TSB
General => Industry News/ Announcements/Press Releases/Product Promotion => Topic started by: Ryonet on June 05, 2015, 08:23:39 PM
-
Hey gang, do you guys prefer to use a bitmap process for creating halftones or a specific software like Accurip?
If you're new to screen printing, halftones can be a powerful way to add depth to your print.
Check out this video for an overview of both bitmap and Accurip for creating halftones: https://youtu.be/wyT1JyQoSUo
Will Nelson
Ryonet
screenprinting.com
-
We prefer Wasatch SoftRip;)
-
For those who want a little more depth, and/or more perspective on this subject, The Shirt Board has an entire section dedicated to the subject of RIPS (http://www.theshirtboard.com/index.php/board,15.0.html)
-
Since the original post is a sales tactic, be aware there are inconsistencies in the video. If you know what your doing the same results can be had directly out of photoshop. In fact you can make better results in both Photoshop and Corel.
These guys also in the video lie and say you can't print all black channels without a RIP. Simply not true. I do it daily
Also beaware that last year accurip sold version 1.03. If you remove or want to switch to a new PC you will have to pay a $149 upgrade. They won't support a version sold last year. A few have started posting a windows update have caused the activation to quit. They have to pay the fee to get going back. This is suspicious as there has never been a windows update that caused the activation before.
-
Since the original post is a sales tactic...
To be fair, it was posted as a product promotion, so as with all sales pitches, "caveat emptor" (or at least check here for second opinions), fortunately something our members are not shy about.
-
The Bitmap conversion in Photoshop has it's uses, but I think AccuRIP does a better job (or probably any RIP). We use the Bitmap conversion more often for art reasons, to create an effect. It also will let you produce a pretty good image from a 72 ppi image, by making the dots very clean by setting the Output resolution to 1200 ppi, makes for very clean dot edges. It has to be at the final print size though before conversion.
Steve
-
Since the original post is a sales tactic...
To be fair, it was posted as a product promotion, so as with all sales pitches, "caveat emptor" (or at least check here for second opinions), fortunately something our members are not shy about.
BUMP
-
Thanks for all the great engagement you guys!
At the end of the day, it's different techniques for different printers. The inconsistencies of the bitmap process aren't ideal for a printer delivering product to a paying customer, but they may be fine for someone printing their own shirts at home.
Have a great day, TSB!
Will Nelson
Ryonet
screenprinting.com
-
I will say that in the video it is explained that bitmapping is an entry level feature and probably something to grow out of fairly quickly. . . What somebody might consider misleading is probably just a lack of understanding on their part (or Ryan's part as somebody else might know).
For the most part, I think anybody starting could do much worse than their videos. While there are some inaccuracies, none are really deal breaking and their information can (in my eyes) be considered a good stepping stone towards well rounded education on the correct printing principles.
pierre
-
well said P. they are trying, wether it be for you or not, it benefits someone. I do See Sben's side also.
-
Just to put this out there, the print we won first place True Process Color in the 2014 Impressions Awards was separated and bitmapped in Photoshop without a RIP.
By no means would I, nor do I, discredit the usefulness of a RIP. But insinuating you must use one to deliver a quality product is absurd.
-
True. We need a like button. Still requires more skill for that kind of stuff.
-
The last 2 years or so I have only used a RIP a few times and it was Filmmaker. You don't see the mmaking videos or letting their suppliers make videos with "Tom Foolery". I bought Accurip and sold long time ago. its ok. Pierre is the main reason I purchased Filmmaker besides my own testing.
I post because a lot of new printer come watch those videos and think things like you have to have Accurip to print from all channels are true. And you have to have the RIP to produce a quality print.
Also it's bull what there doing with the customers that may have purchased last 1-2 years forced to upgrade just to move to another pc. I have had a 2 printers I do work for that have had the problem. Both under 2 years owning. Now they want $149 just to make the product work.
-
Having been through all this over the last 20 years or so, I've learned a lot of different techniques. The conversion to bitmap halftones was a very cool find indeed. As Dan says, it requires considerably more skill to get the best of it, but it's obviously capable of producing great work. A RIP on the other hand, is faster, place the whole file and send it off. But if stuck, I would have no qualms in using that method. I even tried converting CMYK channels to it, but using the dither method, not bad results.
Steve