TSB
Computers and Software => Separation Programs => Topic started by: Appstro on January 13, 2014, 09:58:47 PM
-
I know how to separate colors in illustrator and photoshop, but my understanding is that there are some softwares out there that do separations and trap and also do white base coloring etc… If those are available, which ones do you suggest? Just getting started here :)
-
No recommendation per se, but two prominent Sep programs are long running sponsors of this forum
Both offer free trials.
Scott Fresener's T-Seps (http://t-seps.com/)
and Ultraseps (http://www.ultraseps.com/)
-
Can you use any graphics program with these?
-
Those work with Photoshop.
-
Wow, expeeeeeeeennnnnssssiiiivvvee! Anything less expensive??? $1000.00 for rip software and separations software is out of this world for me:(
-
Well, the free Ghost RIP should knock down the total a bit.
Some sepping can also be done manually in Photoshop, (or less commonly, in Photopaint)
For that matter, most agree that most "auto" sep programs still benefit from some manual tweaking.
You can also think about sending some stuff out to professional services and pass along the expense to the client.
-
OK thanks. I downloaded Ghost Rip Redmon and GS view. Any recommendations?
-
I saw a recent ad for Ultraseps at 399. A far cry from 1000. Well, okay, little less than half, lol.
-
Ultraseps was $299 through the end of last year. I upgraded. It might be worth contacting Steve to see if it might have been extended since the ad is still running.
-
Ultraseps was $299 through the end of last year. I upgraded. It might be worth contacting Steve to see if it might have been extended since the ad is still running.
According to his rotating banner ad here, the sale price is still good
-
You can try simple seps raster for corel...it's cheaper and so is corel. They are releasing a PS version as well.
monochrome bitmaps in corel are the jam.
-
Thank you, I may try the ultra seps. I absolutely despise Corel though. I worked in prepress commercial printing for years and never liked that program :) Seems pretty popular with screen printing though. :O
-
Dot Tone Dan
-
Well, to each his own. Corel's pricetag is a ton better than Adobe. Draw is great, but the raster side of it needs some more help for sure.
-
i just watched the ultra seps video. Looks like he has actually made a "no rip" halftone function in the software and he claims that if you dont have a rip his halftone generator will allow you to output may different line screens right out of photoshop to your inkjet. Anybody try this yet? Seems too good to be true? What would I need a rip for then if this actually works well?? I am really impressed with all the functions he's built into the software. I do wish that you could output vector though….
-
i just watched the ultra seps video. Looks like he has actually made a "no rip" halftone function in the software and he claims that if you dont have a rip his halftone generator will allow you to output may different line screens right out of photoshop to your inkjet. Anybody try this yet? Seems too good to be true? What would I need a rip for then if this actually works well?? I am really impressed with all the functions he's built into the software. I do wish that you could output vector though….
Well, looks like you get to test drive it for 15 days, so nothing to lose.
btw, for years, some folks without postscript printers or RIPs used a bitmap workaround to work with halftone dots.
-
i just watched the ultra seps video. Looks like he has actually made a "no rip" halftone function in the software and he claims that if you dont have a rip his halftone generator will allow you to output may different line screens right out of photoshop to your inkjet. Anybody try this yet? Seems too good to be true? What would I need a rip for then if this actually works well?? I am really impressed with all the functions he's built into the software. I do wish that you could output vector though….
RIP does a lot more than just create dots. . . You can get by with GhostScript in the beginning, but if you are going to print halftones, RIP is a must.
pierre
-
HAHA!!!! I got the Ghostscript to work. I have the Ultraseps testing and I output a grayscale gradation screened to my epson 1430! THANKS GUYS!!! I just need to know what kind of waterproof film and what settings to select on my epson printer to make the most dense film now.
-
i just watched the ultra seps video. Looks like he has actually made a "no rip" halftone function in the software and he claims that if you dont have a rip his halftone generator will allow you to output may different line screens right out of photoshop to your inkjet. Anybody try this yet? Seems too good to be true? What would I need a rip for then if this actually works well?? I am really impressed with all the functions he's built into the software. I do wish that you could output vector though….
RIP does a lot more than just create dots. . . You can get by with GhostScript in the beginning, but if you are going to print halftones, RIP is a must.
pierre
I will probably get Accurip with the money from my first few spot color jobs. :)
-
i just watched the ultra seps video. Looks like he has actually made a "no rip" halftone function in the software and he claims that if you dont have a rip his halftone generator will allow you to output may different line screens right out of photoshop to your inkjet. Anybody try this yet? Seems too good to be true? What would I need a rip for then if this actually works well?? I am really impressed with all the functions he's built into the software. I do wish that you could output vector though….
RIP does a lot more than just create dots. . . You can get by with GhostScript in the beginning, but if you are going to print halftones, RIP is a must.
pierre
I will probably get Accurip with the money from my first few spot color jobs. :)
FilmMaker is the way to go and it is cheaper. . .
AR is good if you want something simple. It is easier to get going, but FM has many more features and produces a slightly cleaner dot.
pierre
-
I will probably get Accurip with the money from my first few spot color jobs. :)
I bought a T1100 instead of 1390 last week because I want to run Film Maker.
The reason is due to the following review on Filmmaker.
http://www.theshirtboard.com/index.php/topic,8010.msg80877.html#msg80877 (http://www.theshirtboard.com/index.php/topic,8010.msg80877.html#msg80877)
-
I have seen problems with Epsons and Filmaker on this board and others too
-
You can get by with GhostScript in the beginning, but if you are going to print halftones, RIP is a must.
pierre
Hmmm, news to me. I have no problem printing halftones, but what do I know, lol.
-
You can get by with GhostScript in the beginning, but if you are going to print halftones, RIP is a must.
pierre
Hmmm, news to me. I have no problem printing halftones, but what do I know, lol.
I used Ghost script for halftones for my first 3 years. I then went with filmmaker to simplify the process and also try to get better detail. Film Maker is not that much and does simplify the printing process. It saves about 2 steps and also the dots are controllable. Honestly you can get away with Ghost script the detail is good and I even did a ton of 4CP jobs with it. It just takes longer to use and you have little to no control with it.
-
you can create halftones manually in photoshop in about 5 clicks that will print essentially identical to what a rip will do (though there are some variable dot features in some rips that aren't quick/easy to create manually).
If you have your colors separated. either as channels or layers, you simply duplicate the layer/channel into a new psd file (duplicate layer>new), then change the mode to bitmap, choose halftone screen, choose frequency (lpi), angle, and shape, and hit ok. now you have your halftones. I do not use separation software, though I have started looking into it to speed up a lot of the repetitive steps of manual separations. Outputting the actual films though is super easy manually, and all these programs that "replace" rips are doing is automating that 5 click process.
-
You might be right, but I had printed a couple films tests using bitmaps as you describe some years ago and then compared it to Ghost Rip output and I found the dots to be a bit more irregular and mis-shapened. They definitely were not identical.
This is a nice writeup from Ulano -
http://www.ulano.com/ijf/whatdoesaripdo.htm (http://www.ulano.com/ijf/whatdoesaripdo.htm)
-
I haven't used ghostscript as a rip, and I don't know what setting you were using to output the films with and without it for comparison, but irregular dots straight from photoshop seem to happen when you use lower resolutions when converting to the bitmap as the image is a raster in both steps, meaning if you create a small dot at 300 dpi, it will be much more jagged than the same dot at 1200 dpi, and the printer may print both at 720 or 1440 dpi depending on what you've told it to do, meaning a 300dpi dot printed at 1440dpi will still be much more irregular than a 1200dpi dot printed at 720dpi. If that makes sense :D
-
I don't think that was the issue. Pretty sure I used exactly the same sepped channels, but printed using ghost and bitmaps so the image would have been the same dpi and I would have selected the same lpi for both.
I only used bitmaps since I was sending seps to someone who did not have photoshop and had to output as tif bitmaps....if I remember. Like I said, been a few years ago.
-
As far as separations go I have used and own almost all the major ones for photoshop and Corel. Ultraseps, t-sep, Simple Seps, and a few others. They all have their strengths and weaknesses.
As far as halftone output. All the photoshop plugins will do exactly what you can do manually in photoshop and is about the exact output as Ghostrip. The dots are irregular and some what malformed. This can be good and bad depending on the graphic your printing. Accurip is a decent rip gives good dots and is far more consistent then the photoshop method. Simple seps 3 gives the exact output as Accurip when using round dots but that is all simple seps can output and both can print from all channels when wanting to use all black.
Then there is filmmaker. It by far gives the best output of everything mentioned. When setup properly it uses the variable dot technology that epson uses in its printers. Depending on the printer it uses 1-3 dots sizes per resolution. Some of the lessor printers like the 1100,7010,7510 only use 2 dot sizes while the 1400, 4800 series and higher end printer will produce 3 dot sizes. This allows better detail, better gradients and overall better prints.
There is no right or wrong answer but more of what type of printing, quality and design types your doing. I've seen where the photoshop methods give better results on a simulated process print due do the way the dots interlock. If you were doing a photo in grayscale Filmmaker would be the best option for that print although good results can be had with many different methods.
-
This has turned out to be a good thread. I have just started a little R&D on the side at my new job and I'm looking into getting the best options for our customers. The customers that look for the more accurate, more higher end halftones.
I don't know much about the newest RIPs and options. I just know the results of these digitally printed halftones these more favored low cost digital and thermal printers put out.
While you can look at them close up and personal with a loupe, you can't really see the most critical dot shapes and how it affects your ability to hold small dots... until you really get close up. I use a loupe that looks more like a microscope that is 50 power. With this, I can tell that the films from any of these dots still lack the clean crisp shape provided by a true (now old school) wet film imagesetter. The term "imagesetter" these days is used more loosely not to be confused with what they call todays imagesetters. Oyo, Calcomp and the like, now call their products "imagesetters" and they are not in the same quality category. They are digital and thermal printers.
See these definitions for true imagesetters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagesetter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagesetter)
http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/imagesetter (http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/imagesetter)
The Photoshop halftones are a good answer to anyone that doe not have (any RIP at all yet) and need to get a job out, but note, that these dots are not truly accurate to the line screens that you indicate for output. They are only "close" due to the fact that the photoshop halftone dots are resolution dependent. This mean that if you have a 300ppi file and output at 55 lpi, it will have a different number line count when compared to a 150 ppi file output at the same 55 lpi.
A RIP should provide an accurate line count no matter the file resolution although, the quality of the image should be better at higher resolutions.
The below FIGURE1 illustrates the results on film (of the digital dots) as compared to a true imagesetter dot (bottom left). One might think that because the digital dots (sprays) are put down so small that they must be extremely accurate in forming a dot. To the naked eye viewing at normal distance, this is true. As you inspect the dots closer with a loupe, you can start to see some of the irregularities. With a stronger loupe, you can see that these dots are poorly constructed (as compared to the best option, being a true imagesetter). For digital output on tee shirts, they are par for the course and accepted by the best shops producing typical work world wide.
The average small spray is as low as 2-4 picoliter (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/picoliter) sprays or specks of black ink. These sprays are "in the area of" 4-6 microns and are non uniform in shape due to splatter, based on the direction and accuracy of the most recent calibration of the multiple heads. These 4-6 picoliter sprays when overlaid, form the dot shape based on math from the output. Even when perfectly calibrated, the irregular shapes form (as illustrated), due to the distance a pico-liter spray travels from head to film or (screen) when output on a DTS) device. Since the heads can be as close as 3 pieces of paper, it would seem that these shapes are the best that they can be.
Another example of the limitations would be in a 1% dot of an 85 line screen. It's unlikely we would be concerned with this in tee shirt printing, but to illustrate the inability for true accuracy, I viewed a 1% dot in an 85 line screen and it showed two (2) individual sprays that were places within what would be considered side by side, (maybe 2-4 microns apart and only noticeable under a loupe. This was the intent to represent the size of the single 1 % dot in the 85 line screen. See Figure2
The above paragraph illustrates (why) we are not easily able to maintain a good low dot range such as 1-2% dot in an 85 line screen (in the screen) even if we wanted to. When burning screens for that, those dots would more than likely both be lost either due to over exposure, screen mesh selection, ink type, printing methods or just not printing out at all to the film depending on the film output device you may have. Some lesser quality lower cost devises may not put that dot on the film at all and even on the higher quality devices, results can very depending on the frequency of maintenance and calibration of your device.
Out of all of the separation programs out there, I believe any one of them to produce the same results. They all typically should be acceptable to your customer. Each will provide a slight difference in the level of printed results. All usable, all needing some tweaking. The more you learn about color separation yourself, the more you will tweak these seps to get them to be more like what you need. It would be compared to using 4-5 different professional freelance separators. They all will provide usable results and may all produce what is considered exceptional results by your customers, but the more you become experienced with the printed results yourself, the more you will want to get better results. How soon that comes, all depends on your own skills and probably the needs of your customers or the demand for more accurate separations.
Thanks for reading
Dot-tone-dan
-
Side note. I just got back to this test film as seen in figure 2 and that is a 55lpi using Film Maker3 XL RIP.
Printer was a 4800. 1440 SD HS. Variable for 2/90%. Chromoline AccuInk.
This film is great and density of the dots are solid. The dot or math user to plot the ink spatter is lacking as you get tighter in the lower dot range. Mechanically, it would be no wonder why people can't hold a 3% dot in a 55lpi.
-
I use Ultraseps and Accurip. Like them both.
-
Side note. I just got back to this test film as seen in figure 2 and that is a 55lpi using Film Maker3 XL RIP.
Printer was a 4800. 1440 SD HS. Variable for 2/90%. Chromoline AccuInk.
This film is great and density of the dots are solid. The dot or math user to plot the ink spatter is lacking as you get tighter in the lower dot range. Mechanically, it would be no wonder why people can't hold a 3% dot in a 55lpi.
SD HS indicates bidirectional printing which produces inferior results. For anybody caring about the 3% or lower dot, switching to one direction will solve this. Also, going to higher resolution makes a significant difference.
see here:
http://www.theshirtboard.com/index.php/topic,8018.msg80980.html#msg80980 (http://www.theshirtboard.com/index.php/topic,8018.msg80980.html#msg80980)
pierre
-
About halftone range, no matter what rip or image device you use:
It is almost impossible to image a dot below 4%. The threads will eventually block some of the tones completely. This results in Vignette moire or a striped pattern in a sky print that fades to shirt color. Some of the threads block the very small dots, some can be imaged in the open area. True image setters using processed film have a significant halftone quality that ink jet cannot come close to, no matter how well the machine is working, the edge of a halftone from and imagesetter is flawlessly sharp, while an ink jet halftone is a collection of pico liter dots that do not land together to form much of a dot at all. The older or more used the ink jet machine is the more scattered the halftone dot.
For this reason I prefer to curve the output from Photoshop to the RIP. I eliminate the dots below 4% as well as those from 96% on up. They simply cannot be imaged on the screen completely due to mesh threads blocking the small openings or halftone dots.
Linearization is the next step to better halftones, a method to control dot gain on film that is available in RIP's like Wasatch. Finally you can also punch contrast and apply curves to enhance the halftone output that helps keep the higher line counts open and the lower line counts printing completely at the tonal value you see in Photoshop.
Al
-
pierre, have you switched to uni-directional printing?
-
pierre, have you switched to uni-directional printing?
Only for the competition level prints, which we have not done in a year or so now . . .
pierre
-
Do ultra seps and T seps work the same?
-
I think 'similar' is the best answer.
That's about like asking if QuickSeps, Ultraseps, SimpleSeps, SeparationStudio, FastFilms, Tseps (and more that I can't think of right now) work the same?
The are all similar in that they try to produce simulated process separations. If you ask which one is best, it would be like asking what car brand is best. Everyone will have an opinion, usually on the one they have. I've used QuickSeps and now UltraSeps. Is it the best? Don't know. Haven't tried all the ones on the market, but I'm fairly content.
Not trying to be difficult, but you're going to have to try the ones that have evaluation periods and draw your own conclusions, to a point.
-
Good answer ScreenXpress.
-
I have T-Sep but have never been able to get it work well for me. I may not understand the in's and out's of it
-
I downloaded the manual and looks similar to a lot of the others. Some file basics to start -
A.In RGB mode. (Check by going to Image/Mode)
B.Flattened with ONLY a Background layer (the easiest way to ensure this is to save the files in .JPG format
–Photoshop will automatically flatten the visible layers.)
C.Have NO additional channels other than RGB: Red, Green, Blue
and then turn it loose and tweak the channels it created.
Here's the PDF for the Reference Manual
http://t-biznetwork.com/download/T-Seps20-EnglishManual-UPDATED.pdf (http://t-biznetwork.com/download/T-Seps20-EnglishManual-UPDATED.pdf)
And a little promo from Scott himself -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxW-QfbVV04 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxW-QfbVV04)
Hope something there helps.
-
Ultraseps
-
Gets my vote
-
Ultraseps 2 and AccuRIP here, happy with both. Ultraseps is good start, but I have been separating for a long time, so I usually make tweaks to the channels based on my experience. You can't beat knocking out multiple channels in a few minutes to cut the processing time way down. a few base whites, a few highlight whites, 3 blacks to choose from, and if you don't like your options, you're already in Photoshop and can make any custom channel you could need...
Steve
-
Has anyone used Ultraseps and Seperation Studio?
How do they compare?
-
hands down --- ive never had a standalone program or a plugin work as well as my own, "by hand" photoshop calculations... then take 10 minutes to create an action....
-
For what it's worth, yeah I can make my own separations from Photoshop or any of the sep programs and for in house costs they work well when a customer is not willing to pay much for that skill. But in the hands of a good separator the art can come alive. I don't do my own seps for our show shirts since Tom at Motion Textile dials them in far better. When you have a high ticket client willing to pay for quality art and good separation work it can take the print to another level, especially in the sim process area. The sharpness, colors and impact of the print really improve in the hands of someone who does separations for a living. Some do great in house work, but if your skills are marginal like mine, take it to a good separator and let him know all the specifics of your job.
Very important to let them know what shirt you are printing on, inks used, press capability, reference colors (like Coca Cola Red for instance), and mesh counts. All the info you would want to know up front to prevent, moire, preserve color, and to produce the best print you can from the start. Nothing more frustrating then finding your seps moire in print, the customer doesn't see the reference colors they provided and endless other subjective art judgments that can turn it into a trial and error with marginal sep skills. Other key areas that help is to calibrate your monitor and printer so they render color well for your separator to see in a printout and for your customer to see so they have an approximation before seps and print are done. Convert to CYMK before printing. Eye One is a good monitor spectrophotometer that can calibrate both your monitor and printer. Even with monitior and printer in tune, they are just a communication point for all involved with the print being the final approval.
The final print may not even need sep modification. You can bring out many more secondary and tertiary colors by adding halftone base in 1% amounts to create translucency. (Keep track of your clear base addtions by using a gram scale and creating a recipe for the ink. This speeds up any reorders. All modified inks should have the recipe on the side since it will be outside of your Pantone system. Inks can still retain some opacity but mix better with each other to create more subtle color and allow details to come out with the addition of halftone base. We modified a Lord of the Rings promo banner for the movie's opening for 8 hours (Huge print run, well worth the time spent as we got 3x reorders for this 20k order). We added clear half tone base which prints sharper than regular base and is very clear to achieve many, many more colors and shades then was present in the first print sample.
Al
-
I like ultraseps.
fast, easy, flexible, affordable.
there's no magic bullet, but it's close to a bullet of illluuuuuuussssssssssiiiiooooonnnnn.
Seriously, it's pretty ok.
-
I use simple seps, it seems to be OK. Wish it had more instructions besides just YouTube videos. I have a hard time with the simple seps raster