PosterPrint vs IJC vs ImagePrint vs PiezoBWPro vs....?
2003-06-17 by Antonis Ricos
Inspired by Phil's review and subsequent thread, I thought I would summarize how I see the picture for these contenders to the printing throne. My thanks to Phil for the review and to Robert Eversole, probably the only representative of commercial RIP software to ever try and answer (our tough) questions on this list! Here is my take then, in an effort to sort out the new landscape and invite comments from others. I have no agenda to promote, ignore or trash any one product in favor of another, but please take into account that this is a highly subjective view, from one who puts emphasis on bw over color, Mac over Windows and OS 9 over OS X - for the moment! I have left out the QT RIP, because I am simply not familiar enough and would rather let Roy do the comparisons. As for the old PiezoPro RIP, I also have no experience with it and simply take Phil's word for it (see earlier messages). Ditto for RGB workflows and Paul's curves. There is probably other software options that I left out, too, just because they are not in my radar at the moment. So here goes... Scenario A : For those with 9000/9500 printers wanting support for color as well as bw, there are 2 serious options to choose from: ImagePrint and StudioPrint (or PosterPrint, which is the same thing with Postscript). The old PiezoBWProRIP has many happy users, but it's time to rethink whether being able to linearize on the fly isn't too big a deal to pass up. IP does a great job in color with their proprietary RGB workflow and they are willing to profile papers for you as long as they support the (mostly OEM) inkset . They do an OK job with mono but with the major limitation that they have to make a recipe for an inkset based on fixed ink-loading order, and then provide profiles for you. Yes, they support both platforms, but I'll count that as secondary here. End results have to count for more than the operating system. PP may or may not keep up with IP for color: One of the arguments Colorbyte always insists on is that they take over the RGB>CMYK conversion internally because they can do tricks that a mere mortal couldn't, even with a fancy profiling package. I simply don't have an opinion on that, but believe those who say they are happy with how their images match from screen to paper with IP (mostly photographers, not prepress types) . However, I equally believe in the notion of having CMYK control in my hands, with my own custom profiles and the ability to linearize a device before a print job. In that respect, I would probably choose PP for color, though the choice is not so clear without a lot of testing. However, color is not my primary objective here. Considering that PP not only supports the 9000-series but offers monochrome linearization as well, I'd call it the winning solution for those sizes - and be willing to learn Windows XP for it. It would seem the best bang for the buck when both color and bw are needed. Scenario B: For those with 7000-series machines: The above comparisons still apply between IP and PP. However, here enters IJC/OPM, a solution that costs a small fraction of the others' price and supports the 7000 with print lengths up to 36". A 24x36 is a respectable size for many uses. But here are the trade offs: - PP makes data entry a snap with the EyeOne; with IJC you have to enter 26 density values manually. - Both PP and IJC allow you to mix inksets such as Selenium, Sepia, Warm Neutral etc and pick which jets to use, thus allowing split toning (see Robert Eversole's earlier message). -Only IJC allows you to use a toner ink to run across the whole scale unpartitioned. For example you can make a gray scale out of 3 grays and a black, then run, say, an orange ink anywhere across the whole scale "on top" of the partitioned gray inks. - Only IJC allows you to control the shape of each ink curve and gives you fine control of undercolor removal (a prepress term used to mean that it lets you control how much of the grays will run at the same time, especially under the black). This can have a big impact on achieving high dmax numbers with pigment inks. The more grays that run under the black, the lower the dmax. Of course, this control comes at the expense of some extra time needed to make a profile. For those willing to give up some of that control and pay $1,500 for PP vs $200 for IJC, they will gain a quick and painless way to linearize on-the-fly (assuming they don't have to do as Phil did to enter 40 points of density data one by one!) . - Another potential benefit of IJC is that because you can linearize manually (without using its built-in auto linearization) you may choose how you want the final linearized curve of the grayscale to look like (e.g. you may want more contrast in the shadows, less in the highlights or vice versa etc). Or you may decide to match to its built-in ideal density "aims". Theoretically, you can also match your print to your monitor instead of the other way around. That means that you get to stay in neutral working spaces in Photoshop (such as 1.8 or 2.2) instead of bending the image to fit a fixed, predefined ideal of a RIP. - PP offers dot gain control as part of the print controls, OPM allows you to pick one of two gammas (1.8 or 2.2). But since you have control over the shape of the print curve, those are less critical. - Both allow control over where inks start, thereby optimizing for different size device dots (smaller dots allow you to start the inks higher on the scale). Not sure if PP does, but I think only IJC lets you control where inks _end_ as well. - The current release of IJC does not support the 7600/9600, while both IP and PP do. With mono inksets about to be available for these printers, this can be significant for bw printing. - PP provides some options for dithering, the only RIP to do so in this bunch. This seems potentially of benefit since different dithers affect different kinds of pictures in unique ways. Scenario C: Desktops, like the 2200: IP and PP will probably have to duke it out for best color (see above), but when it comes to bw, only IP and IJC/OPM are the contenders here. While IP claims some nifty features, such as a slider for monochrome tint control, IJC really shines with its blender function and its ability to define toners from any of the current or future inks one may put in the 2200. Add to that the profiling ability and hence the ability to print on any glossy paper that Ultrachromes (and soon Ultratones) can stick to, and you have quite a winning combination for bw. One last thing: a software that supports the wide printers as well as desktops makes for convenient proofing, or at least, consistent output among the different sizes. As those with the 7/9000 series know, it's not all that much fun loading letter size sheets, or even 13x19 for volume work. So, someone with IJC/OPM can use a 2200/1280/1160 as well as a 7000 for bw. IP supports several desktops as well as all the large formats. PP only goes as far as the 2200 and only for color. This forces a whole different software for desktop printers in bw, something to consider in choosing a solution. In conclusion: no, there is no perfect, ideal solution across the board for color and bw. If money were no object, I'd want all 3: I'd want PP for my 9000, IJC for my 7000/2200/1280/1160 and IP for color on the 2200 (or a future 7600 addition). Otherwise I'd choose both IJC and PP, because they allow custom profiling and linearizing prior to printing. I include PP mostly because IJC won't run the large formats to full lengths and doesn't have the same dither options as PP. As I said, I am not trying to be objective here, just making a list of the issues affecting our decisions and reaching some conclusions that may, in the end, only suit me. And, besides, who knows what else is in store in the months to come..... Antonis