RE: Best RIP: designer or photo edition
RE: Best RIP: designer or photo edition
- Subject: RE: Best RIP: designer or photo edition
- From: "Cedric Briscoe" <email@hidden>
- Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2004 13:58:44 -0400
Yea Neil. I think it is VERY valuable. Because there are lots of solutions
that do file format processing and need an engine. And if everyone were to
license Adobe's it would make the price MUCH too expensive. Apago uses it
for its' Piktor software; which is a cost effective file format conversion
util. and others have similar tools that require a Postscript engine to do
their thing.
Cedric Briscoe
Treetop Publishing, Inc.
-----Original Message-----
From: email@hidden [
mailto:email@hidden]
Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2004 1:05 PM
To: Cedric Briscoe; email@hidden
Subject: Re: Best RIP: designer or photo edition
on 01/08/2004 18:38, Cedric Briscoe wrote :
>
Roger, Efi/Best, since version 5 is now using the real makoy; Original
Adobe
>
PostScript 3 CPSI and ProofMaster, with their current version 2 is still
>
using Artifex's Ghostscript.
>
>
>
>
I'm glad that did but do ya' think Best switched because of the Altona
Test
>
Suite?
The Altona suite pointed out some overprinting problems for Best. That's not
to say that Adobe Postscript 3 cures all problem just because it's the
interpreter. I'm glad that they went with the Adobe motor for compatibility
reasons between other offline devices and software. Ghostscript still did a
good job on most of what needed to be done before Indesign came on strong.
Ghostscript is also a better solution for resource limited systems.
Neil Snape nsnape @ noos.fr neil_snape @ mac.com
http://mapage.noos.fr/nsnape
_______________________________________________
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.