Re: Recommendations for Spectro and Profile - Built In Spectro Printers
Re: Recommendations for Spectro and Profile - Built In Spectro Printers
- Subject: Re: Recommendations for Spectro and Profile - Built In Spectro Printers
- From: Scott Martin <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 11:15:42 -0500
On Oct 12, 2007, at 10:45 AM, Andrew Rodney wrote:
Having an on board spectro is a good bang
for the buck, especially if the RIP can produce calibration updates
automatically.
Because the unit needs calibration (its an unstable device)?
I don't think it's fair to say that any printers (including Epson's)
are perfectly consistent over time. All Epson heads under heavy use
open up and change over time. I'm seeing a need for some of my high
volume Epson users that print 4+ hours a day to re-profile
approximately every year or so.
As with CMOS sensors, thermal print head technology has come a long
way. Canon and HP both have arguments that their implementation
provides greater consistency over their lifespan than Epson's
approach. All print heads including Epson's will need replacement at
some time. Exactly how often and and at what cost are variables that
need to be closely considered.
Putting a spectro on the printer has lots of positive and negative
implications.
Positives:
Simplicity and superior integration of calibration and profiling
processes
Ease of use
Network distribution of profiles from a centralized location
Negatives:
Increased cost
Limited RIP support
can't be used on other devices
If its not the best device and/or software you may have wasted your
money on something you may not use
Proprietary software and hardware combination can make it impossible
to get consistency across a variety of devices
For myself it's that last negative that really sours the on-board
spectro for me. I've seen a few Z series owners give up on onboard
profiling for superior external solutions. People are sick of single
minded vendor solutions and are looking for complete shop-wise or lab-
wide solutions. But who knows, maybe the LED based EyeOne is the end-
all of spectros and if all printers adopt them with consistent
software then it could be a good, albeit homogenous, thing.
Let's get back to the initial comment about device based calibration.
HP's approach is fairly costly but excellent for a certain
percentage of users. Epson's lack of on board calibration (and the
general assumption that they are perfectly consistent over time) have
proven to be a problem for a percentage of users. Perhaps Canon's
iPFx100 low-cost, on-board calibration and sensor makes more sense
than people are giving them credit for.
Scott Martin
www.on-sight.com
_______________________________________________
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