RE: Inkjet Ink restrictions
RE: Inkjet Ink restrictions
- Subject: RE: Inkjet Ink restrictions
- From: "Mark Rice" <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 07:25:55 -0400
Unfortunately, I see a strange split in the inkjet world. Almost no
manufacturers make RIPs - it is left to 3rd party RIP manufacturers. So I
doubt that HP is going to convince Onyx to give something up. The RIP
manufacturers, strangely, seem to have no interest in resolving this "art"
of creating initial ink restrictions as the base for creating a profile.
It's all done by eyeball, with predictably unpredictable results.
I would like to see a method of generating initial ink restrictions based on
density values and some form of gray balance throughout the linearization
range. This would be somewhat difficult, as different materials have
different ink absorption and drying characteristics. But some research by
those REALLY SMART GUYS could figure out an algorithm, I believe.
In the photographic world of the Lambda and Lightjet, Fuji and Kodak publish
aim point densities for their different photographic materials. There are
specified photographic density aim points for every step on the scale. The
RIP then does the best job it can to achieve these target densities. This
has several added benefits:
1. It means that ICC profiles generated on one machine will work on another
machine.
2. It means that one can re-linearize without changing the target densities,
thus eliminating the need to re-characterize.
3. It means that nearly all machines in the world are calibrated to a nearly
identical standard, and can print the same image nearly identically. A
linearization on an inkjet machine will typically create green-cyan shadows,
and magenta highlights. A linearization on a Lambda will create a nearly
perfect gray scale throughout the range!
4. It means that if you have 3 Lambdas or Lighjets in your working
environment, one can be substituted for the other with nearly no color
change.
Those four points seem to be a big workflow incentive! Now how can we get
RIP makers to work on it?
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger Breton [mailto:email@hidden]
Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2008 4:58 PM
To: Mark Rice; ColorSync
Subject: Re: Inkjet Ink restrictions
Mark, you have a point. If inkjet is going to become mainstream then it
should also be part of the total color equation. I'll be the HP people have
a leg up in these developments with their inkjet lines of printers. And so
must Canon and, of course, Epson. But in the beginning of the ICC, I was
told, every company had to give up a little of their best kept commercial
secrets in order to use some commonly agreed upon color transforms. Do you
see history repeat itself with inkjet printers manufacturers? For the sake
of advancing color management?
> Roger, I agree with you that the ICC process should not be limited to one
> perspective. I believe the poster feels the same. However, if we want to
> have our profiles work in the real world realm of color output, we have to
> get serious about inkjet. With Donnelly developing its own 1200 dpi inkjet
> web presses, and HP's expressed intention of replacing all electrostatic
> (laser printers and copiers) with high speed, wide pass inkjets, and on
the
> horizon, two-D matrix inkjet heads that can blast a full color page 200
> times per minute at desktop prices, it appears to me that most of the
color
> output devices of the future will be inkjet. Electrostatic is going away
> gradually and will accelerate soon. So let's not keep our heads in the
sand
> - color management has more to do with generating good real world color
than
> academic equations about transforms. If we have customers, results are
what
> count - not how we get there.
>
> Mark
Roger Breton
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden