Nanographic Printing

[[email protected]]

Just curious, how successful has Benny Landa been with his Nanographic Printing technology? Any personal experiences?

 

[Ulrich]

ask one of them directly (Birkhäuser+GBC AG ):

Publisher - Schweizer Fachzeitschrift für Publishing und Digitaldruck

Beschreibungstext

publisher.ch

 

[Slammer]

Interesting article, but it raises the question: If the Landa is as good as offset with a bit more contrast why not simply stick with offset and work on your profiles?
At the end of the day it´s not much faster and you can´t say it´s cheaper and seeing that offset has been developed as far as the human eye can see and far as the human brain can process I am not getting where the added value is going to be.

 

[Ulrich]

long time "good enough quality" had a pejorative meaning, but meanwhile today i´m tempted to rate the economically aspects higher than possible opportunities regarding quality...

in times where a picture or grafic on a smartphone or tablet screen looks sharper and more brilliant than printed and design and production is subjected to ecologically aspects (using uncoated papers as a sign of "understanding" and "unplugged", rough typestyling on packaging for example...), nobody really needs a quality improvement in printed mass publications anymore that will the "pixelpeeper" showered with happiness. Especially not when the human eye is already overwhelmed with conventional methods.

For the same reason for example the using of FM-Raster or improved colorspaces did not have any influence on mass distribution of these special methods.

But of course there is left the argument of singularity (in the meaning of making a difference in quality definition in competition) of using (trying?) new technologies. I do not know anything real about the economic aspects by printing via nanografic printing method, but i am sure, as a pioneer you loose more bleed than walking the established way...

Ulrich

 

[Slammer]

I would think that "singularity" is already here, printing is not going to get much better, except by pouring gigabucks into marginal improvements, at some point the economic gains will simply not justify investments.

 

[Schnitzel]

Interesting article, but it raises the question: If the Landa is as good as offset with a bit more contrast why not simply stick with offset and work on your profiles?
At the end of the day it´s not much faster and you can´t say it´s cheaper and... I am not getting where the added value is going to be.

It's a digital press. It can do Digital Stuff™, like short runs, variable data, personalization, every-page-is-different etc.

...seeing that offset has been developed as far as the human eye can see and far as the human brain can process...

Hardly. Standard offset color gamut is orders of magnitude smaller than what your eye can see. Even extended gamut leaves a lot to be desired. Print technology development is far from being "finished", in terms of its potential quality.

 

[AP90]

A digital press that runs at slow offset speeds, with the cost effectiveness of offset for longer run. That is the only major print technology that has yet to be developed IMO.

 

[Slammer]

It's a digital press. It can do Digital Stuff™, like short runs, variable data, personalization, every-page-is-different etc.



Hardly. Standard offset color gamut is orders of magnitude smaller than what your eye can see. Even extended gamut leaves a lot to be desired. Print technology development is far from being "finished", in terms of its potential quality.

I would agree to disagree, the reception of the human eye is not a standardized tristimulus response which could be described in a (let´s say) ICC profile. How you see colour is in your brain and your brain alone. Perhaps I should have written that today´s offset is as good as the untrained eye can see and the untrained brain can process, so why spend a lot of money for Nanographic printing when a normal person can´t tell the difference (and simply doesn´t care) between prints from offset and prints from a landa?

 

[Deleted member 16349]

There is a lot of room for innovation. It is very difficult for people to imagine what is possible. That is why innovation is usually such a surprise.

 

[Schnitzel]

Sorry, I don't understand your first assumption: the reception of the human eye was standardized in 1931 in the CIEXYZ color space, and the entire color management concept is based on this standard observer. Of course you "see" color with your brain, ultimately, but that is irrelevant - the tests that were done in ~1930 to measure the standard observer's response took this into account.

An ISO conforming offset press covers only a small fraction of the visible gamut. When you write "today's offset is as good as the untrained eye can see", you are stating its limits as facts to prove your point. How do you know something is the best, if you've never seen anything better? What if I invented a printing technology that covers 90% of the human visible gamut? The difference would blow your mind.

Now, regarding Landa's presses. Although I've worked for 7 years at Landa, I'm not part of the hype machine. They could be excellent digital presses given enough development time. I think they were released into the wild too early, but I know the reasons and pressures behind that decision.
Print quality is not the only reason to purchase such a press. As I've written, it's a digital press with all the benefits and potential that brings to the table. Whether it's cost effective or not - I have no idea. I've never got my hands dirty with the financial aspects of the project. But apparently there are new installations all the time, so it must be working.

 

[gordo]

the reception of the human eye was standardized in 1931 in the CIEXYZ color space, and the entire color management concept is based on this standard observer.

I've heard that the standard observer test subjects were drunken male British students on school break in France. In any case the "standard observer" was replaced by the "supplemental standard observer" in 1964.

Of course you "see" color with your brain, ultimately, but that is irrelevant

True about the brain - not about the relevance.

- the tests that were done in ~1930 to measure the standard observer's response took this into account.

I'm not sure that's accurate or even possible.

why spend a lot of money for Nanographic printing when a normal person can´t tell the difference (and simply doesn´t care) between prints from offset and prints from a landa?

This thinking has historically stifled innovation in printing - from vendor to printer to print buyer - than anything else. Sad.

"Why fix it if it ain't broke?" - Anon Sr.

"Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid." - Anon Jr.

 

[Slammer]

Historically when Printing was still a developing technology I would agree with you, but what ground breaking new methods to bring particles to stick on a substrate have happened in the last 20-odd years, for instance the internal combustion engine is a the end of it´s development, it gets tweaks now and then but you are not going to get a fundamental new way to get them pistons a-pounding. I suppose you could say the same thing for offset printing, I very much doubt that without bending the laws of physics we will see something that will make our jaws drop in the next decade. And frankly I would say that most printers are struggling to get the best out of the technology we have today. Then there is the scale of economics, a mom and pop printer churning out the local church flyer won´t invest in a Landa and those advertising supplements that drop out of the newspaper and end up as budgie cage liner don´t require printing perfection to the Nth degree.

 

[Deleted member 16349]

I very much doubt that without bending the laws of physics we will see something that will make our jaws drop in the next decade.

No need to bend the laws of physics. There is plenty of room within the laws to make improvements. The problem is that there is a great need to have people who understand the laws and what is possible. People who don't use the laws of physics, develop technologies based on "trial and error" methods. They might apply engineering skills to make the technologies but they don't understand the rules that govern the processes. They start with wrong assumptions and that leads to poor outcomes.

I am optimistic that great innovation can be done for offset but not optimistic that it will be done.

 

[JonsonSmith]

It's very amazingly powerful colorants, enabling an entirely new kind of digital printing.

 

[Slammer]

No need to bend the laws of physics. There is plenty of room within the laws to make improvements. The problem is that there is a great need to have people who understand the laws and what is possible. People who don't use the laws of physics, develop technologies based on "trial and error" methods. They might apply engineering skills to make the technologies but they don't understand the rules that govern the processes. They start with wrong assumptions and that leads to poor outcomes.

I am optimistic that great innovation can be done for offset but not optimistic that it will be done.

I agree, but it´s like pushing a boulder up an increasingly steep hill, at some point you find that you are using more and more energy for only little gain.

 

[Deleted member 16349]

I agree, but it´s like pushing a boulder up an increasingly steep hill, at some point you find that you are using more and more energy for only little gain.

I understand you feel that way but this is not true. When one gets a better understanding of the physics of the problems, it makes things easier. The practical potential technical solutions for offset would be less costly and perform better than what exists today. The boulder problem is with the culture of the industry and not with the physics. But if one does not think things are possible, then they won't be. I wish I could change what people believe but I can't. I tried and it has not worked.

 

[Deleted member 16349]

I’m genuinely curious; you say that believing in something is necessary before change can actually happen, and then go on to say that you don’t believe you can change people’s minds anymore. I assume this mostly has to do with positive ink flow, but does that mean you’ve given up on trying to further present any of your idea(s) to the industry?

Yes, I don't believe I can change people's minds. Maybe someone else in the future will.

Have I given up? Not quite but now I will not spend a cent on any effort to show what is possible. Talk is cheap, so from time to time I comment but I don't expect much change. There is so much bad science in this industry which clouds thinking and it is hard to get around that.

It is not mostly about positive ink flow. There is so much more but the ink feed problem is the critical problem. Not only for the practical performance issues of the press but for the rational understanding of the process. Understanding that ink flow rate is the only variable for consistent average steady state print density is very important but is too hard for people to accept.

I also do not want to educate the industry. If someone wanted to do some practical development work on the subject and would pay for it, I would help. But I have no interest to leave any legacy of knowledge to a community that can't appreciate it and won't act on it.

 

[Deleted member 16349]

I find that both interesting, and sad.

You mention ‘educating the industry’, and ‘rational thinking’.

Probably no one wants to continually try to educate someone, when they’re either feeling disrespected, or ignored.

I’m guessing that the high end producers have plenty of rational thinking. But because they’re already producing great product(s), they may not know about or need things to be any better. And the lower end producers simply have no idea (with little understanding), and/or don’t even care about it.

Well it is sad. Who would have benefited the most in the long run? If I am correct in my thinking, it would have been the printing industry.

A great product is only great until someone else produces something better and less costly. Press manufacturers are not in a great position. They all have lost a lot of sales volume. They are struggling now. But if they all are happy with what they have to offer now, then they all go down slowly together. The idea that one might grow market share with a competitive technical advantage over the other manufacturers with some new offset ideas, does not seem to be something they are interested in. This is not only a poor technical position but it is really a bad business position.

 

[gordo]

It’s really quite simple.
Vendors ask themselves:
“Can we make more money fixing the cause of a problem or fixing the symptoms of a problem?”
Not hard to determine which choice they made as far as print production is concerned.