Talk:Raster image processor
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Implementation limits
Am I the only one wondering how a raster image processor has been possible "in the old days"? Could someone tell how the calculation for required memory goes and what happens if the RIP runs out of memory? Further, I can't really understand what the article says about real-time hardware bitmap output -- would it work without memory at all considering that a PostScript program can print anywhere in the page? --TuukkaH 08:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] My additional information and link removed
I disagree with the fact that information which I added to this article (the fact that RIPs are nowadays called Renderers by a lot of vendors, including Adobe) was removed. Changing the name of a technology can be considered relevant information. A link to a page on my site providing a 3-page description of PostScript RIPs was also removed, even though it is 'accurate', 'on-topic' and 'could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail' (all statements from the Wikipedia page on linking). It is ironic that the one link that is allowed itself points to the 'Prepressure' site for more information regarding PostScript error handling in RIPs! -- Printing4fun (talk) 19:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't notice the paragraph you added when I was going through reverting your spam links. Feel free to put that info back. But don't add links to your own site. You can mention it here and let other editors decide whether it's worth linking. Dicklyon (talk) 20:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- After I reinserted the information about RIPs being called renderers, you deleted this information again, so why suggest to put the info back? Anyway: In Agfa's ApogeeX workflow the RIP is called a renderer [1], Heidelberg calls it a Renderer in their workflow [2]. The same is also true for Prinergy [3] which is nowadays a Kodak product. Across the web you will find articles in which the rip process is referred to as 'rendering' instead of 'ripping'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Printing4fun (talk • contribs) 18:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Yeah, that's awkward. This time, I read it, so removed it on its merits, not recognizing it as what we were discussing before. If there's something to what you say, bring a source. The first part I can accept, but the "because" part I wasn't able to interpret, so I need to read where you got it and see what's behind the statement. Dicklyon (talk) 23:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
-
