My DC240 does the same thing, maybe you could try a different screening but I don't think it will help. Also try turning off edge enhancement for text and graphic and see if that helps, again I don't think it will but it's worth a try.
The steps in gradients as far as I can tell are more of an issue with the printer being a 1 bit machine and not an 8 bit. I've just bought a Konica Minolta C5501 and it's better in all ways other than very fine small point text than both my DC240 and the Xerox 700 that I checked out and the prints look really very close indeed to litho.
I just installed the DocuColor 240/250 driver from the Xerox support site and it said it was not compatible with my machine (which I connected to via IP address). Driver version 7.1.1-447. I guess I need to go back to an older version. I would like to try this before installing CWS 5. I'll just pick an older driver, say from 2007 or so.
Good to know we're not the only ones getting these results. Yes, I tried all the different options for quality settings you mention and nothing made any difference.
I haven't been able to get the printer driver to work. I've tried on both a Leopard and a Tiger Mac. They both just sit there saying the Printer is Busy and will try in 10 seconds. It's not busy and nothing ever happens. I am having trouble finding documentation on the Xerox site. Also, I never saw anywhere where I could choose Hold or Print.
The print driver (OSX-DC240-250v1.2.zip) can be downloaded from : DocuColor 240/250 File Download #68249 (US)&plats=Macintosh OS X&Xtype=download&uType=
Tina,
We have a Docucolor 250 and have not noticed any resolution problems with vector graphics. As I understand it, this machine is the same as the 240 except for speed. We have Mac and Windows printer drivers from Xerox/EFI and print from native applications, mostly Quark XPress 7.5 and Illustrator CS2 on the Mac. We do not use InDesign and we don't make PDFs. Seems like the problem lies somewhere in these two applications. It also sounds like your vector graphics are being rasterized at a low resolution before they get to the RIP. I agree with the other comments that suggest you try printing via a printer driver rather than via PDF.
We also run Command Workstation 5 (upgraded from 4) on a Windows XP machine. Version 5 had some user interface upgrades but we didn't notice any change in output quality.
Hi, thanks for that info. We are pretty much opposite, mostly all PDF and InDesign. We see fewer and fewer customers using Quark.
I just got the printer driver working correctly with help from Xerox tech support. Tried printing from Acrobat and printing from InDesign, and after seeing your post, tried from Quark 7.5 as well, and it made no difference at all.
When I say it's a resolution problem, I may be painting an inaccurate picture. The result we get is not jaggy bitmapped edges, but thickened lines and filled-in white spaces, as if the exposure was way too high (going back to the days of imaging on film!). I really don't think vector graphics are getting rasterized before they get to the RIP. I can select them with the PitStop tools and they are still vector.
I talked to the tech support person who said the same as you did that there were no quality improvements that she knew of with CWS 5, just the interface upgrades.
And have sent them same test file. I'll let you know what they say.
If you want to send me some files, I can run them on my system and send you the output. We have Mac InDesign and Illustrator CS2, Mac Acrobat 8, Windows Acrobat 8, and Mac Quark 7.5. My email is inbox@windwardgraphics.com.
Hello again. Just thought a picture would help. This is a scan of our output. Even if there is no answer, I'd really like to know what is going on with the RIPs for digital presses.
(scan is 300 dpi of printed output, but you'll see what I mean)
Hi, thanks for that info. We are pretty much opposite, mostly all PDF and InDesign. We see fewer and fewer customers using Quark.
I just got the printer driver working correctly with help from Xerox tech support. Tried printing from Acrobat and printing from InDesign, and after seeing your post, tried from Quark 7.5 as well, and it made no difference at all.
When I say it's a resolution problem, I may be painting an inaccurate picture. The result we get is not jaggy bitmapped edges, but thickened lines and filled-in white spaces, as if the exposure was way too high (going back to the days of imaging on film!). I really don't think vector graphics are getting rasterized before they get to the RIP. I can select them with the PitStop tools and they are still vector.
I talked to the tech support person who said the same as you did that there were no quality improvements that she knew of with CWS 5, just the interface upgrades.
And have sent them same test file. I'll let you know what they say.
Tina
Have you installed all the relevant updates to the system on the printer? I know there are several, not all of which will be needed. I used to have problems (mainly just page orientation though) when printing from inDesign on the software version 1.1 in the printer but these were cleared up by updating to 1.2. The frustrating thing with Xerox is that generally I've not been recommended to upgrade to 1.2 yet I'm sure there must be a reason for it and it should be better than 1.1 or why would they release it? Overall I find the software thing with them pretty bad, they even release updates that's I've been advised not to bother with. They actually released an update to make 1.2 mimic the colour output of 1.1, what was all that about??!
One thing I would suggest is that you look at the rendering intent in the print driver. I have found that if you set the intent to Presentation, usually you get better results printing vector images. It shouldn't matter that it's a vector graphic however, because vectors aren't really subject to resolution as rasters are. They should print the same no matter what system they are processed by simply because they are based on linear points and curves, not pixel data.
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Chicago Press
