Overtime: AM Screening Halftone Dot Shapes

gordo

Well-known member
The choice of halftone dot shape is important because it has an impact on the aesthetics of the final presswork as well as on the lithographic performance of the press. This post describes the basic dot shape options available with conventional "AM" halftone screening. The descriptions apply to all the various vendors' offerings – though there will be some very subtle variations between their various implementations.

When dots grow in size from highlight to shadow there is a point at which the dots first touch each other. When that happens there is an effect called the “optical bump.” In a gradient blend this may show up as an artifact of a dark line in an otherwise smooth blend. Another issue is that, because paper moves through a press from printing unit to printing unit, presses are effectively directional imaging devices. This means that halftone dots shapes that are also directional, can interact with the directionality of the press and may exaggerate some issues such as slur and doubling.

In an AM screen each dot is formed in a halftone cell, typically based on a grid of 16 by 16 pixels. The pixels within the cell are "turned on" in order to form the dot shape. The cells are then stitched together, like a mosaic, in order to form an area of dots.
On the left (enlarged) is a single halftone dot within its 16x16 pixel cell. On the right (reduced) is an area of dots within their 16x16 pixel cells.

AM halftone Cell.jpg


Following are the basic AM screening dot shapes and their performance characteristics in use.
Click on the images to enlarge.

Round dot: Dots are round through the tone range
Round Dot.jpg


Benefits: Dot shape is the same for all screen angles and frequencies, optical bump is hidden in the shadows at the 75% tone, dot is non-directional so it is less affected by press problems. Reduces single channel moiré issues. Dot is non directional, i.e. all screen angle dots react the same to directional press issues such as slur and doubling
Issues: Not suited for film-imaged plates because the diamond shape that results at 75% and darker tones is very sensitive to dot gain and sudden loss of shadow detail. Excellent for computer-to-plate imaging because of the greater integrity of halftone imaging as well as the ease of dot gain compensation with tone reproduction curves.

Euclidean dot (a.k.a. Transforming Round Dot): Round/Square/Round

Euclidean Dot.jpg


This is the classic dot shape that resulted from the original etched glass screens from the 19th century and is now replicated in digital form.
Benefits: Dot shape, except for 50% tint, is the same for all screen angles and frequencies, dot is non-directional so it is less affected by press problems. Shadow dots are less prone to dot gain - especially in a film workflow – than the simple Round dot.
Issues: Optical bump occurs at 50% midtone tint which puts it in the most important and visible image tones.

Elliptical dot (a.k.a. Transforming Elliptical Dot, Chain Dot): Rounded corner diamond shape

Elliptical.jpg


Benefits: Optical bump is moderated by being split into two – when the dots first touch at the long width at the 40% tint and then again at the short width at 60%.
Issues: Dot shape varies at different screen angles which can cause single color moiré and uneven dot gain. Dot is directional, at low lpi frequencies the “chaining” of the dots as two points touch can cause lines to appear as artifacts. Directional problems on press such as slur and doubling can cause strong tone and color shifts depending on the angle of orientation of the dots relative to the angle of the paper as it travels through the press.

Square dot: Square

Square Dot.jpg


Historically used for catalog work, letterpress, and specialty work.
Benefits: Gives an impression of a "sharper" looking image on press thus reducing the need for excessive sharpening in image editing applications.
Issues: Very prone to loss of shadow detail due to very thin spaces between shadow dots.

Line dot: Line

Line Dot.jpg


Historically used for newspaper work, lenticular, and specialty work.
Benefits: At lower screen rulings can have a strong graphic effect.
Issues: Directional problems on press such as slur and doubling can cause strong tone and color shifts depending on the angle of orientation of the lines relative to the angle of the paper as it travels through the press. Directional lines can introduce very visible subject moiré. Image edges can appear ragged.

Specialty dot:
Any custom dot shape designed to meet specific requirements.
Benefits: Halftone dot optimized for specific applications.
Issues: Requires extensive knowledge, development time, and testing in prepress and pressroom in order to implement.

Here are two examples:

Pepper Dot:

Pepper Dot.jpg


Uses small dots within larger conventional dots in order to reduce ink usage on press – especially for newspaper work. (Click on image to enlarge). Similar to surface pattering used in flexographic printing to increase solid Ink density on dots.

Novelty Dot: Uses a recognizable image or graphic to form the dot. (Click on image to enlarge)

Custom.jpg
 
Last edited:
Which dot shape is best for flexo?
FTA, the Flexographic Technical Association, in their FIRST (Flexographic Image Reproduction Specifications and Tolerances) manual recommends the Round dot. And I agree for the reasons I originally gave.
Of course, that's if you use an AM/XM screen. My personal preference of course is an FM type halftone screen - especially if you intend to employ extended process printing.
 
Not impressed.

SPIR@L screening is actually Agfa Sublime screening (their statement in their white paper) with a dot shape that mimics Esko Concentric screening. As such it has the same issues as any standard AM screen plus the issues of imaging single pixel-wide rings/spirals. Info about Esko Concentric screening here; Esko Concentric screening - some observations
 
We have tried Esko Concentric, AM Euclidean (both Esko Paragon and Fuji XMF), and Apogee Spir@l over the years. I don't have anything negative to say about any of them.

I will say that it is impossible to read the plate dot area when using Concentric or Spir@l. Eco3 offered the solution to create the plate curve using a normal round 175 LPI, then apply that to the Spir@l workflow. When using a positive plate such as Eco3's Energy Elite with a Screen 8600 platesetter, the 175 LPI plate curve is usually next to nothing anyway (raw = linear).

Our Concentric usage was long ago. I thought the printing looked great, highly detailed. We ran an extremely high line screen (276). Back then we used Fuji LH-PJ plates. But we had color management issues so we abandoned Concentric and went back to normal AM Euclidean, 200LPI for coated (2400 DPI). I will also note, this Concentric period was when Esko offered the first generation Concentric, and I believe it has been upgraded since then. I remember when we first started using Concentric, Mark Samworth spent a great while talking to me about the screening and he was very knowledgable and helpful. I remember he mentioned that a different screening engineer was looking it over and planned to make improvements. So even though we stopped using Concentric I have nothing bad to say about it, and we probably would have had more success with it at a lower line screen.

Likewise I have nothing against Spir@l either. It is supposed to offer some ink savings (like Concentric) but that is not something we are able to monitor effectively. We also use GCR for ink savings but that is a separate topic. I remember one particular spot color job with Spiral, it was a flat tint, somewhere in the midtone, and a single ink moire was quite visible. But I should stress, it only happened once and hasn't happened since, and perhaps Eco3 has addressed the problem. No screening is perfect. If it matters, our Spir@l is 200 LPI, H2S2_C25G25_C8. (Not sure what that string means, but it has to do with how the shrimp shapes are constructed).

Anyway, we are considering giving Fuji XMF CoRes a try.

This screening is fascinating. It is AM. The shape is denoted as square. But in the TIFF each dot in a flat tint is constructed a little differently. I doubt it is anything like a normal AM square dot.

I am wondering if anyone else has experience with CoRes. I figured we would just use it at 200 LPI. Maybe it would print a little smoother than a normal AM dot. Would it be superior to a normal AM Euclidean (Fuji)?
 
   
Back
Top