PowerRIP 2000 & 1290 printer
PowerRIP 2000 & 1290 printer
- Subject: PowerRIP 2000 & 1290 printer
- From: Jerome Kornfield <email@hidden>
- Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 19:19:17 -0400
At MacWorld this past week I had the opportunity to talk to the PowerRIP
people. I brought up this very same point about "grain". Their answer is
that Adobe/Epson use a different screen for older printers like the
3000. However, on the newer printers, PowerRIP should be the equal of
Epson's RIP when it comes to grain. When printing to my 7500, I see no
grain difference between RIPs. When printing to my 3000, big difference.
I suggested to them that they might want to correct that since Epson is
STILL selling 3000s even though they are not manufactured. Also, there
is a huge installed base of them, and they last a very long time.
Jerry
An aside about DayGlo. They claim with "normal" calibration to get 30%
more gamut and superior photographic images. The difficulty is that you
have to completely switch over to their inks.
>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 09:12:59 -0400
>
Subject: Powerrip 2000
>
From: Roger Breton <email@hidden>
>
To: <email@hidden>
>
>
> See what I mean,
>
> I was just about to ask if I should set my monitor to 6500 or 7500 on
>
> a mac
>
> for output to a 1290 and the next thing I see a doctoral thesis on
>
> Gamma.
>
> Doesn't anyone have any sympathy for some poor mug who just wants to
>
> have
>
> the 1290 output something vaguely similar to the monitor.
>
>
>
> Anyway, I purchased the epson RIP for the 1290 have I made a blunder
>
> here,
>
> will it do the job or should I have gone for the powerrip 2000. Does
>
> anyone
>
> know if the epson rip will not send me bananas.
>
>
>
>
Thelonious, FYI, PowerRip2000 does not do, IMHO, as nice dithering as
>
Epson's own. Yes, the Rip itself is impressive but the only choice for
>
screening is something they call "stochastic". It looks coarse!
>
>
So maybe you did not make a bad choice after all.
>
>
As for Gamma, I admit it is confusing.