Ink Saving solution?

[gordo]

Would like to see sample image showing the "more aggressive than all GCR guys" with increase saturation.

I'm also concerned about that statement. If you're a printer doing reseparation - don't you want the results to look the same as the preprocessed file - not more saturated (assuming that were possible)?

best, gordon p

 

[dimitri]

Gordo,

I would think that the saturation claim falls in line with the testing you describe in this very good post in your blog... the separation carries the "potential" to increase saturation by -hopefully- allowing us printers to raise the density...

What I'm thinking is that the objective of neutrality by maintaining grey balance, and the enjoyed value for the printer who is able to keep CMY in line (i'm talking mostly in terms of having a balanced operation), is a bit lost when we throw all neutrals on the black plate. Doesn't this defeat the purpose of having a "calibrated press", or is it the other way around: throw as much as you can on the black plate so you can tolerate more CMY variation? In any case, should we be fingerprinting presses with different levels of GCR, in order to be accurate in the way we send normal jobs? I lost myself on this one.

 

[gordo]

[SNIP]I would think that the saturation claim falls in line with the testing you describe in this very good post in your blog... the separation carries the "potential" to increase saturation by -hopefully- allowing us printers to raise the density...
What I'm thinking is that the objective of neutrality by maintaining grey balance, and the enjoyed value for the printer who is able to keep CMY in line (i'm talking mostly in terms of having a balanced operation), is a bit lost when we throw all neutrals on the black plate. Doesn't this defeat the purpose of having a "calibrated press", or is it the other way around: throw as much as you can on the black plate so you can tolerate more CMY variation? In any case, should we be fingerprinting presses with different levels of GCR, in order to be accurate in the way we send normal jobs? I lost myself on this one.

dimitri...RE: "I lost myself on this one" - you list your interests as including "...wrestling, kicking and punching..." perhaps you've taken more that you given this time! LOL!

You can increase saturation by increasing SIDs now. You don't need to reseparate. See here: Quality In Print: Printing at DMaxx - part 1 of 5
I think (hope) the OP was mixing up their RGB-->CMYK solution with their CMYK-->CMYK solution.
Although you can bring it to a certain level of stability, I don't think you can "calibrate" a press as you put it. Not with all the variables of supplied color.
So the notion of reseparation is:
1) bring all the color files to a common separation condition - that's going to help with print-ability
2) with some kind of chromatic ink reduction and increase of achromatic K ink - save some production dollars
3) and yes - "throw as much as you can on the black plate so you can tolerate more CMY variation" SIDs naturally vary during press runs (cue Erik) - generally less on long runs but there is still a periodic variation. Here's what it looks like on a 6 color press:

Trying out different levels of GCRs would likely be done during the evaluation/installation process. Then, I believe, the common practice is to define the reseparation parameters and then apply it to whatever comes in to the plant. Fingerprinting of the press might be needed if the customer is supplying characterization data or a press sheet to the GCR reseparation supplier. In a multi press shop, I'm guessing that some middle point would be used so that jobs could go to whatever press without custom separations.

It's how the different vendors handle implementation that helps turn technology into a practical solution. The technology can be wonderful - but if the print shop cannot extract the value, then the technology provides no benefits.

Some of the questions that might be asked of a vendor can be found here: Quality In Print: GCR Reseparation for ink savings and color stability in offset printing - part 7 of 8


best, gordon p

 

[Ian Mackenzie]

agreed

agreed

Gordo -

I agree.
The data I cite comes from our customers - some of whose ink meters are +/- 1% off from the pixel counters in the ICEsaver application.

However, we do not intend to "roll in the dirt for nickels" and play "whose software saves more ink". Our application solves fundamental problems on press. Ink savings just happens to be an attractive benefit that makes a compelling ROI case in a turbulent economy.

We have a fairly straightforward evaluation process.
The application takes an hour to install and an hour to get trained. Alwan and others have given rise to new job opportunities for the legions of "Color Management" consultants out there who used to install proofing systems.

Many of our current prospects seek to improve the quality of their end product. Please remember, this also works on inkjet and toner - 2 markets that dwarf the lithographic opportunity.

We were very skeptical for months.....until we took it to Master G7 printers and watched THER reactions. That spoke louder than sales hyperbole and chaff from confused competitive claims. This product will help spawn the extension to GRACoL that is already defined by the IDEAlliance. It may be called "GRACoL Extreme". (Yes, I dont like it either.)

While ad dollars are being lost to internet video screens, this application may give print (publications, catalogues, newspapers) a nice boost.

Plus, it works on AM and FM.
Ever tried pumping color on FM screens?
We did and it was incredible.

 

[Deleted member 16349]

3) and yes - "throw as much as you can on the black plate so you can tolerate more CMY variation" SIDs naturally vary during press runs (cue Erik) - generally less on long runs but there is still a periodic variation. Here's what it looks like on a 6 color press:

Gordon, did I hear my name.

Variation. What some see as natural, others see as unnatural, maybe even supernatural. Spooky.

Seriously, there are different types of density variation in printing and none are natural. The amount of variation is a result of the design of the press and other issues, but mainly the design of the press.

Variation types of drift, periodic and random are seen all the time.

Drift of density is basically only related to the ink feed rate variation. It can be improved. There is no reason why the average density during a run should not be in the range of +/- 0.02 pts. In fact you probably need this level of control to maintain visual consistency.

Periodic variation is due to a form roller inking the plate and the area where the ink was remove on the form roller comes around again without being fully re-inked and prints a mechanical ghost onto the plate in a different location. It is periodic because it is related to the circumference of the form roller. This to can be greatly reduced or eliminated by the proper design of the roller train.

Random variation can occur because the ghost in the above example goes up onto the roller inking the form roller and comes back down in different locations via different paths. This too can be reduced by proper roller train design.

Your plots I hope, are just to show the periodic variation but the scale of variation is huge. Periodic and random variation will always be present but the issue is its magnitude. That is a press design issue and the level of variation can be designed into the press. One does not need zero variation but just a level that is not perceptible.

The subject of GCR is of interest and I have some thoughts about it. I am not an expert on this at all but I have suspicions that excessive use of GCR is problematic.

First let me say that I have some unproven views on colour spaces. It seems to be assumed that just because one has a mapped colour space, describing a volume, that one can obtain all the colours in that space. I think this is not true and is especially not true with print. There is the issue of discrete screen values and for monitors the discrete levels from 0 to 255 for each channel. These will cause a limitation but I am not talking about that issue.

It is easy to think of a monitor, which has independent RGB channels, which can independently be increased, being able to have much control of obtaining colours within its space.

Printing of ink is different even though one can think of printing with CMYK as RGB. M plus Y give R and so on. One can think of each spectral curve of CMYK as different amounts of RGB. What this means is that with this physical filtering of light all across the spectrum with the CMYK filters, one can not adjust the R or G or B channels independently. Therefore, one can not probably obtain all colours in the space due to this lack of independence.

Getting back to the GCR subject. The idea, as I understand it, is to change a screen of CMY to cmyK or to cmK taking out all of Y for example and have the final colour result be the same as the first. It is a good idea to help reduce variation on press, especially in an industry that refuses to address the fundamental cause of variation.

So what happens here. We start with higher percentages of CMY screens and then go to lower percentages of cmy screens and add K. The trick will be to pick the right combination of cmy screens that will give the desired hue and have K give the gray.

This is tricky since for a single ink, the hue of a print of a screen will change as the percentage of screen changes. Just making a simple calculation of reducing all the screen values by some amount and replacing it with black can have an affect on hue and L value (Lab). So probably colour management is required to find the right combination of cmyK that will get one the desired result.

But maybe the cmy colour is not obtainable for the reasons I gave above.

There is also the problem of the K screen. It now becomes less controllable as it goes from small percentage screen values to higher percentage screen values say in the mid range. Also as the dots of the K screen get bigger, they might interfere with the cmy dots covering some and not others which could alter the hue locally.

Probably moderation of GCR is best and also with the effort to gain control of the types of variations mentioned. One must try to understand that if a press has such variations, it can not have an accurate profile or fingerprint or characteristic data set. One is fooling oneself if one ignores this fact.

If one wants to save ink, one way is to run all ink densities very tightly at the lower control limit. Also by saving paper, wasted due to poor density control, you also save ink. Save paper first.

So many issues in printing lead to the same critical need. That is to gain tight control on density.

 

[gordo]

[SNIP] However, we do not intend to "roll in the dirt for nickels" and play "whose software saves more ink". Our application solves fundamental problems on press. Ink savings just happens to be an attractive benefit that makes a compelling ROI case in a turbulent economy.
We have a fairly straightforward evaluation process.
The application takes an hour to install and an hour to get trained. Alwan and others have given rise to new job opportunities for the legions of "Color Management" consultants out there who used to install proofing systems.
[SNIP]
We were very skeptical for months.....until we took it to Master G7 printers and watched THER reactions. That spoke louder than sales hyperbole and chaff from confused competitive claims.
[SNIP]
Plus, it works on AM and FM.
Ever tried pumping color on FM screens?
We did and it was incredible.

I don't want to argue with you, and I understand that it's still early days for your product, and I appreciate your caveats about being more the sales/marketing "type" - however, I think there are issues that any prospective purchaser of this type of solution will need to consider when evaluating competing vendor claims and implementation.
So, I think you will need to "roll around in the dirt for nickels" a bit

Speaking only to the points you make:

Ink savings provides, as you say, a compelling, and I might add, relatively easy to understand and calculate ROI. Vendors claim anywhere from 15-40% ink savings "based on content." If I were evaluating an ink savings solution, one of the things that I would want to test would be whose solution saves me the most amount of ink while delivering the same presswork appearance. That being said, I'd speculate that there is likely not much difference in ink savings between the different vendor's offerings if they're fed the same files with conversion set to the same basic parameters.
So, I suspect that total ink savings capability isn't an important metric for comparing offerings - other criteria are likely more important.

Your one hour evaluation setup suggests that your solution is based on a generic press condition. If that's correct, one could argue that the solution would not provide an optimum result and in some (few?) cases lead to failure on press, however it should make for a less expensive solution. There are a few vendors whose offerings are similar in that respect. One might also argue that bringing in an outside consultant might reveal existing issues (technical or human) in the printshop that could detract from the success of the application.

I would take the reactions of Master G7 printers with a grain of salt if they were not comparing the results of your solution against that of another's. And if they were actually comparing, then I would like to see the test file and the data.

What would prevent a competitor's offering from also working with FM? Is this a unique capability that you have?
As I wrote before, "pumping" up color can be done without reseparated files, using either AM and FM screening. I've helped many printers pump up color in their pressrooms with AM and FM screens which is why I wrote the blog post on printing to DMaxx.

best, gordon p

my print blog here: Quality In Print

 

[gordo]

RE: Erik wrote: [SNIP]"Your plots I hope, are just to show the periodic variation but the scale of variation is huge.[SNIP]
I have suspicions that excessive use of GCR is problematic."

Yes the variation was huge - but relegated primarily to the 5th and 6th colors - purple and orange in a six color process. Those two inks were performing poorly (wrong ink formulation) - but I thought they illustrated the periodic variation quite well.
I agree with your suspicions about GCR and I would be particularly concerned about overly aggressive GCR, which is why, personally speaking, I think that the best GCR type implementation is the one that involves some kind of pressroom evaluation/audit/optimization as part of the package. I also think that it is best if the customer alone, or via the solution vendor, be able to fine tune the reseparation parameters. Although more time consuming and likely more costly, I think it would provide the best outcome.


best, gordon p

my print blog here: Quality In Print

 

[Ian Mackenzie]

no arguement at all, gordo....;-)

no arguement at all, gordo....;-)

I appreciate the exchange.
I also agree with you that, as we launch new technology, we will delve into things in more detail.

Please allow me to clarify some things:

1. This is not GCR. This is not GCR. This is not GCR.....;-)
2. Your skepticism mirrors what we went through over the last few months
3. When we do our evaluation, we actually do a custom profile ahead of time. The potential customer provides a printed form with color bars and a few (8.5x11") pages of virgin stock.
4. This technology creates separations based on the ink/paper relationship. as a result, ink goes where it really wants to go on press. this is why we produce such stunning results.

When we went to a "G7 Master printer" to do our second install, we output their test file. (Prinergy>Creo Platesetter>Komori 40") Pressmen pulled sheets, put on console/light booth and proclaimed that this was "agency quality printing". heads nodded all around.

We then took same test file and.....ICEsaver server>Prinergy>Patesetter>Komori......and we sat back and watched. First, the pressmen pulled sheets and realized that they were already up to color after 250 sheets. Next, everyone gathered around to compare the 2 sheets.

- grey balance was the same
- however, the "ICEd" sheet had just come alive. Yellow flowers popped. Red fabric was really red.....but the blue bottle didnt turn purple.....the football stayed brown.....the flourescent chalks really had color to them. They were stunned. This was G7 with wider gamut. This was cool.

......then they realized that this form took 32% less ink to produce.

(To view one of the test pieces used, feel free to download our "CTI Target": here:Chromaticity | Downloads - Test Images

Claims are one thing, results are another and, as you say, there are methods of proof available. Alwan and others...?....well, they average around 12% when all is said and done. More often than not, 8-10% is the norm. Our customer's average is around 25% - and of course that depends on job type and ink coverage.

I mention the "one hour install and one hour training" to make a point. Have you ever installed Alwan, Gordo? have you used it? It has the complex GUI of a Boeing 747 cockpit and requires that a "color management" expert come on site - at $1500 - $2000/day - to install and implement it. we think that is outrageous and that comes from a company who installed over 1400 inkjet RIPs in 2008.

 

[gordo]

[SNIPPED for brevity]
3. When we do our evaluation, we actually do a custom profile ahead of time. The potential customer provides a printed form with color bars and a few (8.5x11") pages of virgin stock.

When we went to a "G7 Master printer" to do our second install, we output their test file. Pressmen pulled sheets, put on console/light booth and proclaimed that this was "agency quality printing". heads nodded all around.

We then took same test file and.....ICEsaver server>Prinergy>Patesetter>Komori......and we sat back and watched. Next, everyone gathered around to compare the 2 sheets.

- grey balance was the same
- however, the "ICEd" sheet had just come alive. Yellow flowers popped. Red fabric was really red.....but the blue bottle didnt turn purple.....the football stayed brown.....the flourescent chalks really had color to them. They were stunned. This was G7 with wider gamut. This was cool.
......then they realized that this form took 32% less ink to produce.
Claims are one thing, results are another and, as you say, there are methods of proof available. Alwan and others...?....well, they average around 12% when all is said and done. Our customer's average is around 25% - and of course that depends on job type and ink coverage.
I mention the "one hour install and one hour training" to make a point. It has the complex GUI of a Boeing 747 cockpit and requires that a "color management" expert come on site - at $1500 - $2000/day - to install and implement it.

OK, I still think you are mixing up two of your separate products - ink savings and enhanced gamut separations.
When, for example, magazine and newspaper printers reseparate (CMYK-->CMYK) incoming advertisement - I believe that their desire is for the presswork to continue "matching" the proof but with reduced ink usage. So, "Yellow flowers popped. Red fabric was really red..... This was G7 with wider gamut." in that context would be problematic. Here's an example of what I mean. FM screening reduces ink usage about 15%. However, the increased gamut means that FM presswork may no longer match a SWOP or ISO proof. I know for a fact that disconnect between proof and presswork caused a great many issues with FM adoption with publication printers in Europe - even though the FM presswork looked better than the AM.

However, if you are a printer that is just trying to make the best color possible on press (your other product) and not worry about matching a standard and, bonus, get to save on ink - well, more power to you. I have no argument with that.

And, if your solution has a better GUI and provides a better user experience than your competition, again, more power to you. I have no argument with that.

best, gordon p

my print blog here: Quality In Print

 

[Ian Mackenzie]

I mix up a lot of things.....just ask my wife...;-)

I mix up a lot of things.....just ask my wife...;-)

However, I do not mix up my products.
You may not be putting your arms around the value proposition here and the key DIFFERENTIATOR between our product and the "GCR guys".

We fix problems on press.
The (attractive) side benefit is increased gamut AND ink savings - both coming from the same product. And, as I have mentioned earlier, since our product can maintain colormetric integrity, the print provider can enjoy its benefits without increasing the gamut.....if desired.

However, as one of our new employees is on the Board of Directors of the IDEAlliance, we know that there is a provision for a standard that is "beyond GRACoL".......and they are choosing to call it "GRACoL Extreme". (Their choice, not ours.

This will be discussed at the G7 summit on June 8th.

Let me make a point with a little more emphahsis, Gordo.......commercial lithography is not growing. So, all these GCR tools are fighting to gain market share within a shrinking market. It does not take a Harvard Business Review article to illuminate us to the inherent risk in doing that.

We fell in love with our product because you can take all of these benfits and then apply them to:

- wide and grand format imaging
- digital print, both ink and toner
- commercial and consumer photoography

Last I checked, most successful print providers have more than just lithographic imaging devices. It's puzzling to us why such focus is spent on litho ink savings when litho ink is cheap compared to Vutek or Indigo ink.

 

[gordo]

It sounds as if performance indeed matches promise you will be giving your competitors a run for their money.

good stuff. gordon p

 

[Deleted member 16349]

We fix problems on press.
The (attractive) side benefit is increased gamut AND ink savings - both coming from the same product. And, as I have mentioned earlier, since our product can maintain colormetric integrity, the print provider can enjoy its benefits without increasing the gamut.....if desired.

Ian,

Looked through the web site. In my view there are a lot of conflicting comments and non specific methods. Claims to be able to control physical conditions in the press by means of just a different separation algorithm is difficult to rationalize.

My suspicion is that the method is trying to avoid wet trapping and also possibly breaking down larger dots sizes locally into more smaller dots. If the intention is to try to put more colours within the Gamut, that is not really increasing the Gamut in the usual sense. The claimed direct relationship with ink consumption to pixels is not valid. There is no direct relationship.

But I am still curious of the approach and will wait and see how things go. Among the confusing descriptions there might be some true innovative approaches.

Good luck.

Erik

 

[Ian Mackenzie]

We were also suspicious.....at one time

We were also suspicious.....at one time

I understand and appreciate your skepticism for we were of the same mind set.....until we tested it ourselves and watched the look on our customer's faces. This is NEW technology and, as such, it can be hard to rationalize sometimes.

We are not changing dot sizes.
Any increase in gamut is first confimed visually then measured and plotted with Colorthink.
20% increase is average. BUT....all neutral greys are left untouched and the job maintains wonderful tonality.

As for your statement,

"The claimed direct relationship with ink consumption to pixels is not valid. There is no direct relationship."

Perhaps I stated this poorly. There is an ink use racking feature in the application that, of course, tells you how much ink will be saved on each processed job. Our customers are now telling us that the data in the pixel counter of the software app matches the data they are reading off their ink meters by +/- 1%.

the point here is that the ink counter in the app seems to be pretty darn good.
we are in the process of doing more tests - ones that will be much more scientific. However, they will be targeted to toner and inkjet and will involve the use of nuclear scales that will weigh ink use after it is on paper.

 

[Deleted member 16349]

This is NEW technology and, as such, it can be hard to rationalize sometimes.

we are in the process of doing more tests - ones that will be much more scientific. However, they will be targeted to toner and inkjet and will involve the use of nuclear scales that will weigh ink use after it is on paper.

Even new technology, if explained clearly can be rationalized. Technology may change but the laws of nature don't change and can be use to understand a new method.

I would also say that I agree that there are ways to make colour reproduction much simpler than the existing methods used now that are the result of historical limitations in knowledge and technical capabilities. I also agree that the same basic approach can be used for offset and digital printing.

Unfortunately, even the modern offset press has problems that result in it not having an accurate profile that is independent of the image it is printing. This means that it does not have a profile that describes how it prints. This is a constraint for any prepress approach. This limitation can not be corrected with software. Correcting how the press prints so that it too is independent of the image, is a prerequisite to predictable and accurate colour reproduction. But most of the time, close is good enough for most printing needs.

 

[dimitri]

Gordo, yes, I can take a punch, but broke some bones lately and stopped all that violence...
I got to update my info to bird watching or something, and stop speculating like this and run some tests instead. It is just an interesting topic and I use too much imagination on thinking about it. I had already taken your blog (and Eric's critique of the process) into account for developing my test forms by the way.

 

[gsterwald]

Ink Saving solution?

Anyone using any of these Ink Saving softwares and applying the color conversions to Vector Data as well as Images. Most of the people I see using using this technology are only applying it to images, I would like to get feed back from people who are applying it to Vector data (Screen Tints and Solids 4/c PMS Builds) and how well it matches their proofs.

 

[cosnet]

Hi Ian,
Almost all of our customers apply Ink Saver to everything, vector and images. In fact I don't know anyone not doing it to everything. GCR by definition will not harm solid primary or secondary colors or to put it simply, you have to have at least YMC present for GCR to be even considered.

 

[Magnus]

Binuscan anyone?

We use CMS Server from Binuscan. Ink optimizing with great results. No GCR shizzle, the TAC is optimized to your press/ink/paper. Works great for us!

But unfortunaly we have to use 1.3 PDF's cuz it wont handle transparency correctly. But the new version will support transparent objects, they say..

A question to the CGS man (cosnet):

Lets say that you make a PDF that looks like this:

An opaque CMYK image on the bottom. Than a vector square on top, m100 y100 (set to 40% transparency). Export to an PDF/X 4 (preserving transparency) and one PDF/X1a (flatten transparency). Process these two PDF's in ink saving system, one input profile and another output. Do you get the exact same result with both files? Just curious.

Here's two test-files if you dont have the time to make em yourself: http://www.magnussandstrom.se/download/test_pdfs.zip

If anyone else try this simple test, please post the results

 

[cosnet]

Hi Magnus,
I did not see this until today.. I will download the files and run them both ways and through ORIS's new PDF-PDF engine. I will get back with you.
Regards,
Bruce
(cosnet)

 

[Magnus]

Thanks Bruce, will be interesting to see the results!