Recent content by JasonM

GMG is a good product for Epson’s but last I knew they did not support Canon Digital printers. Are you calibrating to the same paper on all devices, creating you profiles, and doing your comparisons on the same paper as well? We don't have multiple Digital printers yet, but I would think you...

You should be able to; we simulate the dot gain and the paper white on all our proofs (Epson 9800 and 9900). It works fairly well even when simulating for newsprint. You will need to run the GMG target on your press and then make a MX4 from that. If it's the paper white simulation your...

We are looking to upgrade to new proofers as well as the new version of GMG (version 5). We are being told that there is quite a difference with this new version and we should get training. Is there anyone using the new version that had an older and is there much difference?

Make sure whoever is selling this to you will do prompt service. As with any digital printer they need lots of service. We have a 6000 the color and print quality is good, but that's only part of what you are purchasing. We ran into some snags with service and now have them worked out. There...

That's what they told me but at the time they could not prove it as the large capacity feeder was not working. If I remember correctly, they had some parts on order for it. This was at a demo site so if they can't even keep the equipment working there what kind of service will the end users...

When I tested the KM they had lost of problems running thicker stock 10pt and even lesser weight and glossy stock (jamming/pluuing mutiple sheets) the canon did not have any problems and the color is very similar to one another...so we went with the canon as we need to run those stocks.

We have both digital and offset we base our decision on the run length...the longer runs go on offset.

Mike is close on the TAC for newsprints we use 235-240 TAC. The quality of the equipment it's run on will also make a difference for TAC (how well maintained it is). But I am guessing you already know that.

When we took the step to a digital press, it was part of our goal to use this as a proofing device. However, we have found that our digital jobs have taken off and with the one device don't have much time on that machine to run many proofs. I would also be interested in knowing what others are...

You should be able to read you target with Profile Maker and then import that data when making an MX4. You can also export the MX4 target data as an it874 to your text file when you read in your target with the GMG. Hope this helps.

I guess if I read the entire thread I would know why you are asking, sorry about that. We just take our imposed file from a rampage shooter and plot (not a 1bit tif) to the Creo Print console then to our Creo. We purchased the 1bit tif to take "over flow" work from a different printer years...

It's and add on 5,000 sounds about right, we don't use ours as much as we thought we would. Why are you looking to use 1bit tifs, that may help in determingin alternatives.

I have heard rumors that Kodak is looking to spin off it's digital print division. Any one know if there is any truth to this.

Has anyone done any testing to see is multiple programs using the same device and same test chart come up with the same readings; say Color Port compared to Profile Maker? I have no real reason why I am asking, just curious how they compare and if there is a difference.

We have GMG running 2 epson 9800's. They are farily easy to set up and have worked great. We have had far fewer color proofing problems and they are very consistent. I don't know much about Oris.