I will address this with you one last time and no more. You hear only what you want to you hear and you spin things to only make your product look better than anything else. Again, this is the last time I am discussing this and only for clarification, I will not respond again.Jerid,
I will address simple and straight.
If Garment Creator is as good as 3rd party RIP. Why you selling Cadlink?
Do not make sense again.
I believe Tigers(AA tech team name). They will die before they become second.
Cheers! RIPs are on me always.
i will be waiting tooWe are waiting for our printer to come back from Epson. Once it's back, I'll print some samples and show both ways the white can be generated.
Peter, This must be about the 5th or 6th post where you promote how a RIP can save you money, by saving on the underbase. While in general I like that as we also sell a RIP, you know (or at least I hope you know) its a loaded statement.Not mentioned Ink saving and time on 3rd party RIP. 40% plus minus is lots of money to me. Doesn't it to you Jerid?
Cheers! Inks are om me always.
None Sense!!!! Available to ALL! No matter where you are No matter who you bought from. All Rip suppliers have no problem to send demo to you for free.i will be waiting too
***since neorip2000 will be avaiable for AA Epson Customer only, while im outside USA***
its epson anyway, !
I wish I could answer this in a single paragraph, but I cant.Dave - as one of the resident RIP experts, can you elaborate on why some RIP's produce a smoother, higher quality, crisper image than others? I am not talking about color reproduction, speed, profiling, linearization, etc.....but why with the same hardware, same ink, same environment, same art, one print looks substantially better.
Especially interested in why some RIP's handle fades and gradients so much better. Some of the best prints I remember getting were on the original Tjets using the Epson driver and two passes on white T's. (I know that is easier than a dark T with an under base) If you used the outer glow feature from Photoshop on an oval, and then feathered the selection, the gradient with the Epson driver was a smooth seamless transition, on some of the later machines and RIP's the gradient was much less smooth and very stepped.
As another example, there is a flaming guitar logo that gets used around here quite a bit. Some of the RIP's reproduce the flames and the fade out to the shirt smoothly, reproducing the image perfectly, the rest........not so much.
Sorry for the rambling, but I have wondered about this for years.
Did you print the examples? Which brand and version did you use?Dave - awesome reply! I have a follow up, with an example.
In the pic below, focusing on the area to the left of the upper neck, is it the white under base management, or a more restricted color LUT(look up table), that causes the print on the right to not transition as smoothly at the edges as the print on the left? Or is it both? If both, which do you deem more critical in getting the smooth gradients and transitions?
Thanks for taking the time to help us "cavemen" understand fire........
I do not want to turn this into mine is better than yours thread, I just want to keep it generic. If you want the details, search "choosing proper dtg rip", it's an old thread, and I just borrowed the pics.Did you print the examples? Which brand and version did you use?
Where did you get the idea that I was going to one up you? I was just curious to know if the example shown was used with two different Rips and which versions. There is a significant difference between the two. Thats what this thread is about. Comparing Rips.I do not want to turn this into mine is better than yours thread, I just want to keep it generic. If you want the details, search "choosing proper dtg rip", it's an old thread, and I just borrowed the pics.