I worked with three colour management and RIP's for the Epson 7800, 8800, 9800 those being, Kodak Matchprint, EFI Colour Proof XF 3.1 and Onyx Production House. Between the three I would recommend the EFI solution. It provides a great flexibility between automation and manual control. The colour management is great, it's wizard based and easy to use for anyone. The rip is also fast, allows for print on the fly and bi-directional printing which increases print speed. For creating profiles EFI is also compatible with the largest selection of input devices for colour values. Kodak MPI only supports three input devices at the moment, Onyx does support more and it will support the new X-Rite iSis in the new version of the software.
On a different note, Onyx is a very good RIP if you will be working with signage. If you need SWOP certification Kodak's may be your answer, it uses a verification strip which requires you to read the proof back into the system and compare to a standard. EFI has a similar option, the Colour Verifier, but you might have to pay for the license and it's not SWOP certified. I hope this helps.
I looked at StarProof but I don't see that you can use it with PDF or Tiff files. Also it looks like only outputs dotted proofs and it has no option for contone. It does not support new Epsons 880 series and current instruments like Isis. AFAIK dtp-70 is dead product. But I like the fact that it works on the Mac.
Guess you are right about the PDF . That rip is mosttly dedicated to proof 1 bit files (I was using it in an Harlequin based workflow environment). I know it's got 8 bit tiff capabilities, but to what extent, I don't know.
The last place I was at was using the ORIS.
Where I am now is using EFI color.
The proofs looked better using the ORIS, but I wasn't here to see the profiling for the EFI color.
The proofs look muddier than the press sheets to me.
The product has excellent color control for Epson printers; supports entire family of printers (not by seats); runs on Mac, Win and Linux interchangeably within the client/server environment; scaleable by clustering RIPs; low cost of upgrades and service support; print dots or contone, post or pre-RIP; configurable GUI for ease of use; Lots of other features which may or may not be applicable to your specific needs.
I would highly recommend gmg. Far and away the best i've had to work with. Like any new software, it seems very difficult to work with at the start, however, after the learning curve, you will be absolutely satisfied. I have been using for the past five years or so and have never been let down.
I know when we got our DuPont CromaPro XP, we got it because GMG wasn't available I don't think in the U.S. at that time.
Now we have to look at a proofing rip/proofer/paper combo that is going to let us be within tolerances for GRACoL2006_Coated1v2 and also ISOuncoated. We can't use DuPont CromaPro XP because it requires UV filtration, while all specifications don't use it. Because of the UV filtration, I sent my proofs off to the IPA RoundUp to get measured.
I wish we could use our current solution, but the combo we have is out of tolerance on:
IT8/7.4 (All patches) (Average Delta E ab 1.98, should be less than or equal to 1.5)
50/40/40 Neutral Gray (Delta E ab 2.40, should be less than or equal to 1.5)
UGRA/FOGRA Media Wedge (Average Delta E ab 2.02, should be less than or equal to 1.5)
Note: These results are from the IPA Proofing RoundUp.
> wish we could use our current solution, but the combo we have is out of tolerance on: IT8/7.4 (All patches) (Average Delta E ab 1.98, should be less than or equal to 1.5) 50/40/40 Neutral Gray (Delta E ab 2.40, should be less than or equal to 1.5) UGRA/FOGRA Media Wedge (Average Delta E ab 2.02, should be less than or equal to 1.5) Note: These results are from the IPA Proofing RoundUp.
Keep in mind that the tolerances used for analysis for the IPA roundup were intentionally challenging and meant to give a direct comparison to the venders own results. The tolerances came from the Gracol/SWOP proofing +system+ certification (not proof +provider+ certification, though that will likely come in the future). These tolerances might be a bit tight for consumer level and the IPA white paper indicated that an average delta E of 2 for a working environment is considered generally acceptable.
The Fogra Media wedge values were actually values taken directly out of the larger IT87/4 target and demonstrates the difficulty in defining tolerances. One would assume that if the IT87/4 chart passes tolerance that the smaller control bar would as well, but this is sometimes not the case (smaller number of patches to average, including all primaries and secondaries which have a dE tolerance of 5 on them individually). The only metric you mentioned that would concern me is the gray balance of 2.4, which may be showing the issues of using UV filtration (but if I recall correctly, your paper white patch passed tolerance, which is what I found confusing).
>Does GMG require UV filtration?
GMG doesn't require UV filtration and will work with or without UV filtered devices as long as it is a supported measurement device. So GMG will allow a user to iterate a proofing profile using UV filtration toward a published data set such as Gracol2006_Coated1 which is not uv filtered...the results of which would give a false sense of security in that the low delta E numbers might not be accurate. In this case youd' want to confirm you results with a non-uv filtered device in some way.
Edited by: Michael Eddington on Oct 9, 2007 11:14 AM
Edited by: Michael Eddington on Oct 9, 2007 11:14 AM
Since 2 is acceptable generally speaking, and my highest is 2.4 (which does show a yellow cast on the gray), if you were me, would you look for a different paper and getting an Eye-One spectro (non-UV or switchable UV) and stay with the rest of my setup (using UV for proofing and just use Eye-One non-UV to double-check we're in tolerances), or move to a new setup? If moving to a new setup, I'm thinking about GMG ColorProof and HP Z2100 Photo Series listed as certified on http://www.swop.org/certification/cert2006.asp
V5 has an in-built Harlequin Rip which can take PS, PDF, EPS, DCS2... to Rip, screen and produce a sharp Dot proof.
By enabling the Rip, you get a Full Hi-Res Rip with all the features as normal. In effect (and if you wish), you can use this Rip to produce the final 1Bit Tiff files (with calibration curve and press curve if required) for downloading to your CTP/CTF. Star Proof takes the file and produces the proof and if all is good, the 1 Bit Tiffs are there ready for exposure.
PS/PDF in - Screened proof out - 1 Bit Tiff to expose to plate - nice little workflow.
There is also a Bitscreen facility which will import CT/LW, nCT/nLW, Tiff-It and Delta Lists and allow the user to define a screen set and angles to produce a screened proof
>Since 2 is acceptable generally speaking, and my highest is 2.4 (which does show a yellow cast on the gray), if you were me, would you look for a different paper and getting an Eye-One spectro (non-UV or switchable UV) and stay with the rest of my setup (using UV for proofing and just use Eye-One non-UV to double-check we're in tolerances), or move to a new setup? If moving to a new setup, I'm thinking about GMG ColorProof and HP Z2100 Photo Series listed as certified on http://www.swop.org/certification/cert2006.asp
not really in a position to tell you what you should do based on one set of values, but my point was your numbers aren't that far off of the tight tolerances for system verification. If it's possible to further adjust you output via a profile edit or something, it might be worth looking into (although I understand you might want a way to verified with a non-UV filtered device). If, however, you think a new system would offer you better results and/or more funtionality, there are some good chices out there, GMG certainly being one of them.