Users Poll proofing Rips GMG vs Oris

[bmarple]

We conducted a shootout between GMG, ORIS and Kodak. All three performed rather well. ORIS was probably the easiest to maintain. What disturbed me was how long they took to turn around our proof request. We had all three vendors attempt to match our Kodak Approval proof and demonstrate via a WebEx how an average operator would interact with their product. Kodak threw up on their presentation or they may have actually won the shootout.
In the end, we went with GMG for all future purchases or installs. They turned our proof requests around within two days! That actually freaked me out. I thought maybe they rushed it and the proofs would look like crap. I was dead wrong on that one. Their color was very, very accurate. And, they presented their product really well. Kodak color was a very close second. I was surprised that the ORIS color match wasn't so good. The match was noticeably off. That plus how long they took to turn the proofs around (about two or so weeks) was disturbing. They make a great product, just not as good as GMG in my opinion. All proofs were output to an Epson 7880 on similar paper. We also had proofs pulled on the HP DesignJet Z3100 from the vendors. We liked the Epson match better.
We conducted our shootout back in October/November of 2007. Hope this helps.
Regards,
Brent

[Werby]

I happen to be running both ORIS and GMG at the same time. We are in the process of switching over to GMG.

Both systems work well and I have gotten great color matches out of both of them. You can easily create a "certified" proof with either system. We are switching because the GMG proofs have an almost indefinable "better" quality. They just look and feel like a slightly higher quality proof. I did a double blind test with our top 10 color guys comparing ORIS and GMG proofs on the exact same stock and from the exact same printer. GMG was preferred as "better" about 65% of the time, though there were some people who preferred the ORIS "look", possibly because they were more used to it.

One area where GMG beats ORIS is in fine resolution rendering. I don't know what resolution that ORIS rips it's files at because there is no user controllable setting. On GMG we were able to try several resolutions and at 720dpi it renders type and linework noticeably sharper than ORIS. That definitely contributes to the overall quality.

GMG is definitely easier to set-up if you are using their stock and are going to a known spec like GRACoL2006_coated1 or FOGRA39, because they include pre-built calibration and color transform files that work great. Just run the calibration routine and you're in business, making certified proofs. ORIS doesn't include any pre-built files, so he have to build every proofing queue from scratch. However, perhaps because I only have a few months experience with GMG, I have had a lot of difficulty building queues for 3rd party stocks for which there are no supplied files. Not only is the process pretty convoluted and non-intuitive, but I have yet to get it to work! Every time I create a calibration set-up (MX3), it produces a gamut that is too small to make a GRACoL proof. I've tried it on 2 stocks on an Epson 4800 and still no luck. I have been able to successfully build a GRACoL queue for both stocks on that printer using ORIS, so it's clearly not all bad! I admit the probability that I am doing something wrong when setting up the GMG queues, but still, a number of hours invested and still no success.

The advantage of canned files for GMG stocks is that you rarely have to create your own files. The disadvantage is that when you do have to make them, it's difficult. Because I have to start from scratch with ORIS every time, I am quite skilled on how to build a queue!

Overall I recommend GMG, but with either product there is a learning curve and it will take you a while to get comfortable with either system.

[stargate]

Get GMG. I am using ver 5 (which you would get if you purchase it now). It's so much nicer interface. It's based on proofing standard which is a great concept. I am using gmg since 2005 and I love it. There is nothing better and faster. Ripping PDF to contone takes seconds versus minutes on Oris. You cannot find anyone that will complain after switching to gmg from any other rip.

[sphynx]

Am I correct, that I've heard that GMG will only proof to Epson 9800 series but that ORIS will take advantage of the colors and speed of the 9900 series?

Nevermind, I found out the contone of GMG will support the 9900s but the "dot proof" will not, only the 9800...

[stargate]

You are wrong. Current gmg version (5.0) supports dotproof in x900, x880 and x800 series epsons on top of older printers.

[vino]

We have been using ORIS for over 5 years now. Its an excellent software for high end Contract Color Proofing. Their newer software incorporating the server-client technology beats the competition.

Automated wizards to generate RFP, Calibration and Color matches have simplied the entire process. I would recommend you all to look at the new version of ORIS. The other reason that we like about ORIS is that they participate in Industry Standard Committees, assist printing schools such as Clemson, RIT and above all listen to customers.

[smileycolor]

CGS, GMG and EFI are both good systems. Kodaks are quite difficult to manage. Both GMS and CGS and EFI produce as good of dots as the printer can make, they are increasingly better with each generation of printer. Working with CGS our company has been able to get support 24/7 both from US and German programmers. I guess my biggest choice for CGS is the company listens to me as a customer, integrates my needs into their products. They have been a great partner. Annually we test all rip manufactures for quality and easy of infield use. We currently manage 154 systems - All CGS - All these manufacturers will allow a test period for your facility, we believe if it requires too much training these system is not doing what we need done.

[smileycolor]

CGS, GMG and EFI are both good systems. Have not tested Kodak inkjets. Kodak Approval are quite difficult to manage requiring customer ICC links per batch of material. Both GMS and CGS and EFI produce as good of dots as the printer can make, they are increasingly better with each generation of printer. Working with CGS our company has been able to get support 24/7 both from US and German programmers. I guess my biggest choice for CGS is the company listens to me as a customer, integrates my needs into their products. They have been a great partner. Annually we test all rip manufactures for quality and easy of infield use. CGS has come out ahead in trials each year. All these manufacturers will allow a test period for your facility, we believe if it requires too much training these system are not doing what we need done for remote locations. With many systems in customers sites we need accuracy, precision, simplicity for a end user.

Waiting time for a proof from a manufacturer should not be grounds for choosing one manufacturer over another - test them yourselves.

[dimitri]

I've tried CGS and ColorProof XF from EFI. We had, for reasons other than quality, to stick with XF, but the quality of the proofs was pretty much similar: slight differences that most if not all of the customers wouldn't even notice.
However, try matching the white point of the paper when your stock at the press is at 2.00 b* with EFI, or doing a relative color match... not good/ not happy.
I hear their latest upgrade will deal somewhat with those issues though.

[prepresscolor]

If you want to make a career out of color management then get GMG, if you want good color easily get EFI XF with color manager turned on!