Ernst (et al), I wanted to point out a key point about averaging: it’s more about capturing variability in the print than in the instrument. If a printer was “perfect” you would really only need to collect 1 measurement per color patch. However, printers are not perfect. They make color by applying some kind of liquid, paste or powdered colorant, that is either shot out of a nozzle that is flying across a motorized rail, or is dribbled through a maze of rollers, or squeezed through a screen, or absorbed into a metal honeycomb and then transferred onto a plate, which is then transferred onto a substrate. Without even getting in either the variability related to curing, or the substrate consistency, speed, and transport alignment, you probably get the point that it’s not easy to print the same exact color twice, no matter what the technology (some more challenging than others). Even aqueous inkjet, which is now very mature and very repeatable, will demonstrate some variation. In my experience, variation is less likely to appear in adjacent dots of ink (where the same ink heads for the same inks are on or off). Variation is more noticeable when the inkjet heads need to stop, and then print again, somewhere else, on a different part of the media, or on a different piece of media. By printing/measuring/averaging 2 (or more) sheets, you are collecting data that better illustrates that variability of your process. Do you need absolutely need to average multiple samples? Of course not. Especially n the case of inkjet, the difference might be futile. That being said, for proofing at least, it’s all about the futile differences and averaging might get you an extra .1 or .15 dE. So, in response to your comment (reworded) "is the multi-sampling that instruments do a reasonable replacement for averaging multiple sheets?”.... I would say no. While it does help the instrument getter a better picture of the patch your measuring (and help it pick out one patch from another). Averaging multiple sheets is more about capturing the variation between that patch and the next time or place that it is printed. Marc On May 22, 2011, at 3:03 PM, colorsync-users-request@lists.apple.com wrote:
Send Colorsync-users mailing list submissions to colorsync-users@lists.apple.com
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/colorsync-users or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to colorsync-users-request@lists.apple.com
You can reach the person managing the list at colorsync-users-owner@lists.apple.com
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Colorsync-users digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: iSis was Re: Any comments or feedback on i!Publish? (Lou Dina) (Ernst Dinkla) 2. Re: iSis was Re: Any comments or feedback on i!Publish? (Lou Dina) (dpascale)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1 Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 14:07:19 +0200 From: Ernst Dinkla <info@pigment-print.com> Subject: Re: iSis was Re: Any comments or feedback on i!Publish? (Lou Dina) To: "colorsync-users@lists.apple.com >> ColorSync Users Mailing List" <colorsync-users@lists.apple.com> Message-ID: <4DD8FC77.2010406@pigment-print.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 05/18/2011 09:22 PM, Tyler Boley wrote:
regarding the iSis, I'm finding with inkjet coated fine art papers, the usual suspects, that the rubber drive washers pick up (well dried) black ink from the black start bar and proceed to put it down in slight amounts on the lower color patches. With very light colors this clearly taints the result, with repeated measurement for averaging it's clearly seen, the later measurements differing from the 1st, progressively worse. Anyone find this problematic? I doubt my averaged data is more reliable than the first pass in the light patches. This leads me to my second question. If these instruments make multiple samples per patch and average them on the fly, other than some gross alignment error what is the point of multiple chart measurement for averaging if there has been significant averaging with one pass anyway? Tyler
I thought that the HP Z spectrometer design was based on the iSis in some aspects. In calibration just after printing the targets the Z models will start with scanning the last printed patches first. So no patch is touched by a pinch roller before being measured. The pinch rollers of paper transport do not affect the print surface either but when I observed that reversed scan order first I thought someone paid attention to that aspect too.
Averaging within one patch helps already but given the trend to increase patch numbers and related to that smaller patch sizes I wonder whether that is enough. It does not compensate on spectrometer temperature deviations, not on differences in printing directions or paper texture directions (HM Sugarcane), not on hysterises in spectrometers etc. In strip readings the boundary detection takes its toll too.
For quite simple custom greyscale targets to be measured on a HP Z3200, 17 patches for linearising it, I made a descending and ascending range twice. Large patches anyway on that machine and the spectrometer keeps some distance from the patches. I wonder sometimes whether random distribution of patches actually dampens spectrometer hysterises if there is not extra check in the distribution of the patches on that issue. A target print page + patch distribution that can be scanned in two directions would be an improvement to reduce more effects.
If more sampling is done it would be nice to throw the two most extreme readings in the bin and average the remaining ones, more samples usually increases the spread of the results too.
-- Met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst
Try: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/
| Dinkla Grafische Techniek | | www.pigment-print.com | | ( unvollendet ) |
------------------------------
Message: 2 Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 11:35:34 -0400 From: dpascale <dpascale@babelcolor.com> Subject: Re: iSis was Re: Any comments or feedback on i!Publish? (Lou Dina) To: Ernst Dinkla <info@pigment-print.com>, colorsync-users@lists.apple.com Message-ID: <5054DCE3A5634391AFB6DE8FEE8FB7EA@noel2003> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1; reply-type=response
Hello Ernst,
If more sampling is done it would be nice to throw the two most extreme readings in the bin and average the remaining ones, more samples usually increases the spread of the results too.
This is where a "weighted average", such as done in MeasureTool and PatchTool, can help. For at least 3 readings, and somewhere less than 20, a weighted average first takes the standard average and then recomputes the average based on each reading vs the standard average. The farther a reading is from the average, the less it is considered in the average. The effect of "oddball" readings is thus minimized. As you increase the number of readings, the weighted average tends to be equal to the standard average. The effect is most beneficial when doing averages on less than 10 series of measures. At 15-20 readings there is usually no practical differences. In my view, because of the time required to get all the data, an average made on between 3 and 5 series of measurements is optimal.
Danny
www.babelcolor.com
----- Original Message ----- From: "Ernst Dinkla" <info@pigment-print.com> To: <colorsync-users@lists.apple.com> Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2011 8:07 AM Subject: Re: iSis was Re: Any comments or feedback on i!Publish? (Lou Dina)
On 05/18/2011 09:22 PM, Tyler Boley wrote:
regarding the iSis, I'm finding with inkjet coated fine art papers, the usual suspects, that the rubber drive washers pick up (well dried) black ink from the black start bar and proceed to put it down in slight amounts on the lower color patches. With very light colors this clearly taints the result, with repeated measurement for averaging it's clearly seen, the later measurements differing from the 1st, progressively worse. Anyone find this problematic? I doubt my averaged data is more reliable than the first pass in the light patches. This leads me to my second question. If these instruments make multiple samples per patch and average them on the fly, other than some gross alignment error what is the point of multiple chart measurement for averaging if there has been significant averaging with one pass anyway? Tyler
I thought that the HP Z spectrometer design was based on the iSis in some aspects. In calibration just after printing the targets the Z models will start with scanning the last printed patches first. So no patch is touched by a pinch roller before being measured. The pinch rollers of paper transport do not affect the print surface either but when I observed that reversed scan order first I thought someone paid attention to that aspect too.
Averaging within one patch helps already but given the trend to increase patch numbers and related to that smaller patch sizes I wonder whether that is enough. It does not compensate on spectrometer temperature deviations, not on differences in printing directions or paper texture directions (HM Sugarcane), not on hysterises in spectrometers etc. In strip readings the boundary detection takes its toll too.
For quite simple custom greyscale targets to be measured on a HP Z3200, 17 patches for linearising it, I made a descending and ascending range twice. Large patches anyway on that machine and the spectrometer keeps some distance from the patches. I wonder sometimes whether random distribution of patches actually dampens spectrometer hysterises if there is not extra check in the distribution of the patches on that issue. A target print page + patch distribution that can be scanned in two directions would be an improvement to reduce more effects.
If more sampling is done it would be nice to throw the two most extreme readings in the bin and average the remaining ones, more samples usually increases the spread of the results too.
-- Met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst
Try: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/
| Dinkla Grafische Techniek | | www.pigment-print.com | | ( unvollendet ) |
------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Colorsync-users mailing list Colorsync-users@lists.apple.com http://lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/colorsync-users
End of Colorsync-users Digest, Vol 8, Issue 131 ***********************************************
It's impossible to dispute such a carefully backgrounded analysis. In particular his explanation indicates that multiple identical sheets printed in the same location won't help much, since the prints and measurements on every sheet will probably be impacted by exactly the same local phenomena eg. head thermals and measurement instrument perturbations. What could be exceptionally serious would be a contaminated white-square measurement. A cheap way to improve your profile by averaging is probably to print at least 4 rotated scrambled versions of your target in different places on the sheet, and average the measurements of those sheets. Edmund On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Marc Levine <mallomarx@aol.com> wrote:
Ernst (et al), I wanted to point out a key point about averaging: it’s more about capturing variability in the print than in the instrument. If a printer was “perfect” you would really only need to collect 1 measurement per color patch. However, printers are not perfect. They make color by applying some kind of liquid, paste or powdered colorant, that is either shot out of a nozzle that is flying across a motorized rail, or is dribbled through a maze of rollers, or squeezed through a screen, or absorbed into a metal honeycomb and then transferred onto a plate, which is then transferred onto a substrate. Without even getting in either the variability related to curing, or the substrate consistency, speed, and transport alignment, you probably get the point that it’s not easy to print the same exact color twice, no matter what the technology (some more challenging than others).
Even aqueous inkjet, which is now very mature and very repeatable, will demonstrate some variation. In my experience, variation is less likely to appear in adjacent dots of ink (where the same ink heads for the same inks are on or off). Variation is more noticeable when the inkjet heads need to stop, and then print again, somewhere else, on a different part of the media, or on a different piece of media. By printing/measuring/averaging 2 (or more) sheets, you are collecting data that better illustrates that variability of your process. Do you need absolutely need to average multiple samples? Of course not. Especially n the case of inkjet, the difference might be futile. That being said, for proofing at least, it’s all about the futile differences and averaging might get you an extra .1 or .15 dE.
So, in response to your comment (reworded) "is the multi-sampling that instruments do a reasonable replacement for averaging multiple sheets?”.... I would say no. While it does help the instrument getter a better picture of the patch your measuring (and help it pick out one patch from another). Averaging multiple sheets is more about capturing the variation between that patch and the next time or place that it is printed.
Marc
On May 22, 2011, at 3:03 PM, colorsync-users-request@lists.apple.comwrote:
Send Colorsync-users mailing list submissions to colorsync-users@lists.apple.com
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/colorsync-users or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to colorsync-users-request@lists.apple.com
You can reach the person managing the list at colorsync-users-owner@lists.apple.com
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Colorsync-users digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: iSis was Re: Any comments or feedback on i!Publish? (Lou Dina) (Ernst Dinkla) 2. Re: iSis was Re: Any comments or feedback on i!Publish? (Lou Dina) (dpascale)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1 Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 14:07:19 +0200 From: Ernst Dinkla <info@pigment-print.com> Subject: Re: iSis was Re: Any comments or feedback on i!Publish? (Lou Dina) To: "colorsync-users@lists.apple.com >> ColorSync Users Mailing List" <colorsync-users@lists.apple.com> Message-ID: <4DD8FC77.2010406@pigment-print.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 05/18/2011 09:22 PM, Tyler Boley wrote:
regarding the iSis, I'm finding with inkjet coated fine art papers, the usual suspects, that the rubber drive washers pick up (well dried) black ink from the black start bar and proceed to put it down in slight amounts on the lower color patches. With very light colors this clearly taints the result, with repeated measurement for averaging it's clearly seen, the later measurements differing from the 1st, progressively worse. Anyone find this problematic? I doubt my averaged data is more reliable than the first pass in the light patches. This leads me to my second question. If these instruments make multiple samples per patch and average them on the fly, other than some gross alignment error what is the point of multiple chart measurement for averaging if there has been significant averaging with one pass anyway? Tyler
I thought that the HP Z spectrometer design was based on the iSis in some aspects. In calibration just after printing the targets the Z models will start with scanning the last printed patches first. So no patch is touched by a pinch roller before being measured. The pinch rollers of paper transport do not affect the print surface either but when I observed that reversed scan order first I thought someone paid attention to that aspect too.
Averaging within one patch helps already but given the trend to increase patch numbers and related to that smaller patch sizes I wonder whether that is enough. It does not compensate on spectrometer temperature deviations, not on differences in printing directions or paper texture directions (HM Sugarcane), not on hysterises in spectrometers etc. In strip readings the boundary detection takes its toll too.
For quite simple custom greyscale targets to be measured on a HP Z3200, 17 patches for linearising it, I made a descending and ascending range twice. Large patches anyway on that machine and the spectrometer keeps some distance from the patches. I wonder sometimes whether random distribution of patches actually dampens spectrometer hysterises if there is not extra check in the distribution of the patches on that issue. A target print page + patch distribution that can be scanned in two directions would be an improvement to reduce more effects.
If more sampling is done it would be nice to throw the two most extreme readings in the bin and average the remaining ones, more samples usually increases the spread of the results too.
-- Met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst
Try: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/
| Dinkla Grafische Techniek | | www.pigment-print.com | | ( unvollendet ) |
------------------------------
Message: 2 Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 11:35:34 -0400 From: dpascale <dpascale@babelcolor.com> Subject: Re: iSis was Re: Any comments or feedback on i!Publish? (Lou Dina) To: Ernst Dinkla <info@pigment-print.com>, colorsync-users@lists.apple.com Message-ID: <5054DCE3A5634391AFB6DE8FEE8FB7EA@noel2003> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1; reply-type=response
Hello Ernst,
If more sampling is done it would be nice to throw the two most extreme readings in the bin and average the remaining ones, more samples usually increases the spread of the results too.
This is where a "weighted average", such as done in MeasureTool and PatchTool, can help. For at least 3 readings, and somewhere less than 20, a weighted average first takes the standard average and then recomputes the average based on each reading vs the standard average. The farther a reading is from the average, the less it is considered in the average. The effect of "oddball" readings is thus minimized. As you increase the number of readings, the weighted average tends to be equal to the standard average. The effect is most beneficial when doing averages on less than 10 series of measures. At 15-20 readings there is usually no practical differences. In my view, because of the time required to get all the data, an average made on between 3 and 5 series of measurements is optimal.
Danny
www.babelcolor.com
----- Original Message ----- From: "Ernst Dinkla" <info@pigment-print.com> To: <colorsync-users@lists.apple.com> Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2011 8:07 AM Subject: Re: iSis was Re: Any comments or feedback on i!Publish? (Lou Dina)
On 05/18/2011 09:22 PM, Tyler Boley wrote:
regarding the iSis, I'm finding with inkjet coated fine art papers, the usual suspects, that the rubber drive washers pick up (well dried)
black
ink from the black start bar and proceed to put it down in slight amounts on the lower color patches. With very light colors this clearly taints the result, with repeated measurement for averaging it's clearly seen, the later measurements differing from the 1st, progressively worse. Anyone find this problematic? I doubt my averaged data is more reliable than the first pass in the light patches. This leads me to my second question. If these instruments make multiple samples per patch and average them on the fly, other than some gross alignment error what is the point of multiple chart measurement for averaging if there has been significant averaging with one pass anyway? Tyler
I thought that the HP Z spectrometer design was based on the iSis in some aspects. In calibration just after printing the targets the Z models will start with scanning the last printed patches first. So no patch is touched by a pinch roller before being measured. The pinch rollers of paper transport do not affect the print surface either but when I observed that reversed scan order first I thought someone paid attention to that aspect too.
Averaging within one patch helps already but given the trend to increase patch numbers and related to that smaller patch sizes I wonder whether that is enough. It does not compensate on spectrometer temperature deviations, not on differences in printing directions or paper texture directions (HM Sugarcane), not on hysterises in spectrometers etc. In strip readings the boundary detection takes its toll too.
For quite simple custom greyscale targets to be measured on a HP Z3200, 17 patches for linearising it, I made a descending and ascending range twice. Large patches anyway on that machine and the spectrometer keeps some distance from the patches. I wonder sometimes whether random distribution of patches actually dampens spectrometer hysterises if there is not extra check in the distribution of the patches on that issue. A target print page + patch distribution that can be scanned in two directions would be an improvement to reduce more effects.
If more sampling is done it would be nice to throw the two most extreme readings in the bin and average the remaining ones, more samples usually increases the spread of the results too.
-- Met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst
Try: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/
| Dinkla Grafische Techniek | | www.pigment-print.com | | ( unvollendet ) |
------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Colorsync-users mailing list Colorsync-users@lists.apple.com http://lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/colorsync-users
End of Colorsync-users Digest, Vol 8, Issue 131 ***********************************************
_______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Colorsync-users mailing list (Colorsync-users@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/edmundronald%40gmail....
This email sent to edmundronald@gmail.com
On May 23, 2011, at 6:54 AM, edmund ronald wrote:
A cheap way to improve your profile by averaging is probably to print at least 4 rotated scrambled versions of your target in different places on the sheet, and average the measurements of those sheets.
That’s what we do when profiling presses. Additionally we use two sets of profiles with differnig sized patches (smaller and much larger). Then average lots of press runs. Andrew Rodney http://www.digitaldog.net/
Andrew, That's a thought, to average different sized patches. The thought wouldn't have occurred to me I must confess. Do you find printers you work with naturally inclined to give you lots of press time (and paper) so that you can average lots of press runs for developing press profiles? We all have differing practices. The printers I work with resent the very idea of having to give up on press time and paper to allow press profiling, regardless of the mess they can be in with regards to color matching. Unless they have a big client who's putting a gun to their head. Then, they're willing to listen a little more. But I haven't succeeded in convincing anyone about the necessity of averaging multiple press runs for the sake of press profiling. Printers have tough attitudes. I'm curious about your experience. I agree it's all about variability. Roger -----Original Message----- From: colorsync-users-bounces+graxx=videotron.ca@lists.apple.com [mailto:colorsync-users-bounces+graxx=videotron.ca@lists.apple.com] On Behalf Of Andrew Rodney Sent: May-23-11 9:08 AM To: 'colorsync-users?lists.apple.com' List Subject: Re: About Averaging On May 23, 2011, at 6:54 AM, edmund ronald wrote:
A cheap way to improve your profile by averaging is probably to print at least 4 rotated scrambled versions of your target in different places on the sheet, and average the measurements of those sheets.
That's what we do when profiling presses. Additionally we use two sets of profiles with differnig sized patches (smaller and much larger). Then average lots of press runs. Andrew Rodney http://www.digitaldog.net/ _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Colorsync-users mailing list (Colorsync-users@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/graxx%40videotron.ca This email sent to graxx@videotron.ca
On May 23, 2011, at 7:45 AM, Roger Breton wrote:
Do you find printers you work with naturally inclined to give you lots of press time (and paper) so that you can average lots of press runs for developing press profiles?
Yes as these are all digital presses and doing this kind of work is, I suspect, far easier to achieve then on conventional presses. We can run our ECI packages throughout the day, after calibrations, etc. Andrew Rodney http://www.digitaldog.net/
On 05/23/2011 02:54 PM, edmund ronald wrote:
A cheap way to improve your profile by averaging is probably to print at least 4 rotated scrambled versions of your target in different places on the sheet, and average the measurements of those sheets.
Edmund
I suggested to create a target sheet and patch distribution that allows spectrometer scanning in two directions. That does not have to be a topological miracle but the right margins and an extra table of reference data should be enough. It can deal with the paper texture (scan direction) and print direction (inkjet) artefacts. Must be cheaper than printing the target twice. With printer integrated spectrometers the print width differences could either be positive or negative if the patches are spread on the paper roll width. The HP Z models allow that. I doubt they show much variation over the print width though, they only know a bidirectional print mode and if ink feed starvation or heads hotting up play a role then the minimal patch width of 14 mm (square) 16mm (hexagonal) should compensate that. There is more integration happening too with that spectrometer not so close to the media. -- Met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla Gallery Canvas Wrap Actions | Dinkla Grafische Techniek | | www.pigment-print.com | | ( unvollendet ) |
Ernst, Some of us are struggling with contamination issues where the target is getting damaged by ink coming off transport rollers. As you know this happens with printers but also with iSis, and here reading the same physical squares twice doesn't help. Edmund On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Ernst Dinkla <info@pigment-print.com>wrote:
On 05/23/2011 02:54 PM, edmund ronald wrote:
A cheap way to improve your profile by averaging is probably to print at least 4 rotated scrambled versions of your target in different places on the sheet, and average the measurements of those sheets.
Edmund
I suggested to create a target sheet and patch distribution that allows spectrometer scanning in two directions. That does not have to be a topological miracle but the right margins and an extra table of reference data should be enough. It can deal with the paper texture (scan direction) and print direction (inkjet) artefacts. Must be cheaper than printing the target twice.
With printer integrated spectrometers the print width differences could either be positive or negative if the patches are spread on the paper roll width. The HP Z models allow that. I doubt they show much variation over the print width though, they only know a bidirectional print mode and if ink feed starvation or heads hotting up play a role then the minimal patch width of 14 mm (square) 16mm (hexagonal) should compensate that. There is more integration happening too with that spectrometer not so close to the media.
-- Met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst
Dinkla Gallery Canvas Wrap Actions
| Dinkla Grafische Techniek | | www.pigment-print.com | | ( unvollendet ) | _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Colorsync-users mailing list (Colorsync-users@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/edmundronald%40gmail....
This email sent to edmundronald@gmail.com
On 05/23/2011 04:04 PM, edmund ronald wrote:
Ernst, Some of us are struggling with contamination issues where the target is getting damaged by ink coming off transport rollers. As you know this happens with printers but also with iSis, and here reading the same physical squares twice doesn't help.
Edmund
Correct, at some point you can not rely on just one target and more have to be made on one or more print runs. I only tried to analyse what can be done within one printed target. -- Met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla Gallery Canvas Wrap Actions | Dinkla Grafische Techniek | | www.pigment-print.com | | ( unvollendet ) |
Well said ;-) What about averaging press sheets? How far does one go? Roger -----Original Message----- From: colorsync-users-bounces+graxx=videotron.ca@lists.apple.com [mailto:colorsync-users-bounces+graxx=videotron.ca@lists.apple.com] On Behalf Of Marc Levine Sent: May-23-11 8:29 AM To: colorsync-users@lists.apple.com Subject: About Averaging So, in response to your comment (reworded) "is the multi-sampling that instruments do a reasonable replacement for averaging multiple sheets?".... I would say no. While it does help the instrument getter a better picture of the patch your measuring (and help it pick out one patch from another). Averaging multiple sheets is more about capturing the variation between that patch and the next time or place that it is printed. Marc
participants (5)
-
Andrew Rodney
-
edmund ronald
-
Ernst Dinkla
-
Marc Levine
-
Roger Breton