Spectrocam or EyeOne?
Spectrocam or EyeOne?
- Subject: Spectrocam or EyeOne?
- From: Roberto Michelena <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 14:00:13 -0500
Definitively what I read here is not making my life any easier...
I have been thinking of replacing my DTP-41 (not UV); I have the following
complaints about it:
1) I get bad profiles with several papers that contain brighteners, and with
some inks that have a degree of fluorescence too.
2) It needs very large patches. Can mean many sheets on inkjets, or can mean
a large space on press (which precludes rotated repeats as should be).
I have three choices that seem logical:
1) SpectroCam
2) SpectroCam UV
3) EyeOne (there isn't a UV version, is there?)
The DTP-41uv I ruled out as costs twice as much as the others without
providing any advantage, and the SpectroScan ruled out by price and also
because of speed.
So, besides the known issues of:
-software support (not an issue anymore)
-company/product future
-software bundles/price
Can someone really tell me how the EyeOne compares to the SpectroCam?
I mean, is it more usable? More solid? Needs smaller/larger patches? Lasts
longer? Shows better repetibility? Handles glossy materials better? Handles
fluorescence better? Etc.
I read so much in the past about the SpectroCam (non UV) having no problems
whatsoever with fluorescence, that I still don't get why the UV model.
And if an EyeOne uv version becomes available, does it mean the current one
has problems with fluorescence?
Or will it be a removable filter? That would be great...
By the way, why NOT a uv-filtered one? When is a filter a bad idea?
Thanks in advance,
-- Roberto Michelena
EOS S.A.
Lima, Peru