?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

I'm talking about the polaroid pogo, which uses (surely in a nod to Dan's zince) zink (short for "zero ink") in order to print photos instantly (well, in 60 seconds) from a portable rechargeable photo printer the size of a deck of cards. I can find out that it takes 10 sheets (which you buy in packs of 10 from Polaroid for 3.99, hmmm, sounds familiar?), that its battery holds enough charge to print 15 photos (endearingly out of step with its pack of 10), and that it prints using a thermal system which somehow produces prints which are not susceptible to light or heat fading (or water, which I have seen thoroughly tested on a bunch of annoying youtube clips). And an awful lot of people rephrasing (or not even bothering to rephrase) various press releases, or else gibbering with such excitement that they give the strong impression of having been paid to praise.

What I've not seen yet is:
  1. Any detailed comments from someone who's had one to play with for long enough to find out what's annoying about it.
  2. Scans of photos printed by said Pogo. I just spent several moments squinting at a still from The Gadget Show, and I can't tell a thing from it. Ditto with the youtube videos. --oh, I've already checked flickr, and all it has is the same old product shots or conventional Polaroids of people (or dogs) called Pogo.
  3. Which is kind of odd, given that everyone who has tested it has obviously taken some photos. Are they being scooped up and confiscated after the reviews?

I got more excited by the back-pocket photo printer than by mini-tanks (which featured on the same show, and are objects of pure joy!) but now I'm mildly frustrated because I want to see the photos. Not two minute videos of frothing gadget bloggers giving non-expert opinion to a background of tinny copyright free beats. That's no use to me at at all.

I want to see what the quirks of the printing process are. Does Zink print look warm or cool, deep or soft? How's the contrast? What are the blacks like? Not because I expect it to be bad (it's sure to compare favourably both with polaroid and earlier mini-printing systems) but because I expect it to be interesting, different, and have an individual quality. It's a new printing process! Brilliant! Now Can anyone tell me what it looks like?

Just no more links to v-bloggers, please. I may cry.

Comments

( 1 worm — Feed the birds )
crunchcandy
26th May, 2008 08:52 (UTC)
I heard from my friend that they are a bit rubbish. But...I don't know if that was just his opinion based on nothing much, or if he actually played with one and had the photos to show. I will do some research.
( 1 worm — Feed the birds )