Re: Birmy 5.2 vs. Epson Driver

[Ken K <ellipsis@concentric.net>]

Rafe B. wrote:
> 
> OK, so I've decided to try working through a RIP,
> just to see what it's all about, and what might
> be gained over the Epson print driver.
> 
> So far, not impressed, but I may be doing everything
> wrong.  Looking for clues/suggestions.

Well, I remember you relating - quite emphatically -  in several
messages a week or so ago all of the reasons that you didn't need a RIP.
And it appears that you still don't. Just out of curiosity, why did you
spring $25.00 for what is essentially nothing? I can't believe that they
are charging that much. Maybe it's a good marketing ploy, since once
someone pays that much for the demo, I guess the incentive is in place
to go ahead and purchase the registration floppies - IF the RIP works
out satisfactorily.
 
> Ordered the demo of Birmy's PowerRip (V 5.2) for the
> Epson 700.

> I can't get this RIP to print at 720x1440.  Best I can
> do is 720x720.  What's up with that?

My guess is that the 720 x 1440 is a 'software-derived' interpolative
trick and Birmy chose not to support/implement it. (I could have sworn
that I read right here that all of the 1440 Epsons were actually 720
units with resolution enhancement technology) I'm sure that Birmy felt
that 720 was fine, especially considering that many CMYK electronic
proofers costing *thousands* of dollars are operating in the 300-400 dpi
range.

> At 720x720, print quality is still noticeably inferior
> to that of the Epson driver.  At 360x360, downright
> shabby.  And we won't even talk about the five minutes
> or so that the RIP takes to "think" about the image before
> finally sending it off to the printer.

It has been mentioned many times before on this forum that the Birmy RIP
featured a fairly coarse stochastic screening algorithm - no match for
the standard EPSON driver.
 
> The image I'm printing is around 360 dpi.
> 
> ***
> 
> I chose this image because I thought it was one of
> those cases where the Epson driver was trying (and
> failing) to print a deep blue, nearly purple shade.
> The print from the Epson driver is a bit too cyan,
> where my monitor shows it as a dark blue/purple
> (say, 5,35,70 or 5,30,50 in RGB coordinates.)
> 
> As it turns out, the output of the Birmy RIP is
> even worse than the Epson -- even less blue, and more
> cyan.  Bummer.
> 
> In both cases, I'm outputting an RGB image to the
> print driver/RIP, from Photoshop 4.01.

Ahhhh. RGB. To a CMYK RIP. You know better than that, Rafe.

> I don't see any particular color controls in this
> RIP.  In fact, nothing at all for "tweaking" the
> CMYK behavior.  Was I expecting too much?

Perhaps. I think the RIPs that have color control are in the "Over $500
Club".

Here's my take on this subject. You have already expressed knowledge of
many of these things, but bear with me.

The RIP is targeted toward users who are working within the realm of
PostScript and offset presswork. Printing color in that arena requires
the use of a CMYK file. The color control in that case comes from the
ability to tune the press curves, dot gain and ink settings in
PhotoShop's RGB to CMYK conversion dialogs, or via direct manipulation
of the CMYK channels while in PhotoShop. The use of a RIP with the EPSON
printer allows first of all, a preview of what the type and other
PostScript elements in the print job will look like on press. (This is
highly important and cannot be accomplished without a PostScript
interpreter.) A RIP allows output as separations if you are using a
program that will produce them, such as Quark or FreeHand and others.
This is necessary in order to check trapping and proper separation of
color plates, among other things.

> Comments?  Suggestions?  Give it up?

For your purposes, I'd say don't bother. Before I got the Birmy, the
EPSON printer did a lousy job of proofing my print work containing CMYK
tiffs, and in order to produce a representative copy of a piece for the
client to look at, (since, as you are aware, the EPSON driver was
converting them to RGB, and then back to CcMmYK) I had to substitute RGB
TIFFs in the project. Talk about a hassle, since if you leave one in
there accidentally, usually it RIPs in an imagesetter as grayscale.
After I got the Birmy, my 'proofs' are very close to what comes from
CMYK proofers such as the IRIS Realist and 3M Rainbow, both of which
will run $35 and up per tabloid print.

> PS:  This demo was hardly free; cost me $20.00
> plus $5.50 shipping.  If anybody else out there
> is interested in trying out this "demo," I'll
> be happy to part with it for about half that
> price.  (Supposedly, cost of demo is deductible
> from the cost of the RIP if you buy it.)

Hahahaa! That's pretty good. "Hey, everybody, this thing sucks... wanna
buy it - cheap?"

You are far too honest to be much of a salesman.

But I consider that a good thing.

Ken Kehl
ellipsis design
____________________________

Luck comes in two flavors...
____________________________
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Please: Stay on topic. Trim quoted messages.
http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.