Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Author Topic: Epson 9900 and ColorBurst Rip  (Read 4371 times)
scott morrish
Full Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 112

« Reply #20 on: February 10, 2012, 03:32:42 AM »

From the Mac OSX  version of the SpectralVision Pro manual:

"ColorBurst utilizes the Epson halftone module (HM) for several printer models, including the Epson Stylus Pro 4900, 7900, 9900, and 11880. The halftone module makes linearization and ink limiting unnecessary, so the profiling process for HM printers in ColorBurst is much simpler."

So for the x900 series printers on the Mac side, you just make a new profile when you feel the need. You can't linearize or limit inks. On the PC side, those controls exist for the x900 printers


For what it is worth, I have CB running on a PC.
I adjusted Ink limits (for my objectives), re-profiled (via SpctalVision Pro), and am simply recounting what i have observed. Again... definitely worth highlighting, i know i am not an expert in these matters.

I think, going back to my original post, i am settling on Colorburst for CMYK proofing, and LR via Epson for RGB as Jeff suggested.
I would have liked to be able to use Colorburst for RGB too, for my own workflow reasons as much as anything, but unless ColorBurst can use Orange and Green more effectively (in my opinion, and based on the understanding i have attempted to explain in the rest of this thread)... i'll simply keep it for CMYK work.

I'm not sure there are very many, if any, colors that will print with only O or G i n a normal printing situation. Those inks when used correctly seem to be added in addition to the others when running out of gamut. In fact, this is what you want- oranges made from Y and LM dots are smoother and less dotty than from O dots. Same applies for Y + LC vs G. It's desirable to have those inks introduced wisely and only as needed. The only way to see those inks completely independently is with linearization printouts from a 6 channel RIP, or with a true 6 channel file dropped into same RIP, with areas using only those channels. I can do this with StudioPrint, bot have no working knowledge with Colorburst.
Hope that makes sense.

You may be right. It just seems counter-intuitive to add M&Y to Orange, at the point of establishing the separate Ink Channels (to my mind). I'd rather keep each of the colours pure, and let the profile, (or my separations) determine how to achieve certain colours. The way it appears to work at the moment seems unduly complicated, can introduce problems that are not easy to identify or address, and as far as i can tell... gives the user less control and flexibility.

Perhaps i am trying to do things that Colorburst is not meant to do?
I know that on restricted gamut printers (9800 / 9880 etc) none of these problems occur. It is just a question of how the additional colours (orange and green) are used... and wether it is optimal.
Probably only worth thinking about this at all if one of the reasons for using a 9900 is for its increased gamut.
I realise that it is completely irrelevant if all that matters is CMYK.
Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 2725

« Reply #21 on: February 10, 2012, 04:52:07 AM »

Based on experience with the Wasatch SoftRip 6.2 driving the HP Z3100 versus the HP drivers for that printer I recommend you take a microscope or a strong loupe to see what actually is laid down on the paper. I guess you can use a CB OEM profile + media settings for an Epson paper and use the Epson driver with its own media settings + Epson profile.

In my experience only the HP driver uses the extra ink hues RGB where they function best: on the hue angles between the CMY inks and only at the highest saturations. On lower saturations you will see the grey inks appear and cM(m)Y mixes. No RGB inks at the neutral spine and actually no CM(m)Y composite greys there either. None of that you will see in the prints with the Wasatch Softrip, cM(m)YRGB is all over the place including in the neutral spine, Grey inks are hardly used, the black generation is very much a black generation and does not stretch to 255 RGB. This is with the Wasatch SoftRip 6.2 profiles delivered for some HP papers. My own attempts with some external N-Color profile creators + the ink control of the Wasatch did not bring a solution and on request Wastach made some alternatives that were not better either. That a RIP can linearise/calibrate all ink channels of a printer (the Wasatch can use the integrated calibration of the Z models) does not make a difference. If the N-color profile separation does not adequately separate the hues on hue angle + saturation and the black generation of the profile creator + RIP ink settings is not running from 0-100% you will see cM(m)Y ink dots on places where you would not like them. Which increased ink use an gave more "metamerism" in my case.

There have been comments that the Z3100 was not as "rich" in color as the Epsons at its introduction, I think it could have been related to that more severe separation with frugal ink use. The Z3200 is more like the Epson gamut, partly a result of the Chromatic Red but I see a change in gamma for the other hues too.

With CB relying on the Epson dithering/weaving (as I understand from this thread) I would expect that the RIP has to obey to hue separations that resemble the Epson driver ones to suite that way of laying down inks. So there may not be a similar difference I see in the Z output.

I do not use the RIP but Qimage Ultimate + the HP driver + either Color Center or APS for the profile creation with the integrated spectrometer. The occasional CMYK jobs are handled through a Photoshop P2P conversion. I am told I should actually do that with the HP Postscript driver of the Z3200-PS. A RIP like GMG for proofing should be the best solution around though. Ergosoft's RIPs have more control too.

met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst
Shareware too:
330+ paper white spectral plots:
Full Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 124

« Reply #22 on: February 12, 2012, 08:26:32 AM »

those are very interesting facts that ernst state here and i realized the same through a lot of testing the last months!

i worked with EFI, wasatch and onyx.. to try to be better than the built in driver.. as i always want to get the 110% percent quality for my art prints.

and i could gain some ... but lost others.. and so far i have to realize.. i dont see a way around!

the screening is the most important difference...!.. even with onyx who i think it the most advanced one for profiling n-channel inkjets.. (own n-channel ICC profiling swatch) the screening kills it!

on a matte fineArt paper you just see the dots.. no matter if you use stochastic, FDRP (onyx) enhanced.. veriable dot sizes.. man . compared to the contone driver i see the dots with my eyes!

not on canves.. so i dont have a problem there.. but the colorprofile for the the daguerre canvas i get with 4096 atkinson chart is so close to the one with onyx. is it worth it?.
i gain shadow details!.. def..

and what ernst recalls.. seperations: the rip introduces the RGB colors as soon, as they can replace other combinations.. the advantage with it tho is to reduce ink !.. dis are the dots..

the gray axis with onyx is perfectly balanced.. and i can use settings where there are no CMY introduced before like 40%.. so i dont see dots there.. not with wasatch i couldnt.

but.. is it worth the whole deal?.. i dont know.. its fun doing it.. ;-)

@ernst.. the PS driver works awesome for CMYK.. if your RGB profile is good.. which it will be of course.. and you have the pdf in fogra27.. just send it through the web server.. the colors will get soo close. i even get an ok on a fogra wedge. not as precise as EFI.. but without costs and hassle.. even the pantone emulation is there!
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Jump to: