QTR-Quadtone RIP

In my personal opinion on Epson printers that have ABW support and you are
using manufacturer's inks and you want a visually neutral output (though
actually that means it is toned because the Epson inks and paper are not
neutral) then there is no value in using the QTR rip. There is value as you
note below in using QTR Create ICC with ABW.

Mike





2009/7/7 Cindy Resnick <cindy4earth@...>

>
>
> Hey everyone, I'm using my girlfriend's yahoo account since I don't have
> one as of yet, I hope you don't mind.
>
> I've got a kind of technical question about why to use the Quad Tone Rip as
> a device driver instead of the below setup (assuming a visually neutral,
> un-toned target output)?
>
> I ask because my current printing conditions produce a 51 step random
> target which is very close to a screen match right from the get go
> (requiring little work inside the resulting QTR profile).
>
> Does the QTR device driver result in lower quantization error/bit loss due
> to higher bit depth look up tables or processing prior to delivering the
> data to the printer (via the QTR "curves"), or by controlling the printer
> hardware directly with more precision then my current QTR ICC Profile>Epson
> Advanced BW driver workflow?
>
> Is the screening in QTR a real bonus over the Epson driver?
>
> Here are my printing conditions:
>
> PRINTING:
> Epson 3800
> Photoblack ink
> Colormatch workspace
> Epson semi-matte proofing paper
> Advanced Black and White
> "Dark"
> QTR's 51 Step Random Target
>
> MEASURING:
> Eye-One Pro
> Profilemaker Measure Tool
>
> PROFILE CREATION:
> QTR-Create-ICC-RGB (using lab value file from Measure Tool)
>
> OUTPUT:
> Convert file within Photoshop in Colormatch workspace to QTR created ICC
> RGB profile using perceptual, then output under same conditions in Epson
> Advanced BW driver as target was created.
>
> Thanks for any advice or input, it's much appreciated, as is the obviously
> hard work that went into QTR's creation so far (definitely a ton of work, I
> would guess).
>
> Thanks!
> David
>
> 
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]