Technology I'd like to see developed

[gordo]

We're entering the 2nd decade of the 21st century and there's still room for improvement. Maybe you've got some ideas for the vendors who frequent this forum?

Here's a few technologies I'd like to see developed:

1) A desktop inkjet printer that sells for under $200 that:
a) Has a straight through paper path option so that I can print on heavy weight paper
b) Can print a page of any length
c) Can print black only - even when the other ink cartridges are empty
d) Can clean just the nozzle that's blocked (rather than waste ink cleaning the nozzles that aren't blocked)
e) Can use profiles other than sRGB (not critical but nice option) so that it can be used for basic color proofing

2) Inkjet proofers that don't dump the proofs on the floor.

3) A press manufacturer evaluate and test Erik Nikkanen's ITB.

4) An alternative to FTP. Creo had developed a product called "Tokens" which was great but never marketed.

5) A desktop file creation overseer/manager. I.e. Designers would set the target for a job (e.g. GRACoL 7) and the software would organize color management and application parameters to constrain my design so that it conforms to the needs of that destination. The overseer/manager could also accept custom parameters that might be shop specific. Perhaps it could be scaled so that its tolerances would be widest with no destination targeted and then it would monitor and constrain when a target is specified. The intent is to eliminate preflighting a job to find errors and correct them after file creation.

6) Press side scanners that scan the entire sheet and can compare the press sheet to the proof in relation to the data on the plate. The intent is to eliminate the color bar and to close the loop between the file, prepress, and the pressroom.

I'm sure you folks who are still in the trenches have many more ideas for vendors to explore.

best, gordon p

 

[Lukas Engqvist]

Thank you gordo, yes that would be nice. Here is one I been hoping for.

In-rip -sharpening, since it is the rasterisation/screening proces that makes the need for unsharp mask I believe sharpening should be there. Since the risa of PDFx4 it means flattening does not need to occur before rip, wich is essential as it would have to be applied before flattening, just as with trapping there ought to be a possiblity for the designer to say this image does not need sharpening or needs special attention for the correct amount. The amount parameter ought to be dependant on the screen.

 

[Keith]

We're entering the 2nd decade of the 21st century and there's still room for improvement. Maybe you've got some ideas for the vendors who frequent this forum?

Here's a few technologies I'd like to see developed:

1) A desktop inkjet printer that sells for under $200 that:
a) Has a straight through paper path option so that I can print on heavy weight paper
b) Can print a page of any length
c) Can print black only - even when the other ink cartridges are empty
d) Can clean just the nozzle that's blocked (rather than waste ink cleaning the nozzles that aren't blocked)
e) Can use profiles other than sRGB (not critical but nice option) so that it can be used for basic color proofing

2) Inkjet proofers that don't dump the proofs on the floor.

I have an Epson Photo Stylus RX595 that I bought for the purpose of printing invoices. It has proven to be far more versatile than that and cost me $100-

-When my Ilumina was down, the Epson RX595 printed 100 A-7 envelopes with the address on the flap. It took forever but I had already spent the same amount of time fighting the Ilumina. And it turned out great.

-I do a lot of photo prints. And I hate firing up my big ole 44" Canon (sounds like a weapon!) just to print one photo. I get that alot. So I cut some 8.5"x11" sheets from my roll of photo paper and the Epson does almost as good of a job as my wide format. Customers don't know the difference.

-And lastly, it can print on heavy card stock. I did 500 cards on 120lb cover (330gsm). My customer is an illustrator (he uses an ink pen NOT a program) and I knew he would prefer that flat look of real ink on uncoated paper instead of the "spot coated" look of toner on uncoated paper. I was impressed. The image was a large area of solid black with a red line. Yes, it did take a half hour and probably $20 in ink, but again, it looked good!

Now, back to topic:

I'm all digital. It would be nice to see a die cutter for these short and fast runs of mine. Perhaps something more along the lines of a plotter so you won't need any dies which defeats the purpose of short run digital. It'd be nice to make door hangers here. I know you can buy the preconverted paper but it's expensive and a pain in the a&& to order. So, I farm it out to someone that has a Heidelberg Windmill. The setup sometimes costs more than the job sometimes. Oh and it'd be nice if the machine didn't cost a bajillion dollars.

 

[Deleted member 16349]

Here's a few technologies I'd like to see developed:

3) A press manufacturer evaluate and test Erik Nikkanen's ITB.

best, gordon p

Gordon,

I'll change this to be a few technologies I would like to be involved in developing with vendors.

Sure, the ITB for a start. First because it is potentially a low cost solution to the density control problem which can be applied to legacy presses, but also it would force a rethinking of how the process works. It would fundamentally change things. That is why it is so hard to get this going. Too many experts and gurus have an investment and belief in a way of thinking that is going to be shown to be faulty.

The ITB is only a start. There are a lot more things that would be of interest to develop that will move the process ahead.

I would like to be involved with developing new roller train concepts that print with consistent density top to bottom and side to side, similar to the level of performance of the Anicolor concept, which prints without mechanical or starvation ghosting. I would avoid the anilox inking concept but would have a positive ink feed system that was able to use any conventional inks. This press design would have less variation than the Anicolor concept.

Developing a digital (binary) ink fountain that costs less than conventional ink fountains but performs with higher accuracy. The ink key has only two positions, open or closed. The feed rate is determined by the timing of the open to close conditions. Manroland patented this concept but the patent has expired. The great advantages of this concept is that high accuracy can be obtained in the low coverage range. The concept is also much less expensive to manufacture since it is much simpler to automate have only two positions for the ink key than automating the proportional positioning that has been used for the last 150 years. Controlling a solenoid is much cheaper than controlling a stepping motor. The ink flow through a single ink key gap opening is much more predictable than the ink flow through a variable ink key opening.

Developing accurate ink key presetting algorithms would be interesting since existing ones are based on faulty thinking that have relatively large errors.

Rethinking the prepress process would be of interest. Looking at the process from the start, when an image becomes the target to reproducing that image in the final print. I would avoid any reference to dot gain, compensation curves, or gray balance and just be interested in developing the best way to define the target image and the clearest and most predictable way to ensure the print matches that target.

Will it happen? Probably not. Not because these are difficult things to do but because the industry has given up thinking that fundamental improvements can be made. Press manufacturers would rather go bankrupt than to change directions and experiment with new thinking. Researchers are more interested in getting their name on numerous technical papers than on solving fundamental or practical problems. Printers want to wait until it is safe when someone else has proven a concept first.

But it is nice to have a wish list even though one can not get everything one wants. If I just got the ITB going, I would be happy.

 

[claude72]

We're entering the 2nd decade of the 21st century

Euhhh... sorry gordo, but 2010 is the last year of the first decade of the 21st century...

... and we will enter the 2nd decade the 1st of January 2011!!!

Happy new year to everybody.

 

[Joe]

Euhhh... sorry gordo, but 2010 is the last year of the first decade of the 21st century...

... and we will enter the 2nd decade the 1st of January 2011!!!

Happy new year to everybody.

[offtopic]

Sorry claude72 but...

Although any period of ten years is a decade, a convenient and frequently referenced interval is based on the tens digit of the calendar year, as in using 1960's to represent the decade from 1960 to 1969.

Decade: Definition from Answers.com

So 2000 was the first year of the decade while 2009 was the last.

[/offtopic]

 

[claude72]

[offtopic]

Although any period of ten years is a decade, a convenient and frequently referenced interval is based on the tens digit of the calendar year, as in using 1960's to represent the decade from 1960 to 1969.

The first year of our calendar was not the year "0" but the year "1", so the first decade went from year 1 to year 10, the first century from year 1 to year 100 and the first millennium from year 1 to year 1000...

... and the 21st century goes from 2001 to 2100, the 3rd millennium from 2001 to 3000, and the 1st decade of the century/millennium from 2001 to 2010.


I agree that the 1960's go from 1960 to 1969, and the 2000's from 2000 to 2009, but it's a different numbering, and mainly it is not an ordinal numbering...

... and if you want to give to that kind of decade an ordinal number referring to its place in the century, you will have a problem, because the day of the decade changing is not the same than the day of the century changing, with a difference of 1 year... so the "2000's" decade begun in the 20th century and finishes in the 21st century, and it means that it is both:
- the last decade of the 20th century, having only 1 year,
- and the first decade of the 21st century, having only 9 years...
... and it means that a century has 11 decades (1 of 9 years, 9 of 10 years, and 1 of 1 year)...

... but a century has only 10 decades, and a decade has 10 years, and a "decade" having only (1 or) 9 years is not a decade!!! so, the "2000's" is not the first decade of the 21st century.


So, that's OK to say that the 2000's are just finished and the 2010's begin, without any ordinal numbering in the century...
... but if you want to ordinally number the decade in the century, you must synchronize the beginning of the decade with the beginning of the century in order to have 10-years decades, and then the first decade of the 21st century will finish 31st December 2010 and the 2nd decade will begin the 1st January 2011.

 

[Joe]

I agree that the 1960's go from 1960 to 1969, and the 2000's from 2000 to 2009,

I agree.

 

[gordo]

Originally Posted by claude72
I agree that the 1960's go from 1960 to 1969, and the 2000's from 2000 to 2009, - Joe; agree.

Yeah but what technology would you like to see developed? Or has prepress and pressroom hit the development wall?

i.e. Everyone is happy with what they now have and can't see any more development?

i.e. "Everything that can be invented has been invented." (Anecdotally misattributed to Charles H. Duell, Commisioner, US Patent Office, 1899)

gordon p

 

[PetePress]

I'm all digital. It would be nice to see a die cutter for these short and fast runs of mine. Perhaps something more along the lines of a plotter so you won't need any dies which defeats the purpose of short run digital. It'd be nice to make door hangers here. I know you can buy the preconverted paper but it's expensive and a pain in the a&& to order. So, I farm it out to someone that has a Heidelberg Windmill. The setup sometimes costs more than the job sometimes. Oh and it'd be nice if the machine didn't cost a bajillion dollars.

What about the Kongsberg tables? Have seen them running smoothly together with some digital equipment.

Kongsberg Cutting Tables for packaging and sign & display professionals

Might wanna check them out. Saves a bunch on development time...

 

[pcmodem]

Photographs can be produced digitally at your local photo center without dots and with great quality. We should be able to come up with a concept for doing this same thing in larger scale on a Press or whatever it might be called when it is invented.

 

[gordo]

Photographs can be produced digitally at your local photo center without dots and with great quality. We should be able to come up with a concept for doing this same thing in larger scale on a Press or whatever it might be called when it is invented.

Continuous tone (no halftone screen) lithography has been around since the 19th century. It's called the collotype process. Not many shops still do it because it's difficult. Black Box Collotype in Chicago is one and Benrido in Kyoto, Japan is another. Quite a few pictorial books printed in the 1920s - 40s were printed as duotones using cthe collotype process and in the 1950s it was used by the New York Graphic Society for their fine art reproductions.

The closest, and easier process, to achieving a continuous tone appearance using a halftone would be 10 micron FM printing. Even with a loupe the dots are hard to see.

best, gordon p

 

[claude72]

Yeah but what technology would you like to see developed? Or has prepress and pressroom hit the development wall?

Gordo, my opinion in that particular domain is that a big part of the technology exists only to compensate the incompetence of the users, at any step of the process...
... but it's like the big question of the hen and the egg... which came first? the egg or the hen? and in a same manner I still wonder whether a new technology arrives to compensate the existing incompetence, or if the technology creates incompetences because the technology handles more and more things, letting the human become more and more lazy and ignorant...

... and the rest of the technology is made to suppress jobs and create unemployment

But something is sure: (almost) all technologies are first made to allow the editors/creators to earn more and more money! and as both human's errors/stupidity and human's cupidity are infinite, they always will be an infinite engine to make technology go always further!!!



Ok... to answer your question, what I would like to see today is:
- first: just the actual existing technology working correctly as it should, meaning simply having existing pre-press softwares that work correctly with no bug and really doing the job that the vendor promised,
- and second: a technology which will not become obsolete before having been completely paid by the users!!!...

... meaning something like a mondial law obliging the softwares editors to keep a sufficient amount of time between two upgrades, something like minimum 3 years -or better 5 years-,
1° allowing the editors to work seriously on their products, having then time to optimize them and correct all the bugs (instead of releasing quickly more and more heavy beta-softs not finished and not fully tested, just to earn more and more money to the detriment of the users)
and 2° allowing the users to earn some money with their softwares before being obliged to buy new versions.

 

[Deleted member 16349]

Yeah but what technology would you like to see developed? Or has prepress and pressroom hit the development wall?

i.e. Everyone is happy with what they now have and can't see any more development?

i.e. "Everything that can be invented has been invented." (Anecdotally misattributed to Charles H. Duell, Commisioner, US Patent Office, 1899)

gordon p

Gordon,

I think this is the general attitude that we are at the limit. I think that is totally absurd but from what I have seen, that seems to be the situation. When printers respond to some new view, often their response is, "I have never heard that before" as if all things have been know before. There is no room for new ideas in their view.

I have looked at a lot of web sites of graphic arts institutions and also engineering schools that are specialized in printing technology. In general, they have given up on developing the process further. They are interested in developing technologies for the printing of electronic components. That is fine and much can be done with applying an engineering approach to that effort but what I also see is that these engineering schools, even the ones in Germany that supply the engineers to the press manufacturers there, have totally missed the fundamental understanding of the process. Their emphasis on technology and not theoretical science is obvious and has totally limited their ability to develop new technologies. It is a shame that so many young people get their PhD degrees and still have no clue about how the process actually works.

I came from an engineering school (U of T) that was very theoretical in its view of how to look at problems and processes. Actually they did not teach technology that much because their view was that technologies will always change. What they felt was important was the understanding of the physics and math behind the potential problems one would encounter in the future. So there was a great emphasis on looking at problems from "first principles".

So when I look at printing issues, I try to understand the physics. What are the rules? It turned out that the science to understand printing had not been developed well and I found that I had to develop it myself in order to think through issues with a higher chance of predictability. In fact it was better not to trust the existing knowledge base because it was filed with a surprisingly large amount of misinformation.

Some things are very very wrong in this industry. How is it that I have been able to analyze and understand so many fundamental issues with regards to printing performance and in such a relatively short time, while hundreds and maybe thousands of engineering and technical people, educated in institutions specializing in the graphic arts or even in press design for almost a hundred years have not understood these issues. It is not because I am smarter but it is because I have used different methods to look at the problems. I have asked different kinds of questions that lead in different directions.

The institutions in the graphics arts community are producing technologists and not scientists and they can not think deeply and comprehensively on printing process issues. They may be able to design new technology but they will not understand why it does not work so well.

As the performance demands on the process have become more and more critical, the only way to improve performance is through better science. Better science leads to better technology. This gets back to your question related to improvements in performance. We are stuck but not because things can not be done but because of the failure of the printing industry to develop valid and predictable science that technology developers can use to guide the innovation of better technologies.

Looking for help from the existing closed clubs of sleepy technologists that populate TAGA, RIT, PIA (GATF), IARIGAI, and many other groups, will not result in the needed science to move the process ahead. They have avoided the kind of thinking that is needed now and now they are not capable of supplying solutions. They may be good with the craft issues but not with the science.

As you know, I think there is a lot of room for improvement. Science can be taught and demonstrated. It is not so difficult. I just need a vendor who wants to find out. One who wants to develop the ITB and go ahead from there.

 

[gordo]

[SNIP] In fact it was better not to trust the existing knowledge base because it was filed with a surprisingly large amount of misinformation.[SNIP]

That is so very true as I discovered while working with the product development engineers during the early days of Creo. Of course, that degree of printer-side misinformation, as well as the gaps in knowledge about the fundamentals of the print manufacturing process, created opportunities which were exploited quite effectively by some vendor marketing people.

Also, if the users do not demand/request specific solutions from vendors, or have no idea what they think they need, then it's likely that the vendors will drive the industry in the direction that is in the vendor's, rather than customer's, best interest.

best, gordon p

 

[Keith]

Erik Nikkanen, Gordo- I guess I'm out of the industry loop, but what misinformation are you referring to? I've ran into a lot of older printers who are disgruntled and stuck in their ways; but what are you saying , specifically, is wrong with the industry? I'm just curious.

And Petepress, that Kongsberg Cutting table looks awesome. But probably costs a bajillion dollars. Out of most small digital printer's league.

 

[Deleted member 16349]

I've ran into a lot of older printers who are disgruntled and stuck in their ways; but what are you saying , specifically, is wrong with the industry? I'm just curious.

Keith,

It has to do with the type of knowledge the industry has. There is a lot of practical knowledge of what is needed to print jobs. This is in the form of craft skill and industrial knowledge that GATF is very good at. But along with that type of knowledge there are a lot of descriptions of the process that are not true, are Myths and are so vague that no improvement in existing performance can be obtained.

What is missing is a well developed theoretical knowledge base which describes the rules of how the process works. These would be rules that are specific enough that you can use them to envision future technologies that will have predictable performance results. If you have 50 years of observations of how printing works, you still do not have a theoretical view of the process.

People often say that theory is nice but in the real world things are different. This is an uneducated view. If a theory does not describe how a process works in the real world, then you do not have a theory. The whole point in having theory is to have a model of how things actually work. That is why theories have to be tested to try and make them fail. If they stand up to the test, then they become very practical tools to develop the next generation of technology.

In the printing industry, what people call theory is little more than observations or conjecture that is never tested to see if it is valid. It is just put out there without question and over time, people think that it is true. Then they use that faulty invalid theory as a basis for more faulty knowledge.

Development of technologies in the printing industry often is done by trial and error and not by a well developed theoretical basis. This is one reason why it is so expensive to develop technologies that then don't perform as well as hoped. And hope is the key word here because the developers can not really envision what their technology will do. The goal of any developer is to make the previous technology obsolete.

The situation is very much different in other industries. In the aerospace and computer industries, the scientists and engineers know the potential performance before the technology is built. They know because the have science being developed well ahead of the technological advances. Because of science, the developers can see several generations of technologies ahead. In printing the developers can not see the future and in fact they have a difficult time understanding the present.

Frankly there is not enough money in printing to attract the best minds so the industry has had to do the best it could with what it had. We are just going through an historical transformation where craft is being replaced with technology but the science has not been developed well enough to move the process forward. So it is hitting a wall.

At the same time, digital presses are being developed and this will push out the traditional printers in some areas. Electronic media will do the same. So how does the industry fight back? Well it does nothing. Press manufacturers continue with basically old technology and occasionally develop technologies that are not real game changers. Large printers with sales in the billions of dollars can not find a few thousand dollars to do science. The managers in this industry have no vision and are not able to find out what is needed to make their companies succeed.

I don't expect printers to develop most of the new science but they could have done more. The real failure is with the graphic arts institutions and schools and engineering communities. They failed to provide knowledge that can be used to develop the process into the future. They have been at it for over 70 years and they still can't explain the process in specific ways that can be used to develop future technologies. They want to be seen as experts based on their experience and they hate the idea of theory that solves practical problems. They do not want solutions but want to continue being indispensable experts at the industry's expense.

Look at their business models. They require the continual use of their products and services to over come faulty processes. If the processes were fixed up, they would be out of business. Subconsciously they understand this even if they don't realize it. They don't want to become obsolete. Where will they go? Who will respect them then if everything works well. Think about it.

 

[gordo]

Erik Nikkanen, Gordo- I guess I'm out of the industry loop, but what misinformation are you referring to? I've ran into a lot of older printers who are disgruntled and stuck in their ways; but what are you saying , specifically, is wrong with the industry? I'm just curious.

I'll give you just one, small, example which directly impacted me and the company I worked for at the time (Creo).

In 2003 PIA/GATF published a research and technology study titled "Stochastic and Hybrid Screening Printability Study" It was conducted by Gregory M. Radencic (ISBN 0-88362-436-2)

There were several errors, faulty logic, and misinformation in this particular report but I'll highlight just one.

On the question of color gamut the report states "Marketing claims suggest that stochastic printing algorithms increase the color gamut of lithographic printing. Based on prior experiences of mapping color gamuts, it has been determined that color gamut cannot be increased due to the limitations of the ink sets as well as paper." "For this study, the color gamut area was calculated using a two-dimensional formula." "The results show that there is very little difference among the solid colors, but there is a difference in the midtone results. The difference noticed in the midtones is caused by the difference in tone value increase."

Both the testing methods and the conclusions were such hogwash that it was "the straw that broke the camel's back" and Creo discussed with PIA/GATF the removal of support of that organization (equipment and software donations).
As a result, the following year PIA/GATF redid their study and retracted their previous report. There was also a research management change.

The good news is that in this particular case they recanted. But only because a major supporter protested forcefully. That seldom happens. There are many other such examples of print information published in the literature (not just that of PIA/GATF) that is based on hearsay, word of mouth, tradition, and/or faulty test methodology or even no testing at all. The information published gets quoted and referenced and becomes yet another industry "axiom" without substantive foundation.

best, gordon p

 

[Shawn]

4) An alternative to FTP. Creo had developed a product called "Tokens" which was great but never marketed.

Hi Gordo

The latest beta of Insite uses "secure links" for requesting approvals and doing uploads that are very much like the tokens. I've been using them and they are pretty neat. They don't do downloads yet, though.

Aside from that there are some "cloud" computing technologies like Dropbox that give you some of the same types of file transfer options. You can share files and folders and email invitations to people. And when files are uploaded it will automatically notify you. You can get 2GB for free or upgrade to 50 or 100GB for a few bucks a month.
https://www.dropbox.com/referrals/NTM1NDU3MTc5

Shawn

 

[Deleted member 16349]

In 2003 PIA/GATF published a research and technology study titled "Stochastic and Hybrid Screening Printability Study" It was conducted by Gregory M. Radencic (ISBN 0-88362-436-2)

There were several errors, faulty logic, and misinformation in this particular report but I'll highlight just one.

best, gordon p

Gordon,

In 1996 I got the revelation that the knowledge base in the printing industry was almost useless for developing new technology. Besides the ink/water balance - density variation problem, which I basically understood in the late 1980's I found out in 1996 that a very simple relationship related to presetting ink keys was not understood. I wasted three years and a lot of money partially related to believing the Myth that ink consumption was related to image area on the plate. After finding out that that was not true, I decided never to accept printing industry knowledge without some kind of analysis on my own.

It is so easy to make mistakes in developing new technology when the knowledge base is crap. Lots of time and money is wasted. The other problem is that one can not get support from the industry for good ideas because people in the industry have been educated poorly.