Fiery Stochastic Requires 600 DPI...

[kdw75]

Does anyone know why on our C75, with a Fiery RIP, requires us to drop the resolution from 1200DPI down to 600DPI when we choose stochastic screening?

 

[Justin de Kruyf]

Not sure why, but that's the way it is. Stochastic also causes drastic colour changes and I'd have to do a lot of work to craft a new output profile to get press-match specific to the way these machines do stochastic. At first I thought Stochastic was a great idea but the way it was implemented in the C75 makes for pretty unmanagable colour and it's not at a high enough resolution to look right.

 

[gordo]

Does anyone know why on our C75, with a Fiery RIP, requires us to drop the resolution from 1200DPI down to 600DPI when we choose stochastic screening?

This is speculation....
FM screens are typically high resolution screens, as such, they can sometimes resolve device mechanical imaging issues. Lowering the dpi lowers the screen's resolution and hence its ability to reveal device imaging issues.

Gordo

 

[kdw75]

I had heard people arguing that the resolution on laser printers was frequently exaggerated by the manufacturer.

I recently found your blog Gordo, and after reading about FM screening was anxious to try creating a profile with it to see how it worked, though dropping the resolution gave me pause.

 

[Schnitzel]

I've also got a speculation:
Perhaps using 1200DPI (at 1 gray level per pixel?) creates a too grainy print, so the RIP lowers the DPI but adds more gray levels per pixel, thus creating a less grainy print. I know this works from personal experience with stochastic screening.

 

[kdw75]

I've also got a speculation:
Perhaps using 1200DPI (at 1 gray level per pixel?) creates a too grainy print, so the RIP lowers the DPI but adds more gray levels per pixel, thus creating a less grainy print. I know this works from personal experience with stochastic screening.

So what is your opinion on quality compared to the 200 dot screen setting? That is what we have always used and I must say it looks pretty darned good.

 

[Schnitzel]

Sorry, I haven't actually seen a print of the stochastic screening. I've seen EFI's 200 dot screen before, and indeed it looks good, but I can't compare the two.

If it looks better to you, use it. Your (or the customer's) eyes give the final verdict when it comes to quality.

 

[Craig]

Make sure you profile and calibrate to that screen or you will get bad results.

 

[cosmo]

we have the creo rip on the konica and does the same, goes to 600dpi, it looks shit