Topic: Epson 9900 and ColorBurst Rip (Read 15057 times)

scott morrish · « **on:** February 07, 2012, 06:12:32 pm »

Hello everyone.

Does anyone know if Colorburst can get anything out of the x900 printers (in terms of image quality), that the supplied Epson software can not achieve?
Does anyone actually manage to get better results (colour / smoothness etc) from the 7900 / 9900 via the standard epson Rip than they can via colorburst?

Guess i am wondering if Rips (like Colorburst) are now only needed for contract proofing / productivity issues? ... assuming that they are still needed for these?

Regards,
Scott

Schewe · « **Reply #1 on:** February 07, 2012, 08:37:30 pm »

Quote from: scott morrish on February 07, 2012, 06:12:32 pm

Guess i am wondering if Rips (like Colorburst) are now only needed for contract proofing / productivity issues? ... assuming that they are still needed for these?

I have a friend, Douglas Dubler, an NYC fashion shooter who claims he got better with Colorburst with his 9880, but I have not heard if he is still using it for his 9900. Mark Dubovoy still likes ImagePrint from ColorByte. But I'm perfectly happy using the Epson driver for my 9900 with really good profiles (which is really the key).

If you need to do ANY CMYK proofing then Colorburst is the way to go. But if you are printing RGB files, then no, I don't think a 3rd party rip is needed–particularly if you are printing out of Lightroom 4 and using soft proofing.

scott morrish · « **Reply #2 on:** February 08, 2012, 07:26:33 am »

Thanks Jeff.

Appreciated.

Accepting that profiling is the key here... is SpectralVision Pro (the profiling software bundled with Colourburst) and an Eye1 (non UV), as good as it gets for profiling Epson's UCHDR inks, or are there tangible advantages in using other profiling software... or indeed other spectrophotometers? I guess it is enough for CMYK, but what about for RGB?

Regards,
Scott

JimGoshorn · « **Reply #3 on:** February 08, 2012, 08:58:50 am »

This is partly an issue of which platform you're on: Windows version handles all channels and linearizations but Mac version relies on Epson's LUT's and there is no linearization. I haven't upgraded from version 6 because of that and now use the Epson drivers.

If you need the rasterization features, you can take a look at ColorBurst Overdrive which uses the Epson drivers after processing the files itself.

Jim

scott morrish · « **Reply #4 on:** February 08, 2012, 09:10:19 am »

Jim,

I am not sure that i fully understand what ColorBurst is doing in terms of the differences between Mac and PC - but i am under the impression that Windows does not use all of the inks in the way one expects either. If you look at orange in a linearisation... there is a lot of M&Y in it: if you look at green, there is a lot of cyan and yellow. This may / may not matter... but it does mean that you can not use ColorBurst to control each of the six ink limits completely independently (which is what i had hoped to be able to do). Instead, in order to reduce the ink limit for orange for example, you have to change the ink limits for M and Y. On top of that, there is limited functionality regarding blending of the different shades of the ink colours. All around, i preferred ColorBurst with the 9800... but that is long gone now.

Of course... if you are proofing CMYK... O&G don't matter anyway...

Scott

LenR · « **Reply #5 on:** February 08, 2012, 03:36:08 pm »

Hi Scott,
Check your Lin again carefully. It can only be valid if each channel prints it's own ink and no others.
If you have an Info IO (what colors going in and colors going out) that should tell you.
How do you know that O is made up of M and Y?
Len

scott morrish · « **Reply #6 on:** February 08, 2012, 03:43:28 pm »

To see what is happening on the 9900 via ColorBurst:
I print the 6 colour linearisation with O&G disabled. Then I can see just how much of the other colours are being used by CB.
Equally, if I turn off CMY... and print the 6 colour linearisation target again... I can see what the O&G inks are actually doing.
It was different in the past with the 9800 etc.

If i am wrong here i'd love to know... as this limits Colourburst to Proofing only (for me).

LenR · « **Reply #7 on:** February 08, 2012, 03:50:57 pm »

I think you may be somewhat confused.
Can you post a photo of your Lin chart with all 6 colors?
A cell phone pic should work.

scott morrish · « **Reply #8 on:** February 08, 2012, 04:15:05 pm »

Possibly... and it is also possible that i have simply not written clearly enough?
Let me look again: everything is switched off for today... so it will be tomorrow.

From memory, if you have a 6 colour (10 ink) environment, and reduce O to 0% (via the Ink limiting settings...) you will still see a whole load of orange and green on the 6 colour linearisation, only it is not made up of the orange ink... it is made up of M & Y.

This is (i think?) why if you want to change the density of Orange when setting up (or modifying) a print environment, you actually have to change the ink limits for M and Y.
Via ColorBurst the orange ink is not doing all of the work in the darker parts of images... it is only really working in the lighter areas.

If i am completely wrong, and simply confused about this, i will find out tomorrow.

Naturally i will let you know.
Scott

LenR · « **Reply #9 on:** February 08, 2012, 04:33:01 pm »

Linearization is intended to limit individual inks prior to profiling, therefor all color management must be turned off when printing the chart.
BTW, your chart looks like a step wedge for each individual color, right?

scott morrish · « **Reply #10 on:** February 08, 2012, 04:37:02 pm »

Hopefully the image attached will make sense of what i have written earlier in the thread?
It is printed via the Print Linearisation target option in CB... so all colour management is disabled for the creation of these prints... (as far as i understand it).
I have done this quickly... so if i am confused... i'd be very happy to have my understanding straightened out.

Regards,
Scott

LenR · « **Reply #11 on:** February 08, 2012, 05:06:45 pm »

Hi Scott,
It looks like you reversed the ink limits in what you wrote.
Check to make sure all ink controls and color management are turned off.
The reason I mention that is because all patches on your bottom sheet (the one you said O and G were limited to 50%) look too darn good.
It's as if you are printing the patches through a previously linearized calibration. If you read that set of patches I'll bet your curve is rather straight.
When you use CB in a straight forward "Plain Vanilla" set-up are you not happy with the results?

scott morrish · « **Reply #12 on:** February 08, 2012, 05:39:29 pm »

Quote from: LenR on February 08, 2012, 05:06:45 pm

Hi Scott,
It looks like you reversed the ink limits in what you wrote.
Check to make sure all ink controls and color management are turned off.
The reason I mention that is because all patches on your bottom sheet (the one you said O and G were limited to 50%) look too darn good.
It's as if you are printing the patches through a previously linearized calibration. If you read that set of patches I'll bet your curve is rather straight.
When you use CB in a straight forward "Plain Vanilla" set-up are you not happy with the results?

The writing on the charts is correct.
And, as far as I know, colour management is disabled by ColorBurst when printing the linearisation target.

In the first linearisation chart, the Ink limits for Orange and Green are both set to Zero... yet there is still colour!
In the second linearisation, the Ink Limits for Orange and Green are set to 50, to illustrate my findings.
In another, third linearisation (attached), you can see what is left if C, M and Y are set to Zero: O & G don't look quite so good without support.

Scott

LenR · « **Reply #13 on:** February 08, 2012, 05:43:19 pm »

Are you new to CB?

scott morrish · « **Reply #14 on:** February 08, 2012, 05:44:45 pm »

Quote from: LenR on February 08, 2012, 05:43:19 pm

Are you new to CB?

Feels like it...

LenR · « **Reply #15 on:** February 08, 2012, 07:45:07 pm »

Hi Scott,
Make a test print from Photoshop and Colorburst.
Which method made the better print? Hopefully they match:)
Which workflow do you like?

An observation, FWIW.
Typically you would print a linearization thru a new configuration that is not yet set up. First prints rarely look as linear as yours. It seems that you are changing an existing configuration to print these.
Is that the case?
An existing configuration has a name like " Premium Nice Glossy".
In CB can you see the Lin file (as a Graph?) Does the plot kind of hug the diagonal?
If you've been noodling around and changing anything in these configurations then I would reload the originals or (if it's easy as pie) uninstall and re-install ColorBust.
Doing this will get you back to the best possible ColorBust experience for this comparison.

It really is about what you like better:)

Cheers

PS: Don't you luv that typo?

scott morrish · « **Reply #16 on:** February 09, 2012, 04:34:56 am »

I am not sure it matters wether i started with a pre-set Printing Environment or not.
The orange and green inks are either printing without contamination (from other inks), or they are not.

In this instance - yes... i am working from an existing Print Environment, and yes i am changing Ink limits (for my objectives) ... and re-linearising.
But does it make any difference to how Orange is printed? ... or green for that matter?
I don't think it does... but i am still happy to be corrected.

From what i can see at this point in time, and accepting that i am not an expert in these matters, I do not think the user has a choice over this matter: orange will be printed with Magenta and Yellow. Implemented perfectly, this might not matter. However if Ink curves are not blended carefully... there can be clunky steps in areas of tonal gradation through the colour in question. Because of the way this is implemented in CB... users can not correct this in a simple or logical way. With other Inks, on other printers... this was not a problem.

Scott

LenR · « **Reply #17 on:** February 09, 2012, 05:02:55 pm »

Hi Scott,

Holy crap on a cracker!

Did you really say that?

TylerB · « **Reply #18 on:** February 09, 2012, 05:34:52 pm »

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.
Tyler
http://www.custom-digital.com/

JimGoshorn · « **Reply #19 on:** February 09, 2012, 11:35:36 pm »

Quote from: scott morrish on February 08, 2012, 09:10:19 am

I am not sure that i fully understand what ColorBurst is doing in terms of the differences between Mac and PC

Scott,

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

Jim

Author Topic: Epson 9900 and ColorBurst Rip (Read 15057 times)