1200 ppi Proofer for Esko Workflow

[wesley]

Anyone have suggestions for a true 1200 ppi proofer for proofing 1-bit tiffs to transparent overlays? We have been using Tiff Pager to put pdf wrappers around each tiff and proofing to an Epson 7800 through an Oris system. Real slow and ink always has drying issues. Recently purchased a new HP z6100 60 inch for another workflow and thought I could use it for the overlay workflow via RTL from the FlexRip which is real speedy (can write any res I like). Proofs look OK, but for higher line screen rulings, not so good. I made the classic mistake of reading the tech specs on the device which said it was 1200x1200. Yea right. HP support finally admitted it is only 600. I still don't understand how they get away with that. Anyway, looking for another solution. Any ideas would help. Thanks

 

[michaelejahn]

So, if I am to understand you correctly - you have some crazy old school workflow that requires that you first RIP to 1 bit, then actually use the 1 bit TIFFs to proof - because either you believe (or someone higher up told you to do this ) -- that is, you want to use the exact same file that might later be used to image a plate on so platesetter and hung on a press ?

Please confirm !

- and without trying to sound all sarcastic here, you do understand that if you could image that 1 bit TIFF perfectly as it is somehow, that most likely the 'files that are used to image the plate" assume that some level of printing process 'dot gain' will occur, and therefore, as the TIFF files have dot gain compensation "built into them" -- you would need to somehow modify the dots on you proof to 'simulate' that, you know, so that the proof actually will then visually represent what will actually happen on the printing press sheet.

yes ?

And (if you are still following) one might gently suggest that even if you take the time to invest in some pre-RIP gadget - or Post-RIP, pre-proofing gadget - I mean, do you really need to see dots, that is, the actual dots, screen angles, lay down sequence (CMYK, vs YMCK or whatever) - and dot shape - on your proof ?

if so, buy a Kodak Approval and be prepared to wait a long time for that perfect proof to come out of the machine at 70 bucks a pop (last I costed it out)

KODAK APPROVAL XP Digital Halftone Proofing System - Kodak's Graphic Communications Group

Now, after you come out of the meeting with the president and CFO - where you suggest that purchase - who then asked you directly if they should drug screen you...

(sarcasm ON)

I ask - are you simply wanting to make a color proof that simulates what will happen on press ?

Why do you feel you need to proof that screened bitmap ? No one does this anymore, not even the really big companies like Quad and Quebecor and RRD. That process is FAR to slow and to expensive and no more reliable (as you need to simulate the press gain anyway)

Unless you are into moire perdition and need a dot proof to give to some pressman (who is going to use a loop and somehow use it as he set the ink keys, another horrible and ancient idea that needs to be killed) - then, I say "characterize and calibrate" - print form the same PDF you are going to RIP to you HP z6100

BTW, the reason they can get away with that statement about resolution is that since they can "prove" that they can "simulate" 1200 using their ImageREt technology;

HP Labs Research - Printing & Imaging

the fact is that they do not image colorants on the paper using dots - or even spots really - they spray and heat droplets on dye/pigment (I forget which) that are 4 to 6 picoliters onto the substrate/paper.

A picoliter is a trillionth (one millionth of a millionth, or 10 to the -12th power) of a liter, which can be represented numerically as 0.000000000001/liter. The prefix pico denotes a trillionth part, just as the prefix nano denotes a billionth part.

Resolution is a measurement of a printer's quality and is traditionally measured in dots per inch (DPI). Generally, the higher the DPI, the better the detail and clarity your printed image will have. However, this is simply no loger a valid number (or numbering scheeme) for Inkjet - for example - HP's image enhancement technologies -- ImageREt and PhotoREt -- can't be described (or defined) using a simple DPI number.

Hope this helps you better understand that part anyway.

Or, drink another gallon of that Koolaide, and invest in a RIP that offers "inkjet rosette simulation" - just Google that term and have fun!

Michael Jahn
IQColour.com
Slightly used PDF Evangelist
Ex-film proof maker (Chromalin and Matchprint)
Ex-dot proof pundit (when I was product mareting manager of AGFA Apogee)
Ex-dot simulation proponent (once I saw the photo-micrographs)

 

[wesley]

Screened proofing

Screened proofing

I gather from all that - you do not know. We have several flexo clients who simply must have a dotted overlay proof for several reasons. Jobs are generally 6-8 color spots with complicated images with built in illustrator with transparency and frequently have no idea how it will actually appear with the actual screening and line screen(s) chosen. We use a combination of screen types to enhance printing capability and ink laydown on varying substrates. (this includes corrugate work with fluting and plate/analox issues). Generally these overlay proofs are in no way used for color, but for actual content of final screened tiffs which are imaged on a digital platesetter or to film on a Megasetter. Many times we also supply a screened (from tiffs) epson as well that is closer to color with the same screening including image compensation to simulate gain on press as well along with the profiled proof for color without screening from the Oris system. Huge plates (up to 60x80) that are mounted for multicolor jobs of this type are REAL expensive in materials and labor cost to produce should some designer decide on press they don't like the look of something or another. I mean thousands. I have often caught stuff myself I did not like that I never considered when building the file. Really can be a useful tool. I know this sounds real overkill, but it is difficult to tell the client we cannot do it especially if they are really happy with the result and we get paid well for it.

 

[khasmir]

Do you have all the software you need to make a good dotproof?
What kind of output options do you have on the Flexrip or what flavor is it (C/T4/...)?
I also think you need Flexproof to convert the screened output from Flexrip into a nice dotproof.

For dotproofs, the required resolution depends on the screenruling you want to reproduce. You need at least 1440 dpi to make a dotproof @ 150 lpi and that's about as high as you can go with inkjet. For that you need an Epson Stylus Pro 4880 or higher, depending on the size. Maybe you need specialized inks and printing materials but I don't think that should be a problem.

If you want to go all the way then Kodak Approval is what you need. It can proof on almost anything @ 2400 or 2540 dpi. but it's incredibly expensive, both the machine and the consumables.

 

[wesley]

Dot proof

Dot proof

We have 2 kodaks and make dot proofs with tiff upload via an application called AIT. Size is a bit limiting however. 21x25 about. Also real expensive. We are doing quite a bit of work using an epson for this which is also a lot faster. Kodak is great if you will be laminating to real substrate. Life would be a bit easier if we had Kalidescope and Esko upload to the Kodak but that package is serious cash. We have FlexProof which is what I am using to send tiffs at 2540 to the HPz6100. There is an extra RIP handler called FlexProof Image Downloader that will send the tiffs, single or composite to the HP via RTL. The RIP does have to resample and send these tiffs at the final resolution of the HP which is (supposed to be) 1200. That parameter is setup in the windows print driver supplied by HP on the FlexRip box. I have sort of worked out this whole thing so we image our higher line screen jobs which are generally quite small to the Epson for dotted color key overlays, and the larger jobs which generally have a lower line screen to the HP. We are running the Epson at 720 which is OK, and the HP is actually 600. To send to the Epson we use the workflow previously described with Tiff Pager to create pdf wrappers around the tiffs and image through an Oris system to the Epson 7800s.

 

[pam_add]

dear wesley if we try to print to hp with the flexproof image downloader 150 lpi @2540 dpi what the results ?

 

[wesley]

hp proofing

hp proofing

The RIP will resample your screened tiffs to 600 and plot on the HP. 150 lpi is tough. That is the kind of work I had to move back to the Epson for higher resolution. I was unable to get a decent looking proof on clear material. Also you start to get strange looking patterns in certain areas of screening. Almost a moire from the print patterning to the screening your tiff. Try to stay at 120 or below which is where most of our large flexo work is.

 

[pam_add]

please specify you proofers models