EskoArtworks, Equinox?

[Bradleyp]

OK, I’ve followed your example above, but I’m not understanding what this is supposed to prove. I’m making the assumption that your Photoshop Working space is USWebCoatedSWOP for CMYK and sRGB for RGB. If that’s the case, the gamut warning is accurate in that a portion of cyan, green and a bit of yellow in SWOP is outside the gamut of sRGB. (attached pic shows your CMYK image data plotted against the sRGB colorspace. sRGB cannot fully contain SWOP).

When you cut & past the CMY channels into the RGB channels respectively, it simply proves that 256 gray levels from CMYK mode contain 2:56 times the data needed to extract CMYK++. The CMYK gamut is not 'compressed' until it physically hits the output medium. Please don't complicate it this by adding ICC's into the mix. Let's assume for a moment ICC doesn't exist (pretend it's 1993 - LOL).

Thanks for sharing that (Wow, 1993?!).

Glad you picked up on the date. That's my point, nothing's changed in calculating dynamic range.

I guess we've wandered a bit off the topic of Esko Equinox.

You're right. I'll stop now. Happy New Year

Brad.

 

[meddington]

Please don't complicate it this by adding ICC's into the mix.

That's a bit hard to do when your example involves turning on the gamut warning, which is inextricably linked to the ICC profiles defined in the color settings. I'd be interested in hearing your methodology of extracting CMYK++ from CMYK sometime.

Happy New Year to you as well.

 

[Bradleyp]

I come from a scanning background, and we calculated dynamic range directly from the measured media...reflective and transmissive grayscales (a method that is now a standard, ISO 21550). The dynamic range of PMT scanner I operated was certainly limited by the media being scanned. Different transparency emulsions would yield a different d-min/max. It is still my contention that dynamic and bit depth are not directly correlated, despite a methodology deriving a DR value from bit depth (and I'm not alone in this viewpoint). You can render an image with any number of bits, but the only obvious difference will be the number of steps.

BTW, I agree you'd be hard press to find a transparent emulsion with a dynamic range greater that 3.6d. Going forward, I won't confuse 'analog' (input) dynamic range with 'digital' (output) dynamic range. Thanks.

I'd be interested in hearing your methodology of extracting CMYK++ from CMYK sometime.

...still researching that holy grail as well. Let me get back to you

 

[Bradleyp]

The key statement in the PDF you linked to is "Dynamic range is defined as the ratio of the maximum to the minimum density or luminance values". But to achieve a greater gamut you need more chroma rather than greater dynamic range. The darkest dark and the lightest light you can have in a transparency may be darker than the darkest dark and lighter than the lightest light that you can achieve in a print however (my speculation) the impact on gamut would be negligible to zero. Gamut is modeled somewhat like a football with light colors at the top and dark at the bottom. Just like a football the distance from neutral (the centerline of the football) to the perimeter (chroma) is very short at the lightest and darkest points. And our eye/brain has difficulty distinguishing very small chroma (and even hue) differences at the extremes.

Chroma would be considered an 'input' ingredient derived from the original scene or image. Agreed, a colored image could have the same luminance dynamic range (Dmin/Dmax) as a monochromatic image. However, chroma also has it's own 'dynamic range'. For example, a pastel (desaturated) red 2m.2y to a saturated red 100m.100y (the centerline of the football) to the perimeter (chroma) as you say. To expand the CMY gamut, we need to separate that chroma (lost from 2.56:1 halftone compression) into a second 'halftone bucket', to print say 300% ink in a saturated red: 100r.100m.100y. Of course, we know this 'bump' color concept has been around forever bla..bla..bla... No need to reply to my post, I realize we're back to where we started - LOL

Happy New Year to you as well Gordo.

Brad.

 

[Bradleyp]

I can tell you for a fact that the plug ins work on CS 5.1 (that's the latest we have). As far as a customer ripping it out. Not all that surprised. Not because the product doesn't work, but it is difficult for a prepress house to separate to expanded gamut when they are dealing with outside printers. Remember, printers generally don't want to go expanded gamut unless they are the ones controlling the inks that will be used. If you have a press, and are running expanded gamut, the easiest way to make money is to keep the same 5,6 or 7 inks on press as often as possible.

As a converter we have Equinox. We use it just for a few key brand customers that have required their jobs to run 7 color. For us it works fine but we do not try and shove all work to expanded gamut.

Jeff, happy new year. Assuming you're only Equinox user involved in this ongoing discussion, I was wondering if you'd have the time to separate this test form https://dl.dropbox.com/u/10335197/DDWP_TEST.pdf.zip via your Equinox plug-in? The profile you choose isn't important etc. Even the 'default' will be fine with a predefined ink set (if that's the quickest/easiest). It's purely for 'look & feel' as to how Equinox actually separates a graphic image. Be nice to finally 'see' some meat & potatoes to compliment this discussion? Thanks.

Brad.

 

[PrepressDan]

Jeff, happy new year. Assuming you're only Equinox user involved in this ongoing discussion, I was wondering if you'd have the time to separate this test form https://dl.dropbox.com/u/10335197/DDWP_TEST.pdf.zip via your Equinox plug-in? The profile you choose isn't important etc. Even the 'default' will be fine with a predefined ink set (if that's the quickest/easiest). It's purely for 'look & feel' as to how Equinox actually separates a graphic image. Be nice to finally 'see' some meat & potatoes to compliment this discussion? Thanks.

Brad.

Brad, here you go. File was too big to upload so here is a link

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/61626985/DDWP_TEST_7c.pdf.zip

 

[Bradleyp]

Brad, here you go. File was too big to upload so here is a linkhttps://dl.dropbox.com/u/61626985/DDWP_TEST_7c.pdf.zip

Thanks Jeff, the separations look 'interesting'. She certainly has quite a suntan with extra orange in flesh tone? I'm assuming you can selectively edit to suite? Thanks again for sharing.

Brad.

 

[Chief_1975]

Thanks Jeff, the separations look 'interesting'. She certainly has quite a suntan with extra orange in flesh tone?

Your not kidding!, not sure what that has proven though ? ink coverage has increased in some areas:
100% Y + 100% C > 95% Y + 36% C + 100% G

 

[meddington]

You'd have to keep in mind that for accurate softproofing you'd need the specific 7c ICC profile, an application that supported it, and possible a calibrated wide-gamut monitor.

 

[Werby]

Esko does have a automated solution for converting, but they also have a plug in for Photoshop which allows you do do image expanded gamut.

I agree with Jeffkin15. If your intention is to utilize the expanded gamut on CTs, taking full advantage of the gamut available, than the images will benefit more significantly from individual attention of Equinox's plugin.

I can tell you for a fact that the plug ins work on CS 5.1

RGB to CMYK++ can be done in Prinergy using a 6/C ICC profile. Or you can use other vendor's products to do the conversion within PShop (e.g. Visu's CoCo or Esko's plugin). In my experience, the majority of the companies converting raster images to CMYK++ do it manually in PShop.
...
If all you want is to separate raster images into CMYK++ then you have several vendor offerings to try out.

Can anyone tell me more about options for creating CMYK++ files? What "several vendor offerings" are there exactly besides CoCo & Esko? I've used an Esko photoshop plugin called Ink Tools, but this is limited to 4 channels. I gather the one discussed in this thread is part of Equinox and can handle 7 channels? Does it do a good job of soft-proofing how the 7 channel file will look?

We create our additional channels manually in Photoshop with decent results, but the screen preview (soft-proof) of the 5 or 6 color file never looks remotely like the press test or proof, so there is a lot of trial and error. Just looking for a better way to build these files.

 

[PrepressDan]

Thanks Jeff, the separations look 'interesting'. She certainly has quite a suntan with extra orange in flesh tone? I'm assuming you can selectively edit to suite? Thanks again for sharing.

Brad.

I did absolutely no calibration on that file. I just converted it with whatever profile was loaded. Yes, you have full control of how each separation looks.

 

[danpulling]

Gordo has summarized this perfectly, a number of times. Expanded Gamut or fixed palette or multicolor printing works, whatever you want to call it. There are many very successful companies using this in production. The benefits can be enormous but they don't come without putting in the effort. The better the planning, the higher the success.

Regardless of how you look at it, a single ink set be it CMYK, CMYKOGB, CMYKRGV, CMYKXXX will only ever reproduce a certain percentage of Pantone's in gamut, based on your preferred ∆E formula and tolerance.

The most successful companies I have seen use multiple ink sets to cover different ranges of brand colors. In reality, you will never have just one ink set and the printer will always print spot colors. The real question then is what range of my spot colors can I simulate or print with my process colors, whatever that set may be.

The actual number of the Pantone colors in gamut is really not relevant, even if it was above 80%. What's important is the percentage of "my" spot colors. That's all that counts. PMS 354 may be in gamut with a certain ink set but if I don't print PMS 354, that doesn't help me.

I work for Esko and was the product manager of Equinox for 5 years. I have been involved with expanded gamut since 2004. We and Kodak for that matter have successful customers working in expanded gamut as Gordo already pointed out. I believe Equinox has some good advantages versus SpotLess. Firstly in the area of refining spot color conversions for press stability and secondly for the flexibility to expand the gamut of images.

The real struggle with expanded gamut is in the press room, not when you make new separations. Depending on the design, some adjustments or compromises might need to be made when converting an existing design. The software can convert any job, ours or Kodak's. The question is can you easily print the new separations. Don't forget, the goal here is to make life easier, improve productivity and reduce costs.

In the end, maybe the printer ends up converting a lower percentage of their jobs than they would like. The actual percentage depends on the type of work, print process, substrate & demands of the end customer or brand owner.

I would be happy to give anyone a webinar to look at the challenges in expanded gamut and demo of Equinox.

Dan

 

[Bradleyp]

The actual number of the Pantone colors in gamut is really not relevant, even if it was above 80%. What's important is the percentage of "my" spot colors. That's all that counts. PMS 354 may be in gamut with a certain ink set but if I don't print PMS 354, that doesn't help me.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? When talking Expanded gamut we really need to rid this conversation of PANTONE and spot colors.

Last time I checked, there were still only (2) color reproduction systems in existence:

Additive: RGB
Subtractive: CMYK

PANTONE is not a color reproduction system. It's simply a collection of spot colors. Take at look at their latest Pantone'+' book. Anyone can interpolate more colors from the same 12 bases to create thousands more 'colors' (i.e. cans of ink) & more landfill. They call this innovation? Whoopty-doo!

From what I understand, an 'Expanded Gamut' system should be based on a color separation method & ink set that expands the CMYK gamut thereby improving on the known print problems:

• C,M,Y trap errors (improve 'saturated' RGB hues).
• C,M ink hue/contamination errors (improve orange, green & blue hues).

Based on these known 'problems', why can't the color gurus (SUN CHEMICAL, ESKO, KODAK, GRACOL, FOGRA, ISO - who is this 7-color authority?) simply quantify/agree on one 7-color ink set? While it may not be perfect, at least the software, proofing vendors, printers, ink suppliers and most importantly BRAND OWNERS will have a chance knowing what they're all aiming for on a global scale.

ESKO created a rod for their own back by offering a expanded gamut 'choice' in the first place. It's quite a unique business model indeed, you sell Equinox for $50,000+ 'consulting fees' to help the prepress/printer waste their valuable press time printing color charts to invent in-house expanded gamut system(s) & ink sets? What are they actually buying again? Please don't say, 'automation & global standardization' (which is what the BRAND OWNERS want).

ESKO should have worked with SUN CHEMICAL (or whoever) and mandated (1) 7-color standard from the gecko. Too late now, as usual ESKO promise everyone everything & deliver nothing. Of course, they still keep cashing the checks - LOL

It's not rocket science, unless the industry can lock down the output colorants, the input is futile. Expanded Gamut will never become commercially viable.

Brad.

 

[gordo]

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? When talking Expanded gamut we really need to rid this conversation of PANTONE and spot colors.

Last time I checked, there were still only (2) color reproduction systems in existence:

Additive: RGB
Subtractive: CMYK

RGB and CMYK don't define hues. There are many different hues of those colors. There are specifications for the hues of CMYK if the printer wants to conform to an industry standard.

PANTONE is not a color reproduction system. It's simply a collection of spot colors. Take at look at their latest Pantone'+' book. Anyone can interpolate more colors from the same 12 bases to create thousands more 'colors' (i.e. cans of ink) & more landfill.

That's true, but keep in mind that there are ink hues that are not included in the Pantone system.

From what I understand, an 'Expanded Gamut' system should be based on a color separation method & ink set that expands the CMYK gamut thereby improving on the known print problems:

• C,M,Y trap errors (improve 'saturated' RGB hues).
• C,M ink hue/contamination errors (improve orange, green & blue hues).

OK

Based on these known 'problems', why can't the color gurus (SUN CHEMICAL, ESKO, KODAK, GRACOL, FOGRA, ISO - who is this 7-color authority?) simply quantify/agree on one 7-color ink set? While it may not be perfect, at least the software, proofing vendors, printers, ink suppliers and most importantly BRAND OWNERS will have a chance knowing what they're all aiming for on a global scale.

I'm talking about the use of a color separation system to replace spot colors. AFAIK, there is no 7-color authority. These systems are vendor designed to solve a specific customer need. The market for such a solution is limited so you'll likely never see an authority arise.

ESKO created a rod for their own back by offering a expanded gamut 'choice' in the first place. It's quite a unique business model indeed, you sell Equinox for $50,000+ 'consulting fees' to help the prepress/printer waste their valuable press time printing color charts to invent in-house expanded gamut system(s) & ink sets? What are they actually buying again? Please don't say, 'automation & global standardization' (which is what the BRAND OWNERS want).

The value and ROI from simulating spot colors using an extended process color set include:
• Provide brand manager with more creative options
• Virtual elimination of makeready cost in time and materials
• Greater efficiency via combo/ganged sheets
• Maximize sheet usage/minimize wastage
• More efficient press utilization/smaller (cheaper) presses
• Brings long run cost efficiencies to short runs enabling more marketing options
• Align color across various printing methods or media
• Provides the printshop with a competitive advantage.

What they're buying to get that value is the software and training.

ESKO should have worked with SUN CHEMICAL (or whoever) and mandated (1) 7-color standard from the gecko.

You could standardize the ink hue set. But why would you do so rather than allowing the printer to tailor the solution to meet specific customer needs. I don't know about Equinox, but the Spotless system has the ability to identify which spot or brand colors are able to be simulated across different printers and ink hue sets. So, several printers using different inks would know which spot colors are common between them.

It's not rocket science, unless the industry can lock down the output colorants, the input is futile. Expanded Gamut will never become commercially viable.

If you're talking about expanded gamut to enhance raster images there are several solutions that have been in the market for years so I assume they are commercially viable. The market is small though.
If you're talking about using extended process colors to replace spot colors there are at least two that have been in the market for years so I assume they are commercially viable.

best, gordo

 

[Bradleyp]

If you're talking about expanded gamut to enhance raster images there are several solutions that have been in the market for years so I assume they are commercially viable. The market is small though.
If you're talking about using extended process colors to replace spot colors there are at least two that have been in the market for years so I assume they are commercially viable.

Thanks Gordo, I'm not giving up on the logic behind an industry standard 'one size fits all' 7-color system with standardized colorants that mathematically cover a larger gamut and simultaneously enhances raster images & simulates spot colors. Color separation shouldn't discriminate between raster & vector. Color is color. A 'spot color' is simply a hue, just like the hue of a rose. 'Several Vendors' offering different standards/colorants is not a Global solution. Anyway, we've already covered this previously - LOL

Let's see what Dan has to add...

Brad.

 

[meddington]

IMO, brand owners likely don't care how much more raster images "pop" in 7/c vs 4/c reproductions. It's great if they do, but they are likely more concerned with brand identification colors...logos, flavor identity and consistency. If a standardized 7/c system doesn't cover their brand colors, its doesn't have much value. And if you look at the value/ROI items that Gordo listed, most benefits are gleaned by the printer/production process rather than an increase in visual appeal. Brand owners don't want to pay more for anything, so if they can cover their brand identity within a customized 7/c process, and production costs can be reduced, the likelihood of adaptation increases. I think part of the reason that Hexachrome failed widespread adaptation is that it worked with a more defined inkset that didn't necessarily reduce the need for brand specific spot colors, and certainly no-one wanted to pay more. Screening is also a limitation as conventional screening in extended gamut can be challenging to eliminate moiré.

 

[danpulling]

I'm not giving up on the logic behind an industry standard 'one size fits all' 7-color system with standardized colorants that mathematically cover a larger gamut and simultaneously enhances raster images & simulates spot colors

There is no "one size fits all" 7 color system. A 7 color system will produce a bigger gamut than CMYK but it will never produce every color. We produced what some customers were asking for. A more flexible system for expanded gamut. Hexachrome, Opaltone FM6 are fixed ink sets. However, too many customers came to us saying we want to reproduce colors that are outside the gamut of Hexachrome, Opaltone & FM6.

We are not offering different standards or colorants. We are offering software tools and training.

We could have worked with Sun Chemical or Flint or Siegwerk or some other ink vendor to create a generic 7 color ink set. This would work for some people and not for others. Then we would create another and then another and then another but this is not what our customers asked for. They asked for the flexibility to choose an ink set they matches the colors they need to reproduce. That's what we did.

Dan

 

[Bradleyp]

We are not offering different standards or colorants. We are offering software tools and training.

To go one step further, for $50-60,000 ESKO don't even offer (1) set of 'plug & play' standards or colorants (for customers that DON'T WANT to pay ESKO consultants to help them invent 'different standards or colorants').

Yet ESKO's slogan is 'Color Consistency Matters'
http://www.esko.com/en/~/media/Esko/Files/PDF Library/color-engine/G2558473_color_lr_us.pdf?lang=en

Gotta love that oxymoron statement

Brad.

 

[meddington]

It takes a significant amount of commitment to make an extended gamut process effective. Everyone from designers to brand owners to ink venders and print production needs to be board and collaborating. Without that commitment, you may have a system that is very under-utilized and unprofitable...so it was with Hexachrome. It's not quite plug&play...not if you want to make money on it. You may as well go for higher pigment/higher density CMYK and see if anyone is willing to pay extra for the increased gamut. From my experience, they're not.

Just sayin'

 

[Bradleyp]

Hexachrome, Opaltone FM6 are fixed ink sets. However, too many customers came to us saying we want to reproduce colors that are outside the gamut of Hexachrome, Opaltone & FM6.

Apparently Hexachrome was discontinued in 2008? Hexachrome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyone else familiar with Fm6 or Opaltone - What is Opaltone?

Dan, what PMS colors fell 'outside the gamut' of these systems?

Brad.