New Product for Ink Optimization

[gordo]

Honestly guys, it never occurred to me that the increase in gamut could be the result of anything other than the increase in density. [SNIP] I think you may be pouncing on an inadvertant(though important) ommision from these posts. To be fair, the guys at chromaticity were up front about this to me from the get go.

The promise of increased gamut has been promoted by Chromaticity in this, and other threads, however, the increase in SIDs was never mentioned before. I don't know whether that omission was disingenuous of the company or an oversight.
There are two separate issues - reduced ink usage and increased gamut.
As far as increasing gamut is concerned, increasing SIDs will increase gamut whether you use Chromaticity's product or not. Perhaps the discussion/evaluation should be on how a Chromaticity reseparation reacts to the increase in SIDs vs the original separation at increased SIDs or a reseparation by a competing vendor at higher SIDs.
Did you test/evaluate any of those scenarios?

best, gordon p

[Ian Mackenzie]

From Ian Mackenzie at Chromaticity - In all of my posts, I have said that I do not posess the technical acumen to have a "sword fight" or debate over technology. However, my business partner, Mike DiCosola, is capable of presenting ideas and concepts that hopefully will address some of these issues.

From Mike DiCosola:

If anyone on the forum would like to test the product for free to form an objective opinion, we would be more than happy to allow you to test the technology. It is easy and does not require press profiling in advance.

I would like to speak directly to increased solid ink density on press. Not mentioning all aspects of Media Characterization was not a planned deception in this world of grand conspiracies. I will speak to it now if you will allow it.

ICE is not simply increasing SID for the sake of gamut. The process of ICE media characterization investigates how to optimize press printing based upon paper and ink characteristics. It is often found that using standard densities for any/all paper on press is a flawed approach. ICE uses microscopy to see how ink and paper interact to determine what density provides optimal ink transfer. We once tought this at X-Rite with densitometers 15 years ago. We are using more advanced technology to arrive at similar aims. The software then optimizes the separation for this optimized print condition. The gamut increase comes from both the increase in density and the re-distribution of ink and tone in the separation itself.

I have been involved in past research projects where high pigment loaded inks have been used to increase gamut. The separation never allowed the system to work well. I have been involved in testing where printers try to push ink density. Ink and water balance flies out the window and all the problems that come with it appear instantly.

Ask Mike Eddington how fast the press jumped to optimal densities on press? Ask him in a month if they have any problems on press associated with higher ink densities. Better yet I challenge you to try the technology yourself and do what Gordo has promoted – try to break it. If you are "reviewing" ICE solely based on theory, you will be a skeptic, as I was. Reviewing ICE live on your own press sheets, you will be floored. Instead of debating ICE in the vacuum of not having experienced the technology, please try it yourself and see if this is smoke and mirrors or real. I have personally done this and am now a believer.

We will be at the IPA Technical Conference with press sheets to show. We can get you a discounted registration fee if you want to come take a look.

[Erik Nikkanen]

The gamut increase comes from both the increase in density and the re-distribution of ink and tone in the separation itself.

Mike,

Can you please explain what you mean by the "re-distribution of ink and tone in the separation" and how that is capable of increasing the gamut?

Originally Ian had said that there was no modifictation to the screen structure when asked earlier but maybe that was not technically correct.

Thanks.

[meddington]

Originally Ian had said that there was no modifictation to the screen structure when asked earlier but maybe that was not technically correct.

I can state that we had no changes to the screening itself. ICEsaver takes in and delivers PDF, which is then rastered by the CTP Rip.

[mallomarx]

I believe that Mike D is stating that the optimized results use the same screening as the "control" print. In other words, this is not some kind of AM vs. FM trickery. As far as the "gamut increase" goes, my opinion is that this is more marketese. The gamut of a device is a function of the substrate, the ink, and how the 2 are married (screening, application technology, etc...). It has nothing to do with the data you send it. There is no way for a "CMYK reconfigurator" to change the gamut of your device. 100M/100Y is a great example. Mike E's post suggests that the color increases "where you want it to" and that images have more "pop". What I take this to mean is that the optimization process adds more apparent saturation to the image. Whether this is good or bad, I couldn't say. Based on Mike E's positive review, I would say it's a good thing in this case.

The concerns I am left with are these: if the color gets "better", then the color changes. If the color changes, then what color am I going to get? If I don't know what color I'm going to get, then can it really be better? In an isolated, subjective comparison, this thinking makes sense. In a numbers-based production process, where the intention is to measurably reproduce a color across a system, I am not sure... Once you have the proof, it was under the impression (pun intended) that a printer should try and "match" it and not "beat it". But then again....I'm more of a prepress guy. : )

My 2 cents.
Marc Levine

[gordo]

The concerns I am left with are these: if the color gets "better", then the color changes. If the color changes, then what color am I going to get? If I don't know what color I'm going to get, then can it really be better? In an isolated, subjective comparison, this thinking makes sense. In a numbers-based production process, where the intention is to measurably reproduce a color across a system, I am not sure... Once you have the proof, it was under the impression (pun intended) that a printer should try and "match" it and not "beat it". But then again....I'm more of a prepress guy. : )

Marc, I would assume that the increased gamut via increased SIDs would be profiled so that proofs would reflect the new print condition. This is what we did when printing at "DMaxx" back in the day. A 5 part description of the process starts here: Quality In Print: Printing at DMaxx - part 1 of 5

What would be interesting to do in an evaluation is to use the shop's golden reference form and print it:
1) at normal densities
2) at DMaxx (max SID) densities (with appropriate dot gain curves applied)
3) at max SIDs after processing/optimizing through Ian's application.
4) at DMaxx (max SID) densities using a separation profile based on the gamut at increased SIDs

and it would be interesting to compare ink usage of the three print conditions.

(would someone like to lend me a press? :-)) best, gordon p

my print blog here: Quality In Print current topic: Platemaking at the Chicago Tribune - 1937

[David Ingram]

Does this "gamut increase" without press profiling and without changing the screening mean that, a reprinted job would "have more pop" over the previous run, all other things being equal. I.E paper, density, plates etc, it seems to me that this is being - mis marketed, can anyone say what ink savings they are getting? It seems to me, this is a Color optimizer, and not so much an ink savings tool, since 95% of printing is still CMYK and not hexachrome, has anyone done an objective test 4 color std, 4 color with ICE or w/e it is and hexachrome and compared sheets, I teach color theroy, and no matter what CMYK has Gamut limitations, You will be able to hit colors OUTSIDE the CMYK gamut with this? Can it even approch the pop of 6 color seps? Sounds like its just putting a curve on the image, whats the price point anyway and how much ink does it REALLY save?

[Ian Mackenzie]

If any participating members actually have printing presses or premedia operations, then I encourage you to evaluate the ICEserver. I can completely understand the viewpoints of the vendors, consultants and "distributors" who have contributed their input here. We looked at this technology for over a year before we became believers. Our "vetting" process compared this application directly with the products that many members here espouse.

As Mike DiCosola said above, please try to evaluate this outside of the vacuum of this forum. Calling something "marketese" (as an example) may only serve to draw attention to naivete, not knowledge. We must also collectively (myself included) take such comments with a grain of salt when they are offered by those who sell products against which the ICEserver, in some instances, may compete.

We became believers in this product when:

A. Master G7 printers tested it and loved in.
B. printers told us that their ink savings were "much more aggressive" than a,b and c products".
C. Some of the best premedia and print professionals in the country tell us that this product can actually help them print better.

This is what we used as benchmarks. When "ICEd" press sheets started coming off presses and we saw the pressmen's reaction, we knew there was some "special sauce" here. But please understand that it would not be in our best interest to disclose the recipe to the sauce within this forum. If you are curious and you are a print provider, we will be happy to discuss this with you in detail. If you are a competitor or retired vendor, then I apologise in advance if we do not address all of your issues.

If a "Master G7 Printer" (or any printer) can integrate the ICEserver directly with their current press curves, etc. and realize a wider gamut with substantial ink savings, then that may just be a good thing. "GRACoL Extreme" , as already defined by the IDEAlliance, may be here faster than we think. As ICE is also colorimetrically accurate, you may choose to enjoy wider gamut printing when and if you want to. Should you just wish to save ink, that's cool, then your customer supplied proof will match and you will still save lots of ink.

There is no disingenuousness or marketing hype here. This thread was started by someone who was seeking info about the product. I hope that "Ken the Kid" has benefitted here.

Thanks,
Ian

[Louis Dery]

We became believers in this product when:

A. Master G7 printers tested it and loved in.
B. printers told us that their ink savings were "much more aggressive" than a,b and c products".
C. Some of the best premedia and print professionals in the country tell us that this product can actually help them print better.

Hello Ian,

It is a bad thing that you never tried our ink saving solution (PerfX Device link Pro)… we got the same feedback from our clients and it is as much agressive as what is possible.

If Gordo finds a printing press, I would love to send him test file :-)

Louis

[meddington]

There is no way for a "CMYK reconfigurator" to change the gamut of your device. 100M/100Y is a great example.

Not necessarily changing the gamut, but perhaps better utilizing it? 100M, 100Y is not really a value that you'll encounter in live separations very often, and if you round trip that value through the GracolCoated profile with Abs rendering for example, you'll get 1.2C, 98.7M, 96.2Y, 5.1K, but through ICEsaver that value turned out to be 0.08C, 98M, 96.5Y, 1.6K...less contaminating color, which would yield more saturation.

I intended to attach an image of the gamut of our pressrun compared to a "GracolCoated" profile, but am unable to at the moment. I can however, post the volumes.

Colorthink reported gamut volumes...ICEsaver gamut: 434,637, round-tripped Gracol gamut: 335,122.

Again, note that the IT8 target that generated the ICEsaver ICC profile was sent through the ICesaver processor and converted, so in order to fairly compare the two, I round-tripped an IT8 reference file through the GracolCoated profile, then generated an ICC profile from the resulting Lab. I'll post an image when I'm back in the office.

Mike E's post suggests that the color increases "where you want it to" and that images have more "pop". What I take this to mean is that the optimization process adds more apparent saturation to the image. Whether this is good or bad, I couldn't say. Based on Mike E's positive review, I would say it's a good thing in this case.

Its pleasing to look at and made print samples at normal densities look drab in comparison. It did not however, match the proof as well and I haven't yet been convinced of any colorimetric accuracy at this point. Not far off, but not as close as our standardized workflow. So this really isn't "standardized" printing, & it wasn't presented to us in that manner. Of course, proofing toward this new print results is certainly possible, but there could issues with matching original photographic imagery.