Re: Real world experience w/ GMG and Oris RIPs
Re: Real world experience w/ GMG and Oris RIPs
- Subject: Re: Real world experience w/ GMG and Oris RIPs
- From: Terry Wyse <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 08:25:35 -0500
On Nov 17, 2004, at 1:59 PM, Dan Gillespie wrote:
Rampage's calibration procedure and color manageability is a joke in
comparison to the tools available in either Oris's ColorTuner or GMG's
Colorproof 04. Rampage did not even compete in the 2004 IPA Color
Proofing
RoundUP presumably because the product is not comparable to most
serious
color proofing RIP's. Also, when you take proofing off-line you don't
run
the risk of creating a bottle neck for plate or film production.
Sorry, I just can't QUITE let this one go without a comment. And DanG,
you know I love you so don't take my response personal. Maybe we could
argue the merits of Rampage's calibration process over a micro-brew
sometime. :-)
Rampage's calibration process is complicated for sure, but it CAN be
quite powerful. Once you've set your per-channel limits, light/dark
crossover points and linearized your proofer for dot area ("Actual"
curves in Rampage with a linear or default "Desired" curve only), you
can actually use Rampage's "Desired" curves to your advantage. I've
used them to achieve a "linearized-for-chroma" calibration as well as
gray-balanced calibrations or L* linearizations. Since it's on a
per-channel basis, you can linearize the CMY for chroma and the K for
L*. It's all up to you what you want to achieve as opposed to other
RIPs locking you into what THEIR idea of ideal calibration is.
Personally, I like choices. Once you achieve your ideal calibration,
you then profile on top of this. AND Rampage supports Device Link
profiles as well as standard ICC profiles.
Rampage probably only has two serious shortcomings that I can think of:
1) lack of in-RIP TOTAL ink limiting and 2) a colorimetric
calibration/re-calibration process. And the second one you could say of
a LOT of proofing RIPs....except for at least one. Frankly, even the
lack of in-RIP total ink limiting is only a problem with certain
devices, particularly Photo Dye ink Epsons.
The comment "Also, when you take proofing off-line you don't run the
risk of creating a bottle neck for plate or film production.", I'm sure
exactly what you mean by that Dan. I think in every case I've ever set
up Rampage ICC proofing (RAMproof Direct+ICC), it's ALWAYS run on a
stand-alone box. That's actually one of the beauties of the system; The
native high-rez (platesetter resolution) RIP data is processed on one
box and the proofing is done on a separate box where the data is
sampled down from platesetter rez to proofing resolution and then
color-managed. As a result, Rampage's rendering of text and other
vector data is generally superior to other proofing RIPs that will use
relatively low resolution contone data. And, of course, the fact that
Rampage is proofing from the SAME native data that will be used to
image plates later in the production process.
The only drawback in this scenario is that ANY data going to the
proofer first has to be submitted into the Rampage workflow before it
can be proofed. So there's no, for example, printing/proofing direct
from an application or dropping a few loose images into a hot folder
without first importing the files into the Rampage system. Maybe this
is what Dan was referring to, the fact that ANY proofing has to first
get into the workflow system, potentially slowing down other production
jobs.
There, I feel better now!
Cheers,
Terry
_____________________________
WyseConsul
Color Management Consulting
email@hidden
704.843.0858
http://www.colormanagementgroup.com
http://www.wyseconsul.com (coming soon)
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden