REVIEW: Polaroid Hi-Print Pocket Photo Printer. Quality at a cost.

[@supernpstr]

As always, fantastic review. Especially the last part of the plastic waste information.

[@BertGrink]

Agreed; that is _VERY_ important information for any would-be user of this (or similar) products.

[@Techmoan]

gesundheit

[@stevesstuff1450]

True. Neat as these Polaroid devices are, the plastic waste (unless they specify that it's all recyclable) is just ridiculous.

[@fraggit]

@@Techmoan Bless you

[@Siarawaszympanemjest]

As soon as China stops producing hundreds of millions of tons of unusable plastic crap I'll start worrying about the way we treat plastic that people can actually use. As for now I refuse to feel guilty about any part of my plastic waste.

[@vivanecrosis]

I'm thinking of take a UBS stick to ASDA and printing some photos there. That will work out cheaper. I've no idea on the quality but for a couple of £ I'm willing to find out :D

[@misterblobbys]

I find it fascinating that such a small device is capable of printing a picture, once upon a time it would take a whole room and dark lights and many chemicals etc , amazing !

[@Tim_3100]

Clever how it prints each colour and tells you on the app

[@MrKlawUK]

with the headline and the intro to the cost section I’d guessed about £200. £80 for the printer seems pretty reasonable and if you’re in the market for one of these things, its inexpensive enough to at least disregard the Zink printers I think

[@kaitlyn__L]

still, about £8 per cartridge, that adds up. I'm sure they're using the "razor and blades" pricing model WRT where their margins lie.

[@mlmskates]

This reminds me of my old Gameboy printer for multiple reasons. Wish I had more sticker paper for it. Maybe I'll make some.

[@kaitlyn__L]

thermal receipt paper with some spray on adhesive works quite well!

[@mlmskates]

@@kaitlyn__L I have a tax machine with thermal paper which was piquing my interest. Good thinking on the spray adhesive. I was going to use Brodart Tape, but it's a little pricey to be experimenting with haha.

[@MagikGimp]

I would hope Polaroid would have a recycling scheme. Would save them on plastic costs too.

[@silveradoguy87]

Those sure are some neat little photo printers! I have the Kodak version! Though it looks just like your Polaroid brand one! Haha! Another good techmoan vid keep em comin man!

[@The.EditedRose]

Absolute brilliant review, thank you for including the waste costs as well. Having said this, I think I will still invest, whilst using it sparingly. Thank you

[@bonzibuddy4483]

Class man. Just, Class.

[@caesarali7191]

such a high quality review

[@ElectroPotato]

Hipsters: "I don't use plastic bags and straws, so i protect the environment" Also hipster: P O L A R O I D

[@richardcastro-parker3704]

I don't use plastic bags or plastic straws. Additionally I don't use plastic toothbrushes etc etc. I most definitely am not hipster. 😂👍🙂

[@ElectroPotato]

@@richardcastro-parker3704 No one said you have to be a hipster to care about the environment. My point is that hipsters only do it, because it makes them look better, meanwhile they generate a lot of waste using quirky, cute, lo-fi photography.

[@grantrennie]

Great video thanks 👍 have a great day

[@andrewscott1253]

Ever thought of covering the technics SL1200 turntable.?

[@recklessroges]

Good guy Teachmoan with the facts, the whole facts and nothing but the fax (noises).

[@wiipe]

Being too young to experience it myself (30, young given the context I suppose), I loved the fax reference. Now I need to look up more fax stuff (the suggestion of non-uniform behaviour is what caused that, naturally I had assumed they'd just resemble printers with some extra parts).

[@maighstir3003]

Careful now, you don't want him to go off listing the entire history of the universe in perfect detail. I'd prefer to get at least a few more videos off him before sealing him in a bunker to prevent everyone around him going mad.

[@wisteela]

@@rommix0 "moaning for your pleasure" - Oo er!

[@AB0BA_69]

I almost came listening to those analog printing sounds.

[@TheMajkla]

@@wiipe check out the dial up modems, that was some cool stuff:)

[@TheRuben654]

If you overlay the 3 colors of the leftover ink ribbon, would it look like a perfect negative of the printed picture?

[@MoraFermi]

Yes it does. Not 100% perfect in tone but very close.

[@RonLaws]

you would have to scan each one individually and use something like Photoshop to convert each layer in to monochrome to invert it before turning it back in to CYM layers to combine but yes.

[@Keepskatin]

@@RonLaws you are a proper nerd🙇🏾‍♂️🧠🤔

[@Keepskatin]

@@whitesapphire5865 You figured it out too,❓💯 proper nerd🙇🏾‍♂️🙇‍♂️❕

[@johnbutler5650]

You could make a nice art project with the transparencies: sandwich the films between plates of glass and frame them. They would make the most excellent sun catcher ever!

[@frankiesomeone]

Neat, I didn't even know these types of photo printers existed

[@volvo09]

They've been around for a while, but never truly caught on due to price, and I assume manufacturing complexity. I actually have a small Kodak photo printer from around 2005 which docks with a digital camera of that era. (It's huge compared to this!) The printer was like $200 USD and the paper / ink refills were also expensive, like $35 for around 24 prints or so... Besides a couple docks for digital cameras, most of these printers are in professional print houses and we regular folks never really come across them :) I can't recall the name of it, but if you look up kodak camera dock printer you'll probably see a few. I also find this one really neat, it's so compact... Modern manufacturing just amazes me.

[@frankiesomeone]

@ the spent cartridges look like they would make for a good modern art composition when framed

[@bsadewitz]

@@volvo09 So it was a dye sub printer? Wow, I'm so behind the times. The last time I used one of those, they were definitely not portable devices. ;-)

[@DriveCancelDC]

@Paul van Dinther Of course, making photobooks and having photos in your hand is still nice

[@richardcastro-parker3704]

@@DriveCancelDC Agreed. I never look at my precious photos as they are all stored badly on a computer. Who wants to get family and or friends around a pc and look at photos. I am going to print the best photos and put them in an album. If anything should happen to my pc or me for that matter my photos would be lost. My family wouldn't be able to log on to my pc as it has a password. Not too long ago I was looking at some old family photos and it reminded me how important printed photos are. My Mum recently created a new photo album starting with older photos going all the way up to this year. It's so nice to know I don't have to go hunting down photos from hard drives when the inevitble day comes. Also there is a special feeling from looking at printed photos. The printers in the video are pretty cool. I like the canon one. I haveone of the first or second generation of Epson portable photo printers. It wasn't die sublimation and it's now hard to get the cartridges for it. By today's standards my portable Epson is massive. In its day though it was pretty small. I'd love to get a canon like the one in the video but I can't given the waste produced as I'm trying to reduce my footprint on the planet as much as I can.

[@Paul_VanGo]

And that's why we watch your content. It's not sponsored, thus it much more honest than many other.

[@supergeekjay]

I've seen manufacturers trying to sue for defamation in independent videos in the past, myself included, so I stopped. When they pay people to review they slap an NDA in there for the stuff you're NOT allowed to say/do to protect the company's business interests.

[@Akotski-ys9rr]

Why would sponsoring a video make you dishonest?

[@jdatlas4668]

@@Akotski-ys9rr This is specifically about being paid by the company that makes the thing you're reviewing.

[@Bananna219]

And that is why I watch the ads before after and during for creators like this. They’re not making money on the content, so they only get paid for the ads we watch (and patreon).

[@mattgreen5351]

“Sounds like an indecisive fax machine” 🤣

[@zappawench6048]

Yes, that made me smile!

[@sonickrnd]

Лёрн нью ворд тодей.

[@arhythmicnick9929]

Did they record a session for John Peel in the 80s?

[@senilyDeluxe]

I have a Sony Color Video Printer that sounds very similar and probably uses a similar technique. It's from 1996 and still working. Finally I can have screenshots from retro games running on real hardware. 1/2m high stack of old video grabber cards "Am I a joke to you?"

[@needfortweed8734]

Man have got a way with words, I'd say...

[@malad1]

This is the sort of item where most people buy the printer and a pack of the paper and that's it. No more paper is ever purchased. So ends up even more expensive per photo! Ha ha.

[@philpem]

Pretty close to the mark there. I've got one of the Polaroid Zink printers and a Canon Selphy (a fairly old one). I still have the boxes of paper and ribbons I bought when I got the printers.

[@skochin]

And then it goes to waste, ends up in a landfill, beautiful!

[@oneduality]

Yeah you're right.. I have the exact same thing only it has a different branding.. I don't think poloroid made their own hardware here.. but to the point, I bought mine and 6 boxes of paper .. I still have 5 packs unopened and I got mine back in January 2017

[@lwvmobile]

I bought a Canon Selphy printer years ago as a gift and bought up all the stock of cassettes they had to go along with it since it was all on clearance. Since then, I don't believe any other print cassettes were ever purchased, since they had all vanished from store shelves and prices online weren't particularly great either.

[@DavidLeeKersey]

@@philpem Most waste happens at the point of purchase.

[@austfox2170]

Anyone else notice that most passport photos (especially in this instance) make the skin tones a little green?

[@kevinr.3542]

That is racist against frogs

[@MoraFermi]

Probably from uncorrected fluorescent lighting.

[@sivalley]

@@andymerrett wooosh

[@lordpitnolen2196]

Handy for when we move to Mars :-)

[@KmF0X]

That plastic film waste looks interesting, like, imagine putting them back together like some sort of transparent colour negative

[@omsi-fanmark]

Imagine that to happen automatically, you could actually use it to get even more prints from a lab. But don't let this waste fall into the wrong hands.

[@jamesslick4790]

@@omsi-fanmark Ironically "home brew" porn sold a lot of POLAROID cameras in "the day", because the amateur "producers" of such "art" did not want a third party to see their "work". LOL

[@MoraFermi]

It is a serious attack vector! I worked in a setting where we had to print ID cards -- a single spool of ink ribbon would have personal information of hundred people or so on it. We had to send these to be destroyed via a specialised firm and we'd get back DVDs with recordings of somebody tossing these into a fine toothed shredder.

[@fluxington]

The dye sub rolls, unrolled, remind me of theatre lighting colour gels, that are sometimes on a motorised reel, to change colour remotely.

[@richkawaiipikachu]

You could scan them in a computer & composite the individual colours back into a full coloured photo.

[@SilverEagleDev]

I'm glad you included the last 5 minutes or so of the video, because seeing the amount of waste being produced by this process really saps the "magic" out of it, and makes you appreciate existing printing technologies. I looked into alternatives to this and found thermal transfer printing, which is almost exactly the same idea, but unfortunately it produces the same amount of waste, because the ribbon it uses for each color is similarly the same size as the media itself. In the end, I guess this is just one of those convenience factor things, and the vendors are hoping that hiding the sizable plastic waste it produces will keep you from thinking too much about it.

[@BushWookie666]

Tech Moan: the real G that buys everything he talks about so he can say anything he wants

[@DaedalusYoung]

And the one time he got sent something, he reluctantly reviewed it, warning others not to send him anything.

[@thomasallison1258]

KZbinLoser nixie tube watch

[@kaitlyn__L]

@@thomasallison1258 VFD watch, no?

[@thomasallison1258]

Kaitlyn L ah yes. You’re right. It was.

[@thebaldconvict]

I always think this kind of printer gives great photos AND Christmas decorations at the same time!

[@ct92404]

I was just going to say that to me the plastic left over isn't really "waste", I think it could be very useful for decoration! Make a frame with backlighting to light up the sheets and you could create pretty cool color effects with the images!

[@hazonku]

That's literally what I said to my girlfriend. LOL. "Oh nice, can just crinkle that up & throw it on the Christmas tree."

[@Styrola]

And it makes great tails for kites.

[@thebaldconvict]

@@Styrola Hadn't thought of that one, that is a great idea!

[@thebaldconvict]

@@23Scadu make for an interesting conversation with Grandma round the dinner table ha ha

[@kbhasi]

3:31 I like that their mobile app actually explains to the user what the printer is doing!

[@Nolroa]

And it lies ... the app speaks red when it should be magenta and blue when it should be cyan.

[@user2C47]

Such words as "magenta" and "cyan" are _clearly_ far too advanced for the general public to understand.

[@DerMarkus1982]

They do that to avoid all those dumbknuckles ripping the photo out of the printer after run#1 (Yellow) and then complaining via some social platform and leaving a 1-star review...

[@Jon-Cameron]

I have a paper/ink pack for my Canon Selphy printer that I bought around 11 years ago. I just installed it and it prints perfectly! Great longevity for a consumable.

[@Nigel58]

Yep, my Selphy is very old now but weren't they made solidly? Top quality. I don't want to throw it away. Only problem now is there are no new Windows drivers for it, no Mac at all, and so I have to go Bluetooth with an adapter.

[@Gadgetonomy]

@@Nigel58 I'm pretty sure there's a generic driver, alternatively use an older OS version driver and run in compatibility mode.

[@Nigel58]

@@Gadgetonomy Thanks. I'll double-check.

[@JessicaFEREM]

I like the Selphy printer. it may be bigger and pricier, but it makes cheaper, larger prints, that and it's probably gonna be easier to buy paper for in the future being from a well known printer company.

[@gasfiltered]

I believe Polaroid is a brand of the Eastman Kodak company. A prime example that just because a company is huge and owns the largest market share in several diverse industries doesn't mean they can't shit the bed overnight just as fast as a startup. It's why CEOs get paid ridiculous salaries. A bad one can literally end entire industries and ruin 10s of thousands of lives.

[@nslouka90]

Plus you don’t have to be tethered to an App that will go bust who knows when and turn your device into essentially a brick.

[@akaydogan]

@@gasfiltered Polaroid has nothing whatsoever to do with any remaining entity of Eastman Kodak. Polaroid is owned primariy by a Polish investor who, along with his son, are trying to revive the instant film. Canon is still more likely to be in in business in five years as opposed to Polaroid.

[@andreasu.3546]

@@gasfiltered "A bad one can literally end entire industries and ruin 10s of thousands of lives" - ... and still be paid millions.

[@gacelperfinian]

@@gasfiltered Polaroid was NEVER part of Kodak, but it did have a Kodak-like life in early 2010s (I have seen a "Polaroid" Android tablet which I'm sure is just a very cheap tablet). Now however, the brand is owned by a European company previously known as The Impossible Project (which is from the start tried to revive Polaroid films).

[@twocvbloke]

Definitely wouldn't want to use it if you were a spy, them leftovers would be a goldmine to some enemy spy agent... :P

[@electronicengineer]

Or just have the consumed photo cartridge self destruct (go up in smoke) like Peter Graves' reel to reel tapes did in Mission Impossible... "This photo cartridge will self destruct in five (5) seconds".

[@mrb692]

The old IBM electric typewriters had the same security concern. The “ink” was actually a black plastic film that the type head smacked into and stuck the film to the paper, leaving a perfect cut out of the letter in the ribbon. That meant an enterprising individual could take a used cartridge and see exactly what you had written.

[@aevangel1]

"Burn after printing"

[@user2C47]

@@mrb692 This applies to any typewriter or printer that uses a plastic ribbon. The security concern can be addressed with a paper shredder followed by a blender-like contraption and, if possible, fire.

[@kaitlyn__L]

@@mrb692 however, IBM did sell a high security ribbon for governments etc to use, which operated in a different method and didn't leave negatives.

[@retrocomputinggrotto]

"An indecisive fax machine" should be the strapline on the back of the packaging!!

[@spudhead169]

The 8 Bit Guy would love this for his label making activities. Looks ideal for that purpose.

[@negirno]

I remember he got some flak from some retro gaming purists who didn't like that he remade the prints of a old cartridge game.

[@trailersic]

The no-repro crowd in all collecting circles can go spin.

[@peterg.8245]

What ya gonna do, live with sharpie? I agree that the people selling them as original are evil but so are people paying $1000s for rare cartridges. We’ve moved beyond that with ROMs on original hardware and/or emulation. I know some carts have special hardware but that a special case.

[@nickwallette6201]

As someone that has bought about as many fake copies of Windows 7, 8, and 10 as real copies of all versions ever, I can definitely sympathize with the discomfort of seeing identical-to-genuine products being manufactured. It’s just too hard to tell until you have it in your hand, then you have to deal with trying to get your money back. OTOH, if I had a perfectly good cart with a trashed label, I would love to have a perfect replacement. Having a “this is a repro” disclaimer spoils it. There is no right answer.

[@kaitlyn__L]

@@jdgshsjchdjejkd545 ugh. far better would be to replace nintendo in the small print with repro or something, so you're not going to see it every dang time

[@davidanttila9305]

Sounds like those manufacturers should offer a program where you send all that waste material back for refurbishment to make new ones... To cut down on all that waste..

[@Alpha8713]

Shipping has an environmental cost, too, though.

[@theplasticdeer2612]

@@Alpha8713 A lose - lose situation.

[@kaitlyn__L]

@@Alpha8713 albeit less than drilling for oil, refining into raw materials, producing virgin plastic, creating the plastic tape, laying the dye over.... etc. that's just for the actual dye part!

[@MasticinaAkicta]

Ah yes as most things polaroid, it looks cute buuuuut very expensive in use.

[@sclogse1]

Not really.

[@hadireg]

it's challenging to find a question to ask after watching a Techmoan presentation :) Thanks Matt!

[@brbbiobreak]

I have one, Where's the puppet show at the end?

[@kingfishercomputing9497]

Did the US costs include sales tax? (Not that I care, living in UK, but it is a question)

[@hadireg]

@@brbbiobreak yeah misssing that one! :) we got spoiled with too good things... hard to do with less now :)

[@hadireg]

@@kingfishercomputing9497 lol indeed :p

[@ramblerandy2397]

Very good point on the overall cost to the environment. If I was in two minds as to whether I "needed" one of these, that important point would most definitely side me with NO.

[@malad1]

The Polaroid paper should come with a prepaid envelope to return the empty paper cartridge back to Polaroid for recycling.

[@vernonzehr]

turns out not cost effective. raw materials to make from scratch are way cheaper than recycling. even now recycling is not a money maker it’s a money loser. it would have to be made into law like some countries do. i forget which country but one has rules about tech equipment and things like computers must by law be recycled. some day hopefully this will be done everywhere.

[@omsi-fanmark]

This, however, would also result in Polaroid getting all your photos due to the remains on the used color strips. From the recycling standpoint, good idea. On the other hand, it's a privacy problem. If you have printed pictures with other people than yourself on them, it would even be a violation of the EU-.GDPR. GDPR Overview: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regulation (applies to all cases where personal data of a citizen of the European Union is involved)

[@TheErador]

@@omsi-fanmark not really, if you send it back for recycling that could be deemed as consent for them to 'process' your data, you could always recycle it a different way. I.e. remove the film and use for smthg else and put the rest of the plastic cart into standard plastic recycling.

[@jmulvey371]

Then when Poloroid receives your cartridge "for recycling," they throw it in a landfill in Indonesia.

[@CTCTraining1]

OMSI-Fan Mark ... rubbish, the situation is the same as it recycling companies who take obsolete pc equipment and use practices and processes to ensure that any information is destroyed. Dropping your used packs into the bin sounds like a more vulnerable way to proceed. One day manufacturers will become truly responsible for the after-use phase of their product lifecycle, and it can’t come soon enough if you ask me.

[@muh1h1]

I want to see the 3 leftover (negative) films of a foto lined up. Should give a perfect nevative of the image!

[@markevans2294]

Which you could create a positive from.

[@johnm2012]

It wouldn't be perfect because the process is designed and optimised for making prints, not transparencies but it would probably be recognisable, though rather dark.

[@szde]

Dye Sub! What you hear when BDSM goes wrong.

[@jamesslick4790]

😲🤣

[@philreed1605]

Thank you so much for including the waste material cost!

[@xilnes7166]

well, I am a radical environmentalist and anti plastic man today and for the next week... So I will order one the week after 😂😂😂😂, When I become a climate change skeptic and anti-science man for that week, ,...will use the affiliate links for sure

[@allenellisdewitt]

Thank you for talking about the entire cost, including the waste.

[@jorge23483]

I like your reviews because they are more a "user experience" review than a "professional" review, there's more honesty and pragmatism. Thanks for another video 😃👌.

[@sczarnecki5887]

OMG all that Plastic and metal that's left over for 10 pictures! I was considering one of these until you showed that. Polaroid should ask that those be returned so they can reuse them. They could offer a discount on your next roll for the returned caddy. Reusing them would save them a lot of money. They can't be cheap to produce. That whole caddy to the land fill every time. Nope. I cannot support this.

[@SeanBZA]

I have an old Sony Selphy printer that still works, but needs a colour TV set to display, plus you can either get images as screen grabs off of standard PAL tv, or via a serial port ( kind of dates it doesn't it) or by using a sub 256M Memory Stick, of which I do have some, a whole 8M on one, perfect for use here, as I also have a Sony mouse that has a built in MS adaptor. got a whole lot of dye cartridges and the photo paper as well, but barely use it. Price i paid was free, it was being thrown away. Yes I have used it to print postcards, which it does really nicely, and they are all from my own photography as well, so unique each time. Resolution is around 1024 by 768, definitely not the best you can get these days, but for a system from the late 1990's really good, and still has vibrant colour. Competition to film, and no drive to get it in a one hour lab, or buy the then brand new inkjet technology. Quirks are being fussy about image size, and it is really slow both to respond to keypresses and to print, taking minutes per pass. Plus you need to connect up something that will handle composite video to actually use it, I use a small JVC portable TV set, which is around the same age, but with a 5 inch colour CRT as display.

[@GDJason]

I ran a 1 hour photo lab in the late 90s - early 2000s. I remember getting our first digital equipment that included a pair of commercial grade dye sub printers. I was pretty skeptical at the beginning as I was definitely partial to prints made on photographic paper. But as camera technology improved and more people were using digital, I came around. Honestly a bit impressed that this technology still holds up as well as it does. I've still got photos printed nearly 20 years ago on dye sub that still look pretty good and also some that are really showing their age, depends a lot on how they're stored. I appreciate your dedication to thorough, honest reviews of products as well as showing us some very unique items.

[@rubydoobstylie]

And I naively thought manufacturers were becoming more environmentally aware.... this product ain't for me! Thanks for the open review 👍

[@JeffCD77]

I've used dye-sub printing for many years for photos and will never use anything else. The quality is leaps and bounds over the competition. I'm still quite happy with my Selphy that was purchased YEARS AGO.

[@richardtufty]

Same, I have a Selphy that comes in a bucket to hold the power brick and paper etc., it's awesome. I also used to have a fantastic Epson A4 dye-sub printer (P440 I think) but they stopped making the consumables for it years ago and I had to ditch it. It produced the best home printed photos I have ever seen.

[@robbieoman8312]

I'm actually quite interested in the look of this so emailed Polaroid about the Recycling and got this back: "Thank you for your email and your interest in disposing of the Hi-Print film cartridges From the information given the plastic is made with an ABS plastic which is non-toxic, the metal spring and the plastic cassette components can be placed in a regular recycling bin." So guess downside is the film isn't recyclable but the cartridge and springs can be 🤷‍♂️

[@MelonFarmer68]

Dammit another hit to my credit card, i really gotta stop watching your videos lol

[@ThomasEdge]

Thanks, Techmoan. I decided to get the CP1300 SELPHY printer. I realized that my wife and I take so many pictures of our daughter that are just digitally lost in our phones. To print out at least one photo a week to put in an album will be a treasure. I also really appreciate your unbiased reviews - with the inclusion of the environmental impact. Cheers.

[@jmulvey371]

Thanks for talking about all the plastic waste, Techmoan.

[@johnnyjules2008]

Best thing i've seen in a while mentioning the waste of a product.

[@wolf3dv]

If you think that's expensive I wonder what you think about the pricing of Polaroid film

[@Techmoan]

I think it's more expensive.

[@GGoAwayy]

Techmoan Plus when you toss out a used Polaroid film pack, youre tossing out a battery as well. (Unless its the new "i type" film packs).

[@williamjones4483]

Canon and Polaroid, take note; Hewlett Packard have a recycling program for their laser printer toner cartridges and they even pay for the return shipping via UPS.

[@kaitlyn__L]

i believe most laser printer manufacturers do, because it's mostly businesses who buy those - ensuring goodwill and return customers is a bigger priority for these companies when it comes to businesses, who tend to have many of the same machine and upgrade all at once, than it is for us regular folks, who they view as un-loyal turncoats.

[@retrorusty1708]

So does Brother. I have a brother laser printer

[@gundamlurva]

I have an old Sony dye sub printer that recently had a "blocked nozzle", so to speak. One of the tiny elements in the thermal print head had died, resulting in a white line across all of my prints. So dye sub printers aren't exactly fool-proof, per se; but for what it's worth, that Sony printer is about 15 years old at this point.

[@gundamlurva]

@@TangoAndToys I've tried running multiple prints with no luck; it's still printing with that white streak. I'll probably shell out for a new Selphy, seeing as it's basically the same technology (earlier versions used the same Sony cartridges - Canon might have bought the tech from Sony), or I might upgrade to an inkjet system.

[@devintage1993]

Like you said, you could totally buy old cartridges and see what people printed, that's kind of interesting and creepy 🤣

[@supergeekjay]

Naked girlfriend alert! (My Japanese girl used to send SELFY printed pics of her to me from Japan

[@TheMainCore]

This made me considering buying the Canon printer! Cool technology.

[@misamee]

4:30 it looks like the print has stripes. That wouldn't make the quality of the print so good. Maybe is an artefact from the original image or just a reflection of the lights?

[@spud3149]

Looks like colour banding doesnt it. When you dont have enough colours to print the true images. 8 bit vs 24 bit colour used by applications.

[@misamee]

@@spud3149 In that case, I would expect the printer software to apply at least some dithering

[@EggBastion]

I sees it too Was expecting a bit more detail on it

[@PsychoHaro]

Interesting product but no excuse not to have USB C if it came out in the last few years.

[@jamesslick4790]

An alarming number of USB deviced (Esp. radios and some cameras) still ship with Mini USB! As much as I would like to see a mass shift to all USB type "C", at least most people have a few Micro USB cables lying around, and probably will for a few more years, and they are still sold EVERYWHERE. But good luck finding an dang Mini USB cable at a local "dollar" or "convenience" store when you need one quick. SMH

[@TheKitsuneCavalier]

I am sure that at least one artist shall make use of the images on the waste that the Polaroid printer produces.

[@ct92404]

I actually thought they looked pretty cool, almost like "negatives" of your images. You could make some kind of frame with backlighting and get some interesting color effects.

[@TheKitsuneCavalier]

I totally agree, @@ct92404 . :)

[@flybywire5866]

I do use a Canon Selphy 1300 and i am quite happy with it. I got sick of ink jet printers with clogged print heads which cant be unclogged even if you pump 100€ of ink through them. The Selphy costs about 35€ for 108 prints. Contrary to the ink jet prints they are light fast for many years.For printing a picture then and now its great. For a bigger amount of pictures a online picture service is of course way cheaper.

[@jens256]

You'd think they should be able recycle the plastic parts of the cartridges. You could return them at your local photo-store... oh wait...

[@TheGadgetPanda]

I just assumed that there must be some sort of recycling program, so I went to their website, but no. From their FAQ: "We can’t reuse or recycle empty film cartridges on your behalf - sorry!"

[@magicalsnek]

@@TheGadgetPanda so it all ends up on landfill... What a waste, literally.

[@pauldzim]

Plastic is pretty much un-recyclable, apart from a few items like water bottles and milk jugs

[@Dragon1276]

It seems like there’s a lot of room for innovation in the dye sublimation space. That does seem to be like a lot of extra cost for the manufacturer when they create the cartridges. I’m surprised in the consumer space no one has created a printer that uses JUST the sublimation rolls like in the professional space.

[@WhatALoadOfTosca]

I use that same canon selphy printer in my photography studio to print passport photos :) it does a great job.

[@bluehatguy4279]

Dye sublimation reminds me a lot of dot matrix, except for how wasteful the dye seems to be.

[@dasboom7133]

I hate that I like this

[@godfreypoon5148]

I like that you hate that you like this.

[@blondy2061h]

My local drugstore does 4x6" prints for 35 cents ready in 20 minutes. And that's the problem with printing pictures at home.

[@TheUglyGnome]

8:59 Great passport picture!

[@pepperpepperpepper]

Thanks - I didn't get it until now :)

[@RiksVids]

Aaah that's interesting....that uses the same printing method (the different colour panels on the "ribbon") as an ID card printer that I've used at various colleges I have worked at

[@aeiouxs]

Great video as always Mat - and while the product clearly produces high quality results, the environmental waste is obscene for such a small number of results :(

[@efraim.]

Just discovered your channel. Amazing review, thank you. Have you reviewed the kodak mini 3? I can't decide whether I should get the Polaroid or kodak

[@Nerd3927]

Ideal for Fire Extinguisher, Life Jacket, Emergency Exit, No Smoking, Electrical Hazard, Used Oil Rags, Keep Closed At Sea and other mandatory stickers they keep inventing in shipping. What is the UV resistance? 4 years would be good enough, same as the paint :-)

[@organiccold]

Haha, you need tons of paper to all the stickers they invent every month haha

[@_The_Worst_]

This is pretty fawking cool...🤘🏼💯✔ I'm thinking about getting one...👌🏼

[@finkelmana]

Dye sublimation isnt wasteful, its actually very efficient. Its that THIS implementation is inefficient.

[@kaitlyn__L]

pretty thin hair to be splitting when this is the only method of dye sub in home printers right now

[@finkelmana]

@@kaitlyn__L Ummm. No?

[@zsin128]

All printers are better than my inkjet 😞

[@latebloomer2]

HP "ink advantage" series? ...😂

[@zsin128]

@@latebloomer2 yup.

[@Nolroa]

Yeah ... HP sucks when it comes to printers on photographic paper, Canon is kinda meh...Maybe, maybe Epson ...

[@dashcamandy2242]

I have an Apple ImageWriter II... And an Apple Color StyleWriter 2400... And somewhere, also an Okidata Microline U92.

[@kaitlyn__L]

@@Nolroa I'm still using a 12 year old Canon wifi printer... I refuse to upgrade it because this one can't tell when you've used third party ink cartridges :D and there's no dang app or updates needed - so it's super quick at scanning right onto a USB stick too. the colour quality on these third party inks is kinda meh, the black especially is more of a dark grey, but it's more than good enough for cheaply printing out bank statements and the like. (I never even touched the 5-pack of photo paper it came with.) plus it's never made banding, which I certainly can't say for the Epsons my dad always used to use (a '96 parallel port one, and an '02 USB one. so, sample size of two. neither scanned or anything of course)

[@drcarrot415]

“Indecisive fax machine” this is why techmoan always wins

[@x3no4nT4r3s]

As with the ZINK (ZeroInk) printers (as the original Polaroid Pogo) you obviously do not get the real field of application for these. They are not supposed to be tiny photo personal printers to mimic good old photo prints. These are travel companions! Can you imagen the joy on the face of a child and the mother in the Lao mountains receiving a little photo print of themselves? Or think of a good old postcard from the end of the worlds with your "selfi" sticked on it - way more memorable than an iMessage/Whatsapp posting! That's what these printers were designed for. Not to produce photo prints to be archived or framed.

[@euphony5552]

"A review should inform you of all the facts... That's why I like to buy the things I show." Techmoan, quality at a cost.

[@efkastner]

The Hi-Print is on Amazon US right now. I think I’ll pick one up.... but I’ll also wait a bit to see if an affiliate link shows up in the description so I can get it that way :)

[@Techmoan]

Thanks for the info - I've added one now.

[@TimothyONeill_84.]

Yesterday I was thinking about getting a Polaroid camera or an equivalent of said camera, and then I see this, at first glance I thought, Wow, cool, just what I was looking for, but when you broke it down of how much waste was involved and that pretty much made up my mind right then and there, I hate wasting money and resources, thank you for this informative video, take care and be safe

[@unpairedelectron2886]

Honestly you drinking a bottle of pop wastes more plastic than probably five of those cartridges combined. Important to keep things in perspective.

[@TimothyONeill_84.]

Unpaired Electron Yes, also true, same can be said for any product that we use today, which is why we need people like Techmoan ( Matt ) showing us / helping us making better decisions on the things we buy. As for my “perspective” thank you for your concern, much appreciated but unwarranted, have a good day

[@rich_edwards79]

@@unpairedelectron2886 yes but the pop bottle is fairly simple thing and can be easily recycled; I doubt the same is true for this film.

[@nicholasfarley5967]

@@unpairedelectron2886 A soft drink bottle is PET that can be recycled back into PET which is pretty good if it happens. The film, rollers and cartridge of the polaroid won't be. Add to that the fact that the product will be discontinued in 5 years all the whole device will end up in landfill or e-waste it seems like a crappy product.

[@lordmuntague]

What about this thing: betanews.com/2009/05/07/xerox-rolls-out-pioneering-colorqube-printer-with-crayon-like-ink/ Used what amounted to wax crayons to print. Over a decade ago, and I vaguely recollect something like it even back in the 90s. Not sure what happened to it, but it leaves zero cartridge waste.

[@baronvonlimbourgh1716]

This actually makes nice good looking prints on the go. I'll have me one of these. Edit: i see canon makes small versions of the selphy as well. Not sure which would be beter now.

[@ThomasAndersonbsf]

have you used an MD5000 made by Alps ? it had dyesub capability just needed to get the "ink" cartridges for dyesub, but it also had two things no other printer available at the time had, white ink (yes you could print solid opaque white on clear or say add it to some color of paper other than white, and the other thing was metallic and mirror metal material (on a smooth enough surface the mirror gold and silver was capable of being used like a mirror, though you had to print onto some of the other color inks and uses a 2400DPI sized heated pins for pressing into the cartridge ribbons :)

[@MatSpeedle]

"An indecisive fax machine" had me in stitches! Great review this is a very cool little bit of kit :)

[@AreTysland]

It do look like good prints, but I notice that there are only cyan, magenta and yellow colours. Normally those are followed by black to complete the CMYK range. How well is the “full black” level on those prints? Are the printing process itself enough to eliminate the need for a black layer?

[@Jamato-sUn]

I had no idea such printing process existed

[@CDNChaoZ]

If you ever used a photo booth at a party, it's likely printing in a commercial-grade dye-sublimation printer.

[@brianoconnell6459]

If memory serves, the Alps line of dye sub used the colors a little more efficiently, resulting in the same quality with longer print times and less waste,

[@misophoniq]

Great review and interesting product. But I'm still waiting for some company to sell me a printer that doesn't fuck me in the behind. I want a printer that has a realistic price (pretty expensive) and then cartridges (or whatever it needs) for also a realistic price (dirt cheap) instead of these scammy practices of selling the hardware with an actual loss (dirt cheap) and then violating the customers in the anal area by selling a freakin' piece of paper and some ink as if it was made of gold. I think I'll pass on this Polaroid fuck-the-customer thingie for now.

[@legacydepot]

This is truly what a review of a product should be. I wish other KZbinrs took Techmoans approach with product reviews

[@jamesslick4790]

I was prepared to be underwhelmed because so many things made today with once proud brand names (Polaroid,Kodak,RCA,Westinghouse...) are often crapola made my companies who just bought the rights to the brand name. This thing actually seems to be a legit useful device. As a side note. Dye sub printing would still seem to be cheaper than the way most of us did 35mm color (colour) prints: Shoot a 35 exposure roll, Send it in, pay for all 36 prints - Decide that only 8 -10 are actually "keepers". That was pretty wasteful too. I did my own B&W developing and printing in "the" day, but that was not cheap either and is a "time suck" (unless, like for me the time spent was enjoyable as a hobby).

[@tehhamstah]

I'd like to see how those used prints look when cut out and laid over each other, perhaps then scanned in on a back-lit scanner and inversed?

[@tomstours2220]

Does everything on your channel go up in value? Please let me know what you are reviewing next so I can invest! Another brilliant video! I will be buying one of these.

[@crazyivan030983]

Eeeee, Eeeee, iiii, iiii, Eeeee... Greetings from Poland :)

[@gentuxable]

Does the manufacturer take empty cartridges back for free recycling? Well maybe you don't want to send it back because of privacy concerns but then again not too long ago we would send out a film roll for development.

[@peterpiper0815]

People still send their photos to printing service or send photos via unencrypted email or store them in whatever cloud or insta or.......it seem 'they' don't care about privacy. I do but I sometimes feel like an extinct species.

[@gentuxable]

@@peterpiper0815 well usually people have pictures, let's face it: nudes, which they don't want to share and photos of the beach that they want to in order to augment their status among people they don't really like. Problem is that people might think they are safe if they turn off syncing and print it out and delete the photo from the phone but there is still the empty roll. Lol

[@Ass_Burgers_Syndrome]

I like the fact you can use them as stickers. Pricey but pretty cool if you wanted to make custom stickers on the fly I guess. I love the noise it make while printing too.

[@rumblebars]

At the print size, this seems more like a glorified high-cost label/decal maker than a photograph printer. I wonder as to the quality of the self-adhesive.

[@squiggle2054]

y'all are all on how much more this thing costs while a pack of polaroid originals will cost you like 2.5 dollars a photo which most you wind up messing up

[@Slay1337pl]

This printer will be scrap in 5 years max, once the app stops working.

[@jmulvey371]

More like 8 months.

[@3rdalbum]

That's kind of what I thought - having to use a proprietary app to transfer the photos is a major disincentive for me. You're always at the mercy of Polaroid to keep the app working on newer phones, and if they stop updating it you could lose your ability to print at all. It's Bluetooth, why can't they use ordinary Bluetooth file transfer to transfer the photos, even if it's just an optional extra way? Perhaps they require the phone to split the photo up into different colours instead of using the printer's CPU for that task, but still the reliance on a proprietary app makes me sceptical.

[@pastoelio]

@@3rdalbum isnt the usb cable an option to send pictures to it or is it solely for charging

[@brettvv7475]

I don't know... Polaroid has been around since the '30s, so..

[@flippy9133]

@@brettvv7475 it's not the same polaroid it's been sold to China

[@TheTwick]

I’m guessing none of these systems materials are ‘recyclable’?

[@kaitlyn__L]

@KZbinLoser it's actually simple. i can put type 1 and type 2 in the recycling. all else has to go in the bin. other locations can also do type 5 and type 6. if you don't see a number, it goes in the bin. type 4 is collected by many supermarkets. obviously avoiding buying it is the best option, but there are many areas in life where you have no option. hopefully you're not sending it all to landfill.

[@robertmitchell3763]

That printer (and even the design and shape of the cartridges) look really similar to the Kodak Photo Printer Mini 2! Are they related devices??

[@FatNorthernBigot]

I thought Polaroid, as a company, was now defunct?

[@gacelperfinian]

Yes, the previous company is gone. The new company was founded by Polaroid enthusiasts though (unlike other brands e.g. Kodak which at one point promoted a cryptocurrency and also sold batteries (which are not really Kodak's expertise)). en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polaroid_B.V.

[@FatNorthernBigot]

@@gacelperfinian Thanks for that.

[@jamesslick4790]

@@gacelperfinian OTOH, I have used Kodak alkaline batteries, They not bad at all, and usually cheaper. LOL

[@gacelperfinian]

@@jamesslick4790 Well I haven't tried myself (here the price per Kodak battery flips, better to buy some actual AA lithium batteries instead). Still not what would you expect from Kodak though, which is cameras (if I remember correctly, unlike Polaroid's case, Kodak still exists but only as a brand licensor - in other words Kodak batteries are not at least designed by Kodak - it's another company).

[@jamesslick4790]

@@gacelperfinian I agree. Lots of old "brands" are like that. I've seen "Polaroid" branded radios! now. One can still.buy Kodak branded cameras too, but they are not made by Kodak either. PS there are are also "Kodak" branded rechargeable batteries. LOL.