• Open Menu Close Menu
  • Apple
  • Shopping Bag
  • Apple
  • Mac
  • iPad
  • iPhone
  • Watch
  • TV
  • Music
  • Support
  • Search apple.com
  • Shopping Bag

Lists

Open Menu Close Menu
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Lists hosted on this site
  • Email the Postmaster
  • Tips for posting to public mailing lists
Re: Dot Simulation
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Dot Simulation


  • Subject: Re: Dot Simulation
  • From: Ray Maxwell <email@hidden>
  • Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 10:35:37 -0800

Hi Roger,

More than ten years ago...I was the color scientist at Creo that worked with Imation, Kodak, Dupont, and Fuji to get the color right on the Creo Spectrum dot proofer.

The proofer produces a dot on the proof for each and every dot on the plate. It does a very accurate job of predicting moire that will appear on the press.

However, the dot on the proof may be a slightly different size to correct for a different dot gain on the press vs the proofing material. The pigments used in the proofing materials have spectral characteristics that are very close to the pigments used in standard printing inks.

Personally...I predicted that with Square Spot, most printers would move to stochastic screens. If the screen frequencies are chosen very carefully, there is no chance of moire. The screens are not random. They are designed very carefully so that the spacial frequencies of one color dose not "beat" with the spacial frequencies of another.

With very good stochastic screens, a contone proof can be a very accurate predictor of color viewed in a D50 viewing booth. Note that most inkjet pigments are not spectrally the same as the pigments used on press. Of course the contone proof is much less expensive to produce.

There are many printers who are printing everything from annual reports to yellow pages using stochastic screens. Many printers no longer use AM screens. Note that stochastic screens require a very accurate CTP head.

When you use the finer stochastic screens there is good news and bad news. The good news is that they are more stable on press than an AM screen. The bad news is that they are very stable and cannot be "moved" as much on press as a AM screen. This means that you have to make the plates correctly and not depend on tuning them on press.

My opinions are my own. I am now retired and do not speak in any way for Creo or Kodak.

Ray Maxwell

Co-Host of "Maxwell's House" on Leo Laporte's "www.twit.tv"



Roger wrote:
Marco,

Even Creo Spectrum CTP, for example, which doubles as a CMYK dot proofer,
cannot make proofs using the same exact dot as on the plate, because of
needed color adjustment on the proof to match a certain press condition. And
I must say, some prepress houses are adamant about showing dot on their
proofs to their clients, especially in the garment industry where, as was
noted here, moirés naturally occurs. For those prepress houses, contone
proofs are not an option, unfortunately.


BTW, I was told that stochastic printing completely eliminates any possible
moiré. Can anybody confirm that there is any truth to this?

Roger

Unless a dot proof is made from exactly the same engine that is used to
make
the final plates, its usefulness is very limited, and the simulation
very
approximate. If not done this way, you're not going to see the exact
same
dot structure that is ending up on press and whether or not it may
generate
unwanted effects like moiré.

As for appearance, which is what most of us this side of platemaking
are
interested in, contone proofs are more than sufficient to predict the
visual
results on the final printed sheet.

Marco Ugolini


 _______________________________________________
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

_______________________________________________
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


References: 
 >Re: Dot Simulation (From: Mike Strickler <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Dot Simulation (From: Marco Ugolini <email@hidden>)
 >RE: Dot Simulation (From: Roger <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: Re: Colorsync-users Digest, Vol 6, Issue 5
  • Next by Date: Re: Dot Simulation
  • Previous by thread: RE: Dot Simulation
  • Next by thread: Re: Dot Simulation
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread