Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Postscript vs. Emulated Postscript

Last response: in Computer Peripherals
Share
July 22, 2005 5:08:39 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,comp.publish.prepress (More info?)

I have constant need to print PDFs (with fonts embedded) to send to
publishers for page proofs of books I paginate. Hence, I am in the market
for a color laser printer which can print PostScript file. I see that
emulated PS printers are cheaper.

What are the disadvantantages of using emulated PS printers? Will they work
with Mac machines if I put it on a network print server?

When I read the printer specifications, they usually mention that it either
has an "Emulated PS" or a built in PostScript engine with 130 (or so) fonts.
This confuses me.
-Why do they not mention the # of fonts supported by Emulated PS?
- Why do they mention the # of fonts supported by true PS?

Which Color laser printer would you recommend (that supports PS)?

Thank you.

--
MR
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 5:08:40 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,comp.publish.prepress (More info?)

Don't ever use printer fonts. No guarantee that fonts
with the same name are really the same (News Gothic).
Nowadays it's no problem to download fonts to the printer.
The number of printer fonts is irrelevant - one needs
just one font - Courier New for error messages.

PostScript clones are not necessarily bad. Even original
Adobe PS contains bugs.

This PDF doc was printed by OKI 9600 HDN (Okidata),
which uses an original PS3 interpreter:
http://www.fho-emden.de/~hoffmann/a3gencolorhigh.pdf
The Web preview (250 kBytes) is:
http://www.fho-emden.de/~hoffmann/a3gencolortest.pdf

The results were better than expected - very good,
but some unexpected lines which might be already hidden
in the PDF. The color reproduction is really OK:

The machine (A3 oversize) costs about 4200 Euro.
Delivery about 4..5 weeks in Europe.

So far I have only the trial prints.

Best regards --Gernot Hoffmann
July 22, 2005 5:08:40 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,comp.publish.prepress (More info?)

Neil Gould wrote:
> Recently, m <u@dTch.com> posted:
>
> > I have constant need to print PDFs (with fonts embedded) to send to
> > publishers for page proofs of books I paginate. Hence, I am in the
> > market for a color laser printer which can print PostScript file. I
> > see that emulated PS printers are cheaper.
> >
> > What are the disadvantantages of using emulated PS printers? Will
> > they work with Mac machines if I put it on a network print server?
> >...
> The good news is that if all you are printing are PDFs, then the
> functional differences between true Adobe PostScript and emulated
> PostScript (aka PostScript clones) RIPs will be minimized. The bad news is
> that if you are proofing for final output, one can get bitten by
> incompatibities in some PostScript clones, and printing only PDFs can mask
> these problems.

The bad news (in my experience) is that the HP clone (e.g. TN2100, a
terrible printer) has a lot of difficulty with PDFs. Text-only ones are
fine. The older LaserJets (4MV, 6MP) which use true Adobe RIPs are fast
and reliable, and gave us no problems at all, even with very complex
PDFs. So my conclusion, over the years, is that that clone, at least,
is certainly to be avoided.

--Toby

>
> [...]
Related resources
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 11:27:02 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,comp.publish.prepress (More info?)

Recently, m <u@dTch.com> posted:

> I have constant need to print PDFs (with fonts embedded) to send to
> publishers for page proofs of books I paginate. Hence, I am in the
> market for a color laser printer which can print PostScript file. I
> see that emulated PS printers are cheaper.
>
> What are the disadvantantages of using emulated PS printers? Will
> they work with Mac machines if I put it on a network print server?
>
> When I read the printer specifications, they usually mention that it
> either has an "Emulated PS" or a built in PostScript engine with 130
> (or so) fonts. This confuses me.
> -Why do they not mention the # of fonts supported by Emulated PS?
> - Why do they mention the # of fonts supported by true PS?
>
> Which Color laser printer would you recommend (that supports PS)?
>
The good news is that if all you are printing are PDFs, then the
functional differences between true Adobe PostScript and emulated
PostScript (aka PostScript clones) RIPs will be minimized. The bad news is
that if you are proofing for final output, one can get bitten by
incompatibities in some PostScript clones, and printing only PDFs can mask
these problems.

In either case, you will want to embed your fonts in the PDFs to reduce
the likelihood of text reflows when the documents are opened on different
machines. So, the number of printer-resident fonts becomes pretty much
irrelevant.

If you plan to proof color with your laser printer, you will need one that
is capable of "graphics-quality", rather than "office-quality" color
renditions. These will set you back a good bit more than the
office-quality printers, as will supplies and maintenance. Whether the
printer will work with a particular platform depends on the drivers that
are available. I'm not sure what you mean by "network print server", but I
hope you mean a computer dedicated to spooling print jobs. PostScript is
not a small printer language, so unless the printer has a lot of memory
and a built-in network port, you'll need considerable resources to spool
jobs.

Hope this helps!

Neil
Anonymous
July 23, 2005 1:14:23 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,comp.publish.prepress (More info?)

"m" <u@dTch.com> wrote in message news:kM9Ee.1440$sf6.599@fe08.lga...
>I have constant need to print PDFs (with fonts embedded) to send to
> publishers for page proofs of books I paginate. Hence, I am in the market
> for a color laser printer which can print PostScript file. I see that
> emulated PS printers are cheaper.
>
> What are the disadvantantages of using emulated PS printers? Will they
> work
> with Mac machines if I put it on a network print server?
>
> When I read the printer specifications, they usually mention that it
> either
> has an "Emulated PS" or a built in PostScript engine with 130 (or so)
> fonts.
> This confuses me.
> -Why do they not mention the # of fonts supported by Emulated PS?
> - Why do they mention the # of fonts supported by true PS?
>
> Which Color laser printer would you recommend (that supports PS)?
>
> Thank you.
>
> --
> MR
>


Hi M,

I'd recommened one of the Epson professional 13x19 color printer. I used to
have one. I believe that it handled PS very well.

Check out their web site www.epson.com.

Stu
>
Anonymous
July 23, 2005 9:06:21 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,comp.publish.prepress (More info?)

I have the Epson 2200 with rip for color proofs and the LaserJet 4mv for BW
proofs. I have had no problems. I bought the 4mv cheap used and together
with the Epson inkjet is far less than a color laser would cost.


"Stuart B. Henlis" <shenlis@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:p kdEe.3036$6f.929@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "m" <u@dTch.com> wrote in message news:kM9Ee.1440$sf6.599@fe08.lga...
>>I have constant need to print PDFs (with fonts embedded) to send to
>> publishers for page proofs of books I paginate. Hence, I am in the
>> market
>> for a color laser printer which can print PostScript file. I see that
>> emulated PS printers are cheaper.
>>
>> What are the disadvantantages of using emulated PS printers? Will they
>> work
>> with Mac machines if I put it on a network print server?
>>
>> When I read the printer specifications, they usually mention that it
>> either
>> has an "Emulated PS" or a built in PostScript engine with 130 (or so)
>> fonts.
>> This confuses me.
>> -Why do they not mention the # of fonts supported by Emulated PS?
>> - Why do they mention the # of fonts supported by true PS?
>>
>> Which Color laser printer would you recommend (that supports PS)?
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> --
>> MR
>>
>
>
> Hi M,
>
> I'd recommened one of the Epson professional 13x19 color printer. I used
> to have one. I believe that it handled PS very well.
>
> Check out their web site www.epson.com.
>
> Stu
>>
>
>
July 23, 2005 1:07:20 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,comp.publish.prepress (More info?)

In message <PkdEe.3036$6f.929@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>, Stuart
B. Henlis <shenlis@earthlink.net> writes
>I'd recommened one of the Epson professional 13x19 color printer. I used to
>have one. I believe that it handled PS very well.
>
>Check out their web site www.epson.com.
>
As someone else suggested, if you are going to be serious about colour
matching with proofs, then you should really look for a contone printer
rather than a halftone. Probably about the cheapest such printer is
likely to be the Xerox Phaser 7750 (I think its that model that does
contone). I would be very surprised if there is a contone printer out
there that doesnt use true postscript.

--
Timothy
Anonymous
July 23, 2005 2:10:10 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,comp.publish.prepress (More info?)

me@privacy.net wrote:
> In message <PkdEe.3036$6f.929@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>, Stuart
> B. Henlis <shenlis@earthlink.net> writes
>
>> I'd recommened one of the Epson professional 13x19 color printer. I
>> used to
>> have one. I believe that it handled PS very well.
>>
>> Check out their web site www.epson.com.
>>
> As someone else suggested, if you are going to be serious about colour
> matching with proofs, then you should really look for a contone printer
> rather than a halftone. Probably about the cheapest such printer is
> likely to be the Xerox Phaser 7750 (I think its that model that does
> contone). I would be very surprised if there is a contone printer out
> there that doesnt use true postscript.
>
This is a very fine printer. I'm in love with mine. If you can hurdle
the ticket cost, it's far less expensive to run than an inkjet.
July 23, 2005 2:49:26 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,comp.publish.prepress (More info?)

In message <42e20974$1_4@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>, Simon Warner
<simon.thomas-warner@tiscali.co.uk> writes
>me@privacy.net wrote:
>> As someone else suggested, if you are going to be serious about
>>colour matching with proofs, then you should really look for a
>>contone printer rather than a halftone. Probably about the cheapest
>>such printer is likely to be the Xerox Phaser 7750 (I think its that
>>model that does contone). I would be very surprised if there is a
>>contone printer out there that doesnt use true postscript.
>>
>This is a very fine printer. I'm in love with mine. If you can hurdle
>the ticket cost, it's far less expensive to run than an inkjet.

Am I right in thinking its a contone? So you get a wider gamut and no
dithering patterns. I'm sure everyone would appreciate a little
personal review on here, then google can store it for posterity.

--
Timothy
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 7:35:01 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,comp.publish.prepress (More info?)

me@privacy.net wrote:
> In message <42e20974$1_4@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>, Simon Warner
> <simon.thomas-warner@tiscali.co.uk> writes
>
>> me@privacy.net wrote:
>>
>>> As someone else suggested, if you are going to be serious about
>>> colour matching with proofs, then you should really look for a
>>> contone printer rather than a halftone. Probably about the cheapest
>>> such printer is likely to be the Xerox Phaser 7750 (I think its that
>>> model that does contone). I would be very surprised if there is a
>>> contone printer out there that doesnt use true postscript.
>>>
>> This is a very fine printer. I'm in love with mine. If you can hurdle
>> the ticket cost, it's far less expensive to run than an inkjet.
>
>
> Am I right in thinking its a contone? So you get a wider gamut and no
> dithering patterns. I'm sure everyone would appreciate a little
> personal review on here, then google can store it for posterity.
>
I've seen this stated, but not by Xerox. It is 1200 x 1200 dpi and the
results are gorgeous. Good controls for colour matching. But contone?
Don't know for sure that it is.
!