Adobe Postscript 3 vs. Postscript Emulation?

[Skyline@adobeforums.com]

I posted this question in an Adobe Postscript forum last week, but haven't had any response--so I'm taking a shot here as this forum seems to have more active participants . . .

We are considering the purchase of a new large format inkjet printer, primarily for internal use and to provide first draft proofs to clients (mostly full color ads, tri-fold and quad-fold brochures, map-fold brochures, rack cards, catalogs).

We've narrowed it down, I think, to the HP Business Inkjet 2600. It will print up to 13x19 (perfect for us) on a variety of stocks, and will allow us to do a Pantone calibration as well as select ICC profiles.

The only thing I'm not sure about is that HP says it uses Postscript 3 "Emulation." Is this equal to Adobe Postscript 3? If not, what are the differences, and how might these differences be a problem?

If Emulation is indeed something to be avoided, can anyone suggest an alternative printer ($1,000 or less range, 13x19 paper or larger, ICC profile-capable, variety of paper thicknesses up to at least 100# cover). We've also looked at the Epson Stylus 3000 and 1520, but neither seem to be available anymore (and the 1520 is listed as Adobe Postscript 2, not 3). We are not too concerned with monthly duty cycles, as we would never exceed even 1,000 per month.

Anyone with Real World experience with the HP 2600, good or bad, I'd sure like to hear your history with it.

Thanks in advance...

[Larry_Grohman@adobeforums.com]

Emulation has gotten a bad name because in the past, some oem's took short
cuts with implementation. This caused problems when applications started
utilizing the full breath of the PS3 code which required the features which
were omitted. Most common is the lack of support for double byte (CID)
fonts.

But emulation in and of its self is not evil. Postscript is open published
code, and printer manufactures can choose to license from Adobe, or build
their own interpreter based on the PS specifications. Some do a better job
then others.

FWIW, our operation currently runs 7 different Postscript devices. Some
Adobe licensed PS, and some non Adobe. We have few problems with the non
Adobe devices.

All that said, given a choice, I'd opt for the Adobe licensed PS printer.

Larry

[Skyline@adobeforums.com]

Thanks, Larry, for that fast response. I had in the back of my mind that CID might be an issue. Since we're typically exporting to PDF from InDesign, that's been an issue with more than one print vendor. If it might be an issue with a PS-emulated printer it might be something to avoid?

We're also looking at the HP DesignJet 120--more money than we'd like to spend, but it seems to have the features we need plus real Adobe Postscript 3. Anyone have anything good or bad to say about this model?

Again, thanks in advance...

[Larry_Grohman@adobeforums.com]

Have no experience with those models. We do have HP 10PS proofer which works
quite well in that capacity. It is driven by our CtP Harlequin rip though.

We are looking at a new HP5500ps. 42" or maybe 60" for large format output.
It too is pricy, but it is considered by most as the benchmark large format
printer.

Larry

[Skyline@adobeforums.com]

Larry,

Our computer tech first recommended we look at the standalone 10PS or the networkable 20PS, then changed his mind. He said that it used the same HP software RIP that HP's 1700ps printer did--which we tried and had a lot of trouble with (crashing, inconsistent print results) so we returned it.

I like the 10PS and 20PS specs. Also the price for the 10PS. What are you running your 10PS on? We're using Win 2000 Pro, dual 2.4 GB Xeon, 2GB RAM. I'm leaning toward giving the 10PS a shot. Has your experience with the 10PS been positive? Any pitfalls we should be aware of?

Thanks in advance...

[BeckyWC@adobeforums.com]

Skyline,

I have the 10PS and my sister has the 1700ps, the rips are similar but not the same. The 10ps and 20ps RIP is much better, these machines are designed to be used as proofs.

[Larry_Grohman@adobeforums.com]

Our 10PS is used only for proofing, and it is driven by, our CtP RIP. So
files get rastered by the rip, then sent to the printer. With this
arrangement, it has never crashed or caused any problems. It's configured to
match the rip and press. Have never tried printing directly, so I can't
comment on that.

Maybe someone else can shed some more light on your type of workflow.


Larry.

[Unregistered]

Emulation has gotten a bad name because in the past, some oem's took short
cuts with implementation. This caused problems when applications started
utilizing the full breath of the PS3 code which required the features which
were omitted. Most common is the lack of support for double byte (CID)
fonts.

But emulation in and of its self is not evil. Postscript is open published
code, and printer manufactures can choose to license from Adobe, or build
their own interpreter based on the PS specifications. Some do a better job
then others.

FWIW, our operation currently runs 7 different Postscript devices. Some
Adobe licensed PS, and some non Adobe. We have few problems with the non
Adobe devices.

All that said, given a choice, I'd opt for the Adobe licensed PS printer.

Larry

Yes, PS emulation remains surprising bad. Xerox WorkCentre 3220 claims Postscript emulation.

However, when you embed a scalable line-art .eps file and print, this Xerox WorkCentre 3220 prints in half-tone dots instead of printer's native resolution in smooth lines (that is not in half-tone dots).

Moreover, the sales staff in Fuji Xerox head office was rude and repugnant. The showroom staff were unaware of such an acid test. The tech staff tested the .eps file with a broader range of Postscript capable printers and confirmed that Xerox WorkCentre 3220 print different to other Postscript printers, especially the true PostScript.

Till 2 years later, country sales manager did not follow-up on this matter although she promised to.

Always do the acid test, bring a scalable line-art. tone-art, photo, fonts, etc and get it printed on a printer to test its Postscript emulation compatibility.