TSB
screen printing => Separations => Topic started by: Rico on January 02, 2019, 04:35:38 PM
-
Hello All
I wanted to know your thoughts on Separation Studio 4 vs SimpleSeps 4. I currently have Accurip and the Advanced T-shirt suite. I have had issues with Advanced software crashing and not being that user friendly. I am going to try the free trial Separation Studio to see how it works. I also noticed Separation Studio has yearly subscription or flat fee. Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks in advance!!!
-
I'm not a salesperson, but while you're at it, how about the Trial version of Ultraseps? I've been extremely happy with it for years.
-
What I like about Separation Studio and Advanced T-shirts is they both have rip software and I used Corel and AI.
-
What I like about Separation Studio and Advanced T-shirts is they both have rip software and I used Corel and AI.
Not really a RIP, they just do the halftone conversion. There is a lot more to theRIP than that.
Also, to learn to properly use those programs and get decent results you should really have some simulated process experience. The results are not really that good straight out of the box. In general, it is accepted tha you need to modify what they give you in order to get good results on the press.
Pierre
-
Yes, with Advanced T-shirts software I have to heavily modify the art in an out of the program.
-
The latest Ultraseps has a 25-60 LPI Output Option. Pseudo RIP?
However, I have used Ghost RIP for well over 10 years outputting postscript files from Photoshop and Corel. It's Open Source. Free for public use, and it works fine.
-
The latest Ultraseps has a 25-60 LPI Output Option. Pseudo RIP?
However, I have used Ghost RIP for well over 10 years outputting postscript files from Photoshop and Corel. It's Open Source. Free for public use, and it works fine.
GR seems to generate significantly better dots than the photoshop and possibly other pseudo RIPs. The big thing is proper RIP can be adjusted for the amount of ink to be deposited, can be linearized to create correct size dot and will drive the printer with it's own drivers rather than built in Windows or OSX software.
everything we do can be done on a budget at the expense of efficiency and in some cases quality. As better tools are used it becomes easier to produce faster and with less monkeying around. I used GR for years until it was time to upgrade. We all move along at our own pace and have different ideas about what and why we are doing things. It helps to know what's ahead thus my comment on those programs not being true RIPs. Original poster should know what they are so he does not end up having to spend money twice. . .
pierre
-
The "ripping" being done is happening by each channel being converted to a bitmap, using the halftone option. Each channel is actually a gray scale channel; to get the best dots in my experience is to choose 1200 ppt at in the dialog box, it gives the smoothest dots. Try it, do one at 1200, and one at 300, then view them at 100% in Photoshop... they have created an action to complete the steps.
Steve
-
I tell you what, HI-FI ink is a very impressive action set for photoshop. Would def check into that. I prefer it to Separation Studio, have not tried simpleseps.
-
The latest Ultraseps has a 25-60 LPI Output Option. Pseudo RIP?
However, I have used Ghost RIP for well over 10 years outputting postscript files from Photoshop and Corel. It's Open Source. Free for public use, and it works fine.
GR seems to generate significantly better dots than the photoshop and possibly other pseudo RIPs. The big thing is proper RIP can be adjusted for the amount of ink to be deposited, can be linearized to create correct size dot and will drive the printer with it's own drivers rather than built in Windows or OSX software.
everything we do can be done on a budget at the expense of efficiency and in some cases quality. As better tools are used it becomes easier to produce faster and with less monkeying around. I used GR for years until it was time to upgrade. We all move along at our own pace and have different ideas about what and why we are doing things. It helps to know what's ahead thus my comment on those programs not being true RIPs. Original poster should know what they are so he does not end up having to spend money twice. . .
pierre
Pierre,
I think you are right on GR doing better on the dots. I created output from each one yesterday and looked at them using a loupe. The GR dots were much more distinct and clear in the GR. Sorry Steve.
I don't understand why anyone on a budget or cheap (like me, but I'm retirement age anyway) does not look into GhostRIP. If anyone is interested in Ghost, I have already posted a set of instructions here several times and can probably be found on a search.
-
I don't understand why anyone on a budget or cheap (like me, but I'm retirement age anyway) does not look into GhostRIP. If anyone is interested in Ghost, I have already posted a set of instructions here several times and can probably be found on a search.
Although I also use GR when needed, some folks, depending on their printer, may really need the extra control of ink afforded by a "real" RIP.
No single "best" solution on this, though in this biz, there is a lot of penny wise and pound foolish behavior, that it often takes years to realize.
-
The latest Ultraseps has a 25-60 LPI Output Option. Pseudo RIP?
However, I have used Ghost RIP for well over 10 years outputting postscript files from Photoshop and Corel. It's Open Source. Free for public use, and it works fine.
GR seems to generate significantly better dots than the photoshop and possibly other pseudo RIPs. The big thing is proper RIP can be adjusted for the amount of ink to be deposited, can be linearized to create correct size dot and will drive the printer with it's own drivers rather than built in Windows or OSX software.
everything we do can be done on a budget at the expense of efficiency and in some cases quality. As better tools are used it becomes easier to produce faster and with less monkeying around. I used GR for years until it was time to upgrade. We all move along at our own pace and have different ideas about what and why we are doing things. It helps to know what's ahead thus my comment on those programs not being true RIPs. Original poster should know what they are so he does not end up having to spend money twice. . .
pierre
Pierre,
I think you are right on GR doing better on the dots. I created output from each one yesterday and looked at them using a loupe. The GR dots were much more distinct and clear in the GR. Sorry Steve.
I don't understand why anyone on a budget or cheap (like me, but I'm retirement age anyway) does not look into GhostRIP. If anyone is interested in Ghost, I have already posted a set of instructions here several times and can probably be found on a search.
My comparison was within Photoshop, not against other RIPs. I tried running GR way back, but it wasn't particularly Mac friendly, so I ended up with AccuRIP. I could only spend so much time before it makes more sense to make the purchase and move forward. Just out of curiosity though, what was the resolution of the dots you RIP'd in PS?
Steve
-
I set for 60 lpi in both outputs.
-
I set for 60 lpi in both outputs.
Pixels per inch, as opposed to the line count. In the Bitmap conversion dialog, it's the Output resolution. I also believe that a RIP will do a better job than the Bitmap conversion, but for the folks who don't have an actual RIP yet, it's a good workaround.
Steve
-
I had found this link from Univ of Oregon a while back. Based on the levels being released, people seem to be actively using GhostRIP on Macs
https://pages.uoregon.edu/koch/ (https://pages.uoregon.edu/koch/)