> > future. Most distros are going towards Cups as the printing support, which > > has its own postscript-to-raster part > > It has its own postscript interpreter? Is that sensible?
There are a couple of different postscript interpreters out there, but I'm not sure of how they were all derived. I have sometimes had problems viewing postcript/PDF files with ghostscript, and just printed them using "lp file.pdf" with no problems. So my experience has found the cups support better. This may of course just be version related (or broken PDF files). > I never thought the postscript in the middle was a problem. The slowest > piece in the chain is the printer anyway... I figure that going from a bitmap to postscript back to a bitmap is likely to cause problems - especially if someone tries to do some colour management along the way. If the postscript is for a different resolution problems will occur also. > I have seen excellent results from others on some Ilford satin or matte > paper (from Epson 8xx printers). I have heard this too, but never seen or tried this paper. - Mark
