StudioPrint Evaluation-repost
2003-06-16 by Phil Bard
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