RIP - raster vs postscript version?

I'm thinking of getting the Colorbyte RIP for an Epson 4000 printer ... if I'm only printing bitmapped files (ie, photographs) is there any reason for me to get the postscript version instead of settling for the raster version, which is about $600 cheaper?

Bill

In general, you would only need a *PostScript* RIP if you needed to print the (PostScript) output from a page layout or vector graphics program. These programs routinely use things ... like type or corporate logos ... that are vector-based.

If you are printing *only* (photographic) image files, you will probably *never* need PostScript. The only caveat that I can think of is PostScript has some pretty powerful CM capabilities. From reading your postings, it seems that you probably already have a pretty good handle on color management using other software solutions.

IMHO: No,. you most likely do *not* need the PostScript version.

"Bill Hilton" wrote in message

I'm thinking of getting the Colorbyte RIP for an Epson 4000 printer ...

if I'm

only printing bitmapped files (ie, photographs) is there any reason for

me to

get the postscript version instead of settling for the raster version,

which is

about $600 cheaper?

Bill

The only caveat to my previous post would be if you intended to publish your pictures as *posters.* You know, the picture centered on a sheet, probably with a simple line-border, and a **line of text** of some sort.

A PostScript RIP would make that a lot easier, because that text would have to be rasterized at a very high resolution to look good ... probably too high (think 2540 dpi to 3200 dpi) to do it in PhotoShop.

"RSD99" wrote in message

In general, you would only need a *PostScript* RIP if you needed to print the (PostScript) output from a page layout or vector graphics program. These programs routinely use things ... like type or corporate logos ... that are vector-based.

If you are printing *only* (photographic) image files, you will probably *never* need PostScript. The only caveat that I can think of is

PostScript

has some pretty powerful CM capabilities. From reading your postings, it seems that you probably already have a pretty good handle on color management using other software solutions.

IMHO: No,. you most likely do *not* need the PostScript version.

"Bill Hilton" wrote in message

I'm thinking of getting the Colorbyte RIP for an Epson 4000 printer ...

if I'm

only printing bitmapped files (ie, photographs) is there any reason for

me to

get the postscript version instead of settling for the raster version,

which is

about $600 cheaper?

Bill

From: "RSD99"

The only caveat that I can think of is PostScript
has some pretty powerful CM capabilities.

Isn't improved Color Management one of the primary benefits of using a RIP in the first place?

Why would the Postscript version differ in CM performance?

From: "RSD99"

If you are printing *only* (photographic) image files, you will probably *never* need PostScript.

Thanks.