Anyone using Epson 9900/7900 proofing edition?

[Stephen Marsh]

We are running the Epson 9900 with inline Epson/X-rite SpectroProofer with Kodak Matchprint Inkjet Kodak Proofing Software RIP (proofing to Fogra39) in our showroom. We can also use our i1 or i1-iO in place of the inline spectro for calibration and media wedge confirmation. When using supported Kodak Matchprint inkjet proofing media, the entire system is turnkey "out of the box" solution for standards based proofing such as ISO, SWOP etc.

Stephen Marsh

[neleson]

Hi,


I am using EPSON 9900 proofing edition. This edition has amazing features. Through this, we can print poster.



_______________________________
epson sx425w ink

[georgio]

We use Epson 9900s with an Oris rip. We proof SWOP and Gracol and verify the proofs with Cert Proof software from Oris. The proofs are generally within 3 DeltaE of spec. We used 9800s before replacing them with the 9900s. The 9900s are a far superior product IMO. Very stable.

Hi Vieper, When you say within 3 DeltaE spec, you're referring to what chart & which deltaE standard, please?

[chevalier]

I can't speak for Vieper but I am also running the Epson Stylus 9900 with integrated spectro driven by CGS-ORIS ColorTuner Web RIP and CGS-ORIS Certified Proof (also available as Certified Web with integration for digital printing). We use the IdeaAlliance ISO 12647-7 control strip (you can use FOGRA or other standard bars or create your own as long as the integrated spectro can read them). You can utilize 1 of 4 available dE specifications: dE, dE94, dE2000 and dE CMC2:1.

Another standard feature of the ColorTuner Web RIP and Certified Proof allows you to also print dynamic color control strips of spot colors that can be read and measured in-line by the spectro in conjunction with your standardized color strip. You can actually measure how accurate the proofer is at simulating spot colors. Extremely detailed reporting is also a standard feature.

I researched and compared various solutions to drive and certify proofs before deciding on CGS-ORIS. I could not be happier with my current CGS-ORIS solution. I should mention that I am in no way employed or given any incentive to push/brag about the performance of CGS-ORIS products.

[georgio]

Hi Chevalier, thanks for your reply and sharing. I guess Vieper is referring to similar MW2/3 or Idealliance Control Strip which is 54, 48, 72 patches in number, and dE76 is mostly default I guess.

A little sharing is that, depends on the chart you use, the peak/average deltaE76 results differently naturally:
FograMW2 (48patches) -- dE Peak 2.4 / Av 1.3
FograMW3 (72patches) -- dE Peak 2.8 / Av 1.3
IT874R (1617 patches) -- dE Peak 4.8 / Av 1.4
*Ideallaince Control Strip (54 patches) -- dE Peak 2.6 / Av 1,3 [estimated]
[Similar finding in setup like EFIv4 / Epson 9900 / EFI 4245 or Epson SPP205 paper using default drivers:
FograMW3 -- dE Peak 1.8 / Av 0.7
IT874R -- dE Peak 2.8 / Av 0.6 using built-in Spectroproof spectro
Peak 3.0 / Av 0.8 using external ISIS]

Thus for validation wedge reading dE(76) 2.5/1.5 is pretty marginal; 2/1 is common; 1.5/0.5 is good. (when the chart is IT874R or ECI2002 -- these numbers will be expanded to dE Peak/Av: 5/1.5 as marginal; 4//1 as common; 2/0.5 is good)

The logic is simple, when dE peak is naturally higher in thousand-patches profiling chart than hundred-patch validation wedges; equally when there're thousand wedges to be averaged, the average dE will be slightly lowered)

Another interesting to note is drying time must be 10 minutes or more depends on substrate; even measuring the same profiling chart, the peak dE can have a 0.8 difference! [naturally I'll discount 0.4dE from whichever peak value measured due to this finding]; not to mention inter-instrument deviation and brand to brand deviation of delta-E being claimed to be 0.3~0.8 for inter-instrument and more than dE1 for brand to brand]

Numbers....are just to be taken carefully, IMO.

BTW, can you share a bit the gamut volume or accuracy of the EPSON 9900 / Oris?

[chevalier]

We hold GRACoL tolerances without issue with the exception of paper white. GRACoL paperwhite is is 3dE - we consistently stay below 3.5dE with paper white. Being realistic and being a packaging operation we choose an ORIS paper that most closely matched our SBS board and not the most optimal stock for hitting GRACoL. The paper is only marketed as SWOP capable but we have held this near-GRACoL without issue. CGS-ORIS papers are the without a doubt the most consistent proofing papers I have ever dealt with. As far as drying time goes I experimented with varying drying times with what I would describe as negligible differences.

We also have a FinalProof to proof directly on board upon request. I have been able to achieve the same tolerances with it without issue. ORIS certified proof can also be fed data by other spectros and we offline scan our FinalProofs with an i1 into a separate database. We have found that FinalProof more accurately proofs especially UV work because it is a true dry trap and uses actual halftone dots. The Epson is of course capable of halftone dot proofing at 175lpi but given our FinalProof capability we currently did not see the need in investing more money than necessary into the Epson proofer.

To summarize - what matters most currently for us is whether the press operators can match proofs within set tolerances with minimal or no adjustment. That is of course a "general" accuracy but we aren't a laboratory. If we are meeting or preferably exceeding customer expectations I feel like we are doing a great job and on the right track. This goal has been absolutely achieved. Of course there is always room for improvement. As far as gamut goes achieving ideal CMYK is never an issue - achieving spot colors is limited by the proofer itself. Even 11 ink channels can only go so far.

I would provide data showing proof achieved gamut to desired gamut as well as variability of our proofs over a 6 month period but due to company policy I am verboten from sharing such data. Sometimes CGS-ORIS patrols the forum - perhaps they can upload some sample data.