# Why choosing the proper DTG RIP software is so important.



## Justin Walker

It seems as though the heated arguments over which DTG printer is the "best", "fastest" or "most reliable" will never come to an end, and those who maintain hard-core allegiances to one particular brand or another can rarely be swayed towards the other side. However, despite all of the attention that the hardware gets on a regular basis, it is amazing to see how rarely people engage in similar discussions regarding the true source of control over DTG printing; the good 'ol RIP software! With all the focus being placed on various hardware brands and print comparisons, I thought I would take a moment to remind people that even the best hardware can produce inferior prints, and even the lowliest hardware can often produce stunning print quality, provided you have solid control over all the variables involved in the process; the best place to get started is by looking at which brand of RIP software you are using, and start learning how to take full advantage of each of the powerful features that might be available to you (whether you realize it or not).

While scouting out the latest advancements at the SGIA trade show in Las Vegas, I had the opportunity to compare print samples from three different printer platforms, using the same image file for all three; the results from this experiment do not necessarily reflect hardware limitations or superiority, but instead show how different RIP programs process images to achieve different results. When selecting the image to print for this test, I chose an image that I saw on a computer in the Neoflex booth, which was in a folder with an assortment of other artwork. Specifically, I was looking for a file that would be an outright challenge to print, in addition to being a fair representation of what a normal client might provide me on any given day. The image I chose was a complex flaming guitar image, which showed a great combination of bright color, crisp details and gentle gradients; any printer would be hard-pressed to accurately recreate this particular file!

Before I continue, I would like to mention that this file was not 100% print-ready, in the sense that it did not have a transparent background for printing on dark garments. Instead, this image contained a solid black background, with the flames fading into nothingness on the shirt, all around the guitar. While this would not be considered an ideally-suited image for DTG printing, it is certainly representative of the type of file that we receive on a daily basis from our customers! Unfortunately, we cannot assume that every client who comes to us is going to have "perfect" artwork to print from, so we often have to work with what we are provided.... In many cases, we can manually cut out the background image, but in this case that never would have worked. Instead, knowing that one of the RIP programs we rely most heavily on would have no problem processing an image file with a black background (as long as it is going on a black garment, a common trick in this industry is to tell the RIP to knock out all black ink from the image, essentially treating it like transparent space - this works great, unless you want to print on any other color garment!). In our case, we wanted to print the image on black tees, so this was not a problem.


*NEOFLEX PRINTER*

The first people who printed a sample for me, of course, were the Neoflex guys; I found the artwork file on one of their computers, so it seemed only fair to let them take the first crack at it. At the SGIA show, All American was using a Kothari-based RIP called "NeoRIP PRO" - I was already quite familiar with the Kothari RIP, as some of our other printers use a version of this as well. The Kothari-based RIPs, in my opinion, seem to have a strong underlying sense of how to process most artwork files with minimal prep time, as well as top-notch color profiles; I expected great results from this RIP, but even I was stunned when the shirt was done! Keep in mind that there was zero file prep, and the under base layer was dynamically generated by the RIP (which means that the Kothari RIP knows exactly how much white ink to use, to reproduce an image, even if you don't tell it specifically). Check out some of these pictures, showing the print from the Neoflex printer:



























*MOD1 PRINTER:*

After the initial excitement of printing such an incredibly high-quality shirt, I was anxious to see what other printers could do! Everyone in this industry, at one point or another has heard a sales rep claim that "all printers that are based on the same base unit (Epson base 1900 / 4880 / etc) will produce comparable quality prints". While it can indeed be said that printers which share the same base model might indeed share many physical characteristics, including print speed / resolution limitations, I have learned that there is much, much more that goes in to producing exceptional quality prints. Having gotten spectacular results from the Neoflex (Epson 4880 based printer), I decided to see how Belquette's Mod1 printer would handle such a complex and detailed image. When I initially approached Jerid about printing the sample image for me, he agreed but did mention that he would most likely have to adjust the image, first. Since I was simply interested in seeing how each RIP-process would affect the final print quality, I did not have a problem with this.

Again, I have to stop to interject another disclaimer; Jerid told me very frankly, before attempting to print this design, that he was no expert in image manipulation. However, this should actually go toward my point, to begin with - some RIPs simply do a better job of processing artwork files with FEWER adjustments and LESS frustration, whereas some insist that you tune and tweak the files until they are perfect. Since much of the artwork that comes to me is less-than-perfect, I have long been interested in finding RIP programs that are more intelligently and universally applicable, allowing for a wide range of customization and control while still having the ability to reproduce what is seen on the screen, with little time or trouble. While I am convinced that a skilled user could achieve far superior results to what was shown to me at the SGIA show, on this particular artwork file, it was obvious that the Mod1 RIP software (which, I believe, is based on the iProof RIP series that Belquette and SWF have used for quite some time) required far more adjustments and produced an inferior quality image! This was actually pretty shocking to me, considering the Belquette Mod1 is one of my favorite printers for construction quality and innovative design characteristics. While the results of this comparison by no means constitute a negative judgment against the machine, this is one small example of just how important the proper RIP software (or RIP settings) can be:

















In these images, it becomes clear that the settings in the RIP were forcing the printer to lay down far too much of a white ink under base, causing the "gentle fades" and gradients to become blocky and unrecognizable (bowling pin effect). Obviously, there is no way this print would have been passable to the client. When the RIP is trying to compensate by adding large amounts of white ink to the under base, it essentially eliminates the possibility for accurately recreating subtle effects and transitions; this severely limits the nature of DTG printing. Sensing that this was not a successful test print, Jerid offered to spend some time on the artwork, to prep it for printing a more acceptable image. Remember; if the artwork had been submitted with a transparent background, it might not have been such a big deal, given how that particular RIP processes image files (or, possibly, just how Jerid was attempting to print it?); however, since the purpose is to compare how different programs would interpret the same file, this simply illustrates the drastic difference in image processing. While Jerid worked on the image file, I went to the Brother booth to have the guys over there knock out a quick sample for me.... Although I came back to the Belquette booth right before the end of the show, to pick up the second test print, I will post the pictures now and then go back to the Brother sample:

















In this second set of sample prints from the Mod1, the results were greatly improved over the first test. You can see that the amount of white was dropped back, dramatically, allowing for more natural fades and gradients. However, you can also see that the RIP decided to print the black box around the image, which would not be ideal for a print that is going to an end user. If I were to receive a file like this from a customer, and then I handed them this as a result, it might be passable.... However, most customers would then decide to ask us if we can "take the black background out real quick"; if forced to do this manually, it would be a long and painful process, essentially negating any potential profit gain from doing this order (due to the increased time required for image processing and handling). If the RIP is quick and efficient, and knows how to process files that are less-than-perfect, then it can go a long way to reducing your bottom line and making your print shop more profitable! If I recall from our days with the Flexi-Jet printer (Belquette's first foray into the DTG market), the iProof RIP does have a feature to "ignore" the black ink in an image; if this is the case, I am not entirely certain why Jerid would not have simply done that from the beginning, saving lots of file prep time?

Bottom line, neither of the two prints that came off of the Mod1 would have been acceptable to the client, and I would have several dollars in ink, test shirts and time, before I've even delivered a successful item to my client. Even though the fades look a lot better in this image, the levels were adjusted to a point where it knocked down a lot of the vibrant color that I saw in the Neoflex print.


*BROTHER PRINTER*

While Jerid was between sample prints at the Mod1 booth, we decided to have Brother knock out a sample on their new GT-781 printer (I am completely unfamiliar with their RIP process, so I can't really add much to it, aside from what I directly observe during this print). To begin with, the quality of the first print off the Brother machine was absolutely fantastic, and I would have been proud to offer the shirt to even some of my pickiest clients! However, although it may be completely above the level I require for "acceptable quality", there are still some things that I would not be completely satisfied with. Of course, some of this might be able to be dialed in, just like the Mod1 or any other printer, but I was mostly interested in seeing how it printed with minimal adjustments. The first thing I noticed, was how much the color popped!


























The Brother printer created an amazing print, and it certainly caught my attention right away. If I only saw this print, by itself, I would probably say it is as good as its gonna get. However, after printing hundreds of thousands of shirts over the course of many years, I know there are things that people look for, aside from just "vibrancy". When looking at the Brother print, I noticed that there seems to be a lot more white ink being layed down, around the areas which should represent a very gentle gradient. Although this might make the image "pop" a little more, it does nothing to help maintain image accuracy between the screen and the substrate. For a period of time, we were using a Brother GT-541 in our shop to knock out the white garments; a constant complaint was that the machine (or processing software) would boost the colors to make them pop, since most people preferred a vibrant print..... The downside was, of course, that when someone has artwork that needs to be recreated as close as possible to the original (think photographic images, with lots of colors and very fine details), the excess "pop" would either make the lighter shades too dark, or would cause loss of detail due to highly saturated areas of ink. It has always been my preference to make the RIP recreate the original artwork as accurately as possible, and then use adjustments within the artwork files themselves to affect the final print quality. Alternately, having two different print setups (Standard / Vibrant) depending on your clients' intentions, could help you achieve the same level of flexibility.

In this particular case, I do not know how much control a Brother owner would have over dialing in the print settings, for an image such as this; even if they could dial back the under base a bit, and lower the ink saturation, they might lose some of the vibrancy that makes this print look so incredible.


*EPSON <vs> BROTHER - HEAD TO HEAD!*

I will close by offering you some side-by-side comparison pics of the Neoflex print and the Brother print, taken under equal lighting conditions. Although both printers produced some incredible prints, there are some notable differences between the two; for instance, you can see the greatest amount of contrast between the "light, wispy flames" (Neo print) and the "heavier, over saturated flames" (Brother print), by comparing the areas by the neck of each guitar, as well as the lower right portion of the main body - in these examples, there is noticeably more ink in the Brother prints. This difference is even more noticeable, in person.

In each of the following images, the Epson print is the one on the left, while the Brother print is the one on the right:


























In the final image, I moved the shirts to allow you to see the left-most side of both images; on the Neoflex print (Kothari RIP), you can see where the wispy flames are dancing around the body of the guitar, implying a detailed and dynamic fire effect. In the Brother print, you can see how the greater amount of ink has drowned out some of the detail in the flames, making finely-detailed areas appear to be large muddy areas of color, instead.

As I have stated, I would be impressed by either of these prints, individually. It is only when comparing them side-by-side that we notice the subtle differences which many people would completely overlook. In the case of this flaming guitar image, over saturating the color didn't have a profoundly negative impact on the image. However, if we were to do the same test with a set of images that displayed a wide range of characteristics (fine details / bright colors / difficult fade effects / etc), we might not be able to overlook some of these differences. On the other hand, if the machine operators had more time to devote to setting up their RIP environments, properly, the results of this test could have been drastically different!


----------



## IYFGraphics

Thank you Justin....very enlightening to say the least.


----------



## JeridHill

As a side note, we were running out of time for the show and the second print, all I had to do was choose to not print black by checking a box. I didn't do that and ergo, a big black box. I didn't have time to print again because the show was over.

I do think the RIP could do better in generating it's own white layer, but the simplicity of what I did in the end was inverting the image in Photoshop and using that as my white layer. In the white layer generation, just choose file as your white layer and within seconds you are there. I wish I could have had more time, I would have printed it again without the black printing and you wouldn't have seen the big rectangle.

I imagine the NeoFlex and Mod1 are going to look pretty close, can you do a side by side image of those, in the flame areas like you show against the Brother?


----------



## Justin Walker

JeridHill said:


> As a side note, we were running out of time for the show and the second print, all I had to do was choose to not print black by checking a box. I didn't do that and ergo, a big black box. I didn't have time to print again because the show was over.


I understand things were busy at the show, but I definitely wanted to see how a typical image is processed when it is received; both of the other printers simply loaded the image, clicked two or three buttons to set the media and hit "print", and the results are as previously shown - you actually had the most amount of time out of all of them, to print the samples. Don't take it as a criticism, because it does not reflect on your printer at all.

I simply note the prep process, because end users should understand that some software / hardware combos will require you to more carefully consider things like white under base generating and such, and others will come "out of the box" with the ability to process such complicated files - no time necessary, aside from loading and printing. This type of subtle nuance can make all the difference in the world, in a real production environment (where you can't spend much time processing each file).

The most important thing to understand, of course, is that we all have a lot of control over this type of thing, because we can not only get inside our own RIP software and tune and tweak until we find the ideal settings, but we can also try different RIP types on similar hardware setups, allowing for much greater flexibility by the end user. I am not saying this on the part of any hardware manufacturers, of course; I am sure some will tell you that their printers won't work with Brand X RIP software, and sometimes they are right..... However, it never hurts to experiment!



JeridHill said:


> I imagine the NeoFlex and Mod1 are going to look pretty close, can you do a side by side image of those, in the flame areas like you show against the Brother?


Although there is a lot of similarity in the level of detail, the difference between the Neo and the Mod1 print is fairly drastic - essentially, although both printers are certainly capable of producing similar quality "when properly dialed in" or "when artwork properly prepped", the difference in RIP settings produced two completely different levels of print quality. The white ink volume balanced with proper CMYK volume and excellent color profiles definitely gives the solid win to the Neoflex. Although the Mod1 print could probably stand on its own, if I didn't have anything to compare it to, the Brother and the Neoflex prints were spectacular. I wanted to see how each printer would handle a normal artwork file with minimal preparation, and that is how the files were processed and returned to me.

I will take the comparison shots of the Mod1 vs Neoflex, tomorrow, under comparable lighting conditions; I left the samples at the shop, so I can't do it tonight. Finally, since my point is not "Printer A is better than Printer B", but rather to illustrate how drastically the final print quality can be effected when you simply use different software, or adjust settings within your own RIP, I would love to send you the file for further testing and printing, to demonstrate that some tweaks could make a night and day difference - that would actually continue to support my point.  I think some people become frustrated with their printers, and what they perceive as "limitations", when in fact they could actually benefit from simply better understanding the software side of things.

I need to see if I can find the image, however, since I lost my portable hard drive recently (after breaking my previous one; I lost the replacement!!!), but I am hoping it is not lost for good.......


----------



## JeridHill

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to pit A against B, you are comparing side by side shots so I wanted to see how it faired. As for time spent, I agree, load and print is the best possibly scenario. I am going to a customer tomorrow who has multiple Kornit machines and they send at least 5 layers to the RIP to print and sometimes more. I believe that is above and beyond simplicity.

Personally, I've never printed anything of that nature, so the final result was more of a trial and error for me. Since the RIP didn't handle gradient fades straight out of the box with predefined settings, they made provision for it through the "Import From File" feature. It's an extra step, but if I would have thought it through, I could have done it very quickly.

Personally, I believe not being able to handle the gradient fade (into the back of the shirt) with the click of a button is a weak point. That being said, once again, when iProof made provision for it, the "weak point" it becomes a non-issue so as long as we train someone on how to do it themselves.


----------



## vinyl signs

Justine that was a great example of what the RIP can actually cost you! I would like to see someone take all the rips and print from one machine to see what the differences would be. I would also like to know if these DTG manufactures are doing anything to the print drive engines. That way us a end users could decide which RIP is best for us! 

Thanks Again!

Also can one buy these RIPs without purchasing a printer from the different vendors?


----------



## FredP

I don't have that graphic but I'm pretty certain that the wrong type of white generation method was used on the MOD1 RIP. I'm not talking about artwork prep, I'm talking about RIP settings. It can use several methods for white generation. You can see the results instantly on the screen so I'm not sure why that shirt was ever commited to ink, much less given to anyone. I'll make sure it gets printed it correctly and that the true results are posted.

The iProof RIP has thousands of units in the field, all performing quite well on graphics like that guitar with zero prep. Believe me, a RIP that can't print a graphic such as that would not sell ANY copies, much less thousands of them.

Also keep in mind that file was created by the makers of the Neo RIP with a specific purpose: To make their product look good and others look bad. 

Belquette will be posting the results once the file is printed with the correct settings.

-- Fred


----------



## zoom_monster

Justin,
thanks for the great write-up. This is a great graphic as well. I could be wrong, but one thing that I'd like to bring up is that because this file was from the neo-flex peoples' computer and had their logo.....was this not a prepared file that had been tweaked or at least had the config file loaded into the RIP? Looking at the brother printout, you can kind of see the threshold where the artwork was removed and placed on a transparent background. I would just like to see a file that was prepared by a 3rd party go though the same process. I totally agree that most people(buying these printers) have little knowledge to make this type of graphic work right out of the box and a "friendlier" RIP would help this, but ultimately as an artist, we have to be able to feed it a file in the correct format, color space AND choose the correct configuration etc.... to do it's job. Again, thanks for the comparison.


----------



## JeridHill

FredP said:


> You can see the results instantly on the screen so I'm not sure why that shirt was ever commited to ink, much less given to anyone. I'll make sure it gets printed it correctly and that the true results are posted.


The show was crazy, I saw it on screen and told Justin that it most likely won't print correct but I'd try it anyway. He said no problem.

So I was a little surprised to see it posted with him knowing in advance it probably wasn't going to print right. I was juggling about three things at once.


----------



## Justin Walker

zoom_monster said:


> This is a great graphic as well. I could be wrong, but one thing that I'd like to bring up is that because this file was from the neo-flex peoples' computer and had their logo.....was this not a prepared file that had been tweaked or at least had the config file loaded into the RIP?


I very highly doubt this is the case; the experience I have is pretty universal, with the Kothari RIP. Is it perfect? Of course not. However, when we received our (2) Neoflex printers a few weeks ago, we were provided the original, older RIP, which was not made by Kothari (not sure who made it..... we had many issues with it, however, that manifested themselves as odd errors on the printer and very poor ink deposits). We struggled to get the "amazing results" that we had become accustomed to, whereas it was a breeze when we were visiting AA in Philly, when we were at the trade show in Vegas, and even on our DreamJet printers (all using Kothari RIP). After several weeks of sub-par printing results (most things look ok or good, but not AMAZING), we finally received the Kothari-based RIP PRO from All American, and it was like someone turned on a light switch in our shop! Suddenly things were coming off the printer, one after another, looking as beautiful as ever. Believe me, it is the RIP and not some magic prepping that they did, to make this image print great on their printer but not other printers.

In fact, no matter how much prep work they do on the artwork, it should only improve the results on most printers, unless the RIP SETTINGS for a particular printer are not set up right. Like Jerid said, and Fred affirmed; it is obvious that the RIP was not properly utilized to print either of the two samples that came off the Mod1 - if you are an end user and you are having trouble reproducing INCREDIBLE ARTWORK, such as the file that I showed, maybe it's time to stop thinking so much about "file prep" or equipment limitations, and focus more on dialing in the RIP to properly process artwork. The RIP settings should be dialed in to handle the artwork, the artwork shouldn't be dialed in to handle the RIP settings! As long as you find that magic balance, I think most printers could reproduce the flaming guitar image.

The trick, of course, is finding knowledgeable distributors who are capable of fully educating you on how to best take advantage of the powerful settings within your particular RIP... If the distributors don't know, then we have to find out for ourselves!



JeridHill said:


> The show was crazy, I saw it on screen and told Justin that it most likely won't print correct but I'd try it anyway. He said no problem.
> 
> So I was a little surprised to see it posted with him knowing in advance it probably wasn't going to print right. I was juggling about three things at once.


Really Jerid? You're gonna pull this "I was shocked to see Justin posted the results", after I told you very clearly at the show that I was also having other printers do the same print in order to compare the results? First you're telling me you didn't have enough time to print one good sample, so instead you printed two crappy ones - you had more time than anybody else to print, as I pointed out, AND I gave you a second shot after the "bowling pin" print. Additionally, I was pretty sure I showed you the Neoflex print when I came by the booth, so you knew what you were up against, AND I told you (when you were tweaking the file to make it work properly on your printer) that I would come back by your booth to pick up the 2nd sample, after I went and had Brother print their version.

I don't like it when people imply that I misled them, blindsided them or in some other way was not completely fair with them - you had a FAIR SHOT to print those samples; you knew it was a comparison print, and you know how I like to post my comparisons for the benefit of all. I think I was MORE than diplomatic in the way I presented the information, and I think it is highlights my point that you had such a hard time with that file.... You can only really say one of two things here, Jerid:

1. "Yeah, our RIP software doesn't handle complex gradients like that, as well, without a lot of prep work to the artwork file. As long as the file is created for our printer, however, it should print fine."

- OR -

2. "I, as a distributor of this machine, don't fully understand how to print complex artwork files. I need to better learn the machine and the RIP software, so I can better educate and train my customers."

You cannot say that "lack of time", or "oh, I just didn't hit the one little magic box that would have made it look great, but for some reason I didn't do that" - you're the distributor, man! You, above all people, should not have trouble printing sample files that are provided to you by potential clients. Again, the point of this whole thread is to remind people that they might be able to go above and beyond what they perceive is possible, if they take the time to better understand their RIP..... In fact, it was prompted by a phone call I had with Printzilla the other day, whereas we discussed this very thing (RIP comparisons, how they can affect the final print quality and the possibility that some end users have figured out how to push the hardware beyond what comparable machines are capable of). The Mod1, Brother and Neoflex printers are all great! Each has its pros and cons, but that is not what this conversation is about... I can tell, however, that I have once again ruffled some feathers.


----------



## JeridHill

I was shocked to see the first shirt posted publicly after I told you in advance it wasn't going to print right. The second, I can understand because I didn't have time to print another sample because the show was over and it would have been more representative of the final print. The only difference was, there was a SINGLE button that if I would have checked it, there would have been no black ink printing, which would have done away with the black box. Regardless of what you believe, I was trying to do multiple things at once and all the while still talking with people. So I didn't work on your file the entire time. Maybe I should have understood this type of print better, but I never had to print these kinds of files. My mistake. I use my printer every day, I'm not only a dealer but a user. I just make sure my files are prepped right. If someone gives me a crappy file, I change it to make it work.

And no, you never showed me the NeoFlex print. You showed me the Brother print. You told me about the RIP, but never mentioned it was attributed to the NeoFlex.

Regardless, no matter what I say, you will continue to make it look like I am out to get you or making excuses, so once again, I have to simply ignore this post.


----------



## Justin Walker

JeridHill said:


> I was shocked to see the first shirt posted publicly after I told you in advance it wasn't going to print right. The second, I can understand because I didn't have time to print another sample because the show was over and it would have been more representative of the final print. The only difference was, there was a SINGLE button that if I would have checked it, there would have been no black ink printing, which would have done away with the black box.


Bottom line, I showed BOTH samples because it took you TWO to try and print the image. When we print one-offs in my shop, we don't do "sample" or "test prints"; we load the file, print and send it off to the client. If we had to do an initial sample print to dial in the printer, or even if we had to spend a couple brief minutes to process each file, our production time would be greatly increased and our bottom line would go through the roof. Therefore, the ENTIRE sample printing process had to be compared, on each machine; not just the final print.




JeridHill said:


> I use my printer every day, I'm not only a dealer but a user. I just make sure my files are prepped right. If someone gives me a crappy file, I change it to make it work.


The difference is, you were not handed a crappy file; you were handed an incredible looking flames image, with sharp details and vibrant colors. The only challenging part was the black background, which can be easily ignored in most RIP's (which leaves only the white ink level, the CMYK balance and the color profiles to process what is left).



JeridHill said:


> Regardless, no matter what I say, you will continue to make it look like I am out to get you or making excuses, so once again, I have to simply ignore this post.


Whatever you want, Man. The I'm-taking-my-ball-and-going-home move has been done before, so it doesn't offend me; this discussion is not about you, or your machine - it is about RIP software. You have interjected yourself, in the interest of defending yourself or your printing capabilities, when there is really no reason to do so. If you want to discuss specifics about how to make your RIP print better, and what steps actual end users would have to take in the field to produce the high-quality results that some of us are used to, then by all means stick around! All I've asked is that you not claim you were ambushed or blind-sided; each one of you had a chance to print the same image, however you deemed appropriate - if the show hadn't ended, I would have been at many other booths as well, asking other distributors to try that sample. That's what I get for waiting till the last two hours of the show to do this test!!


----------



## Stitch-Up

I've just received Kothari-based RIP called "NeoRIP PRO" from AA. To date, I've been using the older NeoRip software. I've not had any time to even look at the NeoRIP PRO but this weekend will be my first chance.

Any tips appreciated


----------



## Justin Walker

Stitch-Up said:


> I've just received Kothari-based RIP called "NeoRIP PRO" from AA. To date, I've been using the older NeoRip software. I've not had any time to even look at the NeoRIP PRO but this weekend will be my first chance.
> 
> Any tips appreciated


We only received our copy recently, as well, and have been working to get our heads around the best settings to use! We have been using a Kothari-RIP with our DreamJet printers for quite some time, so the basic functionality is very similar; the key is in selecting the proper media environments, and then tuning them to your liking. The thing that impressed me about the Kothari RIP, is the color profiles in particular; they aren't perfect, in my opinion (the greys come out bluish-purple, at times), but they sure beat what we've worked with in the past.

I don't know what profiles came with your setup, but ours had a couple of profiles marked "xxxxxx-old" - we started with the ones that appeared to be the newer ones, but we weren't happy with the results. Once we switched over to the "old" environment settings, things looked much better. We are still doing some testing to figure out what settings we will use for our production runs, on this particular set of printers, but my production manager should be getting in touch with the AA crew to get their recommendations on where to start.

One thing I noticed about the NeoRIP setup vs. the DreamRIP setup, is the fact that the guys at All American are taking advantage of different dot sizes for the color and CMYK layers; combined with color profiles that are set up for those particular ink volumes (and a host of other factors, of course), they seem to be doing some great things on the software side.

I will be starting a log soon, to share more of the "machine-specific" information in the appropriate forums, as we figure out more of the details! Hopefully if you find out anything that will help us out, you'll be interested in sharing as well!


----------



## Chapalahal

Stitch-Up said:


> I've just received Kothari-based RIP called "NeoRIP PRO" from AA. To date, I've been using the older NeoRip software. I've not had any time to even look at the NeoRIP PRO but this weekend will be my first chance.
> 
> Any tips appreciated


 Apparently, This software "knows" what type of art you feed it for perfect results. Please let us know if you can feed it artwork just like this and get perfect satisfaction without tweaking.


----------



## Justin Walker

Chapalahal said:


> Apparently, This software "knows" what type of art you feed it for perfect results. Please let us know if you can feed it artwork just like this and get perfect satisfaction without tweaking.


Yes, this is very clearly what I stated above... Never mind all that nonsense about variable dot size, color profile setup, "and a host of other factors."

Look people - the point is that some people could benefit from a better, more thorough understanding of how their RIP software operates to achieve optimal results (including, or perhaps especially, some distributors), and I really don't see a huge amount of discussion about that; only "my printer prints better than yours".... Well, why don't we spend a few minutes and ask ourselves (and each other) "WHY" one printer can print better than another, or why two of the same brand of printers can produce such drastically different reviews from people. Just a thought.


----------



## Justin Walker

JeridHill said:


> I imagine the NeoFlex and Mod1 are going to look pretty close, can you do a side by side image of those, in the flame areas like you show against the Brother?


Sorry for the delay.... Been pretty swamped recently!


























You can see that the particular adjustments made to the original file, prior to printing, have greatly washed out the bulk of the image. The "pop" that is seen in the Brother and the Neoflex prints, is not reflected in the Mod1 print. There is obviously a much lower volume of ink on the shirt, causing the print to look washed out. Due to the fact that the Epson print heads produce a higher-resolution print, the Mod1 print still displays a high level of detail; however, the issue with the print is that it is highly under saturated, rather than over saturated like the Brother print.

Again I will remind everyone that these prints do not reflect the true printing capabilities for either machine, but rather show decisively how important it can be to truly understand the proper RIP settings, when printing your images. A lot of talk goes around about "proper file prep", and comments were made that perhaps the Neoflex crew had created the artwork to print well on their printer, while not printing well on others. I don't believe this is a logical argument, due mostly to the fact that great looking artwork should print well on any platform. If further adjustments are required to get an image ready for a specific RIP process, then that should also be noted. In the case of the above print (right side, Mod1 print), I believe the operator of the machine simply used improper settings to print the file; understandably he was not pleased that I shared the sample print with the public, but I think it is important that we challenge our distributors to become better educated on the state of DTG printing, and the various processes associated with it.



FredP said:


> Also keep in mind that file was created by the makers of the Neo RIP with a specific purpose: To make their product look good and others look bad.


While I agree with most of what Fred has stated, my only additional clarification would be that a quick Google search was able to net the following web results: Amazing Flame Effects Images. The file was very clearly not created by the makers of the NeoRIP to "make their product look good and others look bad." In fact, like many other very challenging sample prints we have done over the years, it is just like any other decent quality image that you can find online, for the purposes of pushing your DTG printer, and your RIP software, to the limits.


----------



## Chapalahal

Justin Walker said:


> While I agree with most of what Fred has stated, my only additional clarification would be that a quick Google search was able to net the following web results: Amazing Flame Effects Images. The file was very clearly not created by the makers of the NeoRIP to "make their product look good and others look bad." In fact, like many other very challenging sample prints we have done over the years, it is just like any other decent quality image that you can find online, for the purposes of pushing your DTG printer, and your RIP software, to the limits.


Yes stock art, but because it had their logo on it, I would think that they WERE familiar with that graphic and may or may not have KNOWN the exact config to print it with. I agree that "distributors" would do best to know how their software and be able to jump through hoops at the shows, but the simple fact that someone opened the graphic and simply deleted the NEO tagline necessarily mean this was done on a level playing field. For instance, opening up a graphic in photoshop can change(and not ask or notify) the colorspace(depending on your user defaults) in which case we would not be comparing Apples to Apples. Again, I'm not saying that this is a hatchet job or that Jerid shouldn't have been "prepared". What I'm clarifying, is that people at booths have impressive graphics that will show off what their machine will do and If I take this same graphic to another booth they may not get it correct-right off the thumbdrive. To not know this is to not know the "art" of what we do. Justin, I do not question that you understand this. Thank you for opening up the dialogue "it's not the machine" and "Please make me a better RIP".


----------



## Justin Walker

Next time, I'll only use MY files.


----------



## loloxa

I firmly believe that the easiness of operating a rip(driver in my case) should hold a very important role when choosing a DTG solution. In my decision to buy the 782, the learning curve was very minimal coming from the 541, and although there was way less control on my part to adjust colors, or droplet size compared to a customary rip, that I can rip a file under a minute with fewer than 3 clicks was perfect for my environment. 

A very common situation in tradeshows is lack of anticipation from vendors, who sometimes do not foresee that clients might come with an art that has very specific requirements, and clients that only look at the machine without going to deep into the prep side of the art, which is obviously as important.

The art posted in this post could have been printed with better output in both the 782 and the mod1, but in tradeshows time is of essence and it gives you a very real feel of what a rush job might print like.

I will add that the brother prints have higher gamma than the source file and are inherently darker, so fine contrasts can be lost ( close shades of color will print the same color, they have to be almost 20% appart to produce a significant variation), less ink output corrects this, but I have found that on my light t-shirts washability suffers if the ink lay is scarce. I keep at hand a whole bunch of printed samples whit a paper printed copy of the art, that I encourage my clients to examine for quality and detail, I cover my basis and the clients have realistic expectations of a final print.

Forgive my ignorance, but could the NeoRIP PRO work with another 4880 or the custom firmware is the key? also, can you drop not just black but another color, let's say "magenta begone"?

regards


----------



## Rodney

Interesting thread indeed. Thanks for starting the discussion, Justin.

I'm hoping to host a similar printer/rip comparison for the DTG section here soon


----------



## zoom_monster

loloxa said:


> post could have been printed with better output in both the 782 and the mod1, but in tradeshows time is of essence and it gives you a very real feel of what a rush job might print like.


"Realworld" indeed


----------



## binki

I am a little late to this discussion but Justin is right about the rip and the settings. We have made quite a number of changes to ours over the years and have come up with much nicer prints than when we started out. There is a fine balance between the RIP, the Artwork, The garment, and the Printer. 

It is great that you took the time to post the prints and the review.

One thing that really bothered me was our vendor never took the time to explain the RIP process and all the settings and what they meant. I am not sure they understood them either.


----------



## Justin Walker

My pleasure! I stopped by your shop today and dropped off the sample prints for you to look at; I'll swing by tomorrow and we can talk about them. Hope all is well at your place!


----------



## cmos

Very interesting
I use multirip by iproof, reading the white generating gave me a major headache but after reading and testing i got some very good prints. Im still new in DTG this would be a challenge for me to print.
I will try it for sure!
Thanks Justin for starting the thread and sharing the resource


----------



## binki

Justin Walker said:


> My pleasure! I stopped by your shop today and dropped off the sample prints for you to look at; I'll swing by tomorrow and we can talk about them. Hope all is well at your place!


Hey thanks. I am there now but getting ready for a dinner break before we come back. I will take a look at the samples and give you a call.


----------



## TPrintDesigner

loloxa said:


> I will add that the brother prints have higher gamma than the source file and are inherently darker, so fine contrasts can be lost ( close shades of color will print the same color, they have to be almost 20% appart to produce a significant variation)


I agree. Shades of red are the worst for this problem but I've found a quick way to improve results. In Photoshop, use the curve function (IMAGE > ADJUSTMENTS > CURVES) to boost the contrast between the shades.


----------



## benderr

HI!! cool post!!

Can anybody tell me if the NeoRip Software works with a standar Epson 4880 ?

or Where i can buy the Kothari-based RIP ?

Thank you very much!


----------



## Justin Walker

FredP said:


> I don't have that graphic but I'm pretty certain that the wrong type of white generation method was used on the MOD1 RIP. I'm not talking about artwork prep, I'm talking about RIP settings. It can use several methods for white generation. You can see the results instantly on the screen so I'm not sure why that shirt was ever commited to ink, much less given to anyone. I'll make sure it gets printed it correctly and that the true results are posted.
> 
> The iProof RIP has thousands of units in the field, all performing quite well on graphics like that guitar with zero prep. Believe me, a RIP that can't print a graphic such as that would not sell ANY copies, much less thousands of them.
> 
> Also keep in mind that file was created by the makers of the Neo RIP with a specific purpose: To make their product look good and others look bad.
> 
> Belquette will be posting the results once the file is printed with the correct settings.
> 
> -- Fred


How's that re-print sample coming along? I am very curious to see the same print done, by anybody who might know how to get the best results out of the iProof RIP.

A lot of talk was made about how unfair the comparison was, how there "wasn't enough time" to get decent results, how the file was prepared to only print on the Neoflex printers, etc; its now been one week since there was talk about reprinting it - just seeing if that was enough time?


----------



## ludicrousman

Man, interesting thread. We just bought a Mod1 last week. The printer seems fine, but not too impressed with the RIP. I hope that the result of this thread is improving iproof. Is proof the only RIP that will work for Mod1?
I really wish we could avoid the whole RIP altogether and just print straight from Photoshop. I don't regret buying the Mod1, but wish we could use the neo RIP software.
Fred, I know you have been working on the RIP for years. Are you working on an upgrade? It would be great to know that you are working on improving the RIP to make printing complex images as easy as possible. 
Any thought about finally supporting RiP for a Mac? Now that would finally be some progress. It's kind of embarrassing that an industry (design) that is based around a Mac has to use a PC to print. It's totally absurd. When I went to the show in Vegas, about 90% of the people were mac users and porter their art to PC to print Am I the only one that sees a problem here?


----------



## ludicrousman

Man, interesting thread. We just bought a Mod1 last week. The printer seems fine, but not too impressed with the RIP. I hope that the result of this thread is improving iproof. Is proof the only RIP that will work for Mod1?
I really wish we could avoid the whole RIP altogether and just print straight from Photoshop. I don't regret buying the Mod1, but wish we could use the neo RIP software.
Fred, I know you have been working on the RIP for years. Are you working on an upgrade? It would be great to know that you are working on improving the RIP to make printing complex images as easy as possible. 
Any thought about finally supporting RiP for a Mac? Now that would finally be some progress. It's kind of embarrassing that an industry (design) that is based around a Mac has to use a PC to print. It's totally absurd. When I went to the show in Vegas, about 90% of the people were mac users and porter their art to PC to print Am I the only one that sees a problem here?


----------



## FredP

Actually, you CAN print from Photoshop, although you still need a RIP. The native Epson driver can't drive white ink, etc.

Sorry to hear you're not happy with the software. Yes, of course there will be updates. It has always been our policy to be the best. If there are problems, we fix them. Simple as that. 

PM me and we will start a dialog. We have thousands of very satisfied users. We want you to be one of them.



-- Fred


----------



## TahoeTomahawk

FredP said:


> If there are problems, we fix them. Simple as that.


And that my friends is how it's done!


----------



## essen48183

Hear, Hear! Bring us a mac RIP! I have a desktop computer solely used as a dtg rip. What a waste of money and space. It is a PITA to email the files to it, open them save them, open the rip, and finally hit send. Why can't we plug in the usb cable and just hit print from the mac?


----------



## JeridHill

Essen, you should be able to network the PC and then share a folder across the network. After that, on the Mac, just pull up the shared file and drag and drop it in the folder. That way, when you go to the PC, the file will already be there.


----------



## Belquette

ludicrousman said:


> Man, interesting thread. We just bought a Mod1 last week. The printer seems fine, but not too impressed with the RIP. I hope that the result of this thread is improving iproof. Is proof the only RIP that will work for Mod1?
> I really wish we could avoid the whole RIP altogether and just print straight from Photoshop. I don't regret buying the Mod1, but wish we could use the neo RIP software.
> Fred, I know you have been working on the RIP for years. Are you working on an upgrade? It would be great to know that you are working on improving the RIP to make printing complex images as easy as possible.


We can log onto your PC Monday if you would like and walk you through how easy it is to print from Photoshop or your app of choice or without any app at all.
If there is something you find that could be improved we can do it, after all we are the developers.


----------



## FatKat Printz

JeridHill said:


> Essen, you should be able to network the PC and then share a folder across the network. After that, on the Mac, just pull up the shared file and drag and drop it in the folder. That way, when you go to the PC, the file will already be there.


Better yet get the Apple Mac Mini Server..
Apple - Mac mini with Snow Leopard Server


----------



## DTG Digital

This is by far the best thread that has been on the forums for quite a while -- Well done justin i love the report!!.

I have been drilling the distributor base for DTG Digital for ages about the quality of RIP and colors and ICC profiling and just how important it is.

You get what you pay for as far as features etc in a RIP./ I am not saying that some of our RIP vendors are not a good product - far from it. BUT i like development that benefits our customer base.

All the BS about played with files is just that - RIPS are different and some are just better than others. There is NO defending it - It is that apparent. I hope this thread stirs up results.
Steve


----------



## FredP

essen48183 said:


> Hear, Hear! Bring us a mac RIP! I have a desktop computer solely used as a dtg rip. What a waste of money and space. It is a PITA to email the files to it, open them save them, open the rip, and finally hit send. Why can't we plug in the usb cable and just hit print from the mac?


You can!! You share the printer on the PC. For example, "_Belquette mod1 Color & White_" and you can print to it from your Mac. The PPDs necessary are on the root of the install CD in a folder called PPD.

At print time, select your resolutions, etc. It's very easy and documented in the manual. You can have the RIP create the white layer for you (for example, put a black-background on your artwork and select "Color Layer Auto-Mask Black Bkgnd")... or... for you power-users, you can create and use your own white layer. 

This way you can print directly from your favorite Mac program and don't have to mess with the PC all that much.


-- Fred


----------



## FredP

DTG Digital said:


> This is by far the best thread that has been on the forums for quite a while -- Well done justin i love the report!!.
> 
> I have been drilling the distributor base for DTG Digital for ages about the quality of RIP and colors and ICC profiling and just how important it is.
> 
> You get what you pay for as far as features etc in a RIP./ I am not saying that some of our RIP vendors are not a good product - far from it. BUT i like development that benefits our customer base.
> 
> All the BS about played with files is just that - RIPS are different and some are just better than others. There is NO defending it - It is that apparent. I hope this thread stirs up results.
> Steve


I agree absolutely. There are thousands of very happy users in the US running the iProof RIP on your printers so point well taken. I'm a little upset that a misprint of the mod1 was used in this report (printed with bad settings) but hopefully the correct print will be posted soon.

-- Fred


----------



## DTG Digital

Fred

It wasnt a misprint on the Mod1 - thats how your RIP prints untill its played with.

Why not take the feedback as just that - and get a better result- Customers need it

Steve


----------



## FredP

DTG Digital said:


> Fred
> 
> It wasnt a misprint on the Mod1 - thats how your RIP prints untill its played with.
> 
> Why not take the feedback as just that - and get a better result- Customers need it
> 
> Steve


Yes it was, Steve. It was printed with the wrong settings. The file doens't need to be touched. the print settings were set wrong. The "use black ink" checkbox should not have been checked for that type of file. Customers get way better results than that every day.
Do you not remember that basketball shirt you practically wrestled out of my hands the last trade show we attended about a year ago? It was so good you took it to show the "other" guys because they couldn't come close to that quality. I still have the artwork if you'd like me to remind you.

-- Fred


----------



## zoom_monster

DTG Digital said:


> Fred
> 
> It wasnt a misprint on the Mod1 - thats how your RIP prints untill its played with.
> 
> Why not take the feedback as just that - and get a better result- Customers need it
> 
> Steve


 I think the point is that the "driver" still needs to know how to drive the car. No RIP that is out there will automatically understand the design. Also, In the real world, not all art is optimum, so yes you have play with it or at least catagorize it in a way that the best settings are used.


----------



## DTG Digital

Fred

half our resellers are with you and half with Khotari- I understand the difference completely Fred.

So YES I'm saying we need better colors. If you cant do it then make ICC's available to be uploaded

C'mon Fred I just want customers to get better results

Steve


----------



## DTG Digital

zoom_monster said:


> I think the point is that the "driver" still needs to know how to drive the car. No RIP that is out there will automatically understand the design. Also, In the real world, not all art is optimum, so yes you have play with it or at least catagorize it in a way that the best settings are used.


"Z" im not beating up on Fred - We have a lot of History 
I just want better color profiles and more intuition from the s/w.

Im just glad this forum has been started

Steve


----------



## FredP

> I think the point is that the "driver" still needs to know how to drive the car. No RIP that is out there will automatically understand the design. Also, In the real world, not all art is optimum, so yes you have play with it or at least catagorize it in a way that the best settings are used.


Exactly. If the artwork had a transparent background, you use the "use transparency" method of white generation. That graphic had a black background so you use the "use background color" method of white generation. Since the background color was black, you need to turn off the black ink... if you don't do that it will look funky. This is something a user will know just by looking at the screen before you even print.

Believe me, the other rips have settings too. If it was all 100% automagic, why do they have different options? LOL. Because we ALL have settings... .and if you set them wrong it won't print as well. THAT'S WHY THEY'RE THERE on ALL RIPs.


-- Fred


----------



## FredP

DTG Digital said:


> Fred
> 
> half our resellers are with you and half with Khotari- I understand the difference completely Fred.
> 
> So YES I'm saying we need better colors. If you cant do it then make ICC's available to be uploaded
> 
> C'mon Fred I just want customers to get better results
> 
> Steve


Color profiles are extremely important, I agree. However, the problem with the print in question is NOT color profiles. It's the print setting (see my post above). If printed with the correct settings it will look as good or better than the Kathari print.
I understand your concern, brotha... Don't worry, users of your printers are not getting that type of stuff off your machines. Believe me, the villagers would be outside my door with torches and pitchforks if that were the case. Just ask your US distributors. 

Are you back in the office or are you still on Walkabout? ;-)

** Fred


----------



## DTG Digital

Fred

No im here!!
Walkabout starts on the 22nd

Agreed theres no pitchforks - but id like to see a lot of people lining up for the next best color profiles!

Anyway have had my dig........i'll catch up before Xmas

Cheers Steve


----------



## FredP

I'm still looking for the full resolution version of this picture. This is a picture of the actual shirt. It was printed with the iProof RIP (MultiRIP GP) on an Anajet. NONE of the RIPs on the show floor could touch the quality we got on this shirt. I had to print another one for myself because Steve took mine to go shame the Kathari guys with it LOL.

You want to hear the REAL irony of this? *IT WAS PRINTED BY JUSTIN WALKER on the iProof RIP *over two years ago. It was witnessed by MANY.











Now, that's how it looks when you print with the proper settings. I'm going to get personally involved in this to make sure the guitar gets printed properly this week.

This picture doesn't even do the shirt justice. The basketball even FELT real LOL. By the way the baskeball artwork is by Great Dane Graphics.

The color match the screen EXACTLY which means the ICC color profiles are VERY good. 

** Fred

PS: To print this shirt I selected "use transparency" for the white generation. Clicked the "Create" button and clicked "OK". That's it. Artwork was not touched.


----------



## vinyl signs

Fred,
One thing that I think could help the end users is a better printed/electronic manual with examples of the artwork before processed and screen shot of preview after RIP processed. This would help the end users choose the correct settings and also have a reference for future jobs they may not see all to often!


----------



## FredP

vinyl signs said:


> Fred,
> One thing that I think could help the end users is a better printed/electronic manual with examples of the artwork before processed and screen shot of preview after RIP processed. This would help the end users choose the correct settings and also have a reference for future jobs they may not see all to often!


 
I will certainly pass you comment on!

In the mean time, in the "Print From Addendum" which is installed with the RIP (see the Documentation folder in the RIPs program group), starting on page 9 it describes which white-ink layer generation method works with which type of graphic and provides examples with screen-shots, etc.

-- Fred


----------



## FatKat Printz

FredP said:


> You can!! You share the printer on the PC. For example, "_Belquette mod1 Color & White_" and you can print to it from your Mac. The PPDs necessary are on the root of the install CD in a folder called PPD.


Fred-

I am still confused about the "print to" and "print from" features.. we use Corel and Adobe and print to RIP. I know the print from RIP cost extra. I have a K2(RIP V04) is this option extra on the MOD or is this not what you are talking about?

My Rip version can it be used on a Mac? 

Can you explain the benefits of the "print from" features? besides not having to use additional software. Why does it cost extra? Is this option not something you try to sell? 

We are having some Windows issues and the crashing is causing many delays so another option to print would be great.


----------



## FredP

FatKat Printz said:


> Fred-
> 
> I am still confused about the "print to" and "print from" features.. we use Corel and Adobe and print to RIP. I know the print from RIP cost extra. I have a K2(RIP V04) is this option extra on the MOD or is this not what you are talking about?
> 
> My Rip version can it be used on a Mac?
> 
> Can you explain the benefits of the "print from" features? besides not having to use additional software. Why does it cost extra? Is this option not something you try to sell?
> 
> We are having some Windows issues and the crashing is causing many delays so another option to print would be great.


*NO, Print From is not extra!! It is included in ALL our RIPs since 2008. Yes, on the mod1 as well*.

"Print To" means you print "to" the RIP from any application. Corel, Photoshop, etc.

"Print From" means you open the artwork directly in the RIP, size it and print it. If you have V04 you already have the Print From. No extra charge.

The advantages depend on your preferences. The print-to allows you to print from applications you're familiar with. Just learn the different layer types and you're off and running.

The print-from allows you to open and print the graphic directly in the RIP. An added advantage is that it allows you to use transparency information to automatically create your background. A lot of artwork such as the Great Dane stuff has a transparent background. The RIP can use this to create a very good white underbase automatically, feathering, etc. Most people use that method because it will print equally well on ANY COLOR shirt, not just black. The create-job dialog also lets you preview the graphic before you commit to ink. You can change the background color, etc. to see what it will look like when printed.

If you're running V04 then you have it. Just go to File/Create Job. For info on the features, see the aforementioned document "Print From Addendum" in the documentation section.

As far as the Mac... It will run in a Windows emulator but not "directly" on a Mac. You can also network the two machines and print to the PC from the Mac. The PPDs are included on the RIP's CD.

Please make sure that you're running the very latest version. There were some glitches that were fixed which were causing occational crashing.


-- Fred


----------



## FatKat Printz

FredP said:


> *NO, Print From is not extra!! It is included in ALL our RIPs since 2008. Yes, on the mod1 as well*.
> 
> "Print To" means you print "to" the RIP from any application. Corel, Photoshop, etc.
> 
> "Print From" means you open the artwork directly in the RIP, size it and print it. If you have V04 you already have the Print From. No extra charge.
> 
> The advantages depend on your preferences. The print-to allows you to print from applications you're familiar with. Just learn the different layer types and you're off and running.
> 
> The print-from allows you to open and print the graphic directly in the RIP. An added advantage is that it allows you to use transparency information to automatically create your background. A lot of artwork such as the Great Dane stuff has a transparent background. The RIP can use this to create a very good white underbase automatically, feathering, etc. Most people use that method because it will print equally well on ANY COLOR shirt, not just black. The create-job dialog also lets you preview the graphic before you commit to ink. You can change the background color, etc. to see what it will look like when printed.
> 
> If you're running V04 then you have it. Just go to File/Create Job. For info on the features, see the aforementioned document "Print From Addendum" in the documentation section.
> 
> -- Fred


Thank you so much for clarification.

Ok, now I forgot to ask..this is where the confusion began http://www.t-shirtforums.com/dtg-brand/t136298.html

this "unlock code" I have never ran into it because I have had CD and AI since I bought my printer.


----------



## FredP

FatKat Printz said:


> Thank you so much for clarification.
> 
> Ok, now I forgot to ask..this is where the confusion began http://www.t-shirtforums.com/dtg-brand/t136298.html
> 
> this "unlock code" I have never ran into it because I have had CD and AI since I bought my printer.


Ah, ok. PDF, PS and EPS are a bit different. There is a nominal charge for supporting these. I'll try to keep the answer short and accurate.

The print-from supports all the popular "raster" file types for no extra cost (TIFF, JPEG, PSD, PNG, TGA, GIF, etc.). However, EPS, PS and PDF files are vector formats, not raster formats. These have to be rasterized when they are opened. When I wrote the Create Job feature I used a graphic toolset. This toolset has a plugin which allows for importing of PDF, EPS and PS files... but a royalty must be paid per copy. So, rather than stick EVERYONE with the extra cost we made it an option. Since it's just as easy to export to a PSD, PNG or whatever, most people don't need it so the decision turned out to be sound. If you need it, you purchase the option and you get an unlock code to activate the feature.

-- Fred

[EDIT] There is no problem and no extra charge for printing PS, EPS or PDF "to" the RIP from applications like Photoshop, Corel, Illustrator, etc. The limitation is for printing directly from the RIP only.


----------



## FatKat Printz

Thank you .. Thank you!!

I just didn't want to be missing out on any key features of my RIP.


----------



## zoom_monster

DTG Digital said:


> "Z" im not beating up on Fred - We have a lot of History





DTG Digital said:


> I just want better color profiles and more intuition from the s/w.
> 
> Im just glad this forum has been started
> 
> Steve


 Steve, No problem.... I understand that on the user end, people think that the "easy button" is within reach, but this is just marketing BS or in the case of this thread: “cheerleading”. When most customers of DTGs and their customer do not understand "better profiles" it makes it hard to compare apples to apples, because if a user thows a file created on a system that’s not calibrated to those profiles then they will get varying results and blame the expert for giving them the faulty tool/machine. Everyone here is better served with a better and easier set of tools..... and the tools DO get better, but along with that, users and sellers need to get educated too. There are people out there that get great results with whatever RIP they have because they understand how to use it in their situation. I think we can all agree. 

Yes good thread.


----------



## kevrokr

FredP said:


> You want to hear the REAL irony of this? *IT WAS PRINTED BY JUSTIN WALKER on the iProof RIP *over two years ago. It was witnessed by MANY.


Yikes. On which machine?


----------



## FredP

kevrokr said:


> Yikes. On which machine?


This particular shirt was printed on an Anajet. Justin Walker brought the file over and printed it using MultiRIP GP (iProof). I would love to see this sucker on the mod1! I'll send you the file.


-- Fred


----------



## Justin Walker

FredP said:


> ... I'll make sure it gets printed it correctly and that the true results are posted.
> 
> The iProof RIP has thousands of units in the field, all performing quite well on graphics like that guitar with zero prep. Believe me, a RIP that can't print a graphic such as that would not sell ANY copies, much less thousands of them....
> 
> ... Belquette will be posting the results once the file is printed with the correct settings.





FredP said:


> Sorry to hear you're not happy with the software. Yes, of course there will be updates. It has always been our policy to be the best. If there are problems, we fix them. Simple as that.
> 
> PM me and we will start a dialog. We have thousands of very satisfied users. We want you to be one of them.





FredP said:


> There are thousands of very happy users in the US running the iProof RIP on your printers so point well taken. I'm a little upset that a misprint of the mod1 was used in this report (printed with bad settings) but hopefully the correct print will be posted soon.


About three times you have equated "having thousands of RIPs in the field" to somehow being the "best", and three times you have promised to reprint that "misprint", in the last two weeks - how long does it take to choose the proper print settings....?

Listen, Fred, nobody is calling your RIP crap, but really its not the number of units you sell that determines how great it is or isn't..... In this same thread where you've mentioned (several times) that YOU'RE the best and nobody else comes close, you've had current AND former clients offer conflicting feedback, as well as a distributor of your product who openly and boldly told you what he felt. On top of that, I KNOW FOR A FACT that other people who use (and sell) your product have been practically begging you guys to make changes or fixes to the iProof RIP, especially in light of the recent DIRECT comparison. Maybe Bagley wants to chime in here and let us know what he thinks?



DTG Digital said:


> Fred
> 
> It wasnt a misprint on the Mod1 - thats how your RIP prints untill its played with.
> 
> Why not take the feedback as just that - and get a better result- Customers need it
> 
> Steve


Whether it was a "misprint" or not, BOTH shirts off the iProof RIP (remember, there were TWO printed, not one) were done by the single largest (only?) dealer of the Mod1 system - if you want to make comments to someone about "why did those prints ever get into the hands of potential clients at a trade show???", start with the dealers who were printing the samples.

I agree with Steve - take the feedback for what it is, and possibly make changes where you find out there is room for improvement.... It should be the users of your RIP jumping in here to claim it is the "best", and then you thanking them for their feedback; not YOU claiming over and over again that you're the "best", then arguing with anyone who disagrees with you.

Fred - you, Jerid and probably everyone at Belquette has the hi-res flames file that was "misprinted" at the show - I ask you again, how long does it take to use the proper settings and knock out a reprint? I wouldn't be harping about the reprint, but you've said on multiple occasions that it would be done, and you continue to make little comments about how you're surprised or upset that the "misprint" was even used in this thread (ignoring, for a minute, the fact that it was an equipment DEALER who printed, and handed out the samples) - well, if you don't want THAT to be the comparison for this evaluation, then show us something better!

Of COURSE the print settings matter, and of COURSE the person "driving" the RIP is going to make all the difference in the world in the final output..... That doesn't change the fact that the end users need to be shown how to use these features, and how to properly dial them in for various prints - how long were the Flexi's in the field before I finally found out (and then subsequently posted a notice to ALL Flexi owners on both Brian Walker's forums, as well as probably the old Flexi forum) that the "Vivid - Darker" setting would greatly improve spot color printing? How many other things about your RIP do you suppose we helped disseminate, or help recommend for development? Did you also forget that it was me and Dan and a handful of others who spent so much time on your old C-Horse forum, where we would offer constant behind-the-scenes-feedback to help you improve your product, loooooooong before you had "thousand of units in the field"? Interesting how you would eat up my advice and criticism, to get the RIP dialed in when you first started supporting the Flexi, but now many years later (when I actually have much more experience with equipment, RIP's, etc) the best you can do is post a picture of a shirt printed by me, two years ago, and somehow point out the "irony" of the fact that I pointed out a shortcoming in your software, two years later......? Weird, dude.....

I haven't used the iProof RIP "in production" for many years, so I am sure it is even better than it was when I had used it. I also am convinced that the correct print settings were not used, although I am pretty sure I covered that IN THE FIRST POST OF THIS THREAD. I am NOT convinced that iProof makes the best RIP, however, based on this and many other direct comparisons; nobody here needs to agree with me, although I already know that a lot of you do (maybe not Fred or Jerid). It has always been my purpose to find the best products and solutions for my real-world production facility; if the iProof were it, we would have four copies right now...... This is simply MY PERSONAL OPINION, so take it for what it's worth. I know you care a lot about your product, Fred, as we all do, and I have always liked you as a person (and I LOVE hanging out with you, you know that!), so I understand why you are so adamant about protecting it in this case. Simply try to understand that this is not meant to be a negative thing; I just want people to know how radically different results can be achieved by different RIP software, by different users of the SAME RIP software, or by different hardware combinations; there are lots of variables here, and the more we talk about them the better we will all be.

I just hope that the makers of the various products take the time to listen to the "feedback from the field", and not lose touch with where much of their information came from in the early days: through FEEDBACK by USERS IN THE FIELD, suggesting ways to improve keys features or offering new ideas to be implemented! I guess once you get "thousands of units in the field", you don't need to listen to the people who helped you get there, in the first place.


----------



## Justin Walker

FredP said:


> This particular shirt was printed on an Anajet. Justin Walker brought the file over and printed it using MultiRIP GP (iProof). I would love to see this sucker on the mod1! I'll send you the file.


Fred, I don't think that image was brought by me; I usually don't take artwork to the trade shows, unless I am doing a side-by-side comparison. I am pretty confident that artwork was there from Mark or someone else, since I didn't do much with Great Dane artwork either.

You must be referring to the show in Florida, when we all rented that house for the week? If that is the one, then I remember it well; the booth I was helping out in was selling the Anajet printer (who knows why?) - since I was helping out there all week, I was indeed doing some of the printing (also, since I knew your RIP from my Flexi days). If I remember correctly, Mark made the decision to run the iProof RIP on the Anajet, at the show, because it indeed produced much better results than the stock RIP, at the time (remember, everyone, this was two years ago). This was one of the first major indications to me, that the RIP you use can actually make more of a difference than the hardware itself (in some cases).

At no point have I said that your RIP can't produce awesome results; if you feel I have said this, then please re-read my posts and feel free to quote me here, so I can elaborate.


----------



## FredP

Justin,

First of all I said "it is our policty to be the best". Meaning that what we strive for. Wether we're the best or not is up to the users. Agreed.

We have thousdands of units out not only because I listen to the users, *but because I ACT on what I hear*. It has been that way from the beginning. Yes, of course I remember the FlexiJet forum and all you contributed. You, YoDan, Mistiwoods and many others. You remember how I listened and implemented the changes to improve the product? Well, I still do that. For example, the last revision to the mod1 RIP was last week! 

As far as "how long does it take to print with the right settings"... well, let me point out that I'm busy with many projects. It takes a while for me to "drop everything". I don't have the time to type pages and pages on forums (as apparently you do). Also... I don't have access to a printer right now (although Belquette and SWF are within driving distance). The Belquette folks are extremely busy producing their printers and these distractions, albeit necessary, sometimes have to wait a few days. I've talked to Belquette... they'll be printing it this week and posting pictures and video.

No, that's not the ONLY file that we can use to prove quality. I chose that file because appropriately enough, it was printed by you. Yes, I remember it was indeed you. It doesn't really matter, though. It's a nice print.

Anyway, rest assured that if this thread brings to light any deficiency in our product it will be handled immediately. Simple as that. Still... just like with any other RIP... you've got to use the right settings.


-- Fred


----------



## FredP

> Whether it was a "misprint" or not, BOTH shirts off the iProof RIP (remember, there were TWO printed, not one) were done by the single largest (only?) dealer of the Mod1 system - if you want to make comments to someone about "why did those prints ever get into the hands of potential clients at a trade show???", start with the dealers who were printing the samples.


Oh, believe me, comments were made. Those two shirts should have been printed correctly. I think the problem was that your file had a black background and the dealer is used to printing only sample files with transparent backgrounds.

I took offense to the "it's not a misprint" comment by Steve because it IS a misprint and besides, how would he know? He's never run the RIP in his life  

Anyway, the whole thing just looks a bit "agenda oriented" so I guess my BS-o-meter started blaring.

... Good results speak for themselves. And, if the results aren't good... then we fix it. That's how you stay competitive. 

-- Fred


----------



## FredP

> On top of that, I KNOW FOR A FACT that other people who use (and sell) your product have been practically begging you guys to make changes or fixes to the iProof RIP, especially in light of the recent DIRECT comparison. Maybe Bagley wants to chime in here and let us know what he thinks?


Be careful... you need to check your facts more carefully. I know some stuff "for a fact" too about certain motivations people may have. Lets not go there.

If Mark Bagley wants to ask anything of iProof all he has to do is pick up his cell phone. I'm on speed-dial. He gets WAY MORE from iProof than he would ever get from ANYONE else. Do you know "for a fact" how much development he's gotten from me over the years for no cost? I do. 

Ok, that's enough for me. The longer I'm here doing this the longer I'm not doing what I should be (and get paid to be) doing.

-- Fred


----------



## essen48183

Wow, good thread. My call out for a mac version is because I love multirip gp. The profiles are indeed great. I did forget that it could be networked. I will set that up, saving the email attachment. But that doesn't change the fact that us mac users had to go drop money and space on a huge desktop that is sitting there just to be a go-between. It serves no other purpose in my shop and had to be bought for that because, using the trial version, I quickly got tired of shutting down my mac and rebooting in bootcamp with windows. I don't have photoshop/illy for windows, and I am not buying a whole separate setup for that. I would've paid another $400 to the makers of multirip instead of giving it to bill gates... it would have been a wash and they'd have made 50% more money. I bet there are alot of other people who feel the same way. It is literally the one single app that is not available for the mac. We have photoshop, illy, accurip, screenprint separator, plotter software, even the I2 plugin for embroidery (that is a little too rich for my blood) from illustrator. It is ashame to have to go out and buy a computer just to run your program. I predict that the first company to make a mac DTG rip will quickly take a huge market share.


----------



## FredP

I cannot make any official statements regarding a Mac version. However.... lets just say.... it's not as impossible as it was half an hour ago 


-- Fred


----------



## essen48183

You tha man!


----------



## murtceps

Wow, you guys are passionate about RIPs!!

Newbie to DTG here. 

Just got my T-Jet 2 ripping w/ Fast RIP and not happy at all w/ the underbasing feature. I just ordered my upgrade to EZ Rip from Equipment Zone. Too bad EZ Rip does not offer any trial/demo software before I spent my $$$ 

I demoed the EK Rip and MRGP before deciding on just upgrading to EZ Rip. I guess my deciding factor was mainly the price (half of what i would've paid for EK or MRGP) upgrade from Fast Rip to EZ Rip.

Anyone from EZ care to enlighten this thread and elaborate more on EZ Rip compare to EK, MRGP, Kothari....etc? 

Ease of use mainly for newbies like me???

Does EZ mean "easy" or Equipment Zone? 

Thanks!


----------



## DTG Digital

[ 
I took offense to the "it's not a misprint" comment by Steve because it IS a misprint and besides, how would he know? He's never run the RIP in his life  

Anyway, the whole thing just looks a bit "agenda oriented" so I guess my BS-o-meter started blaring.


OOOHHH....them fightin words.....OK I was going to let this thread go without jumping in again .......... I guess now i cant Frederick!!

You are right i dont know one RIP from another.. Just sold over 5000 sets globally and YES mostly not Iproof. (sorry had to have a dig at the thousands comments been thrown around)

There is an easy settle to this if Mark and Justin are up for it??

Justin select five images you know are diffulcult to print.
Fred tweak them to your hearts content
Mark if he's willing to play can print them
And I'll supply the RIP's


I truly love the idea of putting this to the test FRED there is an opportunity to increase our ability and generate better results for end users!!......we cant get better than that.......could call it THE GREAT RIP OFF

I do love a Challenge


----------



## FredP

Haha, the great RIP-Off... that's clever. The "how would he know" was "my" dig. Mostly to harass you . I thought it was intersting that you said that since you've actually never printed with our RIP... but it was mostly to get your goat.

If it's 5000 then it can't be "mostly not iProof"... I know this because I can add. I know how many RIPs we sold for your printers, remember?  There are also other version of our RIP out there as well.

A "RIP-Off" would be good fun. It could include things like versatility (like printing from apps as well as from the RIP, etc.), printer speed, RIP speed as well as RIPping quality. 

In the end, competition is good for everyone. The vendors get better and the end-users get better products.

-- Fred


----------



## Justin Walker

DTG Digital said:


> .......could call it THE GREAT RIP OFF


Now that is hilarious.  Besides the manufacturers', or the dealers' ability to set up properly for a print job, I think the bigger picture simply requires a greater amount of communication and education to the end users. For the most part, Fred is right; with the proper settings, most RIP's should be able to print complex images, such as the one in this thread. The problem is that many end users don't have the proper training on their RIP software, which is vital to the success of their business, overall. I simply don't see why we can't have some open discussion on it!

This was not meant to be a "mine is better than your's" thread, but I think I focused my early disclaimers too much on trying not to offend the equipment manufacturers; I should add that this was not meant to disparage any RIP company, but to show how much of an impact your RIP software and SETUP can have on your ultimate print quality - in some cases, it can have as much or more to do with your end results, than the choice of hardware you make. I believe I did at least succeed in drawing the conversation away from the same 'ol boring "my printer is better than your's", at least for a moment.


----------



## Justin Walker

FredP said:


> let me point out that I'm busy with many projects. It takes a while for me to "drop everything". I don't have the time to type pages and pages on forums (as apparently you do).


PS - although I do agree with some of what you said, and disagree with some of what you said, and I want to leave this on a healthy note, but I will point out that I take offense when people try to take low-blows like this, during the course of an argument.

We are ALL very busy people, Fred, with MANY irons in the fire; the fact that some of us might be able to (or care to) type longer, more detailed posts with relative quickness and an uncanny, intuitive level of mastery over the the English language should not be applied as a negative thing.

Besides, here you are indulging in the conversation, so obviously you DO have time to hang around here and BS with the rest of us hooligans.


----------



## equipmentzone1

cheapboxers said:


> Anyone from EZ care to enlighten this thread and elaborate more on EZ Rip compare to EK, MRGP, Kothari....etc?
> 
> Ease of use mainly for newbies like me???
> 
> Does EZ mean "easy" or Equipment Zone?
> 
> Thanks!


You mentioned that you're a newbie to direct-to-garment printing. EZ Artist 2.0 and EZ RIP is for newbies and advanced users. Beginners can just click "Print" on the default settings and get a good looking printout, since EZ Artist 2.0 and EZ RIP creates a gradient underbase layer for you. 

More advanced users can adjust the underbase layer and increase or decrease ink laydown, along with the ability to tweak several other advanced settings.

You'll still need good artwork, as with any RIP. But we tried to make the printing process quick and simple for novice users. There are 4 or 5 different ways to go from artwork to print in EZ Artist 2.0 and EZ RIP. We built it that way because a novice user printing dozens of t-shirts is going to need a different workflow than a large corporation printing thousands of shirts.

You'll most likely be using one or two of the following workflows:*1) Drag and Drop*

Take your finished artwork from a folder on your computer, and drag and drop it onto the EZ RIP window. A dialog box will pop up, asking you what print and underbase settings you'd like to use, unless you've set these settings already. Then, you position your artwork on the shirt board template and click print. 

There's a video on this method here: YouTube - How to Print a Dark T-Shirt with EZ RIP Direct-to-Garment Printer Software* 

2) Printing from EZ Artist 2.0*

If your artwork needs a little TLC, open your artwork in EZ Artist 2.0. Use the Super Size Image, Fluid Mask, Vectorization Wizard, or a combination of these plug-ins to get your artwork in tip-top shape. Then click Print to EZ RIP... in the menu. 

* 3) Printing from Photoshop, Illustrator, or Corel Draw*

Open your finished artwork in Photoshop, Illustrator or Corel Draw, whichever program you used to create the art. Select Print to EZ RIP... in the menu.​Each one of these methods would work well for a beginner. If you have any questions, the Equipment Zone support department would be happy to answer them.

-Alex


----------



## zoom_monster

Justin Walker said:


> The problem is that many end users don't have the proper training on their RIP software, which is vital to the success of their business, overall......"


 Very good point. It is also true that when we're on the show-room floor everything is made to seem very easy and almost no emphasis is put on education. This is not always the problem on the sales end though... I see people go to the shows with expert classes on artwork, printing, business and a very small persentage of people will spend the extra couple hundred bucks to attend..."cause it's so easy" "ya just gotta push a button" . People.... the manual can only be so good, you have to commit to educating yourself on the lingo and concepts if you want to be successful. Some companies will provide this, other just want to sell the machine and consumables, but ulimately if you the business owner wants it, you have to ask for it and get it on the dotted line before you buy the thing...don't come whining after the fact.


----------



## FredP

Justin Walker said:


> PS - although I do agree with some of what you said, and disagree with some of what you said, and I want to leave this on a healthy note, but I will point out that I take offense when people try to take low-blows like this, during the course of an argument.


Oh, man. That was totally not meant as a put-down. Actually it was more of a compliment. Remember, I'm a software guy. Good with computers, not so good with people sometimes. Now that I read it, it does sound kinda bad. Was NOT meant as an insult, really.



Justin Walker said:


> Besides, here you are indulging in the conversation, so obviously you DO have time to hang around here and BS with the rest of us hooligans.


Yeah, I was thinking the same thing as I was typing. I don't have the time but yet here we are, aren't we?  This is one requires my attention for many reasons so... gotta make the time. In the end it's well worth it, though. 

-- Fred


----------



## FredP

Justin Walker said:


> ... Besides the manufacturers', or the dealers' ability to set up properly for a print job, I think the bigger picture simply requires a greater amount of communication and education to the end users. For the most part, Fred is right; with the proper settings, most RIP's should be able to print complex images, such as the one in this thread. The problem is that many end users don't have the proper training on their RIP software, which is vital to the success of their business, overall


I agree with that so much that I think it should be on a plaque somewhere. 



Justin Walker said:


> ... I simply don't see why we can't have some open discussion on it!


Yeah... in a lot of ways I miss having that private forum. We could discuss everything openly and without worry that someone will use something for their own purpose or instigate a "mob mentality" type situation. 



Justin Walker said:


> .... I believe I did at least succeed in drawing the conversation away from the same 'ol boring "my printer is better than your's", at least for a moment.


 
You certainly did.


-- Fred


----------



## DTG Digital

FredP said:


> Haha, the great RIP-Off... that's clever. The "how would he know" was "my" dig. Mostly to harass you . I thought it was intersting that you said that since you've actually never printed with our RIP... but it was mostly to get your goat.
> 
> If it's 5000 then it can't be "mostly not iProof"... I know this because I can add. I know how many RIPs we sold for your printers, remember?  There are also other version of our RIP out there as well.
> 
> A "RIP-Off" would be good fun. It could include things like versatility (like printing from apps as well as from the RIP, etc.), printer speed, RIP speed as well as RIPping quality.
> 
> In the end, competition is good for everyone. The vendors get better and the end-users get better products.
> 
> -- Fred


Printing from APPS!! ........ Thats cool, didnt know that

I agree with Justin re this is not a "my RIP is better than yours"

Khotari's is double the price and lacks some features you have and vice versa - but they do have fantastic colours. They are differ products i get that!!

BUT PLEASE -- get better profiles and the ability to upload profiles-ive been knocking on this door with you for i dont know how many years. The market has moved and customers want better results- 

.....Fred if i can back you and Khotari into a corner to get better results then i'll push and you know i am finicky about quality.

I also agree about training - i havent seen a video of any note as yet and its needed, along with training seminars and alike!! how about it? we cant rely on distributors to do this as they just dont know enough as you to do it proper justice.

PS I can do math as well - thats why i wrote over 5000 (i print the serial no's )

Now im out of this thread, got pressies to wrap

Merry Xmas all

Steve


----------



## FredP

DTG Digital said:


> ... BUT PLEASE -- get better profiles and the ability to upload profiles-ive been knocking on this door with you for i dont know how many years. The market has moved and customers want better results-


Waaaaittt... just one last one.

Please have another look at the color. We've redone the color and the Viper & K3 look awesome (the HM-1 and Kiosk already did look awesome). The fact that you mention "for years" means that you haven't seen the color for a while. Please have another look. I think you'll be impressed.

Also, the ability to use your own profiles has been there from day one. The utility in the program group called "Add ICC to PPD" adds the name of the profile to the PPD so you see it at print time when printing from applications like Photoshop, etc. On the print-from, they just appear in the drop-down when you copy them into the Windows color folder.

As far as training videos... I think Mark Bagley has actually put together some very good training videos on our stuff.

** Fred

Merry Xmas to you as well.


----------



## DTG Digital

FredP said:


> Waaaaittt... just one last one.
> 
> Please have another look at the color. We've redone the color and the Viper & K3 look awesome (the HM-1 and Kiosk already did look awesome). The fact that you mention "for years" means that you haven't seen the color for a while. Please have another look. I think you'll be impressed.
> 
> Also, the ability to use your own profiles has been there from day one. The utility in the program group called "Add ICC to PPD" adds the name of the profile to the PPD so you see it at print time when printing from applications like Photoshop, etc. On the print-from, they just appear in the drop-down when you copy them into the Windows color folder.
> 
> As far as training videos... I think Mark Bagley has actually put together some very good training videos on our stuff.
> 
> ** Fred
> 
> Merry Xmas to you as well.


Nope......im gone - ping me when we run the RIP OFF i'll bring beer


----------



## Justin Walker

I'm glad we all managed to land somewhere NEAR the same page, on this one!!! It's definitely difficult with so many strong opinions from so many different people, as well as the communication-barrier that the internet creates (in the sense that you can't read inflection in a typed post)......

In the end, it will be better for all of us if you RIP guys jump in here and brag about what your RIPs can do!!! I know there are "no self promotion" rules in effect, but I am not sure how that would apply, here.... The point is for the most knowledgeable individuals to help us, the eager public, learn how to get the best results! Who knows better than the guys who make them??

I would love to do a features-comparison on the different RIP's, including which ones offer networking support, print-from-application support, hot folders support, effective auto-white generation, etc...... Some of these features seem like no-brainers to me, but I guess you gotta pay more with some companies, to get the whole package.


----------



## TahoeTomahawk

DTG Digital said:


> The market has moved and customers want better results-


I hear this complaint about a certain manufacturers hardware more often than Rips.


----------



## cavedave

Hello,

Had kept my head down up until now, but as I am off on holiday tomorrow I thought I would stick my head up over the trentch and see what happens.

There are many parts to a RIP and some speacilist features required for printing White ink and then color. 

You need to be able to manage the color both on the input and output side
You need to be able to create an underbase
You need to get the data from the design program into the RIP
You need to be able to place it correctly on the bed and often for different boards

For the colour managment you need to calibrate and create good ICC profiles for the printer and this is challanging in itself. The color gamut on a T-shirt is small and reading the swatches is difficult as if you read them twice you will get two different results, so you need to develop techniques to deal with these issues.
Input profiles are just as important as the output profile, if you dont know the source of the input color space you cant correctly manage the color to the output space, input profiles need to be embedded or correctly configured.

Creating an underbase can be trickey, when I first started with T-shirts and I saw how Scott was creating his underbase for screen printing it was 90% art, I think pretty much all the RIP companies are now supporting an underbase generation automatically from images with transparency and this is a good reliable process, easy for the customers to blend the graphics in with the shirt as the screen printers like to do.

Getting the file from the application to the RIP, the obvious approach is File-Print but this isnt a good system (in my humble view) and we dont use it (certainly not for printing with White). PostScript is not a good language to use for printing with white ink and can only support hard edges unless you will send multiple images. Also the page setup and configuration everytime you print is a pain in the &^%...
Dragging and dropping a PSD or PNG works, but creates extra steps as you have to save, find the file in explorer drag (or import into the RIP). 
Its for these reasons we developer plugins for PhotoShop, Corel and Illustrator, these plugins send the data directly from the program in the format we need streigh into the RIP. There is no page setup and they can be installed on remote machines as well.

Lastly you want to be able to consitently and reliably place and if required scale items for different shirt boards, this can be done in the FIle - Print dialog, but as I have said we wanted to get away from that and we developed a template system which combined with multiple queues and or hot folders means you only have to set it up once and dont have to worry about selecting the right settings everytime you print.

I would be more than happy to demonstrate our full list of features and workflow on line, to show you the ease of use (although it will have to be next year now). I dont have access day to day to a garment printer, so its not easy for me to create samples however normally once every 4-6 weeks I fond myself with one of our OEM's and would try and print any samples in any kind of RIP shoot out if its organised or maybe I can get one of our OEM's to print them.

I do think this is a good thread, but I dont think it was started well. Although the Cadlink product wasnt involved in the initial test, once image doesnt tell you very much. As an example (and I am not saying this is the case), the guitar image would look better if it was printed with an increase in saturation and most people would probably say they prefer one that was printed like this. But if you printed a picture of a white person then it would look sun burnt and not what you want.
You really need a collection of images for a fair comparison and they should all have an embedded profile so we know where we are coming from.

US Screen always had two sets of print modes Photo and Cartoon (I really hated this, but its an OEM product it was not my choice). The cartoon modes boosted the satuartion (and a few other things), so you could use it on an image like the guitar, but it would make mince meat of a photo of peoples faces, so they had photo modes that were none adjusted profiles. But the user has to remember to select the right print mode.
To me this is wrong, you print the image as close to its original and if you want more saturation, adjust this before you print it aspart of the design process.

Well I have had my say, now I am off LOL

Hope you all have a great Xmas and I'll be back

Best regards

-David

PS. EZ RIP is an OEM product, as are a few others. FastARTIST and FastRIP were much older versions of our product and so do not have all the features mention above.


----------



## kevrokr

Justin Walker said:


> Besides the manufacturers', or the dealers' ability to set up properly for a print job, I think the bigger picture simply requires a greater amount of communication and education to the end users. For the most part, Fred is right; with the proper settings, most RIP's should be able to print complex images, such as the one in this thread. The problem is that many end users don't have the proper training on their RIP software, which is vital to the success of their business, overall. I simply don't see why we can't have some open discussion on it!


Having trained many people on the Flexi-Jet and the Mod1, I can tell you first-hand that to train end users on ALL of the functions of the RIP software would take much longer than the normal allotted time. Most of the time, I have one day to set the machine up and train them on all aspects of the machinery including pre-treating, printing, curing, and maintenance. By the end of the day, most people's heads are spinning from information overload. I tend to stress the maintenance portion of the training as that is most vital to the machine's overall performance. From what I've seen, I think _most_ users just want to print using "out-of-the-box" settings and really do not want to be bothered with the more advanced functions of the RIP.

There always are the customers that grow into "power users" and are always asking more advanced questions as their skill progresses.


----------



## Justin Walker

cavedave said:


> Its for these reasons we developer plugins for PhotoShop, Corel and Illustrator, these plugins send the data directly from the program in the format we need streigh into the RIP. There is no page setup and they can be installed on remote machines as well...
> 
> ... we developed a template system which combined with multiple queues and or hot folders means you only have to set it up once and dont have to worry about selecting the right settings everytime you print.


I received the dongle for the RIP, yesterday, so we are anxious to test out some of these features... Besides color reproduction, proper workflow management is CRITICAL to our business; I guess I got spoiled by the fact that the Kornit RIP's all supported Hot Folder usage right-out-of-the-box, whereas a lot of other companies charge more for this SIMPLE feature! 



cavedave said:


> I do think this is a good thread, but I dont think it was started well. Although the Cadlink product wasnt involved in the initial test, once image doesnt tell you very much. As an example (and I am not saying this is the case), the guitar image would look better if it was printed with an increase in saturation and most people would probably say they prefer one that was printed like this......
> 
> ... To me this is wrong, you print the image as close to its original and if you want more saturation, adjust this before you print it aspart of the design process.


I would not adjust the guitar image, one bit - it was perfect. The colors were exactly as they should have been (in the image), there was a healthy balance of "pop" / detail, and it printed very accurately on most of the prints. Increasing the saturation (in Photoshop) to "improve" the colors is a trick I use often, on most of the artwork that I send to print, but not if it takes it outside of the intended gamut range or if it bleeds together the fine details in the image (which is what would happen if the fine details in the flames become over saturated - you can see that happening in the Brother print). 

Once the artwork is "good to go", I count on the RIP to reproduce it as close to the original as possible, without me having to overwork the saturation in an attempt to compensate for weaker color profiles, or other factors. You hit the nail on the head with your last statement - if you do indeed want more saturated colors, include it as part of the design process, not as part of the printing process! The RIP's main function should be taking an image that is on the screen ("ready to go") and reproducing it AS ACCURATELY AS POSSIBLE on the shirt......

I will add this thought - I am not oppose to using different RIP environments / settings based on the type of artwork I am printing; however, we have a fairly polar grouping system, considering we only really break up "Photorealistic" / "Vibrant" images for use with different settings. The key difference, I guess, is the resolution we use for each (which would probably seem counter intuitive to some) - we use HIGHER resolutions for the "Vibrant" prints, and LOWER resolution for "Photo" prints, most of the time - this is because we get the awesome results we want with a LOWER res color layer, without sacrificing any photo detail. In the case of the more "Vibrant" prints, we can use a higher resolution color layer to increase the saturation, without using any of the volume sliders to "pour on" the ink (yes, I know the higher resolution also lays down more ink, but in many cases the different resolutions are profiled differently, so I would not imagine that it is an exactly proportionate increase - I find that the non-photo prints can survive the higher-res printing, without sacrificing detail).


----------



## FredP

cavedave said:


> Getting the file from the application to the RIP, the obvious approach is File-Print but this isnt a good system (in my humble view) and we dont use it (certainly not for printing with White). PostScript is not a good language to use for printing with white ink and can only support hard edges unless you will send multiple images.


There are certainly limitations when using the normal print channel (wether it's PostScript or not). For example, transparency information disappears. This means you have to find another way to generate white automatically. Printing multiple images is one way and it's actually often the prefered way for "power users". We adopted the "use background" method where you place the image on a black background. This lets you print soft-edged graphics. An advantage, is that users of Corel Draw, for example, can print directly from the app. I think we've all heard how important that is to some.

Ultimately, we decided to do both the Print-To and Print-From. Both manual and automatic white on both to try and cater to as many users as possible.

I agree that a good set of profiles is essential, both in and out. And yes, the INPUT profiles end up being the problem 90% of the time (since the output profiles are usually selected automatically) because the user will, for example, bring in an image created in sRGB and output it with NTSC or some other color space. Color is one of those "religious" arguments. A lot of people have their own views on that.


-- Fred


----------



## fleet

DTG Digital said:


> [
> There is an easy settle to this if Mark and Justin are up for it??
> 
> Justin select five images you know are diffulcult to print.
> Fred tweak them to your hearts content
> Mark if he's willing to play can print them
> And I'll supply the RIP's
> 
> 
> I truly love the idea of putting this to the test FRED there is an opportunity to increase our ability and generate better results for end users!!......we cant get better than that.......could call it THE GREAT RIP OFF
> 
> I do love a Challenge


 
This thread has been very interesting to follow along, if not a little embarrassing for some of you "grown" men. It started out being fabulous.

It is obvious that this is a hot topic, important to many people. However, the names of many of the contributors are the same names we less prolific visitors often read here - Justin, Jerid, Steve, Fred, etc. I know none of you, have never met any of you ever, but can tell you are all very passionate and knowlegeable about this subject.

Here's my point - I am frustrated with DTG printing. I have a Kiosk II that I purchased used, along with IProof V03. I am pretty good with computers, art, photoshop, color, etc., but certainly not top drawer professionally so and never formally trained. But, if years of experience account for anything, I probably have many of you beat.

Here's the thing - the output of my machine and rip ranges from not bad to pretty much ****ty (CRAPPY. Sorry for being frank). Seldom can I print one shirt and be satisfied; many times I print several and never get what I seek. NEVER do I get kick butt output. Yet, I see others are getting the results I seek. I know it can be done. I know it is my settings and/or profiles. Unfortunately, I do not understand those things well and do not know where to find the answers - especially, I think, since I purchased used. Due to expensivenss of time and materials experimentation must be carefully executed.

So, when you guys finish your Great Rip Off why don't you send those same files to several no-name novices or second string pros? Have them print the same files on their machines and see what they get in comparison to what you old pros do? Let's find out what their settings were to get what they got. Compare them to the pros. See what the average Joe is getting "out of the box." You might actually find out what needs to happen to the software, etc., to make it truly better.

Or, you can keep arguing about who said what and what they really meant by it and the rest of us will keep struggling along. We'll grow bored with reading other guys rant and then we'll either figure it out on our own, or not. 

Seems like it could provide some interesting (and valuable) discussion and dialogue...

Barrie


----------



## FatKat Printz

fleet said:


> I think, since I purchased used.


This shouldn't be an issue.. 

We bought our 2nd Kiosk that was completely refurbished and the person printed 20 shirts shut off and it sat for 2 years in dried ink and a in hot Florida non A/C bedroom next to window with the sun beating on it. 


We had to pry the printhead head from the capping station. Completely refurbish it again and its prints over 100 shirts a day. Has had the same refurbish parts since July.. including printhead

-Perfect Nozzle Check everyday
-No Ink Starvation
-No down time during production runs

I don't think RIP has anything to do with the way its running.. I do recommend that you upgrade to v04 and change your ink delivery system. I have several people that will agree with me. 

If if you don't want to upgrade to v04- at least change your ink delivery. This will help tremendously on prints. I will take the profiles
test and I guarantee my quality of prints will not be only profile related but ink related.


----------



## TahoeTomahawk

When we first purchased our Kiosk, it came with Print Pro.
Our experience with that Rip was as follows.
- Customer sends artwork
- We find a test shirt to print artwork, we have never printed 1 shirt from Print Pro we were satisfied with without doing a test print.
- Go into Photoshop, do some image manipulation to generate the white ink layer, save the file.
- Send the print job to the printer, there are so many options not only for the white ink but also for the color layer.
-Analyze results, tweak image in photoshop, or adjust settings in Print Pro (or both).

Aside from the constant test prints and wasted ink, one of the biggest headaches was remembering what settings we chose to produce the acceptable results.

When we switched over to Rip Pro, there was a slight learning curve but the prints were just about perfect everytime. Occasionally we need to tweak the artwork or have trouble with Blues printing purple, but wow.. we went from test printing everything, to rarely having to do a test print!

Fred has also sent me ICC profiles to try and has always been helpful if I was confused.

IMO, the iproof rip is the perfect balance of options vs. flexibility.


----------



## Justin Walker

fleet said:


> This thread has been very interesting to follow along, if not a little embarrassing for some of you "grown" men.
> .......
> Or, you can keep arguing about who said what and what they really meant by it and the rest of us will keep struggling along. We'll grow bored with reading other guys rant and then we'll either figure it out on our own, or not.
> 
> Seems like it could provide some interesting (and valuable) discussion and dialogue...


Passionate, grown men often argue passionately (bicker, if you will); although it is not in everyone's taste, it is certainly providing many valuable starting points for people who want to follow in our footsteps with similar experimentations, controlled testing, etc. We might not always post exact specifics of what we are doing, but there is a lot of info here (and all over the forum), that has stemmed from a handful of power users getting together and arguing like crazy. It's unfortunate that our methods of conversing are not favorable to some, and might cause certain users to become "bored" with our seemingly petty debates, but I can assure you there are many who see these discussions for what they are; not grown men acting like children, but people with years of experience and history with each other debating topics all over the board, often times disagreeing with each other but inevitably always coming to an amicable end point.

If you are having trouble achieving the results you've seen here, perhaps you could start by asking specific questions about our settings or for suggestions that might apply to your specific setup, rather than making us out to be big babies who do nothing but continue personal vendettas while leaving the "regular joe's" to figure things out for themselves and potentially boring our audience out of reading our material. I don't personally use the same RIP as you do, so I won't be able to offer much help specifically, but it sounds like Fred has been very active in trying to help people maximize their print quality with his RIP; perhaps he could help point you in the right direction?

For anyone who uses the same RIP as me, I do plan to post specifics of our setups (we don't plan to give away EVERYTHING we've learned, because as you astutely pointed out, experimentation and learning is NOT cheap), but we are still testing things ourselves so we have more work to do first. In the meantime, as we all COLLECTIVELY figure this stuff out, I do plan on continuing with casual conversation, as per usual, even if it results in the occasional disagreement.


----------



## FredP

fleet said:


> ... that I purchased used, along with IProof V03....


Hi Barrie,

Version V04 came out in 2008. It has MANY improvements including the print-from feature, better color profiles, etc. In addition, there have been several revisions and improvements to V04. Sound like you would be well served by upgrading if you're not happy with the older version.


-- Fred


----------



## FatKat Printz

FredP said:


> Hi Barrie,
> 
> Version V04 came out in 2008. It has MANY improvements including the print-from feature, better color profiles, etc. In addition, there have been several revisions and improvements to V04. Sound like you would be well served by upgrading if you're not happy with the older version.
> Fred


The V04 that we originally purchased and the V04 that we are currently using have had vast improvements. I do wish there was an email update if there ever was an update. We didn't learn of our updates until we were re-installing RIP.

The version we have now works like a dream.


----------



## fleet

FredP said:


> Hi Barrie,
> 
> Version V04 came out in 2008. It has MANY improvements including the print-from feature, better color profiles, etc. In addition, there have been several revisions and improvements to V04. Sound like you would be well served by upgrading if you're not happy with the older version.
> 
> 
> -- Fred


 
Thanks Fred, I agree. While reading this thread I had come to that conclusion. I have been reluctant to up until this point for two reasons - one, I didn't want to sink more money into this thing, even though last week I purchased the bag system for ink delivery and two, I was just waiting for some quick fix; for someone to say, "hey, all you need to do is x." Well, that is probably not going to happen, so I am going to try the upgrade.

It is going to take me a couple of weeks to get all this done (run out of bottled ink, install new ink delivery system, get upgrade and install it, etc), but I will let you know how it turns out. In the meantime, thanks for your help.


----------



## FredP

For a pic of the guitar file printed with a different (and much better) settings, see this post:

http://www.t-shirtforums.com/direct-garment-dtg-inkjet-printing/t138200.html#post815981

-- Fred


----------



## Rodney

Rodney said:


> Interesting thread indeed. Thanks for starting the discussion, Justin.
> 
> I'm hoping to host a similar printer/rip comparison for the DTG section here soon


Here's the printer/rip/operator comparison contest I was working on for the DTG'ers : http://www.t-shirtforums.com/dtg-battle-royale/t138434.html


----------



## allamerican-aeoon

I didn't know we have this going on here. Love it. Fred! send your print to Rodney in same time I will do same with Original file. So Rodney can take good picture. He is pro on taking pictures. Anybody saw Rodney carries big bag with serious camera? Next to next is the best way with original art. Agree? I hope you do. Since you and I cannot submit to contest.
Someone said we did touch up. That totally not true. Download from internet and through ProRIP and that was it. No tweaking no touched. Justin brought over we print at the show without any skill involve. He did same to many DTG sellers at last show. He is tuff guy to satisfy, we all know that, right?
So EVERYONE bring your own art to the show and ask to all DTG sellers to print your image before you spend $0.02. Like Justin did it.
Fred, Look at your print vs. NeoFlex. bottom right corner. That is hardest part to print on that Burning guitar design. Justin camera??? focus is little lost on his picture.
I do respect your talent but let's forumer judge this. I do not have talented printer in house also most forumers are not super talented artistic printer too. No tweak no touch is our GOAL!! ProRIP can do it for you.


----------



## Rodney

> I didn't know we have this going on here. Love it. Fred! send your print to Rodney in same time I will do same with Original file. So Rodney can take good picture. He is pro on taking pictures. Anybody saw Rodney carries big bag with serious camera? Next to next is the best way with original art. Agree? I hope you do.


The DTG Battle Royale is a bit different. It's for the actual operators and machine owners to show off their skills (instead of the manufacturers/distributors each saying they're the best )

I don't want to take away from the point of this thread though, just thought it wad relevant to what was being discussed.


----------



## allamerican-aeoon

Fred you said this design is "challengeful print" but it was not to us. Art in Print out without any extra work. My print will be underway to Rodney tomorrow. I hope you do the same. Please let's get rid of our curiosity. Lose is lose win is win. Nothing to shame or proud about. Same as football team. Win sometimes lose sometimes. By the way did you watch Eagles game last week? Yahooooo! How's Buc's doing? 
Eagles (I am from Philly) vs Buc's (Fred's hometown)
But Hardware has something to do also. Not only RIP. We all know that too.


----------



## FredP

allamerican said:


> Fred you said this design is "challengeful print" but it was not to us. Art in Print out without any extra work. My print will be underway to Rodney tomorrow. I hope you do the same. Please let's get rid of our curiosity. Lose is lose win is win. Nothing to shame or proud about. Same as football team. Win sometimes lose sometimes. By the way did you watch Eagles game last week? Yahooooo! How's Buc's doing?
> Eagles vs Buc's
> But Hardware has something to do also. Not only RIP. We all know that too.


It wasn't challenging to our RIP either. The original artwork was not touched.
I'm not doing any of the printing. I don't even have a mod1 right now. If you think Justin's camera is at fault then take a better picture and post it. And no, I'm not worried about losing. I'm certainly not ashamed of our output.
... no, didn't see the Eagles game.

-- Fred


----------



## allamerican-aeoon

FredP said:


> It wasn't challenging to our RIP either. The original artwork was not touched.
> I'm not doing any of the printing. I don't even have a mod1 right now. If you think Justin's camera is at fault then take a better picture and post it. And no, I'm not worried about losing. I'm certainly not ashamed of our output.
> ... no, didn't see the Eagles game.
> 
> -- Fred


Even though focus is off still better look in my eyes. More details. We all know output is not just RIP. Hardware also.


----------



## allamerican-aeoon

We just had upgrade ProRIP now. Please contact our techs to get better than best. 
Printer + RIP = product. Not just printer nor RIP.
Bad printer + Good RIP = Waste. Bad RIP + Good Printer = No money.
Have to be matched.


----------



## TahoeTomahawk

Peter, isn't your machine Epson based also?

You kind of make it seem like your printer is built from the ground up and the Rip is written specifically for your machine.


----------



## allamerican-aeoon

TahoeTomahawk said:


> Peter, isn't your machine Epson based also?
> 
> You kind of make it seem like your printer is built from the ground up and the Rip is written specifically for your machine.


 

Adam
I have been read your posts many times. I give you lots of respect and this is my first time to answer to you. I am very careful on this posting to not to stand other side of you..
No Digital Printer on earth is built from ground up. However all are using different technology to bring out best result with same or similar parts. Print is bringing original art to duplicate. Better duplicate machine is better printer. At this process easier and faster and more production is better printer. Aren’t you agree?
I am very proud of that my printer is based by EPSON 4880 ($2000) not by desk top models Epson 1900($400-500). Epson.com will tell you the differences functions and longevity. 
RIP: Yes it is custom made for NeoFlex only. If anyone uses Pro RIP to other 4880 base printers it will not works good as combine with NeoFlex. Like your custom made suit. It will be too big or too small or too short to others but you.
I hope I did answer your question clearly. Thank you


----------



## TahoeTomahawk

Peter thanks for the response, but it didn't quite answer my question. Let me phrase it another way.

There should be no difference between your machine and other 4880 machines running similar inks Using your rip. Likewise, if you were to use an iproof rip on your NeoFlex (4880) printer, it would yield similar results to other DTG printers running (4880) correct?


----------



## allamerican-aeoon

Are you close to BQ? If you are then ask Mark a same question. His, HM1, Anajet, fastjet, Veloci (Epson 1900’s)-----. all are same output? I want to hear theirs opinion. Or Please, ask whoever you are comfortable to ask.
As I mentioned above custom made is made for fit to individual not to all. This is why many celebrities are wearing custom made. 
NeoFlex ProRIP (let say this is suit) is made for NeoFlex (which is person who went to tailor shop).
As same as who never saw you and touched you could not make custom made suit for you. RIP writer (tailor) has to spend lots of time to fit on individual printer.
Your word "Similar" is very open end word. 
iProof (tailor) has to see me to make custom made suit for me. Even a best tailor on earth cannot make good sharp looking suit to Notre Dame Hunchback. Vice versa perfect fit body goes to corner dry cleaner and ordering suits.
There are many 4880 based printers (NeoFlex, Flexijet, dreamjet, Viper, Sewgrass, iDot, MS brand, TEXJET but outcome is all in different level. Some may say similar but others will say whole lot different. Especially picky customers will. 
Come and check it out with your own eyes on next show in LA area. And beers are on me. Maybe you want to do as Justin Walker did (he keep reminds me Jonny Walker Blue to drink, but it’s too early). Go around ask us to print your art work. Surprise us. Or send me art work to me and I will send sample to you to compare. Same time ask to all of us. Doesn’t cost you any. As you see begining of this thread why they are look different?
My final answer is Negative.


----------



## TahoeTomahawk

allamerican said:


> Are you close to BQ?


No, they are in Florida, I'm in California.




allamerican said:


> f you are then ask Mark a same question. His, HM1, Anajet, fastjet, Veloci (Epson 1900’s)-----. all are same output? I want to hear theirs opinion. Or Please, ask whoever you are comfortable to ask.


You're the one who said it.. that's why I'm asking YOU the question.



allamerican said:


> As I mentioned above custom made is made for fit to individual not to all. This is why many celebrities are wearing custom made.
> NeoFlex ProRIP (let say this is suit) is made for NeoFlex (which is person who went to tailor shop).
> As same as who never saw you and touched you could not make custom made suit for you. RIP writer (tailor) has to spend lots of time to fit on individual printer.
> Your word "Similar" is very open end word.
> iProof (tailor) has to see me to make custom made suit for me. Even a best tailor on earth cannot make good sharp looking suit to Notre Dame Hunchback. Vice versa perfect fit body goes to corner dry cleaner and ordering suits.
> There are many 4880 based printers (NeoFlex, Flexijet, dreamjet, Viper, Sewgrass, iDot, MS brand, TEXJET but outcome is all in different level. Some may say similar but others will say whole lot different. Especially picky customers will.
> Come and check it out with your own eyes on next show in LA area. And beers are on me. Maybe you want to do as Justin Walker did (he keep reminds me Jonny Walker Blue to drink, but it’s too early). Go around ask us to print your art work. Surprise us. Or send me art work to me and I will send sample to you to compare. Same time ask to all of us. Doesn’t cost you any. As you see begining of this thread why they are look different?
> My final answer is Negative.


Ok, I find that very evasive and maybe acceptable to someone new to the industry or technology as a whole.

Yes I understand that the printer overall is different. That's not what I'm asking.
What I am asking is since you're using the same print head, same print engine and same inks as other models, then the rip is not tailored specifically for your machine, it is tailored for the Print Engine, Print Head and Ink. Correct?
If I am off base then please correct me without being vague. For example you can say.. "We don't use the standard Epson Print Engine" .. or " We use a Hand built, titanium Alloy print head made by the Cyborgs" ... then it would make sense.

Most machines are unique in the way they drive the platen, ease of use for maintenance, where they put the ink, etc.
To say the Rip had to be tailored for the above reasons doesn't make sense .. unless it's true. By all means fill us in.


----------



## Justin Walker

TahoeTomahawk said:


> What I am asking is since you're using the same print head, same print engine and same inks as other models, then the rip is not tailored specifically for your machine, it is tailored for the Print Engine, Print Head and Ink. Correct?


I think both you and Peter are addressing different points here, hence the confusion. Based on your assertion, you should be able to take any RIP from one 48xx based machine, and accurately control any other 48xx based machine (since, after all, you are saying the RIP's are "the same"). I have watched several DTG printers being built over the years, almost all of which were "modified Epsons"; just because they use the same print head and ink, however, does not mean the RIP is the same.

Each printer uses the stock Epson sensors to "trick" the DTG machine, at one point or another (this is how they are able to do multiple pass prints, avoid OEM Epson error messages, etc) - how well the MANUFACTURER (or converter, if you wanna call them that) of the final DTG printer does on bypassing these sensors, will have a lot to do with how well the unit operates in the field. Some printers operate in different modes (ie Roll / Sheet), and some simply remove certain sensors, rather than relocate and "trick" them. Because of these differences in build method, the printers are expecting different commands from the RIP to make the images print correctly, where and how they are supposed to. When me and a few other guys were going down that road, having the DreamJet printer designed and built, we were adamant about using the iProof RIP for our 4800-based system; however, due to HARDWARE DIFFERENCES in the two machines (even though their RIP was powering the 4800 Flexi machine, with little difficulties) this was not an option. We would have had to make Fred RE-WRITE (ie "Custom Tailor") parts of the RIP to make it work, or else have the Chinese change the hardware setup of the DreamJet printer.

I have mix-and-matched RIPs on various printers, and I have noticed many interesting results (and yes, I even have multiple DIFFERENT copies of the Kothari RIP, made for DIFFERENT MACHINES - they actually behave differently, period). I am not saying that all machines will have these inherent differences; after all, even in this thread I recommended that people try different RIP software on their machines - I said it might not work, but sometimes you can be surprised! However, these machines are not as similar to "stock Epsons" as most people believe - at least not most of the commercial ones. Some companies keep them much closer to the OEM Epson printers, even going to far as the preserve the original form factor (ie, Rainbow printer); some companies want to get as far away from the Epson form-factor as possible. It is these design choices that can have an effect on how the individual RIP needs to operate, and each manufacturer pays big bucks for the software guys to TAILOR THE SOFTWARE TO THEIR HARDWARE (from controlling the machines, to the unique environmental profiles).

Although Peter's RIP is a Kothari-based RIP, it is the same as any other in the same sense that the "Flexi-Jet" was the same as the "NeoFlex"...... They might share some features, as well as a strong passing resemblance, but if you peek under the hood you will actually be really surprised.


----------



## allamerican-aeoon

“Ok, I find that very evasive and maybe acceptable to someone new to the industry or technology as a whole”.
It is acceptable to all tailors (RIP writers) ask any tailors who you can contact with. Many tailors are out there. Since your mind is set to not agree with me. I cannot do much. I did not try to evasive you. I said what I learned with spend so much money.
Basic is never change either they are beginner of DTG or beginner of Calculus. I only addressed the basic. 
“Yes I understand that the printer overall is different.” 
That’s why output is different. 
I wish you go one step further and say “all RIPs are different” too. And they are tailored.
"We don't use the standard Epson Print Engine" .. or " We use a Hand built, titanium Alloy print head made by the Cyborgs"
I am not Anajet, once they said their Printhead is not Epson I don't know they still doing it. I said I am very proud of Epson 4880 modifier. Not 1900.
“doesn't make sense”
Many times in real life nonsense become real sense. Human has tendency to want to believe or not want to believe. Once it sets they do suicide bomb.
Only thing works is "seeing it" is. I mention many times that I want to show you not talk to you. Please see it --.


----------



## TahoeTomahawk

Justin Walker said:


> I think both you and Peter are addressing different points here, hence the confusion. Based on your assertion, you should be able to take any RIP from one 48xx based machine, and accurately control any other 48xx based machine (since, after all, you are saying the RIP's are "the same"). I have watched several DTG printers being built over the years, almost all of which were "modified Epsons"; just because they use the same print head and ink, however, does not mean the RIP is the same.


No, what I'm saying is that the RIP is specific to the Print Engine, Print head and Ink (ICC profiles). Therefore you should be able to take Peters RIP and run it on any other Epson based 4880 machine with the same ink and yield the same results. Likewise, you should be able to run iProof Rip on Peters NeoFlex and have similar results as other 4880 machines.

He made the comment that the RIP goes hand in hand with *HIS* printer when it seems to me, the RIP, Print Engine, Print Head and Ink set is what makes it unique.
Not any other features of the printer such as a larger Lead Screw driving the platen, etc. 
And if I am wrong, please let me know what I am missing.


----------



## allamerican-aeoon

Adam,
You are not wrong. Your mind is set.
I answered your question clearly. I am 5'10" 185lbs 32inch waste, left leg is 1/2 inch shorter than right, wide shoulder than normal people. I have tailored suit. Can you fit in well? I know your answer is no. It is same. I write here over and over. You can put over my suit to protect cold or cover the snow but not for dating. Making money is much more serious business than dating.
How many times should I say "ProRIP is tailored to NeoFlex"


----------



## TahoeTomahawk

allamerican said:


> Adam
> I answered your question clearly. I am 5'10" 185lbs 32inch waste, left leg is 1/2 inch shorter than right, wide shoulder than normal people. I have tailored suit. Can you fit in well? I know your answer is no. It is same. I write here over and over. You can put over my suit to protect cold or cover the snow but not for dating. Making money is much more serious business than dating.


Yes Peter you did .. you gave a generalized answer that your printer is 'different'. Perfect.

Well then I take back my previous posts, and I would like to to thank you for sharing that your RIP written in the black magic programming language only works with your printer and that's what makes it so great. I imagine all of your competitors are now scrambling to hire free-lance witches and warlocks to help them with their own products.


----------



## allamerican-aeoon

TahoeTomahawk said:


> Yes Peter you did .. you gave a generalized answer that your printer is 'different'. Perfect.
> 
> Well then I take back my previous posts, and I would like to to thank you for sharing that your RIP written in the black magic programming language only works with your printer and that's what makes it so great. I imagine all of your competitors are now scrambling to hire free-lance witches and warlocks to help them with their own products.


It might work with other 4880 base printer but not good fit as to NeoFlex. Thank you


----------



## TahoeTomahawk

allamerican said:


> It might work with other 4880 base printer but not good fit as to NeoFlex. Thank you


Nice, I think I got this down. Ask the same question 3 time and get the answer 

Ok, so to answer the rest of my question Peter, *why* wouldn't it work as good on another 4880 printer using the same inks?


----------



## allamerican-aeoon

Justin W explained on his post. Work to me is carry commercial value. Not just lay ink. As I mentioned not fit well. Because we tailored to work with NeoFlex. Please read Justin's post


----------



## TahoeTomahawk

Justin W explained the basic principals of an Epson modified DTG printer.

Yes, we all know RIPS must also do some tricking of their own. Put that aside, I'm asking specifically what makes your Rip print better on YOUR printer as opposed to another 4880 printer using the same ink.


----------



## 102557

GREAT THREAD.. however to explain the whole shabang, one would have to sit down and go thru every step of building the printer.. ie hardware componets thru customizing the rip to fit the machine... to me the rip is just important as the machine design itself!!, but in the end all the components have to work in harmony to have a qauility unit!!! so many variables its hard to find a starting point!!! IMHO.. then that would elude to giving up propreitary info.. which no one wants to share due to r&d cost they have acquirred.. i know different brand rips work different on the SAME machine theres no doubt, but theres other variables ... is it running in sheetmode,roll or manual roll all will require different senarios.. not to mention is the firmware of the epson customized or what third party controller/electronics are used screw drive, belt drive or friction drive on and on.. just my .02 CENTS


----------



## allamerican-aeoon

Bottom-line is custom made suit. Fabric button thread stitch fashion all have be match. Sometime we don't want to share where we got them from.


----------



## TahoeTomahawk

german13 said:


> GREAT THREAD.. however to explain the whole shabang, one would have to sit down and go thru every step of building the printer.. ie hardware componets thru customizing the rip to fit the machine... to me the rip is just important as the machine design itself!!, but in the end all the components have to work in harmony to have a qauility unit!!! so many variables its hard to find a starting point!!! IMHO.. then that would elude to giving up propreitary info.. which no one wants to share due to r&d cost they have acquirred.. i know different brand rips work different on the SAME machine theres no doubt, but theres other variables ... is it running in sheetmode,roll or manual roll all will require different senarios.. not to mention is the firmware of the epson customized or what third party controller/electronics are used screw drive, belt drive or friction drive on and on.. just my .02 CENTS


Peter initiated the conversation, and I gave him plenty of opportunities to answer the question directly, instead he chose to use smoke and mirrors.

The ONLY reason why the same epson based printer 4880 or otherwise using the SAME rip and the SAME ink would yield different results would be due to ICC profiles. That's software related, not hardware. You can take those same profiles and apply them to other machines as well.

Lets be clear here.. what he is describing is tweaks to the profile in the RIP, something that iproof and other vendors do constantly. I get updates all the time to try out. I make my own tweaks to try out.

It has nothing to do with the hardware.


----------



## TahoeTomahawk

allamerican said:


> Bottom-line is custom made suit. Fabric button thread stitch fashion all have be match. Sometime we don't want to share where we got them from.


So basically you are doing the same exact thing as other DTG vendors.

Building the machine.
Choosing the Ink.
Working with RIP software.
Optimizing the profiles.


----------



## 102557

TahoeTomahawk said:


> Peter initiated the conversation, and I gave him plenty of opportunities to answer the question directly, instead he chose to use smoke and mirrors.
> 
> The ONLY reason why the same epson based printer 4880 or otherwise using the SAME rip and the SAME ink would yield different results would be due to ICC profiles. That's software related, not hardware. You can take those same profiles and apply them to other machines as well.
> 
> Lets be clear here.. what he is describing is tweaks to the profile in the RIP, something that iproof and other vendors do constantly. I get updates all the time to try out. I make my own tweaks to try out.
> 
> It has nothing to do with the hardware.


I kinda read the tail end here, i wasnt referencing anyone in general, just giving my opinion based on building my own.. all in good nature and tone..

most noticable was the rip and will the rip work the same on different machines.. the simple answer is no (unless it is a direct copy of the same printer/machine design).. my rip that was designed for my printer r1900 will not work with any other r1900 dtg its build specific..

and yes hardware is involved in the rip process in my case and prolly others aswell.. for example i use the stock printer on my homebuild (no third party electronics/ controllers/extra firmware) there is backlash that needs to be corrected when using a belt drive (hardware) this is corrected thru ekrips propreitory feed and gap adjustment setting.. so it is correcting hardware adjustments since i didnt add firmware etc to do so.. it does other things aswell that i had to work with the creator to get right.. 

so it depends on all the above senarios/ printer design.. my rip corrects hardware or backlash in the design amongst other things based on its stock design.... there are lots of difference in rips..

I can print nozzle checks, head aligns, purge, and set a maint schedule all from the rip.. one program.. there are timing delays between white ink /color etc.. so it is build specific for a manual return stock of the shelf printer/ but has to do what is needed for shirts.. its complicated..

there was another post where no one beleived it could lay down a white underbase in 720 res.. but it clearly does (another difference in rips).. the rip is as good as its designer or how much the buyer would like to pay for the included rip apps...


----------



## Justin Walker

german13 said:


> most noticable was the rip and will the rip work the same on different machines.. the simple answer is no (unless it is a direct copy of the same printer)..
> 
> and yes hardware is involved in the rip


This has been my experience, as well. If you could just throw any 48xx RIP on any old 48xx machine and get the same results, then the iProof RIP would have worked on the DreamJet printers, back when we were having those developed. It didn't. It would have required "custom tailoring", in order to drive the hardware setup that was built around the OEM Epson stuff.

I'm not saying it can't be made to work, but all along Peter has been saying that his RIP is TAILORED specifically for his machine, which it is. I'm not sure what all the fuss is about? Nowhere did he say it was made from the ground up, I don't think. I've got different brands of 48xx machines in my shop, as well as a variety of RIP software (4 different RIP's, two of which are each customized versions of the same brand), if anyone wants to swing by and see what I'm talking about.


----------



## 102557

Justin Walker said:


> This has been my experience, as well. If you could just throw any 48xx RIP on any old 48xx machine and get the same results, then the iProof RIP would have worked on the DreamJet printers, back when we were having those developed. It didn't. It would have required "custom tailoring", in order to drive the hardware setup that was built around the OEM Epson stuff.
> 
> I'm not saying it can't be made to work, but all along Peter has been saying that his RIP is TAILORED specifically for his machine, which it is. I'm not sure what all the fuss is about? Nowhere did he say it was made from the ground up, I don't think. I've got different brands of 48xx machines in my shop, as well as a variety of RIP software (4 different RIP's, two of which are each customized versions of the same brand), if anyone wants to swing by and see what I'm talking about.


I agree, the rip can be made to work with the epson base, however needs tailored to fit the modified printers design specs/ operating conditions.. this requires r&d of the machine/$ and this really just scratches the surface as far as rips go IMHO.. there are a ton of other features options which are different based on my testing of different brands.. i got very lucky, ek worked with me on this at no charge for the diy printer/ however they sell alot of rips now based on my diy design.. it worked for both of us..


----------



## TahoeTomahawk

He made a comment about his Rip and print quality, IMO he said that it was due to a combination of the Rip AND his machine.

My question was simply, what does the quality have to do with your machine which is 4880 based as opposed to other 4880 machines using the same inkset.

Then we got alot of run around.. I suspect the simple answer is the ICC profiles he has tweaked to his liking.

Peter am I wrong? Or is it really a hardware difference that is making your print quality better.


----------



## 102557

I,m not answering for anyone but myself but i would have to say its a combination of both regarding all dtg printers.. I guess from the hardware stand point you could look at it this way.. how does a covered wagon ride in comparison to a cadilac.. or a porsche vs the minivan, both modes of transportation but one better suited for getting there fast/ and one fits more grocery.. so if you use better components tighter tolerances less backlass etc etc there are sure hardware differences.. take alook at the tjet 3 issues when it came out? design or epson? i say design!! i have a good friend with one of these units and it has constant registration problems due to the nut on the screw drive...

then you could get into different rips apps/ which there are differences... anyway, i love all these dtg printers.. If it wasnt for the pioneers and constant developments of both printer designs/and software.. none of us would be talking about it and enjoying the benefits..

thank you pioneers OH.. and i almost forgot, thank you to epson!!!!


----------



## JohnL

Adam,

The Rip software plays a large part of the quality of print in terms of how it renders the file for print. However print quality (quality in terms of all facets combined) is a mixture of both the software as well as the hardware. Peter stated some simple specs that the NeoFlex system offers. He did not state them to avoid any question. He said it to explain it in his own words(he is a very busy man can't expect him to elaborate on every comment he makes). The specified specs are what gives our system the ability to repeat a print over and over and over again, over the course of 42 inches. This makes our costs higher but having innate mis-registration would be more detrimental. Also keep in mind setting up your software incorrectly can cause similar problems, but if your printer is not registering properly to begin with there is virtually no chance the software will fix this. We manufacture the printers in house and go to great feats to make sure that our alignments (bi and uni) are near perfect prior to leaving our facility. In conclusion, Printer + Software = Profit

That being said the software itself was set up for the NeoFlex system specifically. This does not mean it is proprietary to our system. We spent numerous days and nights working with the software developers to make sure this product was ready when launched. We spent many hours tweaking and tweaking to make sure that our users will no longer have to tweak. Our time spent = your time saved. Sorry i am not at liberty to discuss more about the software itself as I am under strict confidentiality guidelines by the developers. 

I would like to thank Justin for doing this service for the entire DTG community. From reading some of his posts he is always truthful and does not seem to be biased. He never hesitates to offer advice to anyone. He takes his time to post on these forums not because it pays him but because like Peter, he genuinely loves what he does. If I were looking to purchase any type of equipment, this type of comparison would be exactly what i would look for. Thanks Justin.

On another note, I read the first two pages of posts then skipped to the last 2 pages. I do remember someone inquiring if All American prepped the artwork in anyway. The artwork was a standard JPEG that was found on Google Images. The NeoFlex was simply pasted on. If you have any doubts visit us at a show and bring us an image we will be more than happy to print it for you.

SGIA was the official launch of the NeoRip Pro. Since we have realeased a variety of profiles for both our NeoTex and NeoSol. If you haven't had them installed yet contact All American tech support for installation.

I will end with a quote I believe I heard somewhere...might have made up... I probably subconciously remember hearing or reading it somewhere. It's better than anything that would come out of my mouth.

"Evolution is natural, competition just speeds it up a bit."


----------



## JohnL

Took some time (a lot) to review the rest of the posts. It seems as though much of the arguments were based upon certain settings of this rip that rip. I promise all of you that when we printed the guitar the first time it looked exactly like the one Justin took a picture of, maybe better. 

The fact of the matter is we have taken the prep work out of images. You simply choose black, white, color, or dark color, drop the image where you would like to print on your platen and hit print. 

The industry is growing and with growth comes more competition. Those who are dedicated and continue to improve will be successful. I learned this from my father (entrepreneur)(successful) Many Many years ago. 

This Rip was not something handed to us on a silver platter. Call and Ask Justin Choi not Walker about the 6am all nighters we endured. This is the dedication you should look for from all your distributors whether it be software, hardware, supplies, food (Geno's King of Steaks 24/7).

select color ---> place on virtual platen ---> print 

anymore questions?


----------



## cavedave

Interesting, from a RIP developer perspective I think everyone is somewhat right (and wrong LOL).

There are many parts to a RIP and how it drives a printer, which can be thought of as 2 levels on a 4880 style machine and 3 levels on a 1900 based machine. Plus on some DTG machines (and this may or may not be the case for the Neoflex) the RIP might also interact with some additional electronics added to the machine (this was the case with the Sawgrass product and we did work with one other vendor on this kind of thing).
If you start working with additional electronics then depending on what you do (and you can come up with a hold host of ideas), it might be as the Neoflex guys say the RIP offers advantages with there machine over another DTG printer that doesnt have this electronics fitted. But it should be noted that another machine may well get to the same functionalty another way.

As far as the levels of driving the Epson there are really two parts, think of this as your header / footer of a document that sets up the printer as one level and the actual raster as anoher level.
The header and footer can be impotant on some DTG models and if not correct can cause errors, as a simple example printing white - rewind - color, you may need to pause or wait for online-ready before sending the color data to one DTG device, but not another (or / and have a delay) or something as simple as being in Roll mode. This is just as an example.
But the actual raster data, which is a series of Epson Esc sequences that print the raster data will print the same on all modified 4880 machine if it can print (header and footer) and all other factors being equal (such as head height, bi-directional alignment etc). This is what I think Adam was getting at and I think NeoFlex are trying to say that they do something with the RIP to ensure the setup is correct (I guess) but arnt saying what.
Most DTG manufactures have "special" features related to head height, ink flow or other tweaks to give themselves an advantage. Most tell you what it is and use it as marketing on why there machine is better, interesting concept to say we have to keep it a secret and cant tell you what we do that makes it better...a different approach to product marketing for sure.



Best regards

-David


----------



## allamerican-aeoon

TahoeTomahawk said:


> He made a comment about his Rip and print quality, IMO he said that it was due to a combination of the Rip AND his machine.
> 
> YES.
> My question was simply, what does the quality have to do with your machine which is 4880 based as opposed to other 4880 machines using the same inkset.
> 
> Then we got alot of run around.. I suspect the simple answer is the ICC profiles he has tweaked to his liking.
> 
> Peter am I wrong? Or is it really a hardware difference that is making your print quality better.


YES, Hardware makes big differences. Body and brain
My answer is same from start to now and later. 
Your mind is set for "they are all same". No matter how many people say they are different you just do not want to believe. 
You and I are not same but we are all human (printers). We have different brain (RIP + firmware). 
Different body and different brain but we are human so? are we all same? You don’t want to be like me. I had real tuff life.
I will show you. I may give one of my printer to you to test. As same as Epson giving me 2 4900 for free to test. Now we have about 30days back order on NeoFlex. My assemble people are jammed. Justin W when you were here you saw my stacks all gone and same stack all in again and next batch is in order too.
DTG is not my main income at all but I love this industry more than others. Especially, because we have this forum. My other business Sequin (No competitors I create this machine. minimum 50 /month and glowing. This week 5 to Brazil, 2 to NJ, 2 to Mexico, ISS show 8) and rhinestone (very steady) and graphic equipment (Yesterday we sold 200 machines $6000/ea to S. America and pad printing, and VIVA Craft (AC more, Hobby Lobby, Michael’s, Joans --- are all my customers, they all have 1000's stores nationwide) But they do not have forum as this one with excitement. Craft does but it is not my league. Woman's chat, nothing wrong with that. I just maybe too manly and old. I have no reason to make story here. Just my English is not deep enough to convince anybody. I often give lots of respect to who writes well. Justin W is one of them. Don't you think I am brave? I think I am. I really love you guys. Not kidding at all.
Rodney, you are so cheap for "thanks" Give me one. Haha joke I don't give a thing.
I am heading to LA 1 pm where craft show is starting. This show is 10 times bigger than ISS or SGIA. We have 8 booth lay-out. VIVA owner from Germany is coming who I have exclusive with. I have to say Hello in face, eat handshake and heading back. I prefer to chat here than that. But chat is not good as playing golf and fishing.
See you.


----------



## allamerican-aeoon

Strange thing is no competitors are jump in here. Usually they do and excitement starts.


----------



## TahoeTomahawk

LOL.. you guys are funny. I'm asking how your car runs better and you keep explaining what a car is.

When Peter made his comment, I thought he was doing something new and unique, that's why I asked the question.
Turns out nothing unique is going on here at all and he was just giving himself a plug.

What was even the point of writing that Peter? To let everyone know you're tweaking the profiles .. big whoop. Your competitors do that on a daily basis.

John, congrats on your Rip. Not sure why you keep mentioning all the hard work that went into it.. isn't that commonplace for the software industry? I don't think you can call yourself a Software engineer until you've had at least 1 all-nighter at the office.

Doing what everyone else is doing ... selling Ice Cream and calling it Cream of the Ice.


----------



## TahoeTomahawk

JohnL said:


> anymore questions?


I have a question. Did you write the Rip? Are you planning to sell the Rip to work with other printers?


----------



## allamerican-aeoon

"LOL You guys are funny"
Funny part is more belong to you than JohnL or me.

No he did not write. He knows a lot more than you and I combined.

Why we sell something will not work on other printers? It will lay the ink but not good wth theirs.
We guarantee money back on somrthing we promised. Check my other post.
Check our service reputation. We are not hungry to sell something not working.
Do you want to buy one? No Moneyback guarantee!!! I just want to check how far you will go.

Doesn't someone said unique cannot be share? Hello!!!

Do you want one NeoFlex to test? to compare with yours?


----------



## JohnL

Adam,

Lets be civilized here we aren't here to start a commotion. The Rip is as advertised. It will save users time, while giving amazing output. I simply posted to clarify a few things, because i felt that our process was being misrepresented. 

Not having to tweak artwork is a luxury not everyone has. The NeoFlex system has features that not every system offers. I am not a software engineer nor do i have any aspirations to be. Our goal is to keep our members happy and provide them with every tool necessary to be successful. 

Giving away processes we invested tremendous amounts of time into because someone requested it on the forums is not in Peter's best interest as a business man and a business owner. The perks are there, it's up to the consumer what they want in their DTG machine.


----------



## TahoeTomahawk

JohnL said:


> Giving away processes we invested tremendous amounts of time into because someone requested it on the forums is not in Peter's best interest as a business man and a business owner. The perks are there, it's up to the consumer what they want in their DTG machine.


Exactly my point, I guess you missed it. Go back and read my first 3 or 4 responses to Peter.

It sounded to me he was doing something 'different' that's being done on the market. I'm not arguing about it being 'better' because that's a matter of opinion. 

I don't know, I feel like he opened himself up for specifics but when called out we get the smoke and mirrors.

As they say, don't start none, won't be none!


----------



## IAC

we have been using the new rip from AA for a couple pf months now and v r running designs for a local designers with this rip as well as with the old rip from AA. When we provided samples of their art work printed with the new Neo Rip pro, the clients couldn't stop reving about it. WAY TO GO NEORIP PRO!!!


----------



## FredP

I think most RIPs have a "set it and forget it" mode now. In our case you position the artwork on the platen either in the RIP or in your favorite app (Photoshop, Corel, etc.). Select the white-generation method (or select your pre-defined settings) and press print. Pretty painless. 
No offense but there's nothing "innovative" about the NeoRIP. A good product? Sure, Kathari has been a worthy competitor for years. They have their following, CadLink has their following and so does iProof. Putting a RIP on an Epson-based printer is not exactly a new concept. Lets not get carried away. For example, you cannot drive an Epson any faster than that epson will move, regardless of you RIP technology. You can have pretty color profiles, a good UI and good white generation. That's it. Throw in some bells and whistles which vary from vendor to vendor but basically those are the three major factors.

Improvements are always being made to all three of these areas by ALL us RIP vendors. Yes, I agree, the whole PACKAGE has to be good. Keep in mind, that includes service an support as well as software and hardware.


** Fred


----------



## JohnL

Hey Fred,

I do not speak of anyone else's product. I'm sure your product is great as I have not used it. We do feel that the NeoRip Pro will improve production for its users. At the same time, we believe it will provide them with results they need to thrive in this cut-throat industry. 

We are asking consumers to challenge us with their artwork in the upcoming shows. Hope we will be met with tough challenges. I am really looking forward to see what the community brings us. 

See everyone at the shows!


----------



## TahoeTomahawk

JohnL said:


> Hey Fred,
> 
> I do not speak of anyone else's product. I'm sure your product is great as I have not used it. We do feel that the NeoRip Pro will improve production for its users. At the same time, we believe it will provide them with results they need to thrive in this cut-throat industry.
> 
> We are asking consumers to challenge us with their artwork in the upcoming shows. Hope we will be met with tough challenges. I am really looking forward to see what the community brings us.
> 
> See everyone at the shows!


Except for the fact that it cannot be run on any other printers except for the NeoFlex. So the last 2 pages of me asking Peter questions are moot. He was not willing to describe what makes his Rip so great on the 4880 platform, so what was the point of him even posting besides to give himself self promotion.
That would be like DTG coming in here doing the same thing with Rip Pro or Belquette with Power Rip.

The only difference is that iProof runs on multiple printers and platforms where NeoRip is exclusive to his printer.


----------



## JohnL

Not sure what the point of all of this is. We like our NeoRip Pro and we will continue to use it. It seems you like iproof, please continue to use that. As far as the Rip goes you will not get any more information from anyone on our staff including Peter. We are under a strict confidentiality agreement with the developers. 

If you are curious about the Rip come see it in action at the upcoming shows. We are asking the community to challenge us with their artwork. Please bring your complex and difficult to print artwork.


----------



## Justin Walker

The results speak for themselves...... That's all I've got to say.

Justin's RIP history:

iProof RIP
Wasatch SoftRIP
Onyx Graphics RIP
Brother driver
Kothari based DreamRIP
NeoRIP (first version)
NeoRIP PRO
CadLink RIP (haven't tested yet)

So far, the best results I've ever gotten from a DTG printer have been with the Kothari-based RIP's - PERIOD. This means "with the least amount of artwork prep" (I don't have time to prep every one-off print that we do).

Take it for what it's worth..... Granted, we have gotten the DreamRIP to perform at a comparable level by copying many of the settings from the NeoRIP PRO, but there are still inherent differences between them. Again, I'm not gonna sit here and try to convince everyone out there in web-land; it makes zero difference to me, whether or not you believe me. Take your artwork to a trade snow and try it yourself, or swing by my shop and I'll give you the point-by-point comparison.


----------



## TahoeTomahawk

JohnL said:


> Not sure what the point of all of this is. We like our NeoRip Pro and we will continue to use it. It seems you like iproof, please continue to use that. As far as the Rip goes you will not get any more information from anyone on our staff including Peter. We are under a strict confidentiality agreement with the developers.
> 
> If you are curious about the Rip come see it in action at the upcoming shows. We are asking the community to challenge us with their artwork. Please bring your complex and difficult to print artwork.


JohnL, then what is the point of Peter posting about his Rip that is SOO great if you guys are not going to give up any details about it? Self promotion?.. obviously.

I didn't post to Peter requesting information about his Rip I heard about or saw somewhere, I was responding to HIS post, if you don't want questions about specifics, then DON'T POST!

And it's not that I like iProof, it's that iProof run's on both of my different machines. Does your RIP run on my Kiosk or MOD1? If not then you're not even relevant as a RIP.

Seriously, what is the point of bragging about something owners of other machines can't even use.. don't you guys have your own forum somewhere that you can chat about your machine specific software?

As far as I'm concerned, you're not even in the same league as iProof until you have a version that runs on different Printers.


----------



## JohnL

Thank you Adam for your insight on this matter. The fact is we are not on the market to sell copies of our rip, we sell equipment. We offer our NeoFlex family members the NeoRip Pro because we feel it is in their best interest to own one.

If you have taken a look at our system you would have noticed that the operation is slightly different from the Kiosk or Mod1. If you are upset that you cannot use our rip software I apologize for that inconvenience. 

The reason I posted was because I felt our Rip was being misrepresented. I also posted to thank Justin for taking the time to post such helpful information. I thought posting in a forum were our print was showcased was ok to do, I apologize for this. 

If self promotion is educating the public and offering to print their artwork. I am guilty as charged. 

On a side note Adam, this may be slightly rude but the posts were not entirely for you. You are entitled to your opinions just as anyone else would be. So lets let them decide for themselves what to think of the NeoRip Pro. As long as some find this information beneficial, then my posts were not in vein.


----------



## FredP

Justin Walker said:


> " (I don't have time to prep every one-off print that we do).


Yes, prep time can take away from your profits. 
Speaking of which... There is a VERY large company who does one-off prints all day, all night 7 days a week. I'm not sure how many of our RIPs they have but it's triple digits. One of the reasons they picked the system they did (mod 1) is because they don't have to prep anything. As a matter of fact, they don't even touch the RIP. Customer sends artwork. Artwork gets dropped in hot folder... ripped job comes out the other end.

What version of the iProof RIP do you have? I don't remember giving you one. 

Oh, since we're obviously allowed to self-promote now, particularly in this thread: All you iProof RIP users out there... Version 7.45 is about to launch! Check with your distributor for details. See you in Orlando. Bring your files AND YOUR STOPWATCH.

-- Fred


----------



## FredP

... And... since we're also discussing "total systems" now... Here's the mod1/iProof package printing the flaming guitar. Twice!

The file was not prepped in any way. It was positioned, sized and printed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATfXTgpULfM


OK... I showed you mine, now you show me yours 



-- Fred


----------



## JohnL

Hello Fred,

Iproof 1 - NeoRip Pro 0

Thank you for telling us again how many units you have out on the market. It is a great help to the dtg community.

I haven't said one thing about your rip other then it is probably great. Yet you still feel the need to defend the software?

I particularly enjoy when Justin W. posts. His writing style is very eloquent yet straight to the point when he needs to be. Look him up his posts are all very informative. 

Great video Fred! Can you post the pictures of the prints. Also how large was the image, I would like to print at the same size you have

Also its not nice that you called this thread a NeoFlex commercial. We have not posted any videos or pictures of any sort ourselves.

Hopefully one day we'll collaborate together.

Hope you get a great turnout in Orlando, best of luck to you.

Regards,
John


----------



## FredP

JohnL said:


> Thank you for telling us again how many units you have out on the market. It is a great help to the dtg community.


Well... I guess it's about as much of a help to the DTG community as Peter telling everyone how the new version of NeoRIP is "better than best" hahaha. By the way with the triple-digit remark, I was refering to ONE customer, not the whole market.



JohnL said:


> I haven't said one thing about your rip other then it is probably great. Yet you still feel the need to defend the software?


I wasn't "defending" anything. I was simply commenting on the fact that Justin is correct. Prepping the artwork can erode your profits.



JohnL said:


> I particularly enjoy when Justin W. posts. His writing style is very eloquent yet straight to the point when he needs to be. Look him up his posts are all very informative.


Yes, Justin an I have been posting on threads on this topic for many years. He's a very articulate young man.



JohnL said:


> Great video Fred! Can you post the pictures of the prints. Also how large was the image, I would like to print at the same size you have


The pics have been posted for quite a while. They are in this thread: 
http://www.t-shirtforums.com/direct-garment-dtg-inkjet-printing/t138200.html Not sure the size. It was shot at the Belquette office.



JohnL said:


> Also its not nice that you called this thread a NeoFlex commercial. We have not posted any videos or pictures of any sort ourselves.


You're kidding, right?



JohnL said:


> Hopefully one day we'll collaborate together.


I would not be surprised. It's a small industry. Sooner or later we all interact in some way.




JohnL said:


> Hope you get a great turnout in Orlando, best of luck to you.


Likewise, John. I look forward to meeting you.

-- Fred


----------



## JohnL

Nice print! How were you able to take the glow out around the guitar?


----------



## FredP

JohnL said:


> Nice print! How were you able to take the glow out around the guitar?


Thanks. 
There's a slider control on the RIP that can be used for that.
After that pic was taken some improvements were made and it now holds the glow and the punch quite nicely. I'll post some new pics soon.

-- Fred


----------



## TahoeTomahawk

JohnL said:


> Thank you Adam for your insight on this matter. The fact is we are not on the market to sell copies of our rip, we sell equipment. We offer our NeoFlex family members the NeoRip Pro because we feel it is in their best interest to own one.


Exactly my point! Look at the title of the thread.
Can any Anajet, DTG, Belquette or any other vendors *Choose* your Rip? No they cannot, so go marvel at your proprietary software somewhere else. 



JohnL said:


> If you have taken a look at our system ...


This thread is not about your system, it's about choosing a RIP. If you want to promote your entire system take it to the NeoFlex section.



JohnL said:


> the operation is slightly different from the Kiosk or Mod1.


Yeah, I'm sure it is. But let me guess. You guys don't want to explain *how* it's different because that would be giving away company secrets. 

Silly Me .. I thought the point was to view the artwork file on your computer, select the settings and send the Job to the Printer.
If your system is so different, than it's too complicated for production use and I'm not interested.


----------



## Belquette

I really should not need to point out the obvious here, but this entire thread is about choosing the right RIP software.
Ironically the reason it's called *software* and not *hardware* is that one can be changed quite easily and the other,… well not so easy.
In today's world most machines are a key stroke away when updates or better features become available and in some cases like the notorious 'Windows 'weekly' Updates' it’s just common place.
The caveat is really the *hardware* as it's not quite as easy to just download a patch to make it better, faster or more user friendly.
That's not to say that hardware cannot be upgraded as there are firmware revisions that can be done, but in general the production capacity and the overall design will not change, so in the end the *hardware* is really what one is investing into.
For example we realized that the Flexi-Jet concept worked well but really was not the ideal platform for production type facilities and although a head of its time we found it to be more restrictive in certain aspects and did have speed limitations. With that in mind and watching how users interacted with the product we made some radical changes in the hardware that would allow user’s greater flexibility, growth and last but not least…speed.
At the end of the day it’s the numbers that matter and that is why the mod1’s* hardware* was designed the way it is.
Its’ flattering that our original concepts are still employed but it is a bit beyond its prime today when considering user production requirements.


----------



## JohnL

The rip we currently use was specifically designed to fit our printers particular process of printing. I did state before that does not mean the Rip is proprietary to our machine. 

The differences mentioned are differences in hardware, critical differences we have with our machine vs your mod1. 4880 vs 1900 or 2200. I'm sure if you download the 4880 drivers it will not work on your printer. Also our printer moves over the shirt rather than a platen that moves in and out.

I would love to tell you what processes we go through with our rip and how it does what it does. Unfortunately we are signed to a confidentiality agreement with the Rip developers and thus it is out of my hands.


----------



## Belquette

> The differences mentioned are differences in hardware, critical differences we have with our machine vs your mod1. 4880 vs 1900 or 2200.


I understand those critical difference quite well, they can and all do produce great images! 



> Also our printer moves over the shirt rather than a platen that moves in and out.


You do know we designed the original Flexi-Jet that your printer is based from ...right?



> I would love to tell you what processes we go through with our rip and how it does what it does. Unfortunately we are signed to a confidentiality agreement with the Rip developers and thus it is out of my hands.


Would you really love to tell us....its' ok you need to have something unque..


----------



## TahoeTomahawk

JohnL said:


> The rip we currently use was specifically designed to fit our printers particular process of printing. I did state before that does not mean the Rip is proprietary to our machine.


Generally, RIPS for DTG have 2 functions.
1. To work with the printer specific hardware to print the rendered layer on the T-shirt.

2. To render the best possible layers to send to the print engine.

I've said at least 4 times now that I do not care about hardware specific functionality, it has no relevance. Every RIP is expected to work with the printers hardware, that's its job.

My simple question to Peter about his comment was, *what* about your RIP (rendered layers, item #2) makes your RIP better than the others using the same variables (Print Engine, Print Head, Ink Set).

For Example, the answer could be as simple as.. Our Rip is better because we do not use Dupont Ink, and our ICC profiles are optimized for our inkset using the 4880 platform.

I'm not asking secrets like what is the chemical makeup of your ink or the details of your profile. So stop giving us the run around.

If I'm wrong, kindly correct me. Make me a believer that your hardware is the main variable here because I have a hard time believing that Printer A running your Rip is producing a less vibrant color Green because it's using a belt drive instead of a Lead Screw.


----------



## JohnL

Sorry Mark the post was in response to Adam's post he seemed a little confused about some of the differences so I elaborated for him. 

Yes i do know you guys designed the Flexi-Jet. Are you implying our flatbed is the same as your flexi-jet? If so can the same thing be said about your printer and say an Anajet?

I'm starting to get the feeling there is some animosity towards our product at the moment. Where this came from i do not know, why is even a bigger conundrum. 

If we have offended you guys in anyway I apologize. Please do not be offended I believe everyone has their advantages. I believe in healthy competition. After all, competition drives innovation.


----------



## JohnL

Adam,

We cannot answer that question because it would be in direct violation of our confidentiality agreement with the software developers please understand.

Hardware is not the main variable. There are multiple variable that are all very important.


----------



## Belquette

No animosity.
_All is good, looking forward to seeing that live video!_


----------



## JohnL

Haha Sure let me just pull out the NeoFlex in my closet and print a shirt for you. 

This debate over 1 print and the end of the day packed and ready is really starting to get old lets not bring this up.

But I do have to point out one thing before we do our print. In you video and in the sample posted. there seem to be large areas of print missing (glow around the guitar) approximately 1-2 inches maybe more around the entire images. essentially taking a 10x18 and turning it into 8x16. (These are not the actual numbers)

Please let us know the image size and bring the printed shirt to the show i'll take comparison pictures. I'm dying to try out my new camera with built in projector.


----------



## TahoeTomahawk

JohnL said:


> Adam,
> 
> We cannot answer that question because it would be in direct violation of our confidentiality agreement with the software developers please understand.
> 
> Hardware is not the main variable. There are multiple variable that are all very important.


Then clarify why you are posting in this thread and inviting discussion if you cannot disclose any relevant information to debate why you consider your *RIP* better than whats on the market?


----------



## JohnL

Adam,

I've already answered your questions to the furthest extent at which I am allowed. If you would like more information please visit our booth for a demo. 

Although I do not remember making a direct comparison between the NeoRip Pro and any other available Rip. I apologize for misleading you or anyone else into believing this. 

P.S. Bring your artwork.


----------



## Belquette

We will also be in Orlando and as always we encourage you to bring your artwork by for a demo.

PS: Bring your stopwatch.


----------



## TahoeTomahawk

JohnL said:


> Adam,
> 
> I've already answered your questions to the furthest extent at which I am allowed. If you would like more information please visit our booth for a demo.
> 
> Although I do not remember making a direct comparison between the NeoRip Pro and any other available Rip. I apologize for misleading you or anyone else into believing this.
> 
> P.S. Bring your artwork.


Yes, you did make that clear after about the 8th post. All along I thought the Rip was actually a choice. Thanks for clearing it up though.

As of now since it's not a choice and only available to NeoFlex customers, I wouldn't even call it a Rip, it's more like a Printer Driver.


I might come by in Orlando, hopefully you guys will be more prepared to answer some questions so I can report back to the DTG community.


----------



## Justin Walker

FredP said:


> What version of the iProof RIP do you have? I don't remember giving you one.


GIVING me one? No no, Fred, I purchased one when I had my Flexi, and you know that. Nobody "gave" me anything - I paid like everyone else. Of course it was an ooooooold version of the RIP that I had experience with, but it was also over the course of about a year-and-a-half that I got to work with you guys. I honestly always liked your RIP, and I am sure it is even way better all these years later. However, the only recent experience I have with it is watching Jerid struggle to print, then re-print, that sample image that the other two companies had no problem with, whatsoever. Also, a few local printers around here with Kiosk II's and other iProof-based systems, that simply cannot compete with what we can put out from our machines. Maybe they just need some more training on the RIP, to get those "zero prep" results you guys keep talking about.

There is a guy a few blocks away from me who is really cool; we spend a lot of time sharing information back and forth (he owns a Kiosk II), and he is about to run a bunch of shirts for the local Lemon Festival that our town has every year. I will see if he would be interested in letting me film the process of him ripping and printing a few of those shirts, then I will do the same using our RIP / printer combo, to see the difference? I am open to the possibility that a LOT has changed in the iProof RIP in recent years; we are all constantly developing and learning. If anyone wants to set up a date / time, we could even do the whole circuit and visit my friends with a Kornit, an Anajet, and maybe even a few other local printers...... "The CA DTG Print-Circuit" - it would be like a field trip, and we could film / photograph some prints at each shop.


----------



## FredP

Wow, that's ancient! 

A lot of the Kiosk II users have the older version without the "print-from", etc. They probably just print from Photoshop or Corel if they're on V03. 

Yes, a lot has changed over the years. A lot has changed in the last few weeks, even. I've optimized a few things in this upcoming release.

The company I spoke of in my previous post is a large service bureau (I can't use their name but you know who they are) they do thousands of prints daily from cusomter's files with no prep.


-- Fred


----------



## TahoeTomahawk

Yes, Fred we have an old version of Rip Pro v03 that we use because it also has the old profiles for the R&H ink. Our long-time clients tweaked their artwork to get it to their liking on the Kiosk so we stick with that version.
I really wish it did have the import feature like we do with the Power Rip on MOD1 because we can control the white underbase layer better.


----------



## FredP

That's cool. As long as it gives you what you want. You know... we can move the R&H profiles over to V04. You just copy and rename a couple of files and you're good to go.

-- Fred


----------



## Justin Walker

I would love to steer this conversation away from the detrimental direction it's been taking, and maybe focus more on the original intent of the thread; I know there has been some debate over what, in fact, the actual intent of this thread was in the first place, but as the thread starter I feel I have more insight into that than most people...

The intent was not to show various options for RIP's that people could buy, which would be interchangeable with their existing software. If that were the case, why on earth would I have included the Brother sample in the mix? They don't even use a RIP, from what I understand! Well, not in the traditional sense, anyways. I just wanted to bring attention to the fact that your RIP software, or more importantly your RIP SETTINGS, could indeed have a serious impact on the level of quality you are limited to putting out. I mean honestly - if you were a machine owner and you tried to print that flaming guitar image on a Mod1 (as an example) and got the results that Jerid handed to me, would you first blame the RIP or would you blame the machine? MOST people would quickly make a judgement call on the machine, before they've ever fully investigated alternate print options through the RIP software itself.... This leads to "dissatisfied customers" claiming that the machine in question can't produce incredible prints, whereas in reality it does not represent a hardware shortfall, in any way. By exploring the software side of things, we can all benefit from expanded control of our output quality, without falling back on the old "aw man, my machine sucks" routine.

All of this healthy bickering has actually proved beneficial, in my mind, because people are discussing more specific RIP-related issues and I know lots of people who have started experimenting with different settings within their own shops... It would be nice to see more discussion along those lines - I know Fred has continued to make improvements to the iProof RIP, even in light of this thread and what it has inadvertently started.... Even the mighty NeoRIP PRO has been upgraded and adjusted in recent days, which has improved our output even further (they eliminated a strange offset bug we were having, and it didn't take a lot of work for them to do it - it just required some dedicated minds tackling the issue and disseminating the information to the rest of us, for the benefit of all users). ALL the RIP companies can continue to make changes and improvements, just like all the hardware guys should be doing. In the meantime, sharing information about what profiles to use, how to properly apply them in the RIP workflow, and which settings ultimately use for printing will make us all more productive and more profitable.

I still haven't found a "perfect" product, but I'll keep my eyes peeled......


----------



## 102557

this may be of some interest to folks with an older machine or those that want to try something different... I have found that ek rip will work with you to produce a rip to your liking (molding to fit your machine).. by first sending a base demo for your epson format.. 

for instance my demo would print like a standard epson driver then i would get errors due to my hardware configurations that had to be overcome.. ie shortening eject distances etc and using there feed and gap adjust to make up for hardware issues.. had i used the exact configurations of the stock r1900 using friction drive it would have worked perfect from the start with no adjustments..

the problem is you have to work with the hardware you have on the modified printer.. 

I know randy (spiderx1) has worked with them on a rip for his t3.. i dont know the status of this or if its completed but just shows you they will work with you at no charge (by my experience) on trying to find a solution using there product.. This requires time and patience by my experience, sending alot of print to files back and forth and communication, but the end result was more than worth it in my case.. 

Im personally not very rip savy, I'm just barely computer savy.. I didnt want a rip that had the controls of boeing 747 or one that needed to be controlled in this manner with the experienced user in mind, because i knew i would be there all day and probably wouldnt do a good job with the final render.. some may prefer tweaking there color settings etc.. I do not because frankly i really dont know how to very fast or easy and simply dont have the patience I would have had a meltdown and tossed the printer out the window..

I found with ek i can put the image in the rip either to or from hit print and it looks like it should, or at least how it did coming out of corel.. no color adjustments etc.. I also liked the fact i could do nozzle checks, head aligns, print purges, and set it to print a maintenace print from one program (the rip itself)..

the only thing i really fool with is when printing white in 720 i raise the color contrast up from the default setting (in settings) and view the image via preview before printing.. the screen is very accurate for what the print looks like... and whala.. im done I plan on asking them if they can set the default higher for the color contrast in the white window.. 

Its the same brand software the anajet sprint uses, and im very very happy with it and the customer service they provide (ek rip).. so you t-jet users/ others may want to look into this with them!!!


----------



## FredP

Justin Walker said:


> I would love to steer this conversation away from the detrimental direction it's been taking, and maybe focus more on the original intent of the thread; I know there has been some debate over what, in fact, the actual intent of this thread was in the first place, but as the thread starter I feel I have more insight into that than most people...
> 
> The intent was not to show various options for RIP's that people could buy, which would be interchangeable with their existing software. If that were the case, why on earth would I have included the Brother sample in the mix? They don't even use a RIP, from what I understand! Well, not in the traditional sense, anyways. I just wanted to bring attention to the fact that your RIP software, or more importantly your RIP SETTINGS, could indeed have a serious impact on the level of quality you are limited to putting out. I mean honestly - if you were a machine owner and you tried to print that flaming guitar image on a Mod1 (as an example) and got the results that Jerid handed to me, would you first blame the RIP or would you blame the machine? MOST people would quickly make a judgement call on the machine, before they've ever fully investigated alternate print options through the RIP software itself.... This leads to "dissatisfied customers" claiming that the machine in question can't produce incredible prints, whereas in reality it does not represent a hardware shortfall, in any way. By exploring the software side of things, we can all benefit from expanded control of our output quality, without falling back on the old "aw man, my machine sucks" routine.
> 
> All of this healthy bickering has actually proved beneficial, in my mind, because people are discussing more specific RIP-related issues and I know lots of people who have started experimenting with different settings within their own shops... It would be nice to see more discussion along those lines - I know Fred has continued to make improvements to the iProof RIP, even in light of this thread and what it has inadvertently started.... Even the mighty NeoRIP PRO has been upgraded and adjusted in recent days, which has improved our output even further (they eliminated a strange offset bug we were having, and it didn't take a lot of work for them to do it - it just required some dedicated minds tackling the issue and disseminating the information to the rest of us, for the benefit of all users). ALL the RIP companies can continue to make changes and improvements, just like all the hardware guys should be doing. In the meantime, sharing information about what profiles to use, how to properly apply them in the RIP workflow, and which settings ultimately use for printing will make us all more productive and more profitable.
> 
> I still haven't found a "perfect" product, but I'll keep my eyes peeled......


 

Indeed. The software is every bit as important as the hardware. Yes, I will admit that this thread did prompt improvements in the mighty PowerRIP  As I stated in the other thread, I've been off writing film RIPs and direct-to-plate rips and hadn't made any significant improvements in a while. This gives me an excuse to work on what is, without a doubt, my favorite flavor of the iProof stuff. The new stuff is in Beta testing. I improved the handling of files with a black background in the print-from workflow. Files with transparent backgrounds have always worked great but I improved that a bit too.

The ugly guitar print, as I mentioned in my other thread, was caused by the "Use white ink under black ink" checkbox being left on. I've already pulled Jerid's ears for that. BUT... it wasn't all his fault. It should not be that easy to make that mistake. I revamped some of that stuff, added a new mode and improved the output. I made a promise on this thread that if I found something wrong with our product I would fix it. I wasn't kidding.

I'm going to make a video this week (tomorrow, I hope) of a few jobs being inserted in the RIP and printed. One of them will be the guitar and it will show what settings I tweaked to get rid of some of the glow without editing the artwork. 

I don't know if you ever saw the video I posted back in 2008 when V04 was about to launch. I posted it on the now defunct screenprinting university's site. It shows the new "print-from" stuff (well, it was new then). It shows artwork printing without being touched except for sizing and positioning and also one of the more unique features (exporting the auto-generated underbase for external editing).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UYC_s17WfQ

PS: Hope you like Frankie Goes to Hollywood.

-- Fred


----------



## TahoeTomahawk

Fred, one thing I like about the iproof Rip is the flexibility it allows for white underbase generation.

But on the same hand, the thing I hated most about Print Pro was too much flexibility, with little canned working settings. Often it was near impossible for me to reprint the image later and have it match.

With Power Rip on the MOD, I really liked the templates you can choose from. They are very useful as Justin pointed out. Little to no input required from the user and it just works. To me that is best for production mode. If anymore work was to be done on the Rip, I can't think of many more features it's lacking, maybe just tighten up the existing templates?


----------



## FredP

TahoeTomahawk said:


> I can't think of many more features it's lacking, maybe just tighten up the existing templates?


Sure. Let me know if you have anything specific in mind. I'll see if I can get it into the next build.

-- Fred


----------



## Belquette

See how productive it can be when you have direct contact with the software and hardware engineers that make this stuff happen.
It's quite rare to have both participating and listening to the users, even more rare is actual acting on them.


----------



## vinyl signs

All I can say is the title of this thread does not covey the proper message! I asked a question way back in the beginning post #6 and never got a straight answer! The title of this post should have been best rip/printer combination! Justin Walker you seem to just answer to the people you want to. A lot of this bickering could have been avoided if you woud have answered question in post #6, but you chose to avoided it, and keep pushing your point!


----------



## Justin Walker

vinyl signs said:


> All I can say is the title of this thread does not covey the proper message! I asked a question way back in the beginning post #6 and never got a straight answer! The tile of this post should have been best rip/printer combination! Justin Walker you seem to just answer to the people you want to. A lot of this bickering could have been avoided if you woud have answered question in post #6, but you chose to avoided it, and keep pushing your point!


Oh gee I'm sorry..... I was unaware that I was obligated to respond to everyone who asks a question..... Some people amaze me; yeah, this is a free forum - I get to respond to whomever I choose. The point was to stimulate conversation, not ENGAGE in conversation - it's not about me, so get over it.


----------



## Justin Walker

vinyl signs said:


> Justine that was a great example of what the RIP can actually cost you! I would like to see someone take all the rips and print from one machine to see what the differences would be. I would also like to know if these DTG manufactures are doing anything to the print drive engines. That way us a end users could decide which RIP is best for us!
> 
> Thanks Again!
> 
> Also can one buy these RIPs without purchasing a printer from the different vendors?


Can you explain why this is something that I would need to answer, myself? I have no friggin' clue, and it wouldn't be my place to answer - but thanks for the bitter response about pushing my agenda or whatever, just because I didn't have an answer for you.


----------



## vinyl signs

Well Justin you knew the RIP you were bragging about could only run the Neoflex printer. So your post shouldn't have been about RIPs.


----------



## Stitch-Up

vinyl signs said:


> Well Justin you knew the RIP you were bragging about could only run the Neoflex printer. So your post shouldn't have been about RIPs.


Neoflex owners do have a choice of RIPS so the thread title holds for me.


----------



## allamerican-aeoon

I have been away for 4 days in CA.
I read BQ said: Flexijet was wrong printer/concept. I hope he will not say same on his Mod-1 in near future.
I show every detail to Justin about many differences between NeoFlex and Flexijet. If BQ do not mind to see I will post some pictures here.
BQ said bring your stop watch: Mod1 printhead moves same as any other 1900 base printer. Same as all 4880 printhead moves in same speed. No ones faster than others.(Fred said on this forum too). Printhead speed is never a Production speed. NeoFlex production will be way ahead than 1900 base end of the day. BQ told me why NeoFlex concept is good and funny thing is they were right but they could not complete the idea with Flexijet. Now BQ said it is wrong concept. They did same with Dual, did same with I-180. Now when will they do with mod1?

I read many Fred's posts. Man cannot run well when one leg is shorter than another leg. iProof RIP is good. I know. As JohnL said one day AA want to work with iProof. Fred is very cool guy with lots of know how. I remember what he told me when Flexijet registration was uncontrolled. I learn from him a lot and applied to NeoFlex. His advice was big help to NeoFlex. His key word was "pixel don't lie" then what will lie? He said to me while people tortured him.
I said "Better than Best". I was wrong. I should say "Better than before" sorry about this. I don't want to say NeoRIP Pro is better than iProof RIP. If I say it is then I am way wrong again. NeoRIP Pro just marry Right printer. Maybe iProof RIP can be good marriage with NeoFlex also never know until the day comes.
ps: look into inside of machine you can tell DIY and Pro's difference. As same as you do when you buy a car.


----------



## TahoeTomahawk

Justin Walker said:


> So far, the best results I've ever gotten from a DTG printer have been with the Kothari-based RIP's - PERIOD. This means "with the least amount of artwork prep" (I don't have time to prep every one-off print that we do).


Justin, I've never heard of the Kothari Rip before so I went to their website. It looks like they are the maker of Print Pro distributed with the DTG brand printers, is that correct?

If so, this Rip to me is the opposite of what you described. We had to manually generate white layer masks in photoshop and import them into the Rip. We had to do 3-4 test prints and also tweak the artwork in order for the colors to come out right. There are so many settings that if you try to re-print the same image or print a similar image the chances of remembering the settings are slim.
The security the software employs is no good for computers connected to a printer as it requires a USB dongle, but everything is USB based these days including the printers so one is wasted on the software.

I hope the DreamRip and newer versions are nothing like Print Pro in anyway imaginable.


----------



## 102557

will the kothari based rip, or the mod1 rip print a white underbase in 720res?


----------



## JeridHill

german13 said:


> will the mod1 rip print a white underbase in 720res?


We can do that, but it just wasn't enough ink lay down, so the default is now set to a minimum of 1440x720. We have done 8 channels of white where it was all 720 as well and that was extremely fast, it's in a youtube video.

Think of it this way:

When the white ink level is set to 100% on 1440x1440 = 2073600, at 50% it's 1036800.

When the white ink level is set to 100% on 1440x720 = 1036800 or the same as 1440x1440 at 50%.

Using 1440x1440 at about 68% is the lowest I normally go to get a bright white that stands alone by itself, so you can see, 1440x720 at 100% levels just isn't enough white to get a good solid bright white.

Take the same logic and do 100% at 720x720 = 518400. Compared to the 68% at 1440x1440, that's (if my math is correct) 63% less ink than is needed for a bright white. So with 4 channels, it's impossible to get a good white lay down. Even if you do 2 passes, that's still only going to get you to 50% of the 1440x1440, still not enough for a good standalone white. It will do well with underbases for most jobs, but the stand alone white would be lacking.


----------



## TahoeTomahawk

german13 said:


> will the kothari based rip, or the mod1 rip print a white underbase in 720res?


We used to use 720 on the Kiosk, but the prints are very dull because of the underbase.

We use 1440 on both the Kiosk and the MOD1.


----------



## 102557

JeridHill said:


> We can do that, but it just wasn't enough ink lay down, so the default is now set to a minimum of 1440x720. We have done 8 channels of white where it was all 720 as well and that was extremely fast, it's in a youtube video.
> 
> Think of it this way:
> 
> When the white ink level is set to 100% on 1440x1440 = 2073600, at 50% it's 1036800.
> 
> When the white ink level is set to 100% on 1440x720 = 1036800 or the same as 1440x1440 at 50%
> 
> Using 1440x1440 at about 68% is the lowest I normally go to get a bright white that stands alone by itself, so you can see, 1440x720 at 100% levels just isn't enough white to get a good solid bright white.
> 
> Take the same logic and do 100% at 720x720 = 518400. Compared to the 68% at 1440x1440, that's (if my math is correct) 63% less ink than is needed for a bright white. So with 4 channels, it's impossible to get a good white lay down. Even if you do 2 passes, that's still only going to get you to 50% of the 1440x1440, still not enough for a good standalone white. It will do well with underbases for most jobs, but the stand alone white would be lacking.


thanks for the info, I have been told a million times that no one could lay down a white underbase in 720... Im just not understanding this very well because the ekrip can do this very easy..

unless im missing something, or there using some kind of trick to do this some how its doing it..
I showed the vid of this previously and it got bashed up and down, but it clearly shows it could flood the shirt..
maybe someone with more rip knowlege could explain this to me how ek is able to do this and no one else is? 
I even have the dot count etc on the ink estimate calculator on the surf shark print and the vid of the print itself to evaluate... 

the art is terrible (my doing) on this print artifacts etc, but the point was to show it laying down this white base in 720!!! any rip specialist care to review that vid/ink dot count and tell me whats up.. i know the printer is printing in 720- is it just laying down more passes to achieve this? P.S I did raise the color contrast higher in the white setting above the default level slightly!! so wouldnt this feature make it the best rip on the planet currently if no one else can do this?... (white underbase in 720) i will even give you the r1900 version number and you can request a demo to test this yourself! anybody?


----------



## TahoeTomahawk

Yup it can be done, but it's nowhere near vibrant enough. In fact, we sometimes use that setting on purpose when customers want a vintage / distressed design printed.


----------



## JeridHill

German, how long does it take to print a 10"x10" graphic with the white underbase set at 720?


----------



## 102557

TahoeTomahawk said:


> Yup it can be done, but it's nowhere near vibrant enough. In fact, we sometimes use that setting on purpose when customers want a vintage / distressed design printed.


Yeah I understand what your saying same results i witnessed when testing that brand rip.. Ek rip can do a stand alone white with no issue whatsoever entirely different results accross the board not just the white ink printed at 720......


----------



## 102557

JeridHill said:


> German, how long does it take to print a 10"x10" graphic with the white underbase set at 720?


Jerid, 

Im not sure on a 10 x10.. the vid of the surf shark print is around 12 x 13.5... ish I can go more white if needed ![media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oREjGkfKPlY[/media]

all so attached beelow is the ink estimate with dot count....


----------



## cavedave

Wow this is less of a thread and more of a epic saga (war and peace comes to garment printing).

Couple of points that people have got wrong on this thread.
It is true to say that on an Epson 4880 and larger machine no RIP can run faster than another at a given resolution as the microweaving is performed in the printer.
But on machines such as the 1800, 1900 and 2400 the software performs the microweaving.
There is a given number of passes that are required (mathamatically) in order to acheive a given resolution but some software adds extra passes at a given resolution.
As an example Epson own driver on these machines at 720x720 adds extr passes to reduce banding and therefore it is possible (and we do so in out RIP) to drive it faster at the same resolution.
In general at higher resolutions all the RIPs are the same, but I have found that most are not running these machine at max speed at 720x720.

The maths for a white pass are not as simple as how many heads times the resolution, as different machines are capable of different dot sizes and in some cases some only work at a given resolution.
The speed of outputting a given resolution is related to the resolution of the head.
As an example the Tjet / Kiosk machine had a largest dot size of around 40 pl while the 1800, 1900, 4880 based machines its around 21 pl. That means a 720x720 pass on a kiosk is the same ink volume (more or less) as 1440x720 on later machines.

Some one also said the 1800 and 4880 were the same speed, well that depends on the RIP and I can say we can defintly run an 1800 faster than anyone can run the 4880, so thats just not a true statment.

Justin I really look forward to when you can look at our product and your feed back. I hope its soon. Did you have any idea what you were starting LOL

Best regards

-David


----------



## JeridHill

Dave, I understand every head can perform differently and what works for one may be different than the other. Mathematically, I was just figuring output on our machine. I don't know the interworking of the RIP on the programming side, but I know what settings work for a bright white ink. If that's the case, then you should be able to take the simple formula I have for our machine, which has a 1900 print head, and apply it to get the relative amount of white ink needed. This formula would work the same for other machines, with the except of what amount of white ink is needed at what resolution to get a bright white. The droplet size will determine this, but again, I was speaking how it was working on our machine.

German, I can tell you, that image is not printed at 720dpi. They may say it is, but a 720 dpi setting would print that graphic in probably about 1 minute, you are doing it in around 2 1/2 minutes, which is most likely 1440x1440. We can print the same graphic size at the same speed if we use a medium white density, which is 1440x1440.


----------



## FredP

As Dave pointed out, unlike the 4880, 4900, 7880, etc., the 1800/1900/2200 etc are "software microweave" machines. The weave is performed by the driver or RIP. This weave pattern is very complex. I've briefly explained it verbally to some of the printer guys over the years. The fact is that the Epson head isn't necessarily being modulated accross the X axis in the resolution you're printing at. In fact, the Epson is actually UNABLE to be modulated in the X direction over a certain resolution. Higher resolutions are achieved by an "offset" command and the rest is handled by the microweave pattern so that dots end up next to each other, making the final "total resolution". So, resolution is a "relative" thing on the desktop printers. If you know the ESC/P2 language (the Epson language in which we all talk to these printers) and you looked at the header command which defines the resolution, you might be surprised by what numbers you see.

Now, as far as printing white at 720 x 720 and getting enough ink: If you set the printer up to print true 720 x 720 and then do 2 or more passes, you're not really printing at 720x720... I don't care what it says on the RIP. ;-) The speed will reflect this because wether or not you swipe the head in the same place multiple times without moving the Y axis or move the Y axis in smaller increments, it's still going to take the same amount of time (give or take a bit ) to lay down a given amount of ink. No way around that.

-- Fred


----------



## Belquette

Logic always prevails!

Thanks Dave and Fred for shedding light on how the various print engines driving a similar print-head preform differently speed wise due to the the fact that 48xx series print engines are hardware microwaved (fixed) as the smaller print engines are being controlled by the RIP which allows developers to get a bit more creative in how they lay down the dots.

PS: We are looking forward to seeing everyone in Orlando!


----------



## Justin Walker

cavedave said:


> Wow this is less of a thread and more of a epic saga (war and peace comes to garment printing).... Justin I really look forward to when you can look at our product and your feed back. I hope its soon. Did you have any idea what you were starting LOL


haha I had a feeling it would start another ****storm; it's really not that hard, with some of these guys. It is certainly entertaining, however - the dynamic between those who have a vested financial interest and those who don't, is always amusing to me.

I look forward to thoroughly evaluating your RIP, as well! The DreamJets are not currently inked up, at the moment, so we've been waiting until we place another order for ink in the coming weeks - believe me, I am anxious to see what it can do. For me, the excitement comes from trying new things and attempting to push these printers / RIP's to the limit, to see what kind of performance and quality we can get from them; my reward comes from discovering new things about the hardware and software that we use, which in turn allows me to offer a more competitive product to my clients... All the arguments and name-calling that seem to follow these actions is simply supurfluous, and serves only to provide interesting reading material while I'm not playing around in the shop. 

For the rest of the people who are watching, they get to choose whether or not they take anything useful away from these threads..... Those who don't agree with things I say or do - well, all I can say is "try it yourself, and report back your own results."


----------



## Rodney

*Thread Note:* some off topic/bickering posts have been moved out of this thread. 

We know there is a history between Belquette and AllAmerican. Please leave it at that...history. T-Shirt Forums is not a place to take pot shots at each other which derails threads with arguements. I'm sure you guys have each others contact information. Emails/phone calls/PMs (anywhere off board) would be a much better place for you to hash out your differences than in the middle of productive threads. 

_Instead of replying to someone's "dig", please click "Report Bad Post" to bring it to our attention so we can take care of it and keep the thread on track._ 

Any questions, please contact me directly so as not to take this thread even further off track ​


----------



## zoom_monster

FredP said:


> Now, as far as printing white at 720 x 720 and getting enough ink: If you set the printer up to print true 720 x 720 and then do 2 or more passes, you're not really printing at 720x720... I don't care what it says on the RIP. ;-) The speed will reflect this because wether or not you swipe the head in the same place multiple times without moving the Y axis or move the Y axis in smaller increments, it's still going to take the same amount of time (give or take a bit ) to lay down a given amount of ink. No way around that.
> 
> -- Fred


Yes, this is exactly what happening. If you look at the screenshot of the EK, you can see "level 2"... that 2 swipes of the same line before the bed advanced. In the driver and RIP (at least on the Anajet) you can set this up to like 6 on the CMYK and 4 on the white(if you really wanted to). So 1440 on level 1 would lay down the same amount of ink. You would loose a little time on the start and end of the design from the interweaving and gain or loose time depending on if you are multi or uni-directional.

German, try the same design with the larger dot, level 1 and bi-directional. That will be the fastest you can go. Some designs it will work if you can boost the white on the highlight but it wont work for all situations or production runs.


----------



## 102557

zoom_monster said:


> Yes, this is exactly what happening. If you look at the screenshot of the EK, you can see "level 2"... that 2 swipes of the same line before the bed advanced. In the driver and RIP (at least on the Anajet) you can set this up to like 6 on the CMYK and 4 on the white(if you really wanted to). So 1440 on level 1 would lay down the same amount of ink. You would loose a little time on the start and end of the design from the interweaving and gain or loose time depending on if you are multi or uni-directional.
> 
> German, try the same design with the larger dot, level 1 and bi-directional. That will be the fastest you can go. Some designs it will work if you can boost the white on the highlight but it wont work for all situations or production runs.


 
yes.. i kinda figured that was the deal.. the cool part is that you can set this to get an awesome print in the 720 res setting on the rip. regardless if it is a true 720 or not you can run it in 720 on the rip for both color and white (advantages to registration etc)..

when i did the vid i was still experimenting and i added a white highlight to the color pass.. i have since eliminated the white highlight and achieve the same/similar results whilst lowering the ink cost alot for that image. 

.. I found by raising the color contrast in the white settings works awesome aswell.. and as you mentioned dot size.. since this video i have reduced print time quite abit from the original time.. Its quite a rip IMHO.. and FAST


----------



## 102557

Check this vid out aswell. the creator of (davinci turbo rip) Korea based contacted me on my site. He says hes going to put together a rip for me to test on the 1900.. He has created rips for epson printers from 1400-9880 and for some other brand epson head machines. He sent a bunch of videos, hes got one where he converted the 1400 to a roll printer (firmware mod i guess?) because the 1400 doesnt come with roll capability..he looks to be a firmware/rip guy all in one. Some pretty impressive stuff hes got, cant wait to check it out.. 

check out this vid of the Davinci Turbo rip 1800/1900 printing in 1/2 steps.. have to go to about the 1:30 in the vid to see this.. 
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87thcJEyTZk[/media]

hes got the 1900 also printing in 1 inch steps.. pretty amazing stuff


----------



## cavedave

He is printing 720x360 and it would print just as fast with our product at this resolution (and I am sure Fred and others could do this as well). Although you wont get anywhere near enough ink for garment printing with this resolution.

Fred I only partially agree with you about the "adding and extra two pass" means it automaticall higher resolution. It depends how you do your microweaving and the number of pixels being printer in a pass.
For example the Epson driver ay 720x720 is only 720x720, but adds extra passes to reduce the banding. So instead of every other pixel in a pass its every 4th pixel (for example). Buut it only puts down 720x720 worth of ink.
So itdepends how many pixels you actuall put down, even thought you are correct that they are addressing more pixels.
Lots of the large format machines from Roland and Mimaki you can change the number of passes for a given resolution.

Best regards

-David


----------



## FredP

cavedave said:


> He is printing 720x360 and it would print just as fast with our product at this resolution (and I am sure Fred and others could do this as well). Although you wont get anywhere near enough ink for garment printing with this resolution.


Correct. On both.



cavedave said:


> Fred I only partially agree with you about the "adding and extra two pass" means it automaticall higher resolution. It depends how you do your microweaving and the number of pixels being printer in a pass.
> For example the Epson driver ay 720x720 is only 720x720, but adds extra passes to reduce the banding. So instead of every other pixel in a pass its every 4th pixel (for example). Buut it only puts down 720x720 worth of ink.
> So itdepends how many pixels you actuall put down, even thought you are correct that they are addressing more pixels.
> Lots of the large format machines from Roland and Mimaki you can change the number of passes for a given resolution.


I was thinking more along the lines of "all things being equal". There's too many variables in software microweaving to make certain blanket statements... BUT. The fact is (and the point I was trying to make) is that regardless of how you put them down (passes, Y movement, etc.), each dot is a max of 21pl and if you only have a total of 720 x 720 of them in a square inch you will have 518400 pl of ink in that square inch. Now, if you just swipe the head twice without moving the Y axis you will indeed still be at 720 dpi (since you're only addressing 720 pixels in each direction) AND you will indeed have twice the ink... but now your speed is half. I think if one is going to sacrifice speed for volume... might as well gain detail too (go to 1440x1440)

[edit] In my earlier post I should have said "you're not really printing at 720x720 *worth of ink volume*" since you're still "addressing" only 720 dpi.

-- Fred


----------



## JeridHill

FredP said:


> but now your speed is half. I think if one is going to sacrifice speed for volume... might as well gain detail too (go to 1440x1440)


Exactly. I know the RIP would print at 720x720 with a double pass, but it would be grainier. The only advantage I can see with this is as it was already mentioned, faster beginning and ending of the print cycle. That being said, I can't seeing it being that much of a difference and even enough to warrant a lower image quality.


----------



## 102557

JeridHill said:


> Exactly. I know the RIP would print at 720x720 with a double pass, but it would be grainier. The only advantage I can see with this is as it was already mentioned, faster beginning and ending of the print cycle. That being said, I can't seeing it being that much of a difference and even enough to warrant a lower image quality.


Jerid,

you should check out the rip and print some images for comparison.. In the video i posted here i didnt have my feed adjustment set right and i currently have my printer apart for modification.. once i get it together i will post some current videos with correct settings.. I think you will be amazed at the results/speed in comparison to others.. In fact several people that have used other rips were amazed accross the board. the conversation i hear most is the near perfect color match, a perfect example is this same image printed on a brother machine rendered no where near the original colors for the stock graphic... while testing other rips it required more color adjustments etc. with ek none just hit print. I'm interested in how the davinci turbo rip will fare in comparrison, i think it will be hard to beat currently compared to what ek rip has to offer as an over all package..

heres an old screen shot of the Table movement adjustment setting, this feature lets you correct hardware differences between the epson/and your configuration amongst a few other things...


----------



## FredP

Here's a print at 1440 x 720 color on top of 1440 x 720 white. (The white ink has come a long way. A few years ago you couldn't get this kind of quality at that white resolution). The Y movement is fast since the Y resolution is still 720 and you get the added advantage of double the detail (and ink volume) in the X direction.

Obviously it will look better at a higher res... otherwise everyone would print at lower resolutions  But, this level of quality is good. Probably good for a lot of orders.

The artwork has a transparent background. It was not touched in any way (drag in, size, click "create underbase", click print). Actual printed image size is 10 x 13.5 inches.

Here's the link to the YouTube video. YouTube muted my audio track 


[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vvfd_GCopXw[/media]



-- Fred


----------



## JeridHill

Fred, I've printed a lot of designs with a white underbase of 1440x720 and the results have been excellent and fast. The biggest thing is, with the lower resolution of white, you have to be spot on with your pre-treating technique. If you do stand-a-alone whites or spot colors, the 1440x1440 works much better, but it all depends on the customer.

Apparently your audio wasn't approved, bout time to get out your guitar.....


----------



## 102557

FredP said:


> Here's a print at 1440 x 720 color on top of 1440 x 720 white. (The white ink has come a long way. A few years ago you couldn't get this kind of quality at that white resolution). The Y movement is fast since the Y resolution is still 720 and you get the added advantage of double the detail (and ink volume) in the X direction.
> 
> Obviously it will look better at a higher res... otherwise everyone would print at lower resolutions  But, this level of quality is good. Probably good for a lot of orders.
> 
> The artwork has a transparent background. It was not touched in any way (drag in, size, click "create underbase", click print). Actual printed image size is 10 x 13.5 inches.
> 
> Here's the link to the YouTube video. YouTube muted my audio track
> 
> 
> [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vvfd_GCopXw[/media]
> 
> 
> 
> -- Fred


Looks like a very nice print on the mod1

I would be interested to see the surf shark (great dane graphic) printed on the mod1 or any 1800/1900 base for that matter at the same size 12x13ish it would be a good reference. I know what the original image colors are is supposed to be on that print.... I couldnt get the colors as good as ek on other rips that were avail for demo...

thanks for the vid..very cool..


----------



## TahoeTomahawk

That still looks really good. I think with the 4 white channel printers you could probably get away with doing 720 on light color shirts and have them look great. But on the Kiosk with the 3 channels we feel the underbase is not quite strong enough in the areas where the white peaks out. Sometimes doing white highlights helps, but to be safe we do 1440.

I have a Rip question in general. So when going from 720 to 1440 or higher, the detail is much better, but isn't the printer laying more ink? Shouldn't it more more saturated at 1440, or do you drop the dot size down in order to maintain the detail and not over-saturate the image?


----------



## JeridHill

TahoeTomahawk said:


> I have a Rip question in general. So when going from 720 to 1440 or higher, the detail is much better, but isn't the printer laying more ink? Shouldn't it more more saturated at 1440, or do you drop the dot size down in order to maintain the detail and not over-saturate the image?


My guess is the white levels Fred set for the 1440x720 is 100%. If you upped it to 1440x1440, you would have way too much white ink at 100%. It will vary, but not by much, mine are set to 68% on 1440x1440 and 100% on 1440x720.


----------



## FredP

TahoeTomahawk said:


> I have a Rip question in general. So when going from 720 to 1440 or higher, the detail is much better, but isn't the printer laying more ink? Shouldn't it more more saturated at 1440, or do you drop the dot size down in order to maintain the detail and not over-saturate the image?


Yes but not necessarily just the dot size. Colors, both white and CMYK, are "curved" or "linearized" which involves tone corrections applied on the full range of the curve. The spot sizes change as the requested density changes. This maintains detail and coverage.

[edit] Jerid is refering to the "ink limit" sliders wich we have in our RIP. Yes, I run those at 100% for the white when doing 1440x720 and about 75% when doing 1440x1440 (higher than Jerid because I don't pay for ink hahaha )

-- Fred


----------



## JeridHill

FredP said:


> (higher than Jerid because I don't pay for ink hahaha )


Wow, where can I get that gig?


----------



## red514

Excellent thread and a great post by Justin showing the same art on different machines. those Epson NeoFlex prints are awesome!


----------



## TahoeTomahawk

I would like to see if we can compare some prints that were run on the same platform, same print head, inkset and Rip to see if there is anything hardware related that actually makes the print better.

Maybe we can start by making a list of printers and what Epson model it was built on and go from there?


----------



## FredP

JeridHill said:


> Wow, where can I get that gig?


You have to learn to write code and a few other things.... On second thought... pay for the ink. You're better off 


-- Fred


----------



## FatKat Printz

TahoeTomahawk said:


> I would like to see if we can compare some prints that were run on the same platform, same print head, inkset and Rip to see if there is anything hardware related that actually makes the print better.
> 
> Maybe we can start by making a list of printers and what Epson model it was built on and go from there?


We run the same stuff.. Let's do what I suggested and post each other's results right out of the "bag" .. 

The only thing I see how would be difference in pretreat processes..but our prints should be pretty close. 

Send me something..


----------



## TahoeTomahawk

I meant like.. TJet to Kiosk (2200 platform)
Anajet to MOD (1800 ??)
and whatever else is on the 4800 platform.

It would be tough to do because im not sure if there is a Rip that runs on all of those platforms you could test to see if there is a hardware difference.


----------



## 102557

TahoeTomahawk said:


> I meant like.. TJet to Kiosk (2200 platform)
> Anajet to MOD (1800 ??)
> and whatever else is on the 4800 platform.
> 
> It would be tough to do because im not sure if there is a Rip that runs on all of those platforms you could test to see if there is a hardware difference.


yeah it would be tough.. you could also compare the results between all on the same image/resolution...

you would almost have to have a panel of judges and the machinces in the same room to see if anyone is tweaking settings.. I say its impossible if not done by end users..


----------



## FredP

TahoeTomahawk said:


> im not sure if there is a Rip that runs on all of those platforms you could test to see if there is a hardware difference.


Yes, there's a couple of them. I have one. I believe Dave has one too.

-- Fred


----------



## JeridHill

The first image is 720x720 with a double pass. The second is 1440x1440 with a single pass. Notice the difference in pixelation. This is acceptable with most designs, but when you want no pixelation or your images are extremely fine in detail, 1440x1440 can be worth it.


----------



## Stitch-Up

You MUSt suffer from sleep deprivation


----------



## JeridHill

Stitch-Up said:


> You MUSt suffer from sleep deprivation


Only on occasion, haha. Here in Ohio, we had very bad weather conditions. UPS was shut down a full day and didn't deliver most of their packages on the day prior. Ice and Snow. They finally delivered my packages Friday, I was behind and had to stay up all night. I am finally sitting down to relax but I have to meet with a customer in 2 hours, so I guess I won't be going to sleep....


----------



## cavedave

TahoeTomahawk said:


> That still looks really good. I think with the 4 white channel printers you could probably get away with doing 720 on light color shirts and have them look great. But on the Kiosk with the 3 channels we feel the underbase is not quite strong enough in the areas where the white peaks out. Sometimes doing white highlights helps, but to be safe we do 1440.
> 
> I have a Rip question in general. So when going from 720 to 1440 or higher, the detail is much better, but isn't the printer laying more ink? Shouldn't it more more saturated at 1440, or do you drop the dot size down in order to maintain the detail and not over-saturate the image?


 
Good question and the answer is....
Depends on the RIP as there are many ways to ink back, internally in the RIP you have transfer curves, ICC profiles, Ink limiting control (normally) and screening which may or may not support ink volume adjustments as well as on some machine supporting different variable dot options. So th way we do it may not (and probably isnt) the same way as Fred does it in his RIP.

We use th approach Epson recomend in the programmers guide to prolong the life of the head and avoid miss firing and over heating of the head (at least when we can). Which because of ink volumes required for a T-shirt we cant do at lower resolutions such as 720.

Best regards

-David


----------



## FredP

cavedave said:


> the way we do it may not (and probably isnt) the same way as Fred does it in his RIP.


Probably not exaclty, but... although there's more than one way to skin a cat, there's only "so many" ways to skin one 


PS: I love cats, I'm not condoning animal cruelty here... it's a metaphor. 


-- Fred


----------



## cavedave

I am more of a dog person 

Best regards

-David


----------



## JohnL

JeridHill said:


> The first image is 720x720 with a double pass. The second is 1440x1440 with a single pass. Notice the difference in pixelation. This is acceptable with most designs, but when you want no pixelation or your images are extremely fine in detail, 1440x1440 can be worth it.


I may be incorrect here but wouldn't 1440x720 be the correct value to test in comparison to a double pass of 720x720? i believe 1440x1440 is more than double the amount of ink as a 720x720. 720x720 x 2 = 1440x720, 1440x720 x 2 = 1440x1440.

Let me know if i'm incorrect. Logically you would double both numbers if you do two passes but in terms of actual ink output this is not the case.


----------



## JeridHill

JohnL said:


> I may be incorrect here but wouldn't 1440x720 be the correct value to test in comparison to a double pass of 720x720? i believe 1440x1440 is more than double the amount of ink as a 720x720. 720x720 x 2 = 1440x720, 1440x720 x 2 = 1440x1440.
> 
> Let me know if i'm incorrect. Logically you would double both numbers if you do two passes but in terms of actual ink output this is not the case.


If I recall, I wasn't comparing a double pass to single pass, I was comparing pixelation vs smooth tones. But yes, 1440x720 is twice as much as 720x720.


----------

