ICEserver

[couriergraphics]

Has anyone tested the ICEserver. Claims of ink reduction & wider gamut? Just curious if anyone has tested this product and any feed back? New product from Fine Eye Color.

 

[gordo]

Has anyone tested the ICEserver. Claims of ink reduction & wider gamut? Just curious if anyone has tested this product and any feed back? New product from Fine Eye Color.

If you do a search on this forum you will find quite a number of postings about this product as well as the confusion over its claims.

IMHO -

ICEserver reseparates images in order to reduce ink usage. I don't doubt their claim. Other products can do the same. ICEserver claims a unique methodology that allows for greater reduction than their competition. I don't believe that's been formally tested.

The increased gamut is a separate issue. It comes from increasing SIDs. Their are other ways to accomplish the same goal (increased gamut via higher SIDs). I don't believe that ICEserver vs other methods has been formally tested.

Can you increase gamut via higher SIDs and save ink in the process? That depends on what you are comparing. I don't believe that this has been formally tested.

best, gordon p

 

[couriergraphics]

Thanks for the input Gordo. Yea we have looked at the GMG solution in the past & i am pretty sure this is just another rendition of a similar action. There may be some more math behind this product?? My problem is an undereducated client base. No matter what they claim they are replacing triplet grays with Black and when the customer wants to go away from the proof on the press you are not going to move the color. That is my biggest issue!

 

[gordo]

Thanks for the input Gordo. Yea we have looked at the GMG solution in the past & i am pretty sure this is just another rendition of a similar action. There may be some more math behind this product?? My problem is an undereducated client base. No matter what they claim they are replacing triplet grays with Black and when the customer wants to go away from the proof on the press you are not going to move the color. That is my biggest issue!

The primary market for ink reduction solutions are:
• Newspaper publishers
• Insert and flyer printers
• Magazine publishers
• Catalogers
• Directory printers

Because those folks tend to print to standards based on "the numbers" and usually do not have customers asking them to deviate from the proof. Sometimes there isn't even a proof for those printers to move away from anyway.

They buy huge volumes of ink so the ROI and other benefits of reseparating can be substantial.

For smaller commercial printers, the ROI of ink savings may not be worth the reduction in on press color flexibility.

There's no reason why you couldn't have several production streams - one that uses ink optimizing techniques for the clients you know want you to "match" the proof and another for customers you know want to get creative at press.

You could also offer printing at higher SIDs for those customers whose projects would benefit from the extra color saturation.

The more flexible you are in your print characteristic offering the more able you are at tailoring your presswork to meet your customers' need and the better you will be in competing with other printers.

best, gordon p

http://qualityinprint.blogspot.com/search/label/DMaxx

 

[kenthekid]

Ice

Ice

Hey Courier, we tried this product on several jobs recently, and found it to be a great help in saving ink, helping overall color, and gray balance. Working with the folks there was a pleasure. They're very knowledgble and helpful.
We sent them files, color bars from the press we were running a particular job on, and paper. A profile was created based on all the info we submitted and we went to press. Honestly, the pressmen absolutely loved running the job once they had their ink/water balance down. According to the pressmen, they had to turn the water down slightly more than the normal setting they run to on a normal SWOP job. They also ran just a bit higher in the regular SWOP ink densities. I speak for not only our shop but several others in the area we know that have been running with profiles created with the ICE software and all have been very pleased with the results.

 

[aferruzza]

Using the ice product for 6 months now

Using the ice product for 6 months now

To all the nay sayers out there regarding ice:
We have found that after using the product for 6 months:

(A) have reduced ink consumption by a large number
(B) have had a major reduction in our press o.k. time
(c) Have had great results with overall color and grey's
(d) dont need to use bump colors as much to get the brilliant colors
(e) We seem to have more consistency from shift to shift

Lastly:
Gordo, Not rapping on ya, but not sure why you seem to be anti-(ice).
It is a great product and does exactly what they tell you it's suppose to do.
It has done wonders for our extremely busy 3 shift shop.

I HAD MY DOUBTS WHEN I WAS TALKING TO THE SALESMAN ABOUT THE INK SAVINGS,WIDER COLOR GAMUT AND SO ON...BUT THE PRODUCT WORKS GREAT

 

[gordo]

To all the nay sayers out there regarding ice:
We have found that after using the product for 6 months:
(A) have reduced ink consumption by a large number
(B) have had a major reduction in our press o.k. time
(c) Have had great results with overall color and grey's
(d) dont need to use bump colors as much to get the brilliant colors
(e) We seem to have more consistency from shift to shift
Lastly:
Gordo, Not rapping on ya, but not sure why you seem to be anti-(ice).
It is a great product and does exactly what they tell you it's suppose to do.
It has done wonders for our extremely busy 3 shift shop.

Hi aferruzza,

I'm not anti-ICE. I've met with them, talked to them at length, and they're nice folks.

I am however anti magical thinking, customer tests that don't actually test claims nor compare competing products, and mixed/confusing vendor claims, as well as testimonies of performance by users that are not backed up with data.

ICE is a reseparation technology as is ORIS, GMG, and others. It may or may not perform better than competing products. However, because it is a technology, quantitative claims made by a vendor can be measured and compared. IMHO qualitative testimonies ("Best thing since sliced bread") while interesting don't carry much weight when it comes to this type of product.

So when I read your testimony, I get confused and concerned 'cause it contains a lot of unsubstantiated qualitative rather than quantitative statements:

(A) have reduced ink consumption by a large number

[GP] I don't think that's a unique ICE capability. Wouldn't that also be true if you used a competing vendor's reseparation solution that applied GCR techniques? Have you done a direct comparison to a competitor's offering?

(B) have had a major reduction in our press o.k. time

[GP] Isn't that true of simply using heavy GCR techniques? At least that's been my experience.

(c) Have had great results with overall color and grey's

[GP] Isn't that true of simply using heavy GCR techniques? At least that's been my experience.

(d) dont need to use bump colors as much to get the brilliant colors

[GP] Are you getting a larger gamut while running to the same SIDs as you were running pre-ICE? If so, have you done a press characterization run to validate? If so I would appreciate it if you sent me profiles pre-ICE and post ICE so that I can see this extra gamut and try to understand where it's coming from.

Or are you running higher SIDs to increase gamut? If you are running higher SIDs to increase gamut - have you compared the results to doing so without using ICE separations?

(e) We seem to have more consistency from shift to shift

[GP] "Seem"? If so, isn't that true of simply using heavy GCR techniques? At least that's been my experience.

So far the ICE folks haven't provided any test data nor published any white papers to explain or back up their claims. The customers that they have referred me to have not done any formal testing themselves.

It's not so complicated.
If I have a friend who swears by Ford cars, while I swear by Jeep - well one can't really argue the difference.
But if my friend says that he gets 27 mpg highway and says I only get 18. Well, that claim can be tested and measured.

So, as the old saying goes: "In God we trust, all others bring data."

If you would like to help me better understand your experience with ICE but don't want to do so publicly, please contact me in confidence at pritchardgordon @ gmail (dot) com

best, gordo

 

[aferruzza]

Gordo-
i respect your concerns and comments.
All i am saying is that i have seen a tremendous improvement
in our print quality since we have been using ice.
When i say why are you anti ice, i just was wondering why you seem to be against
this product?
for my knowledge, not to start a argument.
Thanks for you opinions

 

[gordo]

Gordo-
i respect your concerns and comments.
All i am saying is that i have seen a tremendous improvement in our print quality since we have been using ice.
When i say why are you anti ice, i just was wondering why you seem to be against this product?
for my knowledge, not to start a argument.
Thanks for you opinions

As I said, I'm not against this product per se. However they have made some wild claims and confusing assertions on this forum. Something that I have not seen from their competitors - so maybe that's why it may appear that I'm against their product.

And I have no doubt you have seen an improvement in your print quality. That being said, I think that companies investigating the purchase of a solution should properly investigate the proposed solution vs competing offerings.
What's wrong with that?

I think that vendors who make performance claims should be able to back those claims up with data.
What's wrong with that?

I've posted some basic questions about the product and have not gotten a clear response. I've asked users such as yourself the same questions and have not gotten any answers. That's not quite true, I have received a few answers from users - but so far do not quite align with ICE's claims.

Believe me, if I read similar things from ORIS or GMG or whomever I would be asking the same questions.

best, gordo

 

[aferruzza]

Nothing wrong with people asking about a product.
Just curious why you seem to be so concerned about ice??
You sem to have alot of doubts about the product.
Did you ever test it??

 

[gordo]

Nothing wrong with people asking about a product.
Just curious why you seem to be so concerned about ice??
You sem to have alot of doubts about the product.
Did you ever test it??

I've already answered those questions.
Just curious as to why you won't provide any real information about the product.
Did you ever test it?

 

[Magnus]

I do understand Gordons approach towards ICE. They make some pretty unscientific claims on their website, such as wider gamut (not mentioning higher SIDs). They presents the product like a magic box that will increase print quality (compared to what?)

I dont doubt that the ICEserver works as a CMS, but I dont like their way of selling it. Have anyone compared it to other similar software like: GMG ink optimizer, Binuscan CMS server, Alwan or just simple Device link conversion with GCR?

 

[kenthekid]

I.c.e.

I.c.e.

To anyone looking for ink savings, there is indeed many options out there, however, I have been involved with Alwan
a few years ago, and at that time Alwan had only been in business for a few years. We had success with that product, but there seemed to be occasional inherent artifacts that SOME customers seemed not to be too pleased with. Since that time I understand through another vendor that most of these issues have been addressed. We have recently, like I've put forth, been using I.C.E. with a lot of success and the program has been under a trial with us and so far all involved have been impressed. An additional item I forgot to post before is, the pressmen had a much better result by reducing water in the ink/water mix on press. This has been an ongoing test with our shop, and the data is still coming in, but we, and our customers have been pleased so far.
We also have an "in-house" ink rep who has sent sheets of the testing we've done to his supplier and the results there have been good. Really no glaring problems/issues etc.
I have had SOME success with creating GCR profiles, but there have been a few problems with some undesirable
alteration of files in that process. And the ink savings didn't seem to be as substantial or consistent.

 

[meddington]

Warning: this post may contain some unsubstantiated claims, but I'm not selling anything so ts.

I get where Gordo's coming from, but in fairness, most purveyors of software that claim to improve print quality, reduce make ready time, decrease ink consumption, or pretty much any other claim, fail to offer much hard science or proof of claims. Further, the onus shouldn't be out on the users to provide anything other than their perception of their experiences with a product.

Regarding the propaganda, fact is, ICEserver *does* reduce ink consumption very well. Typically well over gcr levels found in publically available profiles. Iceserver also reduces ink a bit better than than the heaviest gcr levels from some off the shelf profile creation packages that I have at my disposal...though the difference can be negligible in some imagery. Whether or not ink is reduced more than with other solutions is not known completely to me, but suffice to say that iceserver does a competent job (even if it isn't technically called "gcr"). A caveat might be saturated imagery, which might show increased ink usage in dominant inks at higher sids, while saving ink on the other channels. At higher densities, ink savings can definitley be image dependent. Get a really saturated press form and you may certainly wind up using more ink at higher densities.. But press form content is typically more balanced and saturation limited to key areas.

The biggest beef with ICEserver on this list seems to come from claims of increased gamut, without mention of increasing SIDs. Now I was approached by the ice guys before most literature was available, and they were up front with this to me regarding density increases, so I never felt duped. Regardless though, iceserver *can* take better advantage of a process's existing gamut, even at existing sids. For example, if I take an it874 chart and round trip it through the Gracolcoated profile, while also processing the same chart trough iceserver, the ice separation has cmyk values that are more pure in saturated tones. Likewise, profiles made from these values plot slightly larger gamuts. Note that this is a synthetic test and real world results would vary. Also note that this would account for a small portion of the increased gamut, with the majority coming from increased inking.

A potential benefit for many would be the simplicity of implementation. No press profiling or consumables used.. With little effort the end user can be up and running with this product, and the UI couldn't be easier. That said, there is functionality missing from iceserver that other products have. The end user needs to determine their own needs.

I haven't done the complete comparisons that gordo mentions (despite best intentions to do so), and I certainly wouldn't discount other solutions. Both GMG and Alwan have solid products. Iceserver intentionally differentiates itself from those, but improved print quality and ink savings can be had with any of them. One has to shop smartly and try them out to determine what fits their needs the most.

My 2 cents

 

[meddington]

No matter what they claim they are replacing triplet grays with Black and when the customer wants to go away from the proof on the press you are not going to move the color. That is my biggest issue!

Do you find it often that a customer wants to move away from the proof when on press? Seems a bit late in the game to start tweaking color. In defense of gcr (and like technologies) if care is taken to align proofs and press, ive found gcr to be a benefit to press stability... still allowing primary inking moves to adjust dominant hue areas while protecting neutrals.

 

[madflexo]

Does anyone know if ICEserver works the same for flexography? I don't see why not but I noticed that it is referred to on their website as ICEserver-Litho.

 

[Ian Mackenzie]

As the product is today, ICEserver does not work well enough to be implemented in a flexo enviornment. We hope it will very soon.

Thanks,
Ian