>By the way FIRST look into the printable area and margins!! >I bought it so I could print 17" wide, and turns out that the hardware print >margines make that arround 13.5 and all my large prints have big side empty >spaces. This is because of the size of the print heads, they cant get all >the way over to the end.
The more recent Epson drivers/printers have a switch for maximum print area. Allow printing upto 2 or 3 mm of the paper edge. They warn that distortion may occur but I've never seen any - could be related to subject matter though.
On Thu, 2 Aug 2001 16:36:38 -0500, "Carlos Mier y Ponce"
<arqie...@servidor.unam.mx> wrote: >hey! thanks. >I'm going to look for the new drivers right now >Did you get them from the epson drivers page?<
I don't think the 1520 drivers will do this, it is an old printer these day ;-)
The 900 and 1160 do this, the Pro XL+ doesn't (older). The 1520 I installed for someone else is using PostScript so is the Adobeps driver anyway - which does not.
Should imagine the standard 1520 driver still does not, but would be very happy to be proved wrong!
> On Thu, 2 Aug 2001 16:36:38 -0500, "Carlos Mier y Ponce" > <arqie...@servidor.unam.mx> wrote:
> >hey! thanks. > >I'm going to look for the new drivers right now > >Did you get them from the epson drivers page?<
> I don't think the 1520 drivers will do this, it is an old printer > these day ;-)
> The 900 and 1160 do this, the Pro XL+ doesn't (older). The 1520 I > installed for someone else is using PostScript so is the Adobeps > driver anyway - which does not.
In case it is a postscript device and you want to change the printable area, you can open the printer ppd-file (by notepad) and do some editing in it. PPD-files normally are structered very well and sometimes even are self-explanatory.
On Fri, 3 Aug 2001 11:03:02 +0200, "Clemens M. Hürten"
<clemens.huer...@t-online.de> wrote: >In case it is a postscript device and you want to change the printable area, >you can open the printer ppd-file (by notepad) and do some editing in it. >PPD-files normally are structered very well and sometimes even are >self-explanatory.
Good point that I'd completely forgotten about and overlooked. In the case of the 1520 user I mentioned I've not heard they are bothered. Tend to printout on oversized paper with reg marks etc, so printing to page edge does not really figure in things.
> I have heard from an Epson supplier that it seems to be pickier thannormal as to > which paper you use. Try small packages of various brands, and stick with what > works. > John
> Michael Klar wrote:
> > KNPepper, again your explanation of the technology used by Xerox is most > > informative. Thank you. > > Regarding the printer selection, I've pretty well decided on the Epson 1280. > > Although, I must admit with some trepedation after reading your comment > > about the "deplorable" printout you received from Epson. I'll give you my > > candid opinion after using it for a while. > > Cheers, > > Michael
KNPepper, again your explanation of the technology used by Xerox is most informative. Thank you. Regarding the printer selection, I've pretty well decided on the Epson 1280. Although, I must admit with some trepedation after reading your comment about the "deplorable" printout you received from Epson. I'll give you my candid opinion after using it for a while. Cheers, Michael
> > K.N.Pepper, your dissertation on 4 versus 6 color printing ... > > is the best explanation I've seen so far.
> Why, thank you Michael. If you can stand another...
> I took Carlos' lead and went off to check out this Xerox printer. > (In a test we conducted a year ago, the lowly Epson convincingly > beat a Xerox printer in the 30K range.) Today's Xerox turned out > to be the legendary Phaser line (by the Tektronix crowd, renowned > for their oscilloscopes and printers). Whilst the site is vague > (actually completely silent) on the technology, the Phaser legacy > and the fact that they talk about solid ink sticks strongly > suggests sublimation imaging. (I have spoken at length with > Tektronix engineers in the past on this subject.)
> (a) Sublimation (definition): Transition of a solid to gaseous > state without going through the liquid phase.
> (b) Sublimation/dots per inch: In our discussions it became clear > that dpi was actually meaningless in the context of sublimation > as the transfer of pigment was virtually continuous and not > discrete as in the dots in laser and inkjet prints. This > continuum also means that there is no need for an extra set of > diluted colours. (The Phaser 860 does mention 1000 dpi but I > suppose it's like asa settings in digital cameras - an abstract > index of sorts. It may be capable of producing a one-thousandth > inch line.)
> (c) Advantages: Near-continuous pigment transfer means the finest > gradation possible. Near-continuous gamut. Lab quality photo > printouts.
> (d) Disadvantages: Shorter life (poor light fastness). Fragile > (very sensitive to finger oils). Not as vivid as inkjets, > therefore less desirable for illustrations.
> The Phasers were always good. And the Epson has always been every > printer manufacturer's worst nightmare. If I ever do another test > I'll report back. By the way, a lot of good things have been said > about the Epson 1280, but curiously, the printout Epson sent me > is deplorable. Must be the drab subject matter.
I have heard from an Epson supplier that it seems to be pickier thannormal as to which paper you use. Try small packages of various brands, and stick with what works. John
Michael Klar wrote: > KNPepper, again your explanation of the technology used by Xerox is most > informative. Thank you. > Regarding the printer selection, I've pretty well decided on the Epson 1280. > Although, I must admit with some trepedation after reading your comment > about the "deplorable" printout you received from Epson. I'll give you my > candid opinion after using it for a while. > Cheers, > Michael
> "KNPepper" <KNPep...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3b68c16d_3@cnews... > > Michael wrote:
> > > K.N.Pepper, your dissertation on 4 versus 6 color printing ... > > > is the best explanation I've seen so far.
> > Why, thank you Michael. If you can stand another...
> > I took Carlos' lead and went off to check out this Xerox printer. > > (In a test we conducted a year ago, the lowly Epson convincingly > > beat a Xerox printer in the 30K range.) Today's Xerox turned out > > to be the legendary Phaser line (by the Tektronix crowd, renowned > > for their oscilloscopes and printers). Whilst the site is vague > > (actually completely silent) on the technology, the Phaser legacy > > and the fact that they talk about solid ink sticks strongly > > suggests sublimation imaging. (I have spoken at length with > > Tektronix engineers in the past on this subject.)
> > (a) Sublimation (definition): Transition of a solid to gaseous > > state without going through the liquid phase.
> > (b) Sublimation/dots per inch: In our discussions it became clear > > that dpi was actually meaningless in the context of sublimation > > as the transfer of pigment was virtually continuous and not > > discrete as in the dots in laser and inkjet prints. This > > continuum also means that there is no need for an extra set of > > diluted colours. (The Phaser 860 does mention 1000 dpi but I > > suppose it's like asa settings in digital cameras - an abstract > > index of sorts. It may be capable of producing a one-thousandth > > inch line.)
> > (c) Advantages: Near-continuous pigment transfer means the finest > > gradation possible. Near-continuous gamut. Lab quality photo > > printouts.
> > (d) Disadvantages: Shorter life (poor light fastness). Fragile > > (very sensitive to finger oils). Not as vivid as inkjets, > > therefore less desirable for illustrations.
> > The Phasers were always good. And the Epson has always been every > > printer manufacturer's worst nightmare. If I ever do another test > > I'll report back. By the way, a lot of good things have been said > > about the Epson 1280, but curiously, the printout Epson sent me > > is deplorable. Must be the drab subject matter.
> On Sun, 05 Aug 2001 12:00:00 -0700, John Phillips <j...@home.com> > wrote:
> >I have heard from an Epson supplier that it seems to be pickier thannormal as to > >which paper you use.<<
> Stick with Epson paper (although I have found a good supplier in the > UK for a very, very close equivalent. Above all, stick with Epson Ink > Carts.
> Have tried various equivalents and comparing side by side on a good > paper stock, IMHO Epson always seems better.
