Re: colorsync-users digest, Vol 2 #28 - 13 msgs
Re: colorsync-users digest, Vol 2 #28 - 13 msgs
- Subject: Re: colorsync-users digest, Vol 2 #28 - 13 msgs
- From: Jim Mitchell <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 10:28:22 -0600
- Organization: The Richards Group
Henrik Holmegaard wrote: (a lot)
>
The way I see it, the Kodak Polychrome Approval is a nice device, but
>
it has some drawbacks, too.
>
>
The Approval is basically a dye sublimation process, just like the
>
86XX and 9000 models from Kodak Professional and Kodak Polychrome.
>
The difference is that a perforated vacuum bed holds the receiver
>
firmly in place (it travels four times back and forth in the small
>
subs which rules out proofing of trapping etc), while four foil
>
panels are pulled across the receiver in turn, and heated with lasers
>
to create a dye sublimation process. The resolution of the dye
>
sublimation process is 1800 - 2450 dpi, compared to the 300 dpi of
>
the smaller subs.
>
>
At its simplest, if the idea is to proof on plain paper, it's
>
logistically not that easy to do. We're talking of a very expensive
>
device, and naturally a lot of workstations will be printing to it.
>
If the workstations target different papers, then there's a problem,
>
because the Approval main unit has no automated paper handling
>
mechanism. An operator has to pull the receiver with foils out of the
>
main unit, carry it to the laminator, put the right paper into the
>
laminator, and complete the proof generation process. Also you can't
>
put newsprint into the laminator because it doesn't take heat well
>
(it's unstable and creases).
>
>
To profile an Approval device, this is what you have to do, that is,
>
create a final proof - on a specific paper. Each time you apply the
>
proof profile, you replicate the workflow (carry the receiver to the
>
laminator, line up in the queue after Jack and the new guy whose name
>
you forget, look on the shelf for the production paper, put it into
>
the laminator, and there you are). Any differences caused by dot
>
patterns (and the Harlequin RIP was supposed to be able to replicate
>
production screening) comes second.
>
>
When I last tested the Approval, the RIP didn't accept ICC device
>
profiles. At that time Kodak Polychrome had been working on support
>
for ICC device profiles for a while. Maybe it's finished now.
>
>
As I recall the foils were intended to match SWOP inks, and four
>
foils were implemented with two to come. The idea was to reserve gold
>
and silver PMS foils for the two remaining spindles as these colors
>
can't be simulated in any process systems. This idea might have
>
changed, too, with a wide gamut solution for all six spindles, in
>
which case you run into other problems as the ICC world is still a
>
four channel one. Probably when Kodak worked with Quark on the Quark
>
CMS and its hi-fi implementation, the idea may have been that this
>
workflow landscape would change faster than it has.
>
>
When you look at the device, it's a very good idea, but it's not
>
really logistically finished. The paper handling has to be automated,
>
the RIP has to work, and the six spindle solution either has to have
>
a PMS to 'ApprovalFoils.ICC' conversion utility for the non-metallics
>
to be simulated (something along the lines of the GretagMacbeth
>
ColorPicker, I'd say), or it has to have a solution for six foil wide
>
gamut proofing.
>
>
Kodak Polychrome is also maybe the strongest proponent of device link
>
profiles, and again device link profiles are OK as such, but in
>
relation to a proofer like the Approval they just don't make the
>
workflow any easier, rather much more difficult and complex.
>
>
I never got around to checking this out, but third party
>
implementations for the Approval have been in the press in the past,
>
including implementations from Scitex and Heidelberg.
>
Have you looked at Approval lately? ICC workflow on the Approval XP4 has become
much easier. Your comment suggests that one would have to create an ICC profile for
every possible stock. That process is just not needed. Profile to a standard
proofing system and you'll be in the same position as you would be using film based
proofs and their transfer systems. The paper issue is a moot point, everybody has
to run their proof through a laminator of some kind even if it's just to put a
cover coat on it for protection. The Polaproofer can image to many different paper
stocks, but when it can't because of paper surface structure, you use a transfer
sheet. And by the way the standard Polaproof laminate material adds about 3% yellow
dot value to a back ground compared to their transfer material. Right now, I'm
running a Polaproof with ICC profiles getting great results. I have also ordered an
Approval XP4 and I expect the same results from it.
Jim Mitchell
Color Systems Manager
The Richards Group