Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 




      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[filmscanners] Re: Compact Cameras

At the risk of prolonging this thoroughly off-topic conversation, I will plug a
piece of software that I HAVE used:

Roy Harrington's Quad Tone RIP (see http://harrington.com/QuadToneRIP.html ) is
a terrific tool for controlling various Epson printers for monochrome printing.
It's a software Raster Image Processor for Windows, Mac, and Linux. I use it to
drive an Epson 1160 printer with the MIS-VM quad-grey inkset, but it works with
lots of other models and inksets. It's shareware. The price of Fifty American
Dollars makes it the best value for money since Ed Hamrick's Vuescan (just to
take a jab in the direction of the topic of this list).

Peter Marquis-Kyle

Gary wrote

> Actually that was my post (Gary). I agree that all software isn't alike,
> but the RIP is just another way of using software.  There is no reason
> to believe either method is superior. However, you already own the
> computer, and because a PC is COTS, the cost of the hardware is
> certainly going to be less than the RIP..
> I remember in the dark ages using a color Versatec printer that KMW RIPs
> were used because the software processing was pretty intense. That is,
> you needed a dedicated computer to rasterize the image. It actually made
> sense because the workstation would be down if it had to rasterize. To
> get back on subject, it may be that service bureaus use RIPs because
> they came from that "school" of using RIPs.  Old habits are hard to break.
> I don't want to plug any software I haven't used, but you can google
> "software RIP" and find 3rd party programs that claim to do better than
> Epson. Reality? Who knows.
> Incidentally, the R1800 is a recent printer. Have you seen output from
> it? I understand the older R800 didn't look good on glossy, i.e. the ink
> looked kind of thick.
> Gary
>>I am sure that we would all like to know the answer or at least get
>>additional information as to the difference between RIP and the print
>>driver.  However, I am equally sure that software is NOT ALWAYS
>>software.  Some software is better than other software; some software
>>has features and functions that other software of the same general
>>category do not; and some software is more sophisticated than other
>>software.  The resampling method used by the Epson drivers (if they use
>>the "nearest neighbor" method) is not the same or as good as Photoshop's
>>Bicubic method or Genuine Fractal's method.

[lots of snipping]

Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 


Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.