offset dots on proof

[ar17]

dear all,
in an iso 12647-2 and -7 workflow, is there a need to submit a proof with offset dots. i don't see any writings that requires actuals dots for proof submission. and i don't see any relevance to produce the proof with actual dots. which is right and proper? thanks

 

[gordo]

dear all,
in an iso 12647-2 and -7 workflow, is there a need to submit a proof with offset dots. i don't see any writings that requires actuals dots for proof submission. and i don't see any relevance to produce the proof with actual dots. which is right and proper? thanks

No.

However, actual dots in the proof are of value if there is a potental for subject or scanning moiré

Gordo

 

[Paul Santer]

The relevance of proofing with the actual Dots is the Data Integrity as most systems use the 1-Bit data that is used to make the plates and Screening is part of the 1-Bit data, hence you get Dots on your Proof.
If your not so bothered about Data Integrity or Dots then there not relevant.

 

[rich apollo]

If you're a creative group providing artwork, then you won't know what the final dot structure will be.

If you're outputting on an inkjet device, the dots may be soft, or fuzzy, and therefore unsatisfactory. If the final output is stochastic, I don't believe an inkjet device can reproduce that dot structure. (I don't know if a laminate proofing system can reproduce stochastic screening, either.)

 

[meddington]

(I don't know if a laminate proofing system can reproduce stochastic screening, either.)

Its possible...but not sure why one would bother.