Re: Can't resist (about Fiery RIP)
Re: Can't resist (about Fiery RIP)
- Subject: Re: Can't resist (about Fiery RIP)
- From: Nick Wheeler <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 15:24:06 -0400
on 5/11/01 12:47 PM, Nipat Paiboonponpong at email@hidden wrote:
>
Hi,
>
>
Having just finished reading your posts in the ColorSync list.
>
As an owner of FieryRIP/Epson9000 who also bought that little box
>
with the impression that it was true CMYK RIP, I would say some things.
>
>
:I don't like it, but not hate it so much.
I don't hate it so much either. I just hate the fact that I made a stupid
assumption and ended up with a really expensive print server. What I was
trying to suggest is many people would be better off not spending the money
on the Fiery and try USB printer sharing first if all they need is a print
spooler and the basic quickdraw functionality.
I think it is possible to get into a world of trouble by adding software
functionality that seems to make things simpler but only ends up making
things more complicated and hard to manage. My mantra would be to keep it
simple.
>
:My Fiery dithering is as good as Epson driver's, since the data will
>
pass thru the Epson RGB algorythm (the same used in Epson QuickDraw
>
driver) anyway.
Where? Licensed by EFI from Epson??
So I strongly disagree with you.
>
:About the Calibrator, don't waste money in it. It is just a low level
>
model of ColorMouse, not a Spectro version I think. You can calibrate it
>
with
>
any spectro by reading the calibration patches in 50D the export the value
>
in CIE XYZ without header text, and let the ColorWisePro Tools read it.
>
:I can increase ink limit for some reason by using hacking the calibration
>
process, I know what I'm doing, but if anything goes wrong, I can go back
>
by just clicking Restore.
>
>
And you made some other wrong statements, please be careful,
>
because novice buyers will be misleaded. I also made many wrong
>
statements, but atleast I try to follow posts with "I think" or
>
"Just my speculation" or correct them later.
>
>
--
>
nipat
>
>
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________________
>
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
>
nipat:
You are right, I don't use enough qualification when I say stuff - a really
bad habit. It is really a result of being lazy.
Thank you for the feedback on the calibrator.
With my Fiery/5000 I don't get the super microweave option that is offered
with the standard quickdraw driver. There may be some differences between
the quickdraw drivers for the 9000 and the 5000, I really don't know. It
would seem that a print of any size off the 9000 in Super Microweave mode
would take forever? Would it be possible that the quickdraw driver for the
9000 does not even offer super microweave as an option?
This opens up a whole can of worms that I don't understand at all. Basically
what happens where. This is a far cry from the early Epson daisy wheel and
dot matrix printers that gave you enough information to write your own
drivers if you were so inclined.
The only RIPs that I have some limited knowledge about what happens where
are the Rampage RIPs. My admittedly dated knowledge of the Rampage system
was that their screening algorythmns were licensed from Harlequin and
implemented at the RIP.
So I assumed that Fiery had implemented their own screening at the RIP and
it is resident there, whereas the quickdraw driver functions independently
of the RIP and is resident on the MacIntosh. I deduced that the quickdraw
screening was better by looking at output samples and comparing them by eye.
Not much science there, and I most definately could be wrong.
Best wishes,
Nick Wheeler