Recommendations for a High End Dot Proofer

[Stephen Marsh]

Stephen: I have attached more samples to show multi-colour screens / rosette patterns. I hesitated to show the screen comparisons because they are not from the same file and same 1 bit tiff and I didn’t want to mislead anyone.

Understood, thank you Angus.

What would happen if an inkjet company developed a device that could print at 1200 or even 2000 dpi quickly? That is not beyond the scope of my imagination. Would that be a game changer? How would you feel if you purchased a system that costs a quarter of a million and you realized that an inkjet costing $5,000 combined with a RIP for $10,000 could do the same or better.

I doubt that anybody would buy a Kodak Approval system for that sort of money these days. They are no longer new, the only options are refurbished/reconditioned by Kodak or second hand from a previous user. There are still spare parts and technicians and consumables continue to be manufactured and there has not been any announcement that consumables will be discontinued.

I also doubt that a fast high resolution inkjet technology printer suitable for proofing would be placed at that price!

Let’s talk about the market for dot proofing. It is not 99% of commercial offset printers, they left the party a long time ago. It is only really packaging that still has a need to see dots. Due to the use of special colours and process colours and the cost of a failed print run, the stakes are much higher for proofing packaging.

Let’s talk at the current inkjet systems currently on offer for attempting to “compete” with the Kodak Approval in the packaging space (rather than some hypothetical vapourware system). This is generally for mockups and or proofing. Probably using a Roland print/cut unit, either UV or Eco-solvent. For printing on “any” substrate, there is the UV models (gamut is limited, hitting brand colours and certain Pantone’s my not be possible). Then there is the Eco-solvent printers, again gamut is limited, which is why CGS created their XG inks with orange and green and reformulated CMYK to expand the gamut, with the additional Roland white and silver inks. These units are not cheap, one is looking at around AUD $60-70,000 for the UV models and AUD $16,000-$24,000 for the Eco-Solvent models. One has to have Eco-solvent coated media for these latter units, the media has to be suitable for proofing/mockups that rival the Kodak Approval’s flexibility and versatility to be laminated to the final production stock (not just paper - board, vinyl, poly, foil, shrink etc). These machines are not what one would call “fast”. Then there is the RIP time for handling plate resolution files.

In the AU market, established players in the packaging proofing market that still have Approvals continue to use them and rely on them. Despite the age of the Kodak Approval system and the cost of consumables, this old dinosaur is still in use - just not to the extent that it once was. Interim proofs are run on inkjet, nobody is throwing around Approval proofs for every revision in the product development cycle. However when it comes down to the final proof that brands are signing off on - many packaging prepress providers, converters and multinational brands still do wish to have the reassurance of the Approval proof as the final proof before press.

We all remember a time when inkjet proofs first came out. I certainly do. The traditionalists said they were crap. I can't see a dot. I don't trust them. But today they are accepted. I think the same will be the case with inkjet dot proofs and we are going through the same transition. The Tipping Point as Malcolm Gladwell calls it is coming. I'm putting my money on this not so dead horse. ;-)

In commercial offset proofing, for the overwhelming majority, it all became about price and speed, which won over being able to see the dots. For some who may print clothing catalogues or other items that may exhibit moiré, having an accurate dot proof may still be important.

Some of our commercial proofing customers don’t even wish to run their 9900’s at 14x7 resolution as it is too slow compared to running at 7x7 resolution. These shops have no inclination to run dot proofs at 14x14 or even at 14x7 or 7x7 as it takes too long compared to proofing a PDF that has not been separated/screened by a CTP system.


Stephen Marsh

 

[Stephen Marsh]

Inkjet Simulated Halftones - Primary Yellow Screen

Inkjet Simulated Halftones - Primary Yellow Screen

Attached is a microscope image of an inkjet proof of primary yellow halftone dots. The plate file was 2400 resolution, while the inkjet proof was 1440x1440 resolution on an Epson 9900 (the RIP was Kodak Proofing Software).

Although the plate file only had solid yellow dots, an inkjet proof has to be colour managed. This is the case for native “contone” printing or printing separated high resolution plate files. For example, if one is simulating 100% solid primary yellow in Fogra 39, simply using 100% Epson ink will not create the correct colour. One has to colour manage the ink, which may mean running the yellow at less than 100% and adding in some other ink such as light magenta, or magenta etc.

One can see that the halftone dots are made of both yellow and magenta, as yellow alone will not create the correct colour. An inkjet can only simulate a dot proof - it is not the same thing as an actual dot proof, even if the input is a 1 bit TIFF.

In a practical sense, to the naked eye at regular viewing distance, one may not see the “extra dots”, however they are there. This is of course compounded for spot colours and rosette screens of more than one colour.


Stephen Marsh

 

[Stephen Marsh]

The related topic thread to this topic can be found here:

http://printplanet.com/forums/kodak-systems/33475-does-kodak-make-approval-system-anymore


Stephen Marsh

 

[chevalier]

I'll admit that I skimmed through this post and didn't read it thoroughly. That said, Gordo your details are always amazing and appreciated. I will take the time to come back and re-read this.

I work in packaging and have a Fujifilm FinalProof and an Epson9900 (which i've played with dot proofing on). I've thoroughly evaluated other inkjet solutions and the various RIP systems that can drive inkjet "dot" proofing. I don't understand the point of halftone dot proofing unless you are submitting 1bit TIFF files from the plating RIP to a device that uses a direct donor color. This becomes really troublesome (read: basically impossible) unless you are dealing only with CMYK. My Finalproof is used for proofing on substrate only. We don't really give a damn about the screening it uses beyond it being a "best effort" to reflect our screening on press.

There are a myriad of reasons why it makes no sense as the proofer is never going to 100% reflect actual press results no matter how much science you pour into it. If you want a press to proof match, you're going to have to proof on the press. I see this all the time with people trying to screen Pantone colors then coming in for a press approval and saying ."..but the proof looks awesome why can't the press print a smooth Pantone Reflex Blue 0-100% screen?!?!"

That out of the way... what makes more sense is a proofer that can accurately represent CMYK and spot colors on a production substrate. Unfortunately given the various substrates this is sometimes possible sometimes not. My suggestion is to evaluate the substrate(s) you are wanting to proof upon and then narrow down the options as to what device serves those needs.

TL/DR: If you're looking at an inkjet, FinalProof or Approval proof under a loupe and expecting to see the same thing under a loupe on a press sheet you're lost and won't find your elusive white whale. If you want a dot-for-dot proof your'e going to have to press proof under production conditions.

 

[AcmeGV]

Kodaks won't be around much longer it is dying technology and is to costly. If you are blending 2 spot colors. I would recommend GMG the overprints are the most accurate out of the box compared to any other proofing software. I would also recommend sending pre-ripped files to GMG. The wizard for spot color iteration is a plus. The one draw back with GMG is that they do not have a wizard for profile iteration which is kind of a pain.

 

[gordo]

Kodaks won't be around much longer it is dying technology and is to costly. If you are blending 2 spot colors. I would recommend GMG the overprints are the most accurate out of the box compared to any other proofing software. I would also recommend sending pre-ripped files to GMG. The wizard for spot color iteration is a plus. The one draw back with GMG is that they do not have a wizard for profile iteration which is kind of a pain.

The ability to proof spot colors is an entirely different issue - worthy of a thread separate from this one.

 

[cosmo]

It is a doozy of a question, I know XMF will do dot proofing with the same screen rules as the plates, but outputting it on an inkjet would need some type of dot gain compensation to match the press, I havent heard of anyone actually wanting this type of proof before, maybe the only reason to do it would be for duotones?

 

[Stephen Marsh]

It is a doozy of a question, I know XMF will do dot proofing with the same screen rules as the plates, but outputting it on an inkjet would need some type of dot gain compensation to match the press, I havent heard of anyone actually wanting this type of proof before, maybe the only reason to do it would be for duotones?

Dot proofs are still quite common in packaging at the end of the proofing cycle (with standard inkjet proofs using native inkjet stochastic as interim proofs). In packaging, one may have more than three separations and screens interacting with each other, without having the luxury of one of the screens being yellow (which can make it harder to spot moiré). Screen rulings may also be coarser (but not always the case with the current high definition imaging and plate tech. from various flexo vendors). Due to the cost of packaging print runs and lost time to market, the stakes are much higher for a failed packing print run vs. a small commercial print run.

EDIT: For commercial printing, unless one is printing content that is subject to object and or screen moiré, then a standard “contone” stochastic inkjet proof is the accepted norm. With Kodak Proofing Software, one can combine and proof RIP screened plate resolution 1 bit TIFF data. One can also “simulate” a halftone screen using the RIP engine’s screening engine (not the same thing as using screened 1 bit TIFF). There is also a third dot proofing option, which is to combine separated pre-screened 1 bit TIFF data, resample and “descreen” the data so that it prints as standard “stochastic” inkjet dots. This is intended for workflows that require the use of final plate ready data for proofing, however they don’t wish to plot at 1440x1440 resolution and only print at say 720x720 or 720x1440.


Stephen Marsh

 

[Stephen Marsh]

Quiz - Which is the Kodak Approval halftone and which is the Offset Press?

Quiz - Which is the Kodak Approval halftone and which is the Offset Press?

Quiz - Which is the Kodak Approval halftone and which is the Offset Press?

Is the left hand image the Approval or the Press?

The press print was on 150gsm gloss.

Attached image for your reference…

Both images were captured with the same handheld USB microscope using the same focus dial settings, the images were captured one after the other with care taken that the focus wheel was not changed.

Is one noticeably sharper than the other? Is one a good “proof” of the other?

I don’t have an inkjet dot proof for comparison at this time, when I can do so I will repeat the exercise with all three samples.

[I apologise that I don’t have the budget for any prizes, except the prize of knowledge gained]


Stephen Marsh

 

[Chief_1975]

Did somebody say 'wet proofing' ? if you are printing on analogue press you need analogue proof. I am now going to take cover and wait for the incoming barrage

 

[Josephbouchard]

Hi,
I go through your submit. I point your submit highly properly for every families and I have a minor online site.
printing service,Direct Mail Marketing Programs,copy service as a result of which you will get. In case your feel fine, please come to our site will see.
Thanks