-
I want to thank all the members that have upgraded your accounts. I truly appreciate your support of the site monetarily. Supporting the site keeps this site up and running as a lot of work daily goes on behind the scenes. Click to Support Signs101 ...
Hp l360
- Thread starter Ditchmiester
- Start date
cesargraphics
New Member
Well 4 out of 4 say Caldera so Caldera will be the one...
Im kind of curious if there will be enough media profiles because its a new machine... but I guess it goes both ways for either rip..
Im gonna co CALDERA...
Thx for your input I will update my experiences when I get the devices...
CES020
New Member
I'm just curious, so please take this from the "he has no clue what he's talking about and he's asking a question to better understand" point of view.
When we got our latex, I downloaded the trial of Caldera. I couldn't get it to work. It literally took me like 3 days to get it to work. I didn't understand the icons, which product I was supposed to be using or anything. I had email conversations with them for several days before I got get it work (something on their end, not my end). I didn't get all the fantastic support since I was a trial user.
I downloaded Onyx Production House v11 trial and it worked immediately and seemed really clear on the workflow. I really wanted to go with using Mac's since that what I use, but in the end, we went with Onyx Production House v11.
I read posts about Onyx not making sense on the workflow, etc, and I wonder if people are talking about older versions or the v11. At the ISA show, I stopped by the Onyx booth and I had a discussion with them asking them why people would say that the prints are better using Caldera than Onyx (nice thing to ask someone, huh?). I asked him about the engine behind it all and what would make one better than the other, and he said he didn't know of anything that could make someone say that (not that I expected him to say anything different). I think he said (and that's a weak "I think he said") that they both used the Adobe engine anyway.
I've heard people say things like skin tones are better in Caldera, but I've also seen stunning graphics at trade shows printed on Onyx and Caldera.
Then I've heard that Onyx Thrive is different than Production House v11 and it uses a different color engine (????) than v11.
So I'm just generally curious about what the differences are, or what you can do in Caldera than you can't do in Onyx Production House v11. I'm not by any means suggesting anything by this, I just want to become better educated about it myself.
When we got our latex, I downloaded the trial of Caldera. I couldn't get it to work. It literally took me like 3 days to get it to work. I didn't understand the icons, which product I was supposed to be using or anything. I had email conversations with them for several days before I got get it work (something on their end, not my end). I didn't get all the fantastic support since I was a trial user.
I downloaded Onyx Production House v11 trial and it worked immediately and seemed really clear on the workflow. I really wanted to go with using Mac's since that what I use, but in the end, we went with Onyx Production House v11.
I read posts about Onyx not making sense on the workflow, etc, and I wonder if people are talking about older versions or the v11. At the ISA show, I stopped by the Onyx booth and I had a discussion with them asking them why people would say that the prints are better using Caldera than Onyx (nice thing to ask someone, huh?). I asked him about the engine behind it all and what would make one better than the other, and he said he didn't know of anything that could make someone say that (not that I expected him to say anything different). I think he said (and that's a weak "I think he said") that they both used the Adobe engine anyway.
I've heard people say things like skin tones are better in Caldera, but I've also seen stunning graphics at trade shows printed on Onyx and Caldera.
Then I've heard that Onyx Thrive is different than Production House v11 and it uses a different color engine (????) than v11.
So I'm just generally curious about what the differences are, or what you can do in Caldera than you can't do in Onyx Production House v11. I'm not by any means suggesting anything by this, I just want to become better educated about it myself.
Christian @ 2CT Media
Active Member
Onyx V11 and Thrive use 2 different RIP engines. V11 uses JAWs (or a form of it) and Thrive is a pure ADOBE RIP engine workflow. If you work in PDFs primarily Thrive is the way to go, where as if you work with JPGs, PNGs, or TIFFS V11 is the way to go.
tomence
New Member
I had the chance to try Thrive when i bought my l260 and i really liked it, it was a demo version while i waited for Caldera to show up. It took the tech 15 minutes to install and was ready to print. Now next day Caldera V9+ shows up and try to install it with no luck. It took me two days to install Caldera and another week to learn how to use it.
Caldera's support is top notch, i can't complain there, but i can't say that Caldera is better than Onyx.
I would've been happy with Onyx
So it's your choice if you want to stay PC get Onyx if not go Caldera and Linux
Caldera's support is top notch, i can't complain there, but i can't say that Caldera is better than Onyx.
I would've been happy with Onyx
So it's your choice if you want to stay PC get Onyx if not go Caldera and Linux
FrankW
New Member
Does Caldera use the adobe RIP?
yes, version 9 does
Of course.... They've been doing this for several years now-- much longer than Onyx has, and one of the biggest reasons we originally jumped to Caldera in 2010.
Christian @ 2CT Media
Active Member
Caldera also has a sub RIP that better processes JPGs and TIFFs which makes it a lot more advanced then either of the ONYX offerings currently. We use ONYX and like it very much for our needs, but I avoid PDFs like the plague do to so many variations and issues.
ProColorGraphics
New Member
I got mine all setup on a new Mac Mini. That option to do that was $1 more. Yes, one dollar.
cesargraphics
New Member
ProColorGraphics
New Member
I got mine from Advantage Sign Solutions, but any Caldera dealer should be able to get the same setup.
Caldera PS rip weakness Vs Onyx
QUOTE "Caldera also has a sub RIP that better processes JPGs and TIFFs which makes it a lot more advanced then either of the ONYX offerings currently. We use ONYX and like it very much for our needs, but I avoid PDFs like the plague do to so many variations and issues."
I think you misunderstand how rips work. You don't use a rip to process a jpeg or tiffs - Jaws / Adobe / Ghostscript are all Postscript rips and process PS into raster (dots).
If you are starting out with dots (jpegs, tiffs etc) you don't use the rip engine so there is no "sub rip" for this in either Onyx or Caldera.
What you are referring to is probably Ghostscript which is simply another version of a Postscript rip like Jaws and is a fundamental problem with Caldera.
To have two types of PS rip in one piece of software opens up a variable that often leads to color shifts that are blamed on other things - profiles etc.
In Caldera the Adobe rip processes ONLY PDFs - all other PS files get sent through Ghostscript (which is much more unreliable than Jaws by the way)
Thus if you have a file that you want to print in more than one file format (or print it at a later date and can't remember what format you previously chose) you will not have identical color as the processing engines are very different.
In Onyx you either have Jaws handle every PS file (and I happily admit that while it is better than Ghostscript it is not as good as Adobe) or in Thrive you have Adobe to handle every PS file - that is the key difference.
Thrive has an extra feature that Caldera lacks - Adobe Normalizer. This acts like distiller and converts all PS files equally so you can depend 100% on the output.
As such Adobe allows Onyx to use its catchphrase "No Surprises" that Caldera is not allowed to use due to it lacking Normalizer.
If you don't want to get caught out with missing elements and moving colors then Onyx Thrive has the advantage over Caldera.
I'm afraid this is a key weakness in Caldera and whilst its a good rip (I sell both) it is less advanced than Onyx Thrive.
The color engine in Onyx is dedicated to wide format rather than the generic offset engine used by most of the other rips (including Caldera) and provides a better print in the right hands assuming the profile has been built properly.
For me I always think that they have a better handle on the color - the Onyx color guru who builds the engine is the Chairman of the ICC steering committee - I'm pretty sure that Caldera aren't even members of the ICC and in the right hands the color I can get from Onyx is always a little smoother and the gamut wider then when I'm profiling Caldera.
I also don't like the fussy multiple-window user interface but that's just me as I like clarity and logic over the Gallic flair and complexity of Caldera!
Just my 2 cents.
QUOTE "Caldera also has a sub RIP that better processes JPGs and TIFFs which makes it a lot more advanced then either of the ONYX offerings currently. We use ONYX and like it very much for our needs, but I avoid PDFs like the plague do to so many variations and issues."
I think you misunderstand how rips work. You don't use a rip to process a jpeg or tiffs - Jaws / Adobe / Ghostscript are all Postscript rips and process PS into raster (dots).
If you are starting out with dots (jpegs, tiffs etc) you don't use the rip engine so there is no "sub rip" for this in either Onyx or Caldera.
What you are referring to is probably Ghostscript which is simply another version of a Postscript rip like Jaws and is a fundamental problem with Caldera.
To have two types of PS rip in one piece of software opens up a variable that often leads to color shifts that are blamed on other things - profiles etc.
In Caldera the Adobe rip processes ONLY PDFs - all other PS files get sent through Ghostscript (which is much more unreliable than Jaws by the way)
Thus if you have a file that you want to print in more than one file format (or print it at a later date and can't remember what format you previously chose) you will not have identical color as the processing engines are very different.
In Onyx you either have Jaws handle every PS file (and I happily admit that while it is better than Ghostscript it is not as good as Adobe) or in Thrive you have Adobe to handle every PS file - that is the key difference.
Thrive has an extra feature that Caldera lacks - Adobe Normalizer. This acts like distiller and converts all PS files equally so you can depend 100% on the output.
As such Adobe allows Onyx to use its catchphrase "No Surprises" that Caldera is not allowed to use due to it lacking Normalizer.
If you don't want to get caught out with missing elements and moving colors then Onyx Thrive has the advantage over Caldera.
I'm afraid this is a key weakness in Caldera and whilst its a good rip (I sell both) it is less advanced than Onyx Thrive.
The color engine in Onyx is dedicated to wide format rather than the generic offset engine used by most of the other rips (including Caldera) and provides a better print in the right hands assuming the profile has been built properly.
For me I always think that they have a better handle on the color - the Onyx color guru who builds the engine is the Chairman of the ICC steering committee - I'm pretty sure that Caldera aren't even members of the ICC and in the right hands the color I can get from Onyx is always a little smoother and the gamut wider then when I'm profiling Caldera.
I also don't like the fussy multiple-window user interface but that's just me as I like clarity and logic over the Gallic flair and complexity of Caldera!
Just my 2 cents.
Christian @ 2CT Media
Active Member
You still need to RIP raster images... They have to be converted in to halftones (Save for some newer Contone printers) and printer language in order for your printer to understand what to print.
The latest Colorgate has Appe and everything is done in a single window, none of that multi-window stuff like in Caldera. A second window will open for modifying job parameters, but it functions like a dialog box so it goes away when you are done.
The color management in Colorgate, especially in respect to HP latex, is superb. It has all the controls you need to compensate heat distortion and bow right at the top level in your material profiles. Where Onyx makes you dig through multiple layers of dialogs to get to important settings, Colorgate uses a tabbed dialog box for a single layer approach. If you want to run your rip on a windows machine, you should get a Colorgate demo.
Like any rip, generic profiles can be hit or miss so plan on investing in color management hardware if you do not have it already.
The color management in Colorgate, especially in respect to HP latex, is superb. It has all the controls you need to compensate heat distortion and bow right at the top level in your material profiles. Where Onyx makes you dig through multiple layers of dialogs to get to important settings, Colorgate uses a tabbed dialog box for a single layer approach. If you want to run your rip on a windows machine, you should get a Colorgate demo.
Like any rip, generic profiles can be hit or miss so plan on investing in color management hardware if you do not have it already.
FrankW
New Member
An other RIP to mention: FlexiPRINT. FlexiPRINT is the RIP HP supplies in the box with the 310 and 330. The premium edition is available for the 360 too for little money (as it is as an upgrade for 310- and 330-Owners too). FlexiPrint have only one window too for Job handling and one other tabbed for job properties and is really easy to use. A FlexiSIGN-PRO HP-Edition is available too. It don't use the Adobe APPE (have used Adobe CPSI earlier), but the Aurelon RIP Engine works fine. The Editor of the Premium Version have an incredible cut contour editor.
Since the Printer manages the ICC-Profiles and every compatible RIP can synchronize them (they are universal), the availability of standard profiles isn't a reason for a RIP-Decision anymore. The same is for the quality of the print raster.
There is currently one problem with onyx: it is not a bug, it is a difficulty because of the way onyx handles things. Currently, the print mode is given by the printer, there will be no printing resolution available to choose in the RIP-Software anymore. There is a dpi-setting, but this will mean the resolution of the contone file: printing with the default contone file resolution of 300dpi will work fine with big prints, but will lead to poor quality on little vectors, e. g. small text for labels. Switching to a file resolution of 600 dpi will lead to longer ripping times (still fast), but much better quality with small objects. While the resolution can be easily changed in the job properties of FlexiPRINT, in Onyx a switch to the media manager is neccessary to modify any (automatically generated) single print mode for every single media. No chance to switch it on the fly for one time faster ripping, one time better quality.
@ AF:
Specially with the 360, the profile creation is printer based, so color management hardware is not neccessary. Perhaps for the 310 or 330, because they have a densitometer only, but re-linearisation of given profiles does good work too (after getting a 360 at the end of april, we have got a 310 demo unit too this week).
Since the Printer manages the ICC-Profiles and every compatible RIP can synchronize them (they are universal), the availability of standard profiles isn't a reason for a RIP-Decision anymore. The same is for the quality of the print raster.
There is currently one problem with onyx: it is not a bug, it is a difficulty because of the way onyx handles things. Currently, the print mode is given by the printer, there will be no printing resolution available to choose in the RIP-Software anymore. There is a dpi-setting, but this will mean the resolution of the contone file: printing with the default contone file resolution of 300dpi will work fine with big prints, but will lead to poor quality on little vectors, e. g. small text for labels. Switching to a file resolution of 600 dpi will lead to longer ripping times (still fast), but much better quality with small objects. While the resolution can be easily changed in the job properties of FlexiPRINT, in Onyx a switch to the media manager is neccessary to modify any (automatically generated) single print mode for every single media. No chance to switch it on the fly for one time faster ripping, one time better quality.
@ AF:
Specially with the 360, the profile creation is printer based, so color management hardware is not neccessary. Perhaps for the 310 or 330, because they have a densitometer only, but re-linearisation of given profiles does good work too (after getting a 360 at the end of april, we have got a 310 demo unit too this week).
TCBinaflash
New Member
I started in this industry using HP and now I'm about to pull the trigger on one of these. After 7 years of using only Roland for RTR. Everything about the 360 is hitting all the buttons to make users like me (on the Latex fence) switch with little hesitation. Roland just started a promo $6k off the XF just to be within $10k of this unit.
Roland/Solvent will never go away, but this machine is the hammer looking for the nails in Roland's coffin. Roland needs to progress quicker and offer more(Maybe for less money even).
IMHO
Roland/Solvent will never go away, but this machine is the hammer looking for the nails in Roland's coffin. Roland needs to progress quicker and offer more(Maybe for less money even).
IMHO