QTR-Quadtone RIP

I'm lusting heavily to work with QTR and the Epson 1400/Piezography
inkset combo. However - it appears one REALLY needs to have a decent
spectro or densitometer to get into this, and most seem quite pricey.

It seems the linearization process is somewhat unique to BW work, and
the need to do this preclude just using mfr's print profiles.

While he Xrite Eye-one ($800?) seems to be the "real deal", what other
alternatives are there? I've read about using a scanner, but that
seems more like a 'training-wheels' approach, and ultimately one will
need a real spectro. Or so it seems.

> I'm lusting heavily to work with QTR and the Epson 
> 1400/Piezography inkset combo. 
> However - it appears one REALLY needs to have a decent
> spectro or densitometer to get into this, and most seem quite pricey.
>...

You may not need a spectro for purposes of linearization.  Flatbed scanners
can often do a good job with respect to reading relative Lab L or density
values once the gamma is corrected.  This can be done simply by including a
known calibration point in the scan, like a Kodak Gray Card.

See http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Making_B-W_ICCs-GrayCard.pdf 

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Hmm - So - If I use the scanner to handle linearization, would the
mfr's profiles give decent results? I see Cone is offering profiles
with the 1400/Piez SE package. Would scanner linearization set me up
to get good results with his profiles?



--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@...> wrote:
>
> > I'm lusting heavily to work with QTR and the Epson 
> > 1400/Piezography inkset combo. 
> > However - it appears one REALLY needs to have a decent
> > spectro or densitometer to get into this, and most seem quite pricey.
> >...
> 
> You may not need a spectro for purposes of linearization.  Flatbed
scanners
> can often do a good job with respect to reading relative Lab L or
density
> values once the gamma is corrected.  This can be done simply by
including a

> known calibration point in the scan, like a Kodak Gray Card.
> 
> See http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Making_B-W_ICCs-GrayCard.pdf 
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>

I'm not a Piezo user, so I don't know for sure if re-linearization is even
allowed with those profiles.  However, if it is, then a reasonable scanner
might be all you'd need.

I suspect QTR's own profile builder would do a fine job with the Piezo
inkset anyway.  One of the main differences in Cone's profiles relative to
what QTR builds semi-automatically is the amount of overlap among the inks.
This helps reduce banding by having more inks firing at any given point.
This can be important on some printers, such as the 1800.  However, my 1400
is so relatively free of banding that I suspect QTR's system would be fine.


Additionally, QTR has a provision for increasing the amount of overlap.  For
example, this week with my old 7500 I had banding in with the default QTR
profile, but when I increased the overlap to 20, the banding disappeared. 

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 


> If I use the scanner to handle linearization, would the
> mfr's profiles give decent results? I see Cone is offering 
> profiles with the 1400/Piez SE package. Would scanner 
> linearization set me up to get good results with his profiles?

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@...> wrote:
...

> > You may not need a spectro for purposes of linearization. 
> > Flatbed scanners can often do a good job with respect to 
> > reading relative Lab L or density values once the gamma 
> > is corrected. This can be done simply by including a
> > known calibration point in the scan, like a Kodak Gray Card.
> 
> > See http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Making_B-W_ICCs-GrayCard.pdf 
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com

contact me off list for a deal on an Eye 1.


**************
It's only a deal if 
it's where you want to go. Find your travel deal here.
      
(http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)


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