Plate Calibration - Harlequin RIP - Edit From Calibrated/Uncalibrated

Ulrich

Well-known member
Hello again @Slammer

Back then, I also failed to load other pre-built Intended Press curves than those available for selection in the calibration dialog. (With newer versions may already FOGRA 51 and 52 already be offered?).
What does not matter, because i worked with manual input. But I vaguely remember that there is a possibility at the HQ-RIP to read measured values ​​directly from a measuring instrument (presumably in the form of a CSV file?). Maybe additional Intended-Press-Curves can also be implemented as CSV-data from one-channel-patches (and not via ICC profile)?


-------------------------

after all something for the record regarding linearization or not:

With great pleasure I want to praise Gordo's professional competence, his wisdom and kindness and last but not least his truly exceptional teaching skills for the rest of my life as loud as I can.

Yet:
We are about to receive a new make of plate (from the same manufacturer) and have been "warned" that recalibration may be necessary for the established processes.

As there are: Three printing machines with their own calibration curves for uncoated and coated. If, in fact, it becomes necessary for the new product to require a recalibration, then this can be done with only one(!) correction (the linearization curve) instead of at least six, because in the various processes, so to speak, only the zero point is to readjust, the "peculiarities" (states) of the different machines (and thus the need to adjust each individually different from each other) remain in their relationship to each other ...

Or have I thought incorrectly about that?

Best regards

Ulrich
 

gordo

Well-known member
We are about to receive a new make of plate (from the same manufacturer) and have been "warned" that recalibration may be necessary for the established processes.

As there are: Three printing machines with their own calibration curves for uncoated and coated. If, in fact, it becomes necessary for the new product to require a recalibration, then this can be done with only one(!) correction (the linearization curve) instead of at least six, because in the various processes, so to speak, only the zero point is to readjust, the "peculiarities" (states) of the different machines (and thus the need to adjust each individually different from each other) remain in their relationship to each other ...

Or have I thought incorrectly about that?

Best regards

Ulrich
As I said before, there may be exceptional cases where a two curve (plate linearization+press) method may be appropriate. My problem is when industry experts just say "do it this way" without explaining why. Each shop needs to evaluate what works best for them by understanding the consequences of their choice.
In most cases for most shops applying a linearization curve and then curving that curve makes no sense.
In most cases shops do not use different curves for each press. Instead they average the difference and just use one press curve for the different presses.
There are always exceptions. For example, I have been to printshops that have hundreds of press curves - not just for different presses and papers but also different customers. I think that's crazy - but they feel it works for them.
 

Automatically Autonomous Automation

Automatically Autonomous Automation
Although the autonomous car is not quite ready, a lights out print operation is something you can do right now if you have a comprehensive Print MIS (Management Information System). The advantages can put money on your bottom line. So what’s your next step? Link to Article

   
Top