New Product for Ink Optimization

[Ian Mackenzie]

Vivalajoie -

I appreciate your sincere skepticism as we once said similar things.
But then.....we output files on an Epson 9880, Canon 9000, HP 6100 and, yes, saw huge gamut expansion as well.

Please keep in mind that gamut expansion is accompanied by the following events:

- 25%+ ink savings
- mainatin tonality and grey balance

Our customers, who actively sell this to their customers, produce a solid barometer of this product's potential. Skeptics should be encouraged to seek proof. Casting dispersions upon something so absolutely may not be fair.

We are launching this at the IPA next week. the press realease came out this morning.

FineEye Color Solutions Announces ICEserver - Printing Industry News from WhatTheyThink

Cheers,
ian

 

[tmiller_iluvprinting]

I met with John Graf, VP of Sales from Chromaticity yesterday. The comparison samples that he showed me were nothing short of amazing. Higher SID's, using less ink, 20% larger color gamut, I can see how this could create some skepticism. It will be interesting to follow the evolution of ICE and M3 technology and what level of acceptance it reaches in the print world.
Best regards,
Todd

 

[gordo]

I met with John Graf, VP of Sales from Chromaticity yesterday. The comparison samples that he showed me were nothing short of amazing. Higher SID's, using less ink, 20% larger color gamut, I can see how this could create some skepticism. It will be interesting to follow the evolution of ICE and M3 technology and what level of acceptance it reaches in the print world.
Best regards,
Todd

That's great. Personal, anecdotal info is I guess better than none - unfortunately a personal testimony cannot be disputed - it contains no information. There is skepticism because so far no quantitative information has been provided. No data. No comparative samples.
I hope it's not another example of the PercepTools debacle.
As I wrote before: at the very least, what, should be published is:
1) Test document with standard separations run to normal SIDs
2) Same document as 1 but run to higher SIDs (say 20-25 points higher) but using plate curves to normalize dot gain.
3) Same document run to same normal densities as 1 but with ICE'd separations
4) Same document as 3 using ICE'd separations but printed at higher SIDs (whatever Ian and Co. recommends)

That might provide some real data to talk about.

best gordon p

my print blog here: Quality In Print

 

[Stephen Marsh]

I am not sure if this has been mentioned earlier, TGLC has a demo file
for download where one can print or inspect in detail the TGLC approach
to ink saving:

TGLC - PerfX Device Link™ - ICC DeviceLink Profile creation tool - Ink Saving - CMYK Conversion - ICC Device Link Profile
http://www.tglc.com/Files/RGB_DLP_demo_RGB.tif
http://www.tglc.com/Files/RGB_DLP_demo_CMYK.tif


TGLC also offer a free utility to compare ink saving methods, between an
original separation and one that has been optimized:

TGLC - PerfX Device Link™ - ICC DeviceLink Profile - Ink Saving - CMYK Conversion - ICC Device Link Profile


Also available is a free ICC profile 3D gamut inspection tool:

TGLC - PerfX 3D Gamut viewer™ - 3D color gamut visualization

Disclaimer: I am not associated with TGLC and I have not been a past or
present customer.


Regards,

Stephen Marsh

 

[Ian Mackenzie]

That's great. Personal, anecdotal info is I guess better than none - unfortunately a personal testimony cannot be disputed - it contains no information. There is skepticism because so far no quantitative information has been provided. No data. No comparative samples.

Gordo, thanks for your continued interest in this product.

As mentioned before, we are extremely busy with our current customers and prospects while also being in the middle of the intitial product launch. Additionally, Mike DiCosola is the key coordinator of this year's IPA conference. It starts Monday. At the conference, there will be samples that directly compare "Master G7 Printing" with ICE. Our sales people show them to interested companies. The samples are all done by our customers.
tmiller has seen them and posted his comments for all to see. HE HAS seen "comparitive samples."

also at the G7 Summit there will be IDEAlliance sessions on "Beyond GRACoL" and extended gamut printing.

It is obviously a challenge to provide "comparaitive samples" to you and others via this forum. However, I suggest that you rewind this thread and review some of meddington's comments as he has done some of things that you seek. I believe he said something like, "My G7 printing looks bland by comparison" (to ICE) and even posted a graph that did, in fact, compare gamuts of G7 vs. ICE.

That is cool. That is exactly what we had hoped for. Why? because print providers have invested $500K in prepress and millions in presses and thousands more in certifications and standards. So, along comes a prepress app that takes this hard work, this investment, this standards stuff.....and just maybe....quite possibly.....improves on it by integrating WITH it and producing (pending your approval....;-) an end product that could conceivably appeal to customers and buyers of print.

We believe that this is a potentially good thing for OUR industry.

And please allow me to add that - YES! - we can proof this, too.
That means that ICEd files expand the gamut on inkjet printers. Now, I am not as technical as you or others. But I assume that (non impact) inkjet printing cannot be as affected by SIDs......or am i missing something....? I would be curious to hear your insight on how you believe that inkjet gamut can be extended.

Yes, we have white papers.
Yes, we have comparitive data.
In due time, you will see it all.
Until then, I will continue to appreciate your skepticism.....;-)

 

[gordo]

[SNIP]meddington's comments as he has done some of things that you seek. I believe he said something like, "My G7 printing looks bland by comparison" (to ICE) and even posted a graph that did, in fact, compare gamuts of G7 vs. ICE.[SNIP]
Yes, we have white papers.
Yes, we have comparitive data.
In due time, you will see it all.
Until then, I will continue to appreciate your skepticism.....;-)

meddinton did not do the comparisons that would have provided a proper evaluation of your product's performance. He said that he will when he gets the opportunity and would then post the results to this forum.
He said that his G7 looked bland by comparison to ICE - but he did not compare his G7 to printing at higher SIDs (with an appropriate plate curve applied) which would have been the appropriate comparison to determine the value of the ICE separations. The graph he posted just showed the comparison of gamut of presswork at standard SIDs vs higher SIDs. Of course the higher SIDs provide a greater gamut - however that would be just as true if he hadn't used your product at all.
ASAIK, he did not determine ink usage/saving. At the least, one could use the PerfX Image Ink utility from h t t p://www.tglc.com/ to check ink usage of the original separations to the ICE'd separations to determine the ink savings. Then perhaps compare the ICE'd separation to another vendor's heavy GCR sep to compare.

You are making a number of strong claims for the benefits that your product delivers. I do not dispute your claims. That being said, any prospective customer should obviously evaluate and verify those claims for themselves. They will also want to understand some aspects of your product so that their expectations for performance are set correctly. Also, I'm sure that your competitors would like the same information so that they can craft their marketing materials appropriately.

Fortunately, for the most part, the claims you make are fairly easy to validate. But so far you have not done so in a clear and unambiguous manner so I think it is understandable that there is skepticism.

In my experience, most printers are production oriented and very good at getting the job out the door. They generally do not have the skills (or time/money) to do technical evaluations. I experienced that on virtually a daily basis during customer demos and benchmark evaluations at Creo. To make an analogy, although both fly airplanes, the skills required of commercial pilot are quite different than the skills required of a test pilot. One is not better than the other - they are just different skills.

What I've been trying to explain, is that, when one is evaluating/testing a new technology like your product, one needs to break the claims down into their components and then make a fair apples to apples comparison.
So, as I wrote before: at the very least, what should be published, or what should be tested is:
1) Test document with standard separations run to normal SIDs
2) Same document as 1 but run to higher SIDs (say 20-25 points higher) but using plate curves to normalize dot gain.
3) Same document run to same normal densities as 1 but with ICE'd separations
4) Same document as 3 using ICE'd separations but printed at higher SIDs (whatever Ian and Co. recommends)

I have done #1 & #2 many times and got the same reaction from printers as meddington had. Even more so because, in my experience, most printers tend to print at lower than standard SIDs in their daily presswork so the difference is even more dramatic. Needless to say, the test target should have a combination of objective and subjective targets to evaluate.

#3 would show if there is any visual difference between the ICE's seps and normal seps. If this part of the product is to save ink then there should be no visible difference between separation types, however, there should be an ink usage difference. There are lots of ways to check that difference - starting with the PerfX Image Ink utility from h t t p://www.tglc.com/

#3 would also validate any claims if the product is intended to provide a bigger gamut at normal SIDs and/or save ink at the same time.
#4 would show the capability of the ICE'd separation at high SIDs compared to a conventional separation at high SIDs.

I will be at GraphExpo in the fall, so I'll look you up then. You could also send me a care package of your marketing materials once things settle down for you and you have the time. I am happy to pay the postage. Contact me off line and I'll provide shipping instructions.

best, gordon p
my print blog here: Quality In Print

 

[Ian Mackenzie]

I appreciate what you feel should or shouldnt be done with this technology......here in "forumville".

If you are a printer or premedia professional and wish to evaluate this technology, then you will find that all questions, concerns and explanations will be addressed thoroughly during our no-obligation evaluation process.

I have said that in at least 2 responses.
Perhaps I should clearly state that we do these things for and with our customers solely. We make an easy differentiation between those who seek knowledge for the benefit of their business and those who seek answers for alternate agendas.

Here is where you and I have common agreement when you say,

"You are making a number of strong claims for the benefits that your product delivers. I do not dispute your claims. That being said, any prospective customer should obviously evaluate and verify those claims for themselves. They will also want to understand some aspects of your product so that their expectations for performance are set correctly. Also, I'm sure that your competitors would like the same information so that they can craft their marketing materials appropriately."

YESS!!!
That is our priority and we also understand that there are those who have a vested interest in sowing doubt. We get that; it's human nature. It's also business.

However, making ANY technical assumptions within the vacuum of a forum without ever even seeing this product or its results is.....uh.....what's a good word to use...?....let's see......OH, i know....."disingenuous" perhaps....;-)

This thread has run its course and is now rather circuitous. We will see you in Chicago in September.

Cheers,
Ian

 

[meddington]

meddinton did not do the comparisons that would have provided a proper evaluation of your product's performance. He said that he will when he gets the opportunity and would then post the results to this forum.
He said that his G7 looked bland by comparison to ICE - but he did not compare his G7 to printing at higher SIDs (with an appropriate plate curve applied) which would have been the appropriate comparison to determine the value of the ICE separations. The graph he posted just showed the comparison of gamut of presswork at standard SIDs vs higher SIDs. Of course the higher SIDs provide a greater gamut - however that would be just as true if he hadn't used your product at all.

Gordo is correct in that my comparisons were of "high SID ICE" to "typical SID G7" and this is not a true apples to apples comparison from the point of view achievable gamut on a particular press. I can play the role of "test pilot" and get these comparison, but only at the pleasure of my superiors. I still plan on performing a comparison much like what Gordo has suggested, but it won't be today

ASAIK, he did not determine ink usage/saving.

I did, just haven't released the results. Its tricky here as well to get apples to apples. The ICEd file is separated differently, decreasing tonality (by its own means) to compensate for the higher SIDs, so the file I get back from ICE is essentially more "open" compared to the PDf before processing. So I don't know if a pixel analysis of the PDF tell the whole story. keeping that in mind, I made several comparisons using PerfX Image Ink (Thanks Louis for this great free utility!). Here they are for those interested:

Gracol seps vs ICE seps
C:-14.96
M -11.07
Y: -10.78
K: +11.31
CMYave: -12.27
CMYsum: -25.5

These results were very close to the values I obtained using a custom press profile for our Heidelberg 102 with minimal GCR. Applying a heavy GCR reduced the comparative ink savings a bit:

HeidelbergHeavyGCR vs ICE
C:-4.59
M -2.87
Y: -2.83
K: +0.89
CMYave: -3.43
CMYsum: -9.40

Now, is this still a fair comparison? Maybe yes, Maybe no. I noticed on the ICE separations that pure CMY tone scales, though still coming through ICE as pure colors, were scaled back a bit (around 6% at midtone) to account for the increased inking. So if I apply a similar curves to the "Heidelberg HeavyGCR" pdf, I feel the results are more comparable.

HeidelbergHeavyGCR_cutback vs ICE
C:-3.44
M -1.19
Y: -.96
K: +0.89
CMYave: -1.87
CMYsum: -4.71

This is certainly not to say that the separations of the "HeidelbergHeavyGCR_cutback" would print as nicely as the ICE seps as the higher SIDs, as that has yet to be tested (be patient!). But it does show that substantial ink savings can be had through other means.

FYI the profile with heavy GCR I used for this comparison as gerenerated with ProfileMaker 5.08.

I don't want to limit the discussion to just ink savings, as there's a lot more going on

1) Test document with standard separations run to normal SIDs
2) Same document as 1 but run to higher SIDs (say 20-25 points higher) but using plate curves to normalize dot gain.
3) Same document run to same normal densities as 1 but with ICE'd separations
4) Same document as 3 using ICE'd separations but printed at higher SIDs (whatever Ian and Co. recommends)

I would think that #3 from above would print too "light" in tonality, since the ICE seps are prepped for the higher SIDs. I may have some sheets representing this already but will have to check.

 

[gordo]

Excellent! Thank you meddington.

best, gordon p

my print blog here: Quality In Print

 

[tmason]

I realize this thread has drug on for a while but I still am curious about the ICE process.
We are G7 printer and spent a lot of time and money to achieve this status. This is not a huge marketing tool for us as much as a standards and procedures check to be sure we are printing consistently.
If you think about the purpose of G7, it is to establish and maintain a global standard for printers to achieve in order to insure consistent repeatable printing. The print buyer can give a job to a G7 printer in Chicago and a companion piece to their source in L.A. and the end product will match.
This software (and others) seem to throw a wrench into this process. We just spent a lot of time conforming to a standard and now we are going to make it "better". Trust me, I am all for process improvement and increasing the gamut of output to the maximum potential, but unless all G7 printers adopt this technology how can we hope to match color across the globe?
I know there is a G7-Idea Alliance conference coming up but it seems like all of our efforts to control variables within our industry are constantly being compromised. As soon as we get something set up we are changing because something better comes along. If you don't adopt the new technology you feel as though you will be left in the dust. We need to make money to survive! The only thing that is consistent in our industry is that we are always trying to hit a moving target.
Can anyone explain if and how these programs fit in with G7?

thanks

 

[tmiller_iluvprinting]

I believe tools such as ICE and their subsequent results will fall under the G7 Extreme compliance level. There are 4 levels of G7 compliance: G7 Grayscale, G7 Targeted, G7 (Colorspace), and G7 Extreme. G7 Extreme's definition includes devices and process's that have a significantly greater natural color space than any G7 Characterization spec.
Best Regards,
Todd

 

[Ian Mackenzie]

Tmason,

Great points. (Caveat: my compnay has a very close relationship with Fine Eye Color Solutions, the maker of ICE)

At its core, ICE is a new color separation technology. Used in a certain way, it can enhance the G7 printing process. Yet it can also apply to SWOP, SNAP and Fogra. ICE has the ability to map and optimize separations for specific substrates. Used and marketed in a positive way, it may gave print buyers and print providers a value-add option to offer to their clients.

ICE is colorimetrically accurate. Should the user of ICE not want to extend the gamut, then that is easily achieved. ICE's other benefits remain: significant ink savings, greater contrast, greater stability, less retouching, etc.

Yes, GRACoL Extreme is on the horizon and has been endorsed and published by the IDEAlliance. ICE integrates smoothly with any existing G7 implementation to work within G7 or G7 Extreme. ICE is an enabling technology. ICE has the ability to increase the visual appeal of print while decreasing its manufacturing costs. This can be a win-win for both print buyer and print provider. Once the spec is published and posted, then it can be easily scaled for any "distribute and print" application.

It can also be proofed and we provide profiles for our Validation(tm) Media. We will have all these samples at our booth (4443) at Print '09 with all details about how they were printed.

feel free to ping me offline if you would like to continue this discussion or receive white papers, etc. that describe the methodology.

Thanks,
Ian

[email protected]

 

[gordo]

To Tmason:

What you are describing is the targeting of a print characteristic (in your case G7) - that is a business decision rather than a technical one as you note when you said: "The print buyer can give a job to a G7 printer in Chicago and a companion piece to their source in L.A. and the end product will match."
However, not every print buyer is concerned with color aligning from printers in different geographic areas in which case G7 may have no value to them and your adherence to the GRACoL 7 print characteristic may actually put you at a competitive disadvantage against another printer. For example, a printer that runs their presswork at higher SIDs and who uses FM screening.

You basically have three strategy options:
• Strategy One: Targeting an Industry Defined Specification - where the press aligns to the proof (with the proof representing the specification (e.g. SWOP, GRACoL 7 etc.)

• Strategy Two: Proofing to a Shop-Specific Presswork Target - where the proof aligns to the press

• Strategy Three: - Align to Your Customer which allows you to switch between strategy one and two as your customer needs change.

( BTW Strategy three is my preferred strategy for commercial printers)

More info about this is here: Quality In Print: Press and proof alignment strategies

What I cynically believe that the GRACoL committee is trying to do with its "extreme" initiative is to formalize a specification for a non-standard (e.g. G7) print characteristic. Which is oxymoronic, but likely a way to generate more money for idealliance and consultants.
Personally, I believe that, where appropriate, printers should define their own unique print characteristic so they have a way to differentiate themselves rather than adhere to a different formalized third party standard "extreme" print characteristic that any other printer could adopt.

Incidentally, there are some confusing/mixed assertions in this thread. Namely:

1) Printers are reseparating images and applying heavy GCR in order (among other things) to reduce ink usage. That's great. However, the final presswork should look the same as the presswork would have looked without being reseparated. ( there is an 8 part post on this topic here: Quality In Print: GCR Reseparation for ink savings and color stability in offset printing - part 1 of 8 )

2) Printing at higher SIDs provides presswork that is visually more impactful compared to presswork run to industry specification - e.g. G7. That is also great - where appropriate. It is not a new concept (there is a 5 part post on this method here: Quality In Print: Printing at DMaxx - part 1 of 5 )

3) Printing at higher SIDs while using GCR (or proprietary) techniques delivers: 20% increased gamut with 20%- 45%! ink savings (one assumes compared with G7). Those are quantitative vendor assertions which need to be backed up with credible, unambiguous, formal test results rather than anecdotal claims or customer testimonials.

best, gordon p

 

[tmason]

As I said, we became a G7 printer mainly to help us tighten our controls with our proofs calibrated to our presses. This has worked well for our shop and we are very diligent about maintaining the integrity of our proof to press match and the processes that monitor and control the variables. We do market this and the ability to match a G7 printer in another shop.

I am with you Gordo about the "Extreme" specification for G7. Seems fishy.

Maybe we should dump our G7 status and the annual dues that come with it since we have our house standard; because the reality is, there are too many variables throughout our industry to make color consistency possible between shops. We will definitely change our marketing techniques so we don't misrepresent the advantages of G7 or create unrealistic expectations for our customers. Unfortunately, this is how G7 was marketed to us.

BTW, our proof to press match is awesome!

Todd

 

[Ian Mackenzie]

tmason,

what i have maintained throughout this thread's lifecycle is that ICE can only be truly evaluated objectively by you, in your shop, with your work, on your terms. this is available to you without cost and with no obligation.

show the results it to the head sales person.
find out if there are, in fact, cost savings.
ask your lead pressmen what he thinks?
show the results to a couple of good customers.

If you have more than $6M in color (litho) print sales today, then ICE will probably pay for itself in under a year while delivering qulaity results along the way. Our "claims" come from our customers.

ICE maintains the gray balance and tonality of GRACoL and extends the gamut in saturated colors. We have samples that we can also send you that basically show:

- This is GRACoL
- This is GRACoL "on ICE"

The choice will always be there for you and your customer to use when and if you see fit.

 

[gordo]

To Tmason,

In the majority of the shops that I've visited or spoken to (hundreds) - the response to print buyers/specifiers when asked if the print shop prints to G7/GRACoL 7 is "yes" (when they do) and that appears sufficient for the print customer - i.e. they don't ask to see any documentation that proves the shop is certified. Interestingly, some shops will say instead that they print to the ISO specification since it is international and was the basis for GRACoL 7 and that satisfies the print buyer - no documentation required.

You are quite right about becoming a G7 printer mainly to help you tighten your controls and aligning proofs and presswork. I've heard that benefit expressed by most printers I've spoken with. It's not the G7 itself, it's the adoption of targets, standards, specifications, and documented methods that brings the benefits.

best, gordon p

 

[gordo]

tmason,
what i have maintained throughout this thread's lifecycle is that ICE can only be truly evaluated objectively by you, in your shop, with your work, on your terms. this is available to you without cost and with no obligation.[SNIP]

Unfortunately most printers do not have the skills, time, or resources to be effective test pilots.

The following posts contain suggestions for evaluating competing vendor ink savings offerings:

Testing on press: Quality In Print: GCR Reseparation for ink savings and color stability in offset printing - part 8 of 8

Evaluating implementation: Quality In Print: GCR Reseparation for ink savings and color stability in offset printing - part 7 of 8

Potential issues: Quality In Print: GCR Reseparation for ink savings and color stability in offset printing - part 6 of 8

best, gordon p

 

[Ian Mackenzie]

Unfortunately most printers do not have the skills, time, or resources to be effective test pilots.

True.
That's what makes freedom of choice such a beautiful thing.

If there are choices - test or not to test - and options - G7 or G7 Extreme, then personal preferences or client-driven requests can be handled seemlessly.

time and resources - imo - are well spent on potential solutions that can save money, make clients happy and differentaite from competitors. This holds true for the newest press, latest RIP or new chinese plate technology.

 

[tmason]

I contacted Chromaticity about a month ago to explore this product. My concern was in the G7 arena and the issues we just discussed. I am going to check out the Chromaticity booth at the show coming up in a few weeks and set up the test. We run quarterly linear tests on our six color presses and qualify any new products at the same time. We can easily incorporate a heads up comparison for this product.

I am expecting to see increased gamut with higher SID's however I am not sure about the ink savings and really am not concerned about that. If this product works, we will use it to gain better control over our process. This should allow for more latitude on press with better color control. We will see if it is as easy as they claim.

On another note, the more I think about the ideology of G7, the more it bothers me.

Here is a paragraph from the Idealliance paper titled "Why should you employ G7; the new proof to print process"
"Because G7 enables printers to use the CTP process to force a press to reproduce visual images with a similar visual appearance, G7 also enables printers to split jobs across printing devices or even across locations. Printing to the NUMBERS with G7 means printers can use different equipment, even in different locations, to print materials that look quite similar to the human eye. Reports indicate jobs split across an old piece of equipment and a new one produce pages that look so much alike that no one can tell which sheet came from which press"

I guess we read too much into this when we signed up for G7. The key is printing to the numbers and G7 is based on ISO numbers. When we run 20% more SID's we are not adhering to the NUMBERS therefore we will not match. Extreme G7 it is. It seems very political to have Extreme G7.

I will keep you all posted.

Todd

 

[tmiller_iluvprinting]

I think it should be noted that IDEAlliance is a non-profit organization. Just to quell any conspiracy theories!
Best regards,
Todd