Digital BW, The Print

All,

IÕve been working with a demo of the new StudioPrint v10 that ErgoSoft rece=
ntly made 
available.  In case you didnÕt already know it is a RIP solution, designed =
for users of 
wide format printers and works on a whole fleet of devices.  Among the Epso=
n models 
it supports the 3000 and up, including the newer 7600, 9600 and 10600. It p=
rovides 
monochromatic as well as color RIP functionality, and has built-in profilin=
g and ICC 
generation features.  Monochromatic profiling is, to my knowledge, not ICC =

compliant, so soft proofing is not directly available in Photoshop. StudioP=
rint runs 
only on Windows machines. See AmadouÕs previous post for further details on=
 how it 
works. Following is a summary of what IÕve experienced so far on my Epson 7=
000 and 
9000 printers. I will include a link to my site at the bottom of this post =
with close-ups 
of scans of output and some densitometric info.  Additionally IÕve sent the=
se to 
Antonis for inclusion in the Files section.

The first thing you have to do is define and linearize your inkset. I strug=
gled a little 
with some things that were left out of the rather brief introductory manual=
, such as 
what size paper to insert for the grayscale printouts, and how many patches=
 to 
choose (10, 20 or 40).  After working for a couple hours with 20 I discover=
ed that 40 
is the choice that provides best accuracy and that you need to print the ra=
mps on 24Ó 
wide paper.  Also, though SP claims to be able to utilize the scan function=
 of the 
EyeOne Photo to provide rapid reads of the patches, I kept getting Òwrong n=
umber of 
patchesÓ errors and had to do each one individually.  This only took a few =
minutes, 
however.  Additionally it took me some time to comprehend the way in which =
the 
Print Environments are created and how the density readouts are incorporate=
d.  This 
may all be detailed in the full blown manual, for which a pdf is included, =
but I only 
consulted it in a piecemeal fashion so donÕt really know that yet.  However=
 from what 
I did read, I felt the manual could stand some improvement. After getting m=
y head 
around the process, I was impressed with the way ErgoSoft has made it possi=
ble to 
create the individual Print Environments out of each set of linearizations =
per printer, 
essentially copying them from previous PEÕs. As others have mentioned you c=
an 
mount up any inks you want and put them in any position, SP enables you to =

selectively turn colors on and off as you choose.  This means variable and =
split toning 
are possible. Also there are nice features such as drag-and-drop, the abili=
ty to group 
different images and the ability to tile, position, mirror and rotate image=
s in the 
layout, which are typical of RIPs, but were great to see included.  BTW, th=
is version 
does not offer Postscript, which is apparently why the price is reasonably =
affordable 
as RIPÕs go.

IÕve worked for a couple of years with the Cone ProRIP, and was most concer=
ned with 
how SP compares to that, since the ProRIP has been dead-ended by IJM. The 
proprietary dither on the ProRIP has so far been the best IÕve seen for ren=
dering detail 
in carbon prints and the big question in my mind was whether SP could measu=
re up.  
After trying out the Smart Diffusion dither first with less than impressive=
 results, I 
linearized with the Stochastic option and found it produced much better res=
olution of 
detail and virtually dotless printing. The ProRIPÕs dither has a way of eff=
ectively 
sharpening up image detail while delivering all levels from 0 to 100% gray =
extremely 
well.  Up close the dots have a linear arrangement, like tightly packed row=
s of 
soldiers. SPÕs Stochastic dither has a more random look, like the Epson dri=
vers, and 
very finely arranged.  This created a smoother look to the image when loupe=
d, with 
more apparent graduations of gray, not unlike the comparison of grain in sl=
ow and 
fast silver emulsions. The detail in the SP prints was almost as sharp as t=
hat of the 
ProRIP, but this difference was really only visible under a loupe and may b=
e the result 
of the ProRIPÕs sharpening effect.  At a distance of 12Ó both prints have e=
ssentially the 
same resolution. I have to say I quite like the smooth look of the StudioPr=
int images. I 
considered this issue of dither to be make-or-break for SPÉ

One thing you cannot control in ErgoSoftÕs product, nor in the ProRIP for t=
hat matter, 
is how the inks are partitioned.  This doesnÕt seem to be problematic so fa=
r in 
comparing the output of the two, but it is something the tweak-inclined mig=
ht miss.  
One important difference with SP is that it appears to linearize to a gamma=
 that is 
close to monitor gamma, which means your images will initially print very l=
ight and 
with flat midtones as compared to prints from the ProRIP or the Piezo plug-=
in.  I got 
an exact match from my monitor when I went into Color Settings, selected Cu=
stom 
Dot Gain and left the curve in itÕs default state.  This means that straigh=
t prints of 
legacy images in SP will all be way off. A workaround for this is possible,=
 however, 
using the Dot Gain feature in StudioPrintÕs profile generation phase.  By a=
dding Gain 
you effective raise the gamma of the profile, although how much you add can=
 only be 
established through trial and error tests. Cone recommends working with 15-=
20%, 
but I found 20% wasnÕt enough to darken the midtones sufficiently.  One thi=
ng IÕm 
worried about is compression of the darkest levels of the grayscale as I ra=
ise gamma, 
and I think IÕm beginning to see it in some of my prints.  Some of the dens=
itometer 
readings support this as well and there may be a tradeoff at work here.  IÕ=
m 
wondering if StudioPrint needs an adjustable Dot Gain feature, where the us=
er could 
manipulate specific portions of the DG curve, like in Photoshop, instead of=
 just 
specifying one amount overall.  This may mean to get the best separation on=
e would 
have to go back to his scans and redo the curves, then print with less or n=
o Dot Gain 
added in SP.  I have to test further on thisÉ

This is where IÕm at with this at the moment, and will post further results=
 as they are 
ready.  Below is a link to some scans, you can compare the results of the t=
wo RIPs and 
see some density charts showing the effects of adding Dot Gain in SP. I hop=
e this will 
be of some interest to those of you looking at wide format solutions...

http://cirrus-digital.com/RIP.html

Cheers,
Phil
http://cirrus-digital.com
http://philbard.com