-90s.

I loved having it, but man, did it suck by today’s standards… I remember manually retouching scans to get rid of noise. But yeah, back then you had to spend a lot more money to get scanners with low noise. If I needed a really clean scan, I would go to my friend’s dad’s print business and use their $$$$ flatbed.

[tom66]

I have a cheapo "Canon LiDE" scanner where you can see the RGB lamp scanning the image.  I was wondering why my colour documents were coming out a funny tint until I changed the USB cable, which was dropping too much voltage to properly illuminate the green and blue LEDs in the scan head.  It's kinda amazing to me that it was still happy enough to scan in that condition.

[beanflying]

My last dedicated Scanner met with a change of use case 



Kind of wished I still had it as it is way easier to keep over the Canon Printer carcass for the job. Might need to trawl 2nd hand again.

[james_s]

I don't remember what mine was, it was a 300 something and had a SCSI interface. It produced quite nice scans as I recall, I never had any issues with it until there wasn't driver support for newer versions of Windows. I remember it could do a surprisingly good job of scanning 3D objects.

[eti]

A biro.