Re: Printers using free software only
On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 16:17:22 +0100, Brian wrote:
> On Sat 28 Jul 2012 at 13:37:22 +0000, Camaleón wrote:
(...)
>> But I already knew there are printers in the market that direct print
>> to PDF (as well as options 2/ and 3/ are also possible). I did not
>> asked about that. I asked what *you* were speaking/referring to when
>> you talked about "PDF printers".
>
> Your multiple choice quiz had
>
> > 1/ A physical device (printer) with physical PDF interpreter
> > on it (PDF add-on card)?
>
> and
>
> > Because until now I have not seen a thing like "1/" . . , .
>
> Looks like I misunderstood you.
No, you read it right.
The printers that I'm aware about their PDF capabities used system 2/
instead 1/, that is, a "software" (driver/firmware) to do the transform
from job input to PDF output. I'm unsure about how the HP printer you
mentioned does the PDF job, internally.
> Anyway: a PostScript printer has a PostScript interpreter; a PCL printer
> has a PCL interpreter; a PDF printer has a PDF interpreter. They accept
> print jobs sent directly to them in the supported language.
And that's the key. No transformations are needed, no necessity for
interpreting the input, it's direct. When the printer lacks from PCL6 or
PS or PDF interpreter you're missing that capability.
Does your printer integrate a PDF interprerter? The ones I managed do
not, just PCL6 and PostScript.
>> Side note: do you known what's the required/recommended memory to
>> directly print to PDF? And what happens with PDF v1.7, will you have to
>> buy a new module for supporting the new upcoming standards? >:-)
>
> I've no idea, really. The two links I supplied mention 0.5 GB and 1,0
> GB.
That's the stock memory that comes with the printer (500 MiB) and the
maximum allowed (up to 1 GiB). Those are very "high" numbers not
available for the vast majority of the printing devices.
Anyway, want I wanted to say is that if PostScript required a good amount
of memory so the job outputs quickly, PDF can even require even more. Not
funny...
>> > No. I mean taking the link you already have
>> >
>> > http://www.linuxfoundation.org/collaborate/workgroups/openprinting/pdfasstandardprintjobformat
>> > ,
>
>> There are no technical reasons (neither what's the real gain for users)
>> listed there but how to start using the new filter facility within
>> CUPS.
>
> We'll have to disagree on that, then
There's little room for disagreements here; "quod scripsi, scripsi" :-)
>> > reading it as a whole and following up on how the system was
>> > developed. The third and fourth paragraphs of Roger Leigh's post
>> > might help with any searches.
>>
>> I've found another doc comparing for options:
>>
>> http://www.adobe.com/print/features/psvspdf/
>>
>> But I'd say the author is not "neutral" ;-)
>
> Possibly not. But he should be expected to know what he is writing
> about.
Sure, but there can be another interests behind the words.
>> > Some of us have been doing precisely that (using and testing) for
>> > three or four years. When you get to Squeeze or Wheezy you can join
>> > in too.
>>
>> All my printers support PostScript directly, why should I ignore that
>> fact?
>
> You shouldn't. Just keep sending PostScript to CUPS and it will be
> printed.
That's indeed my plan :-)
Greetings,
--
Camaleón
Reply to: