I still don't get the math.
Take our company party. Let's suppose that each couple is photographed in 10 seconds, and everyone is perfect (I suppose it's possible). With two photographers, you could take 12 photographs a minute, and it would take an hour and a half to take 1000 photos. However, I suppose that's not really relevant, since you could start printing as soon as you took the photos, with pretty much complete overlap (presuming that you had the staff to shoot and print at the same time).
So the real question is "How fast can you print the photos?"
Presume 45 seconds per print, with no time for reprints, loading paper, changing cartridges, etc. (The HiTi is one fast printer! But note that, according to their website, 5 by 7s take 70 seconds, and, in fact, at different places on the site, they say it takes 75 seconds (not 45) for 4 by 6s, particularly the printers that use roll paper, which you might have thought would be the fastest). Regardelss, based on those assumptions, two printers could print 160 photos per hour (or fewer), yielding 1000 photos in a little over 6 hours (ten hours using more realistic numbers). So, I suppose it could be done, but only if at least SOME of the people waited 6 to 10 hours to get their prints.
What am I missing? I'm figuring that allowing for downtime, and things breaking, they must have SIX of the HiTi printers. Then, the photos could be done in somewhere between 2 and 4 hours, even allowing for breakage, cleaning, etc. But you'd need a lot of staff too.
And, of course, as you said in your follow-up, it won't work the same way with action photos. In particular, he'd still be taking pictures while the company party guys long ago devoted all their resources to printing the photos they already took. So, we're going to need ever more staff to do this with the little league!
I still think that this is a wildly impractical thing for a solo photographer who doesn't already own (several) portable printers.
-- Forrest
http://forrestmilder.smugmug.com/gallery/686811