Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: RIP (Raster Image Processors  (Read 7036 times)
ebaron
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« on: June 06, 2006, 08:31:21 AM »
ReplyReply

I am trying to decide on which rip to purchase. Does anybody have a recommendation?
I am presently trying demos Colorburst rip and Colorbyte's ImagePrint. I find the Colorburst easier to use and cheaper. I am wondering on the quality comparisson of the two.
Logged
jconly
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 14


« Reply #1 on: June 06, 2006, 05:31:04 PM »
ReplyReply

I am also in your position of trying to decide which RIP to purchase.

So far, I am sold on ImagePrint, simply for the Phatte Black option.  

I'm really looking forward to what other individuals have to say.


Quote
I am trying to decide on which rip to purchase. Does anybody have a recommendation?
I am presently trying demos Colorburst rip and Colorbyte's ImagePrint. I find the Colorburst easier to use and cheaper. I am wondering on the quality comparisson of the two.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=67531\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
ebaron
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« Reply #2 on: June 06, 2006, 06:09:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I am also in your position of trying to decide which RIP to purchase.

So far, I am sold on ImagePrint, simply for the Phatte Black option. 

I'm really looking forward to what other individuals have to say.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Thanks Jconly

I have had two replies.

One from Chromalink digital color tune-ups (run by a color management consultant).
  " Hi Ed,
    In my experience ColorByte will do better job on BW.
    Hope this helps.
    Best regards,
    Haris H."
And one from Alien Briot who also liked ImagePrint but has not used Colorburst.
   "Ed,
    I use ImagePrint. I have no experience with colorburst.  While there may be a saving,
    ImagePrint is so good that this takes precedence in my view.
    I have  a review of it on the web if you haven't read it yet:
     [a href=\"http://www.rawworkflow.com/_Articles/index.html]http://www.rawworkflow.com/_Articles/index.html[/url]
    Regards
    Alain Briot
    Beaux Arts Photography"

I have printed a black and white. Have been told by two photographers (one of whom took the photo)  that they liked the Colorbust better over all. The Imageprint did a better job on the details in the dark areas but they thought the shading over all was better in the Colorburst. I should say that I have not mastered all of the settings in either application.
Also, Colorburst comes with the ability to print from apps. ImagePrint requires that you purchase another key in order to be able to print from apps such as Photoshop. It almost seems that ImagePrint is out to fleece the customer.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2006, 06:11:06 PM by ebaron » Logged
dlashier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 518



WWW
« Reply #3 on: June 06, 2006, 08:01:25 PM »
ReplyReply

> Also, Colorburst comes with the ability to print from apps.

I don't find this a big deal and don't understand what the fuss is about. Simply file/save in PS (which is good practice anywhere before printing), then alt/tab to IP and file/open.

> It almost seems that ImagePrint is out to fleece the customer.

Well that may be, but for other reasons (eg upgrade policy).

Nevertheless I am a very happy user of ImagePrint.

- DL
Logged

digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9189



WWW
« Reply #4 on: June 07, 2006, 08:14:02 AM »
ReplyReply

They are both strong products. A lot depends on what you want the RIP (and technically they don't have to be true RIPs) do different things. ImagePrint has far more functionality (and hence complexity) to do things like step and repeat, make templates, and that kind of layout stuff. If you're printing one image at a time, you might not care about that. ColorBurst doesn't have that, its far simpler to setup and use. I think you can get a demo of both to compare the output qualities but first look at the feature matrix and see if there's stuff one does the other doesn't that you need.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
alainbriot
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 684



WWW
« Reply #5 on: June 08, 2006, 10:02:18 PM »
ReplyReply

ImagePrint can also print from the application with a separate upgrade. The Phatte Black option is one of the main assets of ImagePrint, together with excellent profiles for virtually all papers.
Logged

Alain Briot
Author of Mastering Landscape Photography, Mastering Composition, Creativity and Personal Style., Marketing Fine Art Photography and How Photographs are Sold.
http://www.beautiful-landscape.com
alanrew
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 75


WWW
« Reply #6 on: June 09, 2006, 06:57:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
They are both strong products. A lot depends on what you want the RIP (and technically they don't have to be true RIPs) do different things. ImagePrint has far more functionality (and hence complexity) to do things like step and repeat, make templates, and that kind of layout stuff. If you're printing one image at a time, you might not care about that. ColorBurst doesn't have that, its far simpler to setup and use. I think you can get a demo of both to compare the output qualities but first look at the feature matrix and see if there's stuff one does the other doesn't that you need.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=67610\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Andrew

I read somewhere that if you want to make your own custom profiles for ColorBurst, you must use a spectro with a UV filter attached. This unfortunately cuts out a lot of users who only have a standard Eye One Pro. AFAIK this info was obtained from a ColorBurst Support person BTW.

Any comments on this?

TIA

Alan
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9189



WWW
« Reply #7 on: June 09, 2006, 07:26:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I read somewhere that if you want to make your own custom profiles for ColorBurst, you must use a spectro with a UV filter attached. This unfortunately cuts out a lot of users who only have a standard Eye One Pro. AFAIK this info was obtained from a ColorBurst Support person BTW.

Any comments on this?

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=67765\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I've never heard this and I'm not sure. If you want to make your own profiles and don't have software that can compensate for OB AND you don't have a Spectrophotometer with a UV, that could be true for anything. I know the profiles for ColorBurst are built in CMYK while you want to build profiles in RGB for ImagePrint. You have a bit more control (and complexity) building CMYK profiles for any device.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
goer
Guest
« Reply #8 on: June 09, 2006, 08:53:37 AM »
ReplyReply

This can of worms has been opened before. Have you read the "License to print...money ?" posting? Everyone is looking for the best cheapest software to run. Good luck.
Logged
ebaron
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« Reply #9 on: June 22, 2006, 03:48:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Just to let people know that I have been using demos from Colorburst RIP, ImagePrint, and PowerRip. I have not made up my mind as of yet. I liked the ease of use of the Colorburst RIP but I am hesitant on purchasing it as I have not had one reply that supports it (including a request that I had made on the Colorburst forum site). I have had about 5 supporters for ImagePrint. I had a hard time comparing the prints as ImagePrint puts black marks all over its print which interfered with judging the quality of the print compared to Colorbutst which had no such marks and Power RIP which had a neutral gray X water mark. I have two days left with the Colorburst demo. Then I will have to decide. I am contemplating on going to the digitalart Print Like A Pro Seminar in July 18-20. I hope this answers goer question.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2006, 03:48:50 PM by ebaron » Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9189



WWW
« Reply #10 on: June 22, 2006, 03:55:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Well the new version that drives the 2400 IS out (I just printed from it, looking good).
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
paulbk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 468



« Reply #11 on: June 22, 2006, 08:57:10 PM »
ReplyReply

re: ColorBurst RIP w/Epson 4000

Tried the demo. It appears you can not use the ColorBurst RIP and manually feed paper. You must feed from the tray or use rolls. Unacceptable. I never use rolls. I always manually feed because I use heavy paper and switch paper types often.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2006, 05:29:46 AM by paulbk » Logged

paul b. kramarchyk
Barkhamsted, Connecticut, USA
nemophoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 507



WWW
« Reply #12 on: August 14, 2006, 10:09:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
re: ColorBurst RIP w/Epson 4000

Tried the demo. It appears you can not use the ColorBurst RIP and manually feed paper. You must feed from the tray or use rolls. Unacceptable. I never use rolls. I always manually feed because I use heavy paper and switch paper types often.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68936\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Not True. I print from manually sheets all the time. Very easy and simple with Colorburst.
Logged

Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad