QTR-Quadtone RIP

it's not the difference in how the drivers perform, it's how multiple
density monochromatic inks are utilized to translate image information
to ink on paper. The Epson driver MUST cluster C, M, Y, and K dots to
describe a value, giving up dot positions that could potentially
convey image data. There is a lot going on, but that is part of the
difference. QTR is partially responsible, as it is a very nice piece
of software well suited to this kind of use. The curve designer has a
lot of control over each and every ink. The Epson driver is less
"handy" for that kind of work.

It's not the difference between the drivers, or the inks, it's the
difference between to entirely different methods of putting ink down
on paper, and how the mthods are imnplemented.

I have not tested it, but I have a suspicion that a well put together
ink setup in QTR with the UCs, with a nice tight 3 part black with
minimal toning inks might also outresolve the ABW driver...

Tyler
http://www.custom-digital.com/

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "Jack" <jacknadelle@...> wrote:
>
> --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "handyman856" <avr@> wrote:
> >
> > The Piezography website makes a pretty good case for their inkset,
> > with the 1-pt type demo.  
> 
> That demonstration, the 1 pt test, has always raised a question in my 
> mind.
> It is comparing the epson driver with color ink to  QTR with gray inks. 
> A better test would be to print the inks themselves to QTR only. I 
> think the big difference in quality is the QTR software compared to the 
> Epson driver. Not just the inks. Of course, I have not tested that, 
> it's just arm chair science.
> I use a 3800 with QTR and UCk3 and it prints really well.
> Jack
>