Recommendations for a High End Dot Proofer

kewlbigdan

Active member
We currently use Esko AE/FlexRip, GMG and Epson and are expanding. I am upgrading to latest GMG with 2 large format Epson printers to print DotProofs.

I am wondering if getting a higher end Proofing system such as the Kodak Approval would bring any further advantages to the DotProofing that couldn't be done via the more cost effective Epson printers.
Keep in mind we do not print magazine quality. Our print tends to be mostly spot color blends and 85-133l/s.

What is everyones recommendation to Proofing systems?

(majority of proofs are on standard stock, with occasional clear film or colored substrates)
 
I would take a look at the Canon iPF printers. In a recent test I showed that the dot placement was tighter on the Canon compared to the Epson's.

Canon iPF6450 vs Epson 7900 Comparison

GMG has recently began recommending the Canon's for dot proofing over the Epson's.

The purpose for using a halftone dot proofer (in addition to proofing color) is to proof for halftone artifacts like screening moiré, subject moiré, ribboning, etc. Your tests did not look at those issues. GMG's literature regarding their halftone dot proofing is very vague regarding what it is actually capable of.

If the OP needs to use a halftone dot proofer then that is something that the potential solution needs to be tested for. I.e. does the solution actually reveal halftone artifacts such as screening moiré, subject moiré, ribboning, etc. that will appear in the final presswork.

AFAIK, inkjet proofers - despite being able to simulate halftone dots - cannot accurately proof for halftone artifacts.
 
Agreed, the inkjets with a native resolution of 600 dpi on the Canon and 720 dpi on the Epson will never replicated the resolutions of the CTP (1500+), especially at LPI's of 150 or higher. I have seen results from 1 bit tiffs proofing for screen, newsprint and packaging proofing that are very acceptable and cost effective.

The FlexoProof version of GMG can show very accurate spot-color matching, expanded gamut proofing for the new Esko 7 color process and even a simulation of the paper texture. Not possible with traditional systems.

But I will not argue that the dot, when looked at closely is softer. It's a matter of getting your suppliers to give you samples of both processes, weigh-out the costs and what are your specific needs. Each system has it's benefits and you will not find one system that is perfect.
 
Agreed, the inkjets with a native resolution of 600 dpi on the Canon and 720 dpi on the Epson will never replicated the resolutions of the CTP (1500+), especially at LPI's of 150 or higher. I have seen results from 1 bit tiffs proofing for screen, newsprint and packaging proofing that are very acceptable and cost effective.

The FlexoProof version of GMG can show very accurate spot-color matching, expanded gamut proofing for the new Esko 7 color process and even a simulation of the paper texture. Not possible with traditional systems.

But I will not argue that the dot, when looked at closely is softer. It's a matter of getting your suppliers to give you samples of both processes, weigh-out the costs and what are your specific needs. Each system has it's benefits and you will not find one system that is perfect.

This does not address the OP's issue. Spot-color matching, expanded gamut proofing for the new Esko 7 color process and even a simulation of the paper texture are separate concerns. It does not matter that the dot, when looked at closely is softer or not. If the OP is needing a halftone dot proofer then that is what the prospective devices (thermal, inkjet, or toner) needs to deliver. Once that is ascertained, then other features of the devices (like those you listed) can be compared and evaluated. Again, AFAIK, inkjet proofers are not capable of generating reliable halftone dot proofing so that puts them out of consideration if one of the criteria that the OP stated is for the device to be a halftone dot proofer.
 
He is asking I am wondering if getting a higher end Proofing system such as the Kodak Approval would bring any further advantages to the DotProofing that couldn't be done via the more cost effective Epson printers.
Keep in mind we do not print magazine quality. Our print tends to be mostly spot color blends and 85-133l/s.
The OP doesn't have an issue from what I can tell, he is asking for our input and that's all I am offering.

If inkjets can't be used for accurate dot proofing, then why are so many packaging printers switching to them? I find them very accurate, actually more accurate then traditional systems. Show me a Kodak system that can get a match to the press that is has an average of .8 delta e and a max of 2.5. These are the numbers routinely hit with GMG FlexProof. Then add add the ability to simulate the paper texture. Yes, the dot is not as sharp and I would say not useable above 150-175. But at 85-133 they do a great job.

Angus
 
He is asking I am wondering if getting a higher end Proofing system such as the Kodak Approval would bring any further advantages to the DotProofing that couldn't be done via the more cost effective Epson printers.
Keep in mind we do not print magazine quality. Our print tends to be mostly spot color blends and 85-133l/s.
The OP doesn't have an issue from what I can tell, he is asking for our input and that's all I am offering.

If inkjets can't be used for accurate dot proofing, then why are so many packaging printers switching to them? I find them very accurate, actually more accurate then traditional systems. Show me a Kodak system that can get a match to the press that is has an average of .8 delta e and a max of 2.5. These are the numbers routinely hit with GMG FlexProof. Then add add the ability to simulate the paper texture. Yes, the dot is not as sharp and I would say not useable above 150-175. But at 85-133 they do a great job.

Angus

This might just be semantics but the way I read the OP's question is that he's asking specifically about "any further advantages to the DotProofing" "that couldn't be done via the more cost effective Epson printers." To me that raises the question of the inkjet's ability to show the issues that halftones in presswork can manifest. He's not asking about color gamut.

You're a vendor so you have more resources available to you to help us understand the capabilities of inkjet proofers to reveal halftone printing problems. Perhaps you could shed a light on that specific issue rather than bringing in other factors?

With thermal halftone proofers every where there is a halftone dot in the original bitmap there is a halftone dot in the proof. With an inkjet proof the halftone dot is simulated. Here's what that simulation looks like (133lpi Star Proof from Compose USA). Stand back from the computer display to see the rosette simulation better:

133lpiinkjetrosette_zps86ced379.jpg


Other inkjet dot proofers probably simulate the dots differently. Can you post pictures of those proofs for comparison?
Do inkjet dot proofers show the same rosette structures that will be in the final presswork?
Do they show artifacts like subject moiré, screening moiré, ribboning, sawtoothing, image integrity (e.g. screened text) as they will appear in the final presswork?
Do they introduce moiré that won't actually appear in the final presswork?
 
You're a vendor so you have more resources available to you to help us understand the capabilities of inkjet proofers to reveal halftone printing problems.
[snip]
With an inkjet proof the halftone dot is simulated. Here's what that simulation looks like (133lpi Star Proof from Compose USA). Stand back from the computer display to see the rosette simulation better:

133lpiinkjetrosette_zps86ced379.jpg


Other inkjet dot proofers probably simulate the dots differently. Can you post pictures of those proofs for comparison?
Do inkjet dot proofers show the same rosette structures that will be in the final presswork?
Do they show artifacts like subject moiré, screening moiré, ribboning, sawtoothing, image integrity (e.g. screened text) as they will appear in the final presswork?
Do they introduce moiré that won't actually appear in the final presswork?

AngusPady?
 
Last edited:
My apologies for the slow reply. I was away over the weekend and unable to upload images with my phone.

Here are some thought a customer should consider when looking at the two systems.

1. Comparing a printed sheet to the Kodak Approval? Kodak Approval is too sharp compared to any kind of printing process such as a sheet fed, web offset, flexo, Xerography, inkjet, etc. GMG will never be close to Kodak on that point of view. I will not pretend that the Inkjet proof is as sharp as the press sheet, but I will argue that it is closer to the press sheet then the Kodak, which is 2x sharper then the press sheet.
2. GMG FlexoProof is the only one so far controlling all these topics at same time:
a. Ability to control PMS opacity and sequence as well.
b. Capable of simulating on the fly different dot gains for the same PMS applied to multiple plates dedicated to different Anilox resolutions.
c. Paper texture simulation from High Lights to Shadows/Solids areas.
i. Despite the fact Kodak can transfer on any media, they don’t specifically control colour on each of them.
d. Miss-registration simulation.
e. Recalibration cycle based on Lab instead of densities for the Kodak. Does the customer know how tedious the calibration process is? And that it needs to be done every time they change from one emulsion lot to another?
3. PMS limitations:
a. How many PMS films are available from Kodak? GMG as no spot colour limitations at all.
b. How long it takes to produce a 12 color job compared to a simple 4 color? And I am not speaking of the accuracy lost as layers build ups.
c. What’s the cost of 8.5x11 job size; including all of the donors and receiver sheets they waste?
d. Despite the fact Epson’s is leading the proofing market; GMG can be bundled with other manufacturers to accommodate those Metallic and White requirements.
e. And different variations of white coloration and opacity can easily be simulated with GMG when printing on proofing paper.
f. Consider the Roland with white and metallic and the possibilities that are available with this printer.
4. I could continue on and on comparing GMG Inkjet Proofing flexibility to Kodak money hungery system.

The true comparison is to magnify the same file printed on the Kodak system, GMG Inkjet and the press. Unfortunately, not some thing I have at my disposal. The Star proof shown is a simulation dot proof not a dot proof from the 1 bit tiff, as is done in GMG, but I will, in a few days, have a 35x digital loupe sample to show in more detail the dot structure of the GMG dot proof.

Angus Pady
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the reply.

Just a couple of things...

You refer to the Kodak Approval and GMG proofer - I was being more general, i.e. any thermal/laminate dot proofer vs any inkjet proofer.
Also you didn't answer the initial questions, namely:
Do (any) inkjet dot proofers show the same rosette structures that will be in the final presswork?
Do they show artifacts like subject moiré, screening moiré, ribboning, sawtoothing, image integrity (e.g. screened text) as they will appear in the final presswork?
Do they introduce moiré that won't actually appear in the final presswork?

RE:
1. Comparing a printed sheet to the Kodak Approval? Kodak Approval is too sharp compared to any kind of printing process such as a sheet fed, web offset, flexo, Xerography, inkjet, etc.

By “sharper” do you mean lower dot gain? If so, wouldn’t applying a tone curve compensate? The dots would still maintain their positional accuracy for halftone artifact proofing.

RE:
c. Paper texture simulation from High Lights to Shadows/Solids areas.
i. Despite the fact Kodak can transfer on any media, they don’t specifically control colour on each of them.

Wouldn't proofing on the actual substrate be preferable to simulating the substrate?

RE:
The true comparison is to magnify the same file printed on the Kodak system, GMG Inkjet and the press.

Wouldn't it be best to compare the halftone dot proofer's ability to reveal artifacts like subject moiré, screening moiré, ribboning, sawtoothing, image integrity (e.g. screened text) as they appeared in the final presswork? I.e. no need to magnify - just take image files that will exhibit halftone artifacts in the presswork, print them and then see if the different proofing systems accurately show the same issues? After all, isn't that the key reason for using a dot proofer?
 
The Star proof shown is a simulation dot proof not a dot proof from the 1 bit tiff, as is done in GMG, but I will, in a few days, have a 35x digital loupe sample to show in more detail the dot structure of the GMG dot proof.

Angus Pady

Angus, I believe that the whole concept of the Star Proof system is to use the final 1 bit TIFF plate files and proof them on an inkjet.

compose.com.hk/index.php/applications/proofing-solutions/star-proof/overview

The website address above gives the impression that Star Proof uses the actual screening that would be used on plate, within the *limitations* of an inkjet proofer, which can only proof the larger plate screen via a “scatter” of smaller inkjet droplets (larger dots made from many smaller dots). I believe that this is what Gordo was referring to as a “simulation”, it is not a true dot for dot reproduction. Some proofing RIP software can create a “simulation” halftone using the proofing RIP to create the halftones - or they can ingest prescreened 1 bit TIFF files from a plate RIP. This may also be adding confusion to the topic.

On a more general note, I believe that it is generally considered best practice to run the proofer at high symmetrical resolution such as 1440x1440 for an Epson x900 model proofer when proofing separated 1 bit TIFF plate files. This is of course slower than the more common 7x7 or 7x14 resolution settings common for “contone” inkjet proofing (which is not really contone). One also has to take into consideration that one is throwing 2400ppi or 2540ppi files at a proofing RIP, generally 4 or more separation files that are often imposed press sheets that take up a large physical area at the high plate resolution. Then the proofing RIP has to combine these seps into a composite, colour manage the file etc. This of course significantly slows down the entire proofing process compared to regular “contone” proofing.


Stephen Marsh
 
Last edited:
The good, vendor AngusPady has posted replies to this thread. I wish more vendors would do as much.
The disappointing aspect is he avoids answering valid questions about inkjet halftone dot proofers. Instead, the thread has been used as a platform to promote one system's solution and bash a competitor.

:-(
 
Last edited:
The original poster ask for a comparison between Kodak and inkjet systems. I was very clear and opinionated about what I feel, if that was bashing then I guess that's bashing. I think the Kodak system is antiquated and a dinosaur and that's my opinion.

I consider myself an independent colour management consultant before I call myself a vendor, I am in the fortunate position to be able to sell almost any rip/proofing solution. I am not tied to one but I support the ones that I feel will work best for my customer base.

Gordo, you made the comparison to the StarProof which I have now learned more about. I visited their website and learned about their solution through that exchange. I hope that others will learn from the exchange as well. Isn't that the point?

It's no secret that GMG is doing well and has a solid solution. But it's not going to work for everyone. The dots will not be as sharp as a traditional proof. It has it's weaknesses and strengths. I've tried to point out both.

We all have alliances, it would be naive to say otherwise. I would suspect that the many years you spent working for Kodak influences you in your options.

I will agree that this post has gotten away from the question and that is unfortunate.
 
I feel I'm flogging a dead horse, however, your (AngusPady) posts have given me some good ideas for the RE:print cartoons so, here goes:

RE:
The original poster ask for a comparison between Kodak and inkjet systems.

I don't think so. The OP wrote: "I am wondering if getting a higher end Proofing system such as the Kodak Approval would bring any further advantages to the DotProofing" The qualifier "such as" means he was using the Approval as an example of the type of proofer he's referring to rather than the specific brand he's considering.

RE:
I consider myself an independent colour management consultant before I call myself a vendor, I am in the fortunate position to be able to sell almost any rip/proofing solution. I am not tied to one but I support the ones that I feel will work best for my customer base.

Great! That's why I wrote in an earlier post: "You're a vendor (OK consultant that's able to sell devices) so you have more resources available to you to help us understand the capabilities of inkjet proofers to reveal halftone printing problems. Perhaps you could shed a light on that specific issue rather than bringing in other factors?"

So, as a consultant, can you answer the specific questions about halftone proofing on inkjet devices?

RE:
I would suspect that the many years you spent working for Kodak influences you in your options.

As far as the Approval is concerned, I was using one in a printshop before I ever worked for Creo/Kodak. I have no special love for Kodak or its products. I will say that I've been influenced by the engineers that I worked with at Creo.

RE:
I will agree that this post has gotten away from the question and that is unfortunate.

I don't know if that is true. The thread brings up questions about inkjet proofing for halftones. If that capability is a key purchase criteria - but if that type of device is not capable then inkjet proofing is not appropriate despite what benefits inkjet proofing may provide. If inkjet proofers are capable of reliable halftone dot proofing then their other benefits can be compared with thermal/laminated dot proofers and a decision made.

So again, but maybe think of me as a prospective customer and you the consultant that I've contracted to help me make a decision, can you answer my specific questions:
Do (any) inkjet dot proofers show the same rosette structures that will be in the final presswork?
Do they show artifacts like subject moiré, screening moiré, ribboning, sawtoothing, image integrity (e.g. screened text) as they will appear in the final presswork?
Do they introduce moiré that won't actually appear in the final presswork?

Once I've got that information I can discuss the other upsides and downsides of my proofing options and make an informed decision.
 
Gordo, I would appreciate it if you would refrain from personal comments such as "flogging a dead horse", it really isn't advancing the discussion in a positive way.

With that said, I have complied an image that shows a 50% dot on an inkjet and two press sheets. They are not all from the same job. But again they are all a 50% dot.

One is 175 lpi and the other is 133 lpi. I have said from the beginning that the dots created on an Inkjet are not as sharp and one will not be realistically showing a true dot for dot comparison if you are printing above 150lpi. kewlbigdan, you asked about spot color blends and 85-133l/s. You will have no issues proofing jobs at those line screens on an inkjet and you will have, in my opinion, much better control of the spot colors. The latest generation of Epson's X900 and the Canon's X400 and X450 will hit a huge number of spots very closely and that is with most current RIP's.

Dot comparison.jpg

The inkjet sample is 720x1440 and could be improved at a higher resolution. It was printed on an Epson. I do not have a Laminate proof sample but will keep my eyes open for one and will post one if I find one.
 
Thank you for the image Angus. Tints of a single primary or spot are of course “best case” - when one has two or more spots or CMYK rosette patterns, it obviously becomes more complex.


Stephen Marsh
 
Gordo, I would appreciate it if you would refrain from personal comments such as "flogging a dead horse", it really isn't advancing the discussion in a positive way.

If asking the same, some four times, very basic and simple questions about the functionality of inkjets for halftone printing still doesn't get a straight forward answer then, sorry, that's flogging a dead horse. It's obvious that the questions aren't ever going to get an answer - at least from you. And that's unfortunate.

So, I would suggest that the OP (kewlbigdan) ask those questions of their prospective suppliers, and if they don't get a clear answer and promise of performance for that functionality then assume that halftone dot proofing on an inkjet is not a viable or useful option. You may see halftone dots in the proof but they do not serve any real function from an actual dot proofing point of view.
 
Last edited:
Can you answer my specific questions:
1) Do (any) inkjet dot proofers show the same rosette structures that will be in the final presswork?
2) Do they show artifacts like subject moiré, screening moiré, ribboning, sawtoothing, image integrity (e.g. screened text) as they will appear in the final presswork?
3) Do they introduce moiré that won't actually appear in the final presswork?


1) Yes, inkjets will show the same rosette structures as the final presswork. I have been clear from the start, that inkjets do not have the same native resolution as a CTP device or a very expensive analog proofing device. But Inkjets are using the same 1 bit tiff that is used to generate the plates. It is rendering the dots from that file not a mathematical simulation. I have also pointed out that an inkjet halftone proof is best targeted to those that are looking for proofs 150 lpi and below. The OP mentioned 85-133 lpi. In my opinion inkjet proofing would be a great candidate for this line screen.

2) If moire is in the original dot structure generated by the 1 bit tiff, then an inkjet will also show it. Again, the inkjet is recreating the dots from the original 1 bit tiff files. Can any proof show ribbing and sawtoothing? Isn't that a press issue? Regarding image integrity. Absolutely, and I'd even go as far as to say, with a higher degree of colour accuracy compared to "traditional proofing". Screen text below 4 points would be more difficult for a device that has a lower resolution. I'd also challenge a press trying to register 4 point screen type. I have attached an image of 4 point type, NOT screened. I don't have a sample of that, to show the resolution of the inkjet at the small type size.

It is also important to not that some analog proofing devices will show a much sharper resolution and representation of the dot then what can be achieved on press. This is problematic as the expectations are set too high and the customer will be disappointed.

3) I have not seen an inkjet proof, from a 1 bit tiff, on a high-end proofing RIP to generate moire that is not the final printed presswork.

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.

I will say, this horse is just getting started. Inkjet dot proofing will continue to improve as inkjets technology also improves. The bigger question is this, where is the future headed? Are the manufactures of proofing systems investing millions of R&D into technologies such as inkjet printing and proofing RIP's or are they investing into the traditional analog proofing devices such as those from Kodak. Where will we be in a few years? Will you be investing in old technology or investing in future technology.

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.

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. ;-)

Dot compare.jpg
 
Thanks.

RE:
Can any proof show ribbing and sawtoothing? Isn't that a press issue?

"Ribonning" happens when a thin line (a thickness less than the space between halftone dots) that's not a 100% solid is halftone screened. The line is broken up and looks like a twisted ribbon. You see that often in ads for cars.
Ribboning:

Ribboning_zpsdcc5400b.jpg


Affectonlines_zps8248f2eb.jpg


"Sawtoothing" (sometimes called staircasing) occurs when the side of a tone is at an angle relative to the halftone screen. Instead of the edge of the shape being smooth it is broken up by the screen and appears ragged like the teeth of a saw.

Sawtoothing:

Sawtoothing_zps42486fad.jpg


Both issues are mainly low halftone LPI issues related to the screening. They are not press related.

The Kodak Approval that I worked with would show moiré that didn't show up on press because the media stretched slightly as it went through the proofer - which introduced the moiré.
The Creo Spectrum that I used didn't have that problem because the proofing media was fixed to a rotating drum so it was much more effective at delivering an accurate dot proof.

Of course switching to FM screening eliminated the need for a dot proofer entirely.
 
Last edited:

PressWise

A 30-day Fix for Managed Chaos

As any print professional knows, printing can be managed chaos. Software that solves multiple problems and provides measurable and monetizable value has a direct impact on the bottom-line.

“We reduced order entry costs by about 40%.” Significant savings in a shop that turns about 500 jobs a month.


Learn how…….

   
Back
Top