Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: dreed on October 18, 2009, 01:16:41 am
-
Michael,
Looking on the Epson product page, they list two different models - a standard one and a graphic arts edition.
Your hands on reads like it was written using the "Standard Edition" model (CA61201-VM) - is that correct?
Do have any insight into what the real world differences are between them, if any?
Darren
-
About $250 and the Colourburst RIP. VM available sooner than the GA
There may be other differences but I only see the VM spec on Epson's site.
-
Yes, hardware is identical, difference are the bundled RIP.
-
Didn't want to start a new topic: it seems that Epson is unable to fix black inks swapping, which is
time consuming and wastes some ink. Somehow other manufacturers are doing well in this respect.
-
Yes, hardware is identical, difference are the bundled RIP.
Andrew, I've heard people swear by RIPs, and others say they see little difference in using a RIP or not using one. Do you have experience with the RIP that Epson bundles on some models, and if so, is it a worthwhile addition? What kinds of things would it improve - detail, tonality, color?
Regards,
Hans.
-
Andrew, I've heard people swear by RIPs, and others say they see little difference in using a RIP or not using one. Do you have experience with the RIP that Epson bundles on some models, and if so, is it a worthwhile addition? What kinds of things would it improve - detail, tonality, color?
They are necessary when handling Postscript data and CMYK data. Otherwise, they are not really necessary. There are some workflow advantages too but with products like Lightroom and its print module, the lines are blurred.
-
They are necessary when handling Postscript data and CMYK data. Otherwise, they are not really necessary. There are some workflow advantages too but with products like Lightroom and its print module, the lines are blurred.
You're right, they're not necessary, but there are some other important perks that those you mentioned. RIP's provide access to a greater number of quasi-customized profiles than are provided by OEM's such as Epson (which only includes Epson profiles). Also, and most importantly for me, when printing work in grayscale a RIP can/will drastically improve the output quality (the Epson grayscale option for the 3800 is nice, but cannot compare to the Imageprint RIP).
The bottom line is, as always, cost vs. benefit. If you need customizable and repeatable layout packages, access to a large number of very good profiles and/or the best b/w digital printing that money can buy, then a RIP might be a good choice, despite the high costs. If not, then save your money and by the misses a nice gift.
-
Didn't want to start a new topic: it seems that Epson is unable to fix black inks swapping, which is
time consuming and wastes some ink. Somehow other manufacturers are doing well in this respect.
I've thought about this issue over the past ~3 years of owning a 3800, and discussions with other 3800 users. My impression is that it seems like an issue on paper, but it's really not in most practical cases. In terms of time and cost of auto-switching, those are dwarfed by the overall time & cost to print real images. I do a lot of PK and MK printing and do not consider the auto-switching problematic. I do not feel that having PK & MK live simultaneously is worth the extra size and cost requirements.
-
As far as the 3800 is concerned, I agree with Eric on this point. It is a completely different story for the older 4000/4800 printers (and perhaps 4880 - not sure) where the amount and cost of wasted ink for each switch is very large.
-
and perhaps 4880 - not sure) where the amount and cost of wasted ink for each switch is very large.
********
I have seen estimates of about $70 for a black ink "round trip" with the 4880 plus the hassle of the procedure itself.
Steve
-
If that's the case, it's just a bit better than the 4000/4800 were. For the 3800 it's quite fast and uses only about 4 or 5 ml round-trip.