Re: Re:CMYK profiling - Monaco / StudioPrint
Re: Re:CMYK profiling - Monaco / StudioPrint
- Subject: Re: Re:CMYK profiling - Monaco / StudioPrint
- From: "Ernst Dinkla" <email@hidden>
- Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 19:55:59 +0200
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cris Daniels" <email@hidden>
To: <email@hidden>
Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 4:38 PM
Subject: Re:CMYK profiling - Monaco / StudioPrint
>
<There are few supporters for this RIP on the list, why is that
? As I
>
understand it it takes second place in RIP sales in the USA.>
>
>
>
>
The people at Wasatch are great. My experience has been pretty
bad so
>
far as getting great color. I've never run it on an Epson, but
the Mutoh
>
printers that I've profiled and driven with SoftRIP were
nothing to
>
write home about. The interface is nice, and the documentation
is
>
excellent. One thing I found out recently is that it would now
honor the
>
RGB source space that you specified in the color management
setup. I was
>
wondering why in my version 4.4 why the RGB source space
setting seemed
>
to make no difference. I don't like little treats like this, it
wastes
>
my time to figure out this stuff. Also, ICM is nothing to write
home
>
about, they would be much better suited to write their own
color
>
management engine that is more powerful. Also tweak the
screening while
>
their at it. Lastly, at least for the Epson printers RIP
vendors need to
>
come up with routines to do B+W output without entirely relying
on the
>
grey balance of a color profile to accomplish this task.
Mutohs with Mutoh pigment inks I guess. That's the same prefaded
quality that Roland and Mimaki are using. No software solution
will help then.
ICM is the free Windows Heidelberg/Microsoft engine if you run
the RIP on anything newer than NT4. For the last you had to buy
the Kodak engine. I haven't seen much difference between the
Windows engine and ACE when used in Adobe's applications.
I agree on the screening for older type inkjets, the Epson
dithering is better. The difference becomes less with the newer
inkjets that have a higher resolution and variable droplet sizes.
But most RIPs do not equal Epson's dithering or they are based on
an Epson license (PressReady,
Ergosoft's 2200 driver, Epson's RIPs).
B&W output in the Wasatch SoftRip isn't given much attention. But
the ink control possible internally should make it easier than on
many other RIP's. There's a choice to shift the CMY balance to
get better neutrals. Linearisation is onboard so any
inconsistency can be addressed. I haven't experimented with that
because there's an Epson 9000 here loaded with Ultratone VM quad
ink that is driven by the SoftRip with CMYK separation curves.
The only thing I wish is that Wasatch did something with my
suggestions for making B&W quad printing even better. Main point
being the low quantity of linearisation samples/nodes on the
calibration curves. An overall linearisation on top of the
separation curves with much more samples would be the most
convenient addition.
Ernst
_______________________________________________
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.