New Product for Ink Optimization

[gordo]

Honestly guys, it never occurred to me that the increase in gamut could be the result of anything other than the increase in density. [SNIP] I think you may be pouncing on an inadvertant(though important) ommision from these posts. To be fair, the guys at chromaticity were up front about this to me from the get go.

The promise of increased gamut has been promoted by Chromaticity in this, and other threads, however, the increase in SIDs was never mentioned before. I don't know whether that omission was disingenuous of the company or an oversight.
There are two separate issues - reduced ink usage and increased gamut.
As far as increasing gamut is concerned, increasing SIDs will increase gamut whether you use Chromaticity's product or not. Perhaps the discussion/evaluation should be on how a Chromaticity reseparation reacts to the increase in SIDs vs the original separation at increased SIDs or a reseparation by a competing vendor at higher SIDs.
Did you test/evaluate any of those scenarios?

best, gordon p

 

[Ian Mackenzie]

From Mike DiCosola, VP of Technology at Chromaticity

From Mike DiCosola, VP of Technology at Chromaticity

From Ian Mackenzie at Chromaticity - In all of my posts, I have said that I do not posess the technical acumen to have a "sword fight" or debate over technology. However, my business partner, Mike DiCosola, is capable of presenting ideas and concepts that hopefully will address some of these issues.

From Mike DiCosola:

If anyone on the forum would like to test the product for free to form an objective opinion, we would be more than happy to allow you to test the technology. It is easy and does not require press profiling in advance.

I would like to speak directly to increased solid ink density on press. Not mentioning all aspects of Media Characterization was not a planned deception in this world of grand conspiracies. I will speak to it now if you will allow it.

ICE is not simply increasing SID for the sake of gamut. The process of ICE media characterization investigates how to optimize press printing based upon paper and ink characteristics. It is often found that using standard densities for any/all paper on press is a flawed approach. ICE uses microscopy to see how ink and paper interact to determine what density provides optimal ink transfer. We once tought this at X-Rite with densitometers 15 years ago. We are using more advanced technology to arrive at similar aims. The software then optimizes the separation for this optimized print condition. The gamut increase comes from both the increase in density and the re-distribution of ink and tone in the separation itself.

I have been involved in past research projects where high pigment loaded inks have been used to increase gamut. The separation never allowed the system to work well. I have been involved in testing where printers try to push ink density. Ink and water balance flies out the window and all the problems that come with it appear instantly.

Ask Mike Eddington how fast the press jumped to optimal densities on press? Ask him in a month if they have any problems on press associated with higher ink densities. Better yet I challenge you to try the technology yourself and do what Gordo has promoted – try to break it. If you are "reviewing" ICE solely based on theory, you will be a skeptic, as I was. Reviewing ICE live on your own press sheets, you will be floored. Instead of debating ICE in the vacuum of not having experienced the technology, please try it yourself and see if this is smoke and mirrors or real. I have personally done this and am now a believer.

We will be at the IPA Technical Conference with press sheets to show. We can get you a discounted registration fee if you want to come take a look.

 

[Deleted member 16349]

The gamut increase comes from both the increase in density and the re-distribution of ink and tone in the separation itself.

Mike,

Can you please explain what you mean by the "re-distribution of ink and tone in the separation" and how that is capable of increasing the gamut?

Originally Ian had said that there was no modifictation to the screen structure when asked earlier but maybe that was not technically correct.

Thanks.

 

[meddington]

Originally Ian had said that there was no modifictation to the screen structure when asked earlier but maybe that was not technically correct.

I can state that we had no changes to the screening itself. ICEsaver takes in and delivers PDF, which is then rastered by the CTP Rip.

 

[mallomarx]

New Product for Ink Optimization

I believe that Mike D is stating that the optimized results use the same screening as the "control" print. In other words, this is not some kind of AM vs. FM trickery. As far as the "gamut increase" goes, my opinion is that this is more marketese. The gamut of a device is a function of the substrate, the ink, and how the 2 are married (screening, application technology, etc...). It has nothing to do with the data you send it. There is no way for a "CMYK reconfigurator" to change the gamut of your device. 100M/100Y is a great example. Mike E's post suggests that the color increases "where you want it to" and that images have more "pop". What I take this to mean is that the optimization process adds more apparent saturation to the image. Whether this is good or bad, I couldn't say. Based on Mike E's positive review, I would say it's a good thing in this case.

The concerns I am left with are these: if the color gets "better", then the color changes. If the color changes, then what color am I going to get? If I don't know what color I'm going to get, then can it really be better? In an isolated, subjective comparison, this thinking makes sense. In a numbers-based production process, where the intention is to measurably reproduce a color across a system, I am not sure... Once you have the proof, it was under the impression (pun intended) that a printer should try and "match" it and not "beat it". But then again....I'm more of a prepress guy. : )

My 2 cents.
Marc Levine

 

[gordo]

The concerns I am left with are these: if the color gets "better", then the color changes. If the color changes, then what color am I going to get? If I don't know what color I'm going to get, then can it really be better? In an isolated, subjective comparison, this thinking makes sense. In a numbers-based production process, where the intention is to measurably reproduce a color across a system, I am not sure... Once you have the proof, it was under the impression (pun intended) that a printer should try and "match" it and not "beat it". But then again....I'm more of a prepress guy. : )

Marc, I would assume that the increased gamut via increased SIDs would be profiled so that proofs would reflect the new print condition. This is what we did when printing at "DMaxx" back in the day. A 5 part description of the process starts here: Quality In Print: Printing at DMaxx - part 1 of 5

What would be interesting to do in an evaluation is to use the shop's golden reference form and print it:
1) at normal densities
2) at DMaxx (max SID) densities (with appropriate dot gain curves applied)
3) at max SIDs after processing/optimizing through Ian's application.
4) at DMaxx (max SID) densities using a separation profile based on the gamut at increased SIDs

and it would be interesting to compare ink usage of the three print conditions.

(would someone like to lend me a press? ) best, gordon p

my print blog here: Quality In Print current topic: Platemaking at the Chicago Tribune - 1937

 

[David Ingram]

Does this "gamut increase" without press profiling and without changing the screening mean that, a reprinted job would "have more pop" over the previous run, all other things being equal. I.E paper, density, plates etc, it seems to me that this is being - mis marketed, can anyone say what ink savings they are getting? It seems to me, this is a Color optimizer, and not so much an ink savings tool, since 95% of printing is still CMYK and not hexachrome, has anyone done an objective test 4 color std, 4 color with ICE or w/e it is and hexachrome and compared sheets, I teach color theroy, and no matter what CMYK has Gamut limitations, You will be able to hit colors OUTSIDE the CMYK gamut with this? Can it even approch the pop of 6 color seps? Sounds like its just putting a curve on the image, whats the price point anyway and how much ink does it REALLY save?

 

[Ian Mackenzie]

If any participating members actually have printing presses or premedia operations, then I encourage you to evaluate the ICEserver. I can completely understand the viewpoints of the vendors, consultants and "distributors" who have contributed their input here. We looked at this technology for over a year before we became believers. Our "vetting" process compared this application directly with the products that many members here espouse.

As Mike DiCosola said above, please try to evaluate this outside of the vacuum of this forum. Calling something "marketese" (as an example) may only serve to draw attention to naivete, not knowledge. We must also collectively (myself included) take such comments with a grain of salt when they are offered by those who sell products against which the ICEserver, in some instances, may compete.

We became believers in this product when:

A. Master G7 printers tested it and loved in.
B. printers told us that their ink savings were "much more aggressive" than a,b and c products".
C. Some of the best premedia and print professionals in the country tell us that this product can actually help them print better.

This is what we used as benchmarks. When "ICEd" press sheets started coming off presses and we saw the pressmen's reaction, we knew there was some "special sauce" here. But please understand that it would not be in our best interest to disclose the recipe to the sauce within this forum. If you are curious and you are a print provider, we will be happy to discuss this with you in detail. If you are a competitor or retired vendor, then I apologise in advance if we do not address all of your issues.

If a "Master G7 Printer" (or any printer) can integrate the ICEserver directly with their current press curves, etc. and realize a wider gamut with substantial ink savings, then that may just be a good thing. "GRACoL Extreme" , as already defined by the IDEAlliance, may be here faster than we think. As ICE is also colorimetrically accurate, you may choose to enjoy wider gamut printing when and if you want to. Should you just wish to save ink, that's cool, then your customer supplied proof will match and you will still save lots of ink.

There is no disingenuousness or marketing hype here. This thread was started by someone who was seeking info about the product. I hope that "Ken the Kid" has benefitted here.

Thanks,
Ian

 

[Louis Dery]

We became believers in this product when:

A. Master G7 printers tested it and loved in.
B. printers told us that their ink savings were "much more aggressive" than a,b and c products".
C. Some of the best premedia and print professionals in the country tell us that this product can actually help them print better.

Hello Ian,

It is a bad thing that you never tried our ink saving solution (PerfX Device link Pro)… we got the same feedback from our clients and it is as much agressive as what is possible.

If Gordo finds a printing press, I would love to send him test file

Louis

 

[meddington]

There is no way for a "CMYK reconfigurator" to change the gamut of your device. 100M/100Y is a great example.

Not necessarily changing the gamut, but perhaps better utilizing it? 100M, 100Y is not really a value that you'll encounter in live separations very often, and if you round trip that value through the GracolCoated profile with Abs rendering for example, you'll get 1.2C, 98.7M, 96.2Y, 5.1K, but through ICEsaver that value turned out to be 0.08C, 98M, 96.5Y, 1.6K...less contaminating color, which would yield more saturation.

I intended to attach an image of the gamut of our pressrun compared to a "GracolCoated" profile, but am unable to at the moment. I can however, post the volumes.

Colorthink reported gamut volumes...ICEsaver gamut: 434,637, round-tripped Gracol gamut: 335,122.

Again, note that the IT8 target that generated the ICEsaver ICC profile was sent through the ICesaver processor and converted, so in order to fairly compare the two, I round-tripped an IT8 reference file through the GracolCoated profile, then generated an ICC profile from the resulting Lab. I'll post an image when I'm back in the office.

Mike E's post suggests that the color increases "where you want it to" and that images have more "pop". What I take this to mean is that the optimization process adds more apparent saturation to the image. Whether this is good or bad, I couldn't say. Based on Mike E's positive review, I would say it's a good thing in this case.

Its pleasing to look at and made print samples at normal densities look drab in comparison. It did not however, match the proof as well and I haven't yet been convinced of any colorimetric accuracy at this point. Not far off, but not as close as our standardized workflow. So this really isn't "standardized" printing, & it wasn't presented to us in that manner. Of course, proofing toward this new print results is certainly possible, but there could issues with matching original photographic imagery.

 

[Louis Dery]

Not necessarily changing the gamut, but perhaps better utilizing it? 100M, 100Y is not really a value that you'll encounter in live separations very often, and if you round trip that value through the GracolCoated profile with Abs rendering for example, you'll get 1.2C, 98.7M, 96.2Y, 5.1K, but through ICEsaver that value turned out to be 0.08C, 98M, 96.5Y, 1.6K...less contaminating color, which would yield more saturation.

Colorthink reported gamut volumes...ICEsaver gamut: 434,637, round-tripped Gracol gamut: 335,122.

Hello Mike,

FYI,
with my Gracol Coated profile round trip Abs conversion, I get 0 C, 98 M, 96 Y, 1 K
Gracol PerfX profile’s Gamut volume = 404,810

Louis

 

[roger]

If my customer is separating to Gracol and proofing in their office to Gracol and sends me a Gracol job to print, why in the world would I want to print with a gamut that exceeds Gracol by 20%??? If I'm not matching what the client is expecting, I'm not printing Gracol anymore, right?

To me this sounds like we're heading back to 'My printing is better than his printing!!! blah-blah-blah.' I don't think I want to go back there and I'm pretty sure print buyers don't either. Or am I misunderstanding something here?

Roger

 

[Ian Mackenzie]

Roger -

Great points.
As a print provider, you may not want to offer "better" printing to your customers. That will be a choice that only you can make. I understand what you are saying about matching a proof and printing what your customers ask of you.

Another possible approach may be to ask your VP of Sales or top sales rep.
If you could show your clients how their work could:

- print easier
- print with a wider gamut
- print with better dynamic range
- use less waste
.......AND print with much less ink, then perhaps a case could be made for your compnay to:

- print greener with less waste (ink and paper)
- differentiate itself from your competitors
- offer your clients the choice and work WITH them to produce a "better" product
- pay for this software with ink savings and make ready savings it produces
- implement a proofing system that can proof the extended gamut

It's not just about extended gamut. "ICEd" files show greater detail, greater contrast all while preserving the tonality and grey balance of GRACoL. But, as always, your mileage may vary and if you ever want to explore these possibilities, then they are here and avaialble to you.

Have a good weekend,
Ian

 

[meddington]

If my customer is separating to Gracol and proofing in their office to Gracol and sends me a Gracol job to print, why in the world would I want to print with a gamut that exceeds Gracol by 20%???

You wouldn't. Extended gamut printing, IMO, would be more geared towards a specialty service where you would control content/proofing early on, not where your customer is supplying a Gracol proof for you to run toward.

BTW, here's an image of the gamut comparison of Gracol (in green) to ICE'd printing.

 

[gordo]

[SNIP]BTW, here's an image of the gamut comparison of Gracol (in green) to ICE'd printing.

At higher SIDs than GRACoL. Have you tried printing your standard seps at higher SIDs (using a TVI compensation curve to normalize the gains) and compared that to the ICE'd separation presswork?

thx, gordon p
my print blog here: Quality In Print current topic: the creative design/production process

 

[meddington]

At higher SIDs than GRACoL. Have you tried printing your standard seps at higher SIDs (using a TVI compensation curve to normalize the gains) and compared that to the ICE'd separation presswork?

You mean have I printed "gordo-extreme"? no, I haven't tried that yet. Offhand I would say that the ink savings would be absent compared to the ICE separations or other ink saving solution. Going the route of heavy GCR and higher densities though, the ink savings could be fairly comparable.There will be a press test of this nature in the near future. Ill keep you posted as to the results as far as acheived gamut and printability.

 

[Ian Mackenzie]

Technically you could increase density, build new profiles, separate with these profiles and get a bigger gamut.

Any pressman who has gone down this path will tell you that this will not alleviate the known problems encountered in impact printing that are aggravated with high densities if you don't fix fundamental problems inherent in current separation technology. These issues include ink offset, drying problems, excessive back trapping, poor chemical trapping and ink emulsification.

Not to mention the question of how do you determine the optimal higher SID?

We have been involved in projects that have tried this and simply pushing density flat out failed.

Consideralso that many have tried similar approaches to increase gamut over the years that have even included people like flint ink with high pigment load inks and Pantone with innovations like Hexachrome. The problem always came in creating the separations. The only way to create a sep that could take advantage of the gamut gains was to custom edit every file. That's tough to commercialize.
This is why ICE excels where other fail. ICE intelligently sets SID not for gamut gain, but to optimize squeeze and pressure to improve inkflow and printability on a given stock.

The separation then distributes ink in such a way as to focus colored ink where the image needs color. Even using similar densities in areas that use similar builds, an ICE sep will demonstrate increased visual gamut as more colored ink will flow the color needy image areas without being stolen by the rest of the form.

 

[Deleted member 16349]

ICE intelligently sets SID not for gamut gain, but to optimize squeeze and pressure to improve inkflow and printability on a given stock.

The separation then distributes ink in such a way as to focus colored ink where the image needs color. Even using similar densities in areas that use similar builds, an ICE sep will demonstrate increased visual gamut as more colored ink will flow the color needy image areas without being stolen by the rest of the form.

Ian,

These kinds of statements are difficult to evaluate and frankly don't make sense with out the description of how this is done. I can understand that for competitive reasons, you might not want to explain it yet.

Will this be explained in the patent?

Curious.

Thanks.

Erik

 

[gordo]

Ian wrote: "Technically you could increase density, build new profiles, separate with these profiles and get a bigger gamut."

G: Yes. You could also use the same separations but run at higher SIDs to achieve the extra gamut.

Ian wrote: "Any pressman who has gone down this path will tell you that this will not alleviate the known problems encountered in impact printing that are aggravated with high densities if you don't fix fundamental problems inherent in current separation technology. These issues include ink offset, drying problems, excessive back trapping, poor chemical trapping and ink emulsification."

G: I'm not quite sure about your meaning here. In my experience, a press in nominal working condition using standard inks and conventional separations can reliable increase their SIDs by about 20-25 points without issues. I.e. K: 1.95/2.00, C: 1.6, M: 1.75, Y: 1.25
What SIDs are you advising/using?

Ian wrote: "Not to mention the question of how do you determine the optimal higher SID?"

G: By doing a press test. This blog post explains the basics: Quality In Print: Printing at DMaxx - part 1 of 5

Ian wrote: "We have been involved in projects that have tried this and simply pushing density flat out failed."

G: And I have been involved with many projects where using standard separation techniques, pushing SIDs and using a dot gain compensation curve has been very successful. As just one example, we did this at the Heidelberg demo facilities in Kennesaw GA in the early days of CtP to show some of the potential that CtP offered beyond simply eliminating film.

Your are correct about the complexities of separating for the Hexachrome process. Are you suggesting that ICE'd separations at higher SIDs equals (or exceeds) the Hexachrome gamut? I also agree that using high pigment load inks can also be problematic. If you can achieve a bigger gamut with standard inks and without adding press units - that would be the first choice.

Ian wrote: "ICE intelligently sets SID not for gamut gain, but to optimize squeeze and pressure to improve inkflow and printability on a given stock. The separation then distributes ink in such a way as to focus colored ink where the image needs color. Even using similar densities in areas that use similar builds, an ICE sep will demonstrate increased visual gamut as more colored ink will flow the color needy image areas without being stolen by the rest of the form."

G: I cannot understand what you you are trying to say. Maybe with more information...but I guess that would be divulging your "secret sauce."

I hope meddington does a proper evaluation. At the very least, what, I would like to see:
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)

of course, all 4 should be profiled so that their gamuts can be better compared.
Also, because the objective targets like process color tone patches, step wedges, and gradients don't go through a separation process they can provide baseline info on what the separation technique is adding to the process.

best, gordon p

my print blog here: Quality In Print current topic: Printshop Evils

 

[vivelajoie]

Eric,

they can obtain gamut gains by printing to higher density -- there is no secret.

Roger