So I'm wondering if, without its also having any controls for ink limiting or linearization, if there could really be any advantage compared to sending the same PDFs direct to the Epson, using Acrobat Color Management.
Does Overdrive has a colorimetric advantage over the driver? From my observation, no. Does XProof have an advantage over Overdrive for proofing? From my observation, no. The quality and ease of use for SWOP/GRACoL proofing is fantastic either way.
* A potentially different RGB color space that is passed to the driver, though since I believe the Epson driver is optimized for either Adobe RGB or sRGB input, that it would be Adobe RGB.
Well, it’s a custom RGB space that’s defined by the profile you make for it.
But what else? Is there really any need at all to spend $795 for that?
It begs the question - ‘What is a RIP anyway?’ I’m doing another Overdrive install this morning so I like the timely nature of your inquiry. There are different solutions for different workflows but I find Overdrive to be an elegant solution for a smaller percentage of my clients. Here’s why: 1) IMO, proofing is problematic from InDesign in the first place. I’ve seen this with design groups for years - they make proofs from InDesign and then they make a bad a PDF they send to the print vendor and they get different results (transparency flattening issues, text wrapping, etc). IMO, it’s the PDF that should be proofed - not the raw InDesign file. Switching design groups over to a workflow where they are proofing the same PDF that goes to the print vendor has reduced proofing problems 100% and allowed groups to bring proofing in-house, from my experience. It helps them learn to make better PDFs that are bulletproof. And in many cases, the print vendors have been so impressed with the quality of the Overdrive proofs they’re receiving from their clients that they’ve reached out to me to improve their own proofing. 2) Ease of use. Printing from InDesign is complicated - there are so many aspects to the print dialog that it’s overwhelming to many designers. It’s great for geeks like us but it’s intimidating and overwhelming to those that just want to focus on design. If you’ve got a group of 20 designers that are sending proofs to a printer you’ll have a bunch of them that will consistently screw it up. Make a PDF and send it to the RIP - that’s easy. And in big workgroups we need to make decisions that simplify workflows and reduce chances for failures. I’ve found having a RIP like Overdrive running at large design shops translates into fewer printing frustrations and less time training people. 3) Nesting. Overdrive Layout is an OEM version of BlueCubit’s Excellent ImageNest software. It’s the best nesting software on the planet, IMO, and people get it bundled with Overdrive. 4) Postscript - fine precision details. Overdrive is running the JAWS RIP which is true postscript and you can specify the rendering parameters. When I compare fine, precision details (logos, small type, patterns that can moire, etc) I’m seeing better results from Overdrive than I see from printing directly from InDesign through the driver. 5) Some groups really like it that Overdrive can run on an old Mac. It’s solid, reliable and fast, and there’s always a use for an old Mac when a new one arrives. 6) Sure I get paid by the hour, but I like using technologies that are smart. I like it when I can come in and do my job quickly because the technology is elegant and well thought out. So that’s what a RIP is to Overdrive audience. It’s a postscript rasterizer that simplifies your workflow, provides nesting, and helps you get certifiable proofs that you can’t quite achieve with the driver. Scott Martin www.on-sight.com