RV: ScreenProof vs. BlackMagic for 1-Bit TIFFs
RV: ScreenProof vs. BlackMagic for 1-Bit TIFFs
- Subject: RV: ScreenProof vs. BlackMagic for 1-Bit TIFFs
- From: "Darrian Young" <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 00:59:41 +0100
Matt Louis wrote:
>
I know I am dodging your question, but you might want to consider
>
evaluating VortexProof from Blanchard Systems for inkjet dot proofing.
>
Vortex is actually GMG Proof with Dot option but it sells under a
>
different name in the US. I have seen Epson output (Ultichrome on 9600)
>
from GMG at 150LPI and was very impressed with the color match to press
>
sheet. GMG supports icc but works best using proprietary profiles for
>
reference profiles and a canned profile for the proofer. The canned
>
profile works because the linearization tools calibrate the proofer into
>
compliance to the profile.
Excellent recommendation! What is remarkable is that someone on this list
has seen better results with something other than an icc profile. Although
it is perfectly functional to use canned profiles due to the intensive
calibration process as you mention, what really saves time in the pressroom
is when you use the system to make a profile of your press.
What puzzled me however, is the post from Roger Breton...
>
I think the two systems are equally good. BEST has the advantage over
>
BlackMagic of accepting plain PostScript files and turn them to halftone
>
dots.
Can you explain why you see this as an advantage? The only way to get a
true screen proof is to use the same 1 bit data from the imagesetter or CTP
RIP which will be used to make the plates.
Regards.
Darrian Young
MGV
_______________________________________________
colorsync-users mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/colorsync-users
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.