Archive for the 'monitors' Category

Virtual Proofing - Oh Boy!

Published
by
Jim Raffel
on April 17, 2008
in blogging, calibration, color, inkjet, measurement, monitors and proofing
. 1 Comment

I believe virtual proofing is at the same cross roads ink jet proofing was around 2001.  I am both hearing and observing information that provides growing support in my own mind for this position.  First, I am not going to name any names in this post.  Why?  Because gut feelings and intuition are not fact.

Think back to 2001 and earlier as it relates to ink jet proofing.  For a frame of reference think Print ‘01 in Chicago, just try not to remember that 9/11 fell right in the middle of the show :(   We finally had a good stable pigment based printer.  We had a few good RIPs emerging from the pack, but you still really needed 3rd party color management software to make the whole thing work.  Of course there was the nightmare of the day which was trying to find a suitable media for Graphic Arts proofing purposes.

The reality was if you understood all the steps involved (or hired a good color management consultant) you could make decent ink jet proofs that rivaled the standard analog and digital proofs of the day.

Now think about virtual proofing today.  While I believe there are at least two (and quite likely more) solid products capable of producing virtual proofs rivaling the ink jet proofs now carrying the standards flag; getting even those two systems to work in multiple locations can and does prove tricky at best.  This is no knock on the virtual proofing software vendors, but instead really an issue of hardware.

Putting together a solid ink jet proofing system requires an end-user to source a printer, media, a RIP, a computer to run the RIP, and probably a good color management consultant as well.  Putting together a solid virtual proofing system requires sourcing a display…let’s stop right there.  There is more to it, but the display is proving (at least my gut tells me this) to be a huge thorn in the side of virtual proofing working in multiple locations.

I am hearing some crazy numbers like less than 1 in 10 “qualified” displays can be used in a 2 or more location virtual proofing set-up.  If this is true (and I am starting to think it is), than it is no wonder virtual proofing is being used more and more for intermediate color (as I predicted in a previous post) and good old reliable ink jet proofs are still being produced as a final contract proof.

I still believe virtual proofing will continue to make gains over hard copy proofing.  I just think it may be a little slower than we thought until this display issues gets worked out.  Part of the problem is that measuring displays is not the easiest thing in the world to do….but that could be a whole post or even a complete white paper.

#67 Metamerism: Hard copy vs Monitor

Published
by
Jim Raffel
on January 16, 2008
in GATF, RHEM indicator, calibration, color, delta E, illuminants, matamerism, measurement, monitors and viewing conditions
. 4 Comments

The most visited post on JimRaffel.com in 2007 is #16 written October 2005 and addressing metamerism. Because of the popularity of this post I have decided to revisit the topic. I will start with some basic terminology and definitions. Then, I am going to present a real world example we are dealing with right now at ColorMetrix.

Definitions: First, metamerism requires a pair of objects. The two objects are often referred to as a metameric pair. In order to be considered metameric the pair must; match under at least one combination of illuminant and observer; not match under at least one combination of illuminant and observer; and have different spectral response curves.

Metramerism Tests: Post #16 shows an example of the GATF REHM indicator used for visual assessment of light sources. This is also an excellent of example of a visual test for metamerism. The two samples may also be measured by a spectrophotometer, and then an instrument test for metamerism can be performed. If the two samples exhibit a small Delta E under one illuminant observer combination, but have different spectral curves that cross at least three (3) times they are metameric.

Our ProofPass.com system was recently used to measure two samples. Below I have provided the L*C*h* values of a ‘Red’ swatch measured on a hard copy proof and then reproduced and measured on an LCD monitor.

  Hard copy Monitor
L* 40.56 43.02
C* 60.85 61.31
h* 28.44 27.9

The CMC(2:1) Delta E of the above two samples is 1.34 in a D50/2 degree environment.

Now, take a look at the spectral reflectance and emission curves of the two swatches. (Library Reading = Hard copy and Sample Reading = Monitor)

graph_spectralphp.png

Again the instrument test for metamerism states that if the spectral curves differ, and cross each other at least three times, then the objects are metameric. The curves look different and I count at least 10 crosses.

As long as the physical sample is viewed in a proper viewing booth, and the monitor continues to be calibrated and also viewed in proper conditions, the metamerism effects of hard copy vs. monitor proofing above should not be a problem. My concerns about this type of metamerism extend to placing a package on a retail shelf which is seldom a D50/2 degree environment.

#57: On Virtual Proofing Thoughts after IPA

Published
by
Jim Raffel
on June 20, 2007
in blogging, color, conferences, monitors and proofing
. 1 Comment

While at the IPA Technical Conference earlier this month, I had the opportunity to run through the evaluation of the five virtual proofing systems on display. The combination of the evaluation experience and the release of our ProofPass.com [Virtual] product have solidified my thoughts on virtual proofing at this moment in time.

Virtual proofing will continue to replace hard copy proofing in the perishable weekly printing market. In this very specific market which includes weekly news magazines, Sunday newspaper supplements, and weekly sales mailers virtual proofing will replace hard copy proofing over a relatively short period of time. While the obvious reason (and a good one at that) is cost, I feel the real reason for a rapid move to virtual proofing in this market is time compression of the production cycle. The Sunday supplement market competes almost exclusively on price and the weekly news magazines compete almost exclusively on up to the minute in depth coverage of the week’s big news stories.

In other printing markets such as packaging, specialty products, and high end coffee table work virtual proofing will make significant gains as the intermediate proof. I do not, however, feel that the contract press side proof will become a virtual proof in this market anytime soon. I truly think it will take a full work generation to see virtual proofs replace physical hard copy samples in this market. I pick the full work generation, because we will need individuals in charge who have “grown up” looking a critical color on an LCD monitor.

Another factor to consider in the virtual proofing world is that those $2,000 to $5,000 LCD’s are the new proofing consumable. As you plan your virtual proofing strategy remember to factor in monitor replacement every 12-24 months depending upon the number of hours the monitor is actually turned on each day. Also, watch high end monitor prices drop like rocks just as flat panel televisions have.

So, what did I think of the IPA soft proofing evaluation? While the evaluation was blind I saw two of the systems stand out head and shoulders above the rest of the pack. You need to do your homework before investing in any of these systems. Even with the best two I would not replace hard proofs except for perishable weekly work.

#54: Some Thoughts and Comments about Soft Proofing

Published
by
Jim Raffel
on May 1, 2007
in blogging, calibration, color, delta E, education, illuminants, measurement and monitors
. 0 Comments

In #53 I listed a bunch of color resources I had found on the web. I was looking because we are putting the finishing touches on the first beta release of our ProofPass.com soft proofing verification module. For me this project has turned out to be about the journey not the destination. Of course the destination which is a viable commercial release of the aforementioned product that we hope to make lots of money on is not a bad place to end up.

The Journey, however, has been like going back to school for a guy so grounded in the color science of the physical ink on paper side of our industry. I have come to the conclusion that a monitor is just another “black box” that creates color from my perspective. Just like a hard copy proofing system, a conventional printing press, or even a digital printing press is. So, that means if it can be measured it can be controlled.

The key to successful soft proofing appears to lie in the color management behind the system(s). I recently had the opportunity to view and measure eight displays powered by the soft proofing technology of three vendors all in one place. All were powered by Macs, but the displays came from two manufacturers. In our quick and dirty technology demo three of these systems (all under the control of one organization) came in with a very tight peak Delta E of only about 3 between the systems.

Monitors using the other vendors soft proofing technologies fell further out (as the software was pre-beta at that time I am going to omit any further numbers). The verification module did, however, catch that one of the monitors had been profiled to the wrong white point (let’s just say I was pretty pleased with the new toy we built!).

Surround lighting and viewing conditions will make any quality soft proofing system work or not work. I have read papers on subject, I have tested it myself, and I have spoken to people who have done extensive testing of the systems. The less surround lighting (other than your 5000K light booth) the better. The surround and viewing conditions should be identical to the ultimate conditions when you make your monitor profile. One of the biggest factors I have seen to making a good or bad monitor profile is surround lighting.

It is clear to me that monitor proofing is here to stay in our industry, and is also highly viable when properly utilized. While I do not see monitor proofing replacing hard copy proofing altogether, I do see it replacing hard copy proofing in some applications very quickly. In other areas I see monitor proofing replacing many of the internal proofing iterations prior to the hard copy “contract proof” used press side. Much of this is going to depend upon how tight the deadlines are for being able to change copy, and the perceived quality level of the work being produced.

Thoughts on PMA Show

Published
by
Jim Raffel
on March 10, 2007
in blogging, conferences, monitors, proofing and wide format
. 0 Comments

As I mentioned in my last post, my primary reason for attending PMA was to conduct meetings with key ColorMetrix business partners.  I did, however, have a few hours to roam the show floor yesterday afternoon and came away with a few observations.

While I am still impressed with the caliber of this show, it has made a shift to the consumer market.  Most of the wide format ink jet vendors had a presence, but it was really just part of a booth dedicated to consumer photographic equipment.  Some pro equipment could be found but the overall emphasis as I observed it was on point and shoot consumer cameras.

GE has entered the photographic market with both cameras and photo printers http://www.general-imaging.com/  They even baked cookies in the booth in a GE oven.

In the desktop and wide format ink jet market, very few RIP vendors showed up.  This leads me to believe that the vast majority of photo printing is happening through the print drivers provided by the print vendors.  I still see the photographic market as a growth one for ink jet RIP manufactures.  As more and more proofing moves from hard copy to virtual (monitor based) graphic arts RIP sales will continue to flatten and maybe even decrease.

I believe that photo printers (professionals and Labs) who are used to tight process controls for processors will look at ink jet proofing and ask how can we ensure that this device is stable and producing color the same as when we set it up months or years ago.  (There’s a little clue as to why I was at the show).

#21: The Reality of Remote Color Diagnostics

Published
by
Jim Raffel
on December 15, 2005
in calibration, color and monitors
. 0 Comments

*** Golden Nugget #21: The Reality of Remote Color Diagnostics ***

While at the PIA/GATF Color Management Conference earlier this month I had a chance to visit with a customer who uses our new ProofPass.com proof certification and remote color diagnostics solution. Our customer is responsible for the operations of a large pre-press facility and for this article we will call him John Smith.

Recently John was out of the office at a user’s group conference for another piece of critical equipment or software in his facility. John got a frantic call from the office that recently produced proofs could not be matched on press. John’s first concern was to check on the current state of his inkjet proofing system. He asked that a new proof be made and scanned into the ProofPass.com database.

Because the ProofPass.com database is internet based, John was able to login to the ProofPass.com web-site with his account information and see the color of the swatches just measured along with almost every print metric a person could wish for. The visual swatches in ProofPass.com proved to be the key to solving this problem. Before John even started looking at the delta E numbers he could see that the side-by-side color comparison of the reference proof (gold standard) and the recently produced proof did not match.

Obviously doing this comparison on a color calibrated monitor in proper viewing conditions aids in the correctness of the colors being viewed. Remember, however, that ProofPass.com is not intended to display “contract color” but instead to provide the user a visual reference of the relative color difference between two color swatches.

The shift observed was quite large, and in the overall direction of a much “warmer” proof. While almost every swatch passed the delta E test in place (I believe John has since tightened his delta E tolerances) it was this overall shift vs a single patch shifting that was causing the problem. John runs a simple device next to the inkjet proofer that plots both temperature and humidity over time. In the period of time that the color problem had occurred humidity had dropped from about 60% to 20%.

In conclusion, remote color is clearly the most exciting technology to hit our industry in many years. While we have all seen the potential of remote “soft proofing” I believe the broader category of remote color is going to provide much of the excitement and growth in our industry over the next five years. It promises to be a heck of a ride, so climb aboard and let’s see where it takes us.

Golden Nugget #13 Monitor Calibration Works!

Published
by
Jim Raffel
on October 1, 2005
in calibration, monitors and uncategorized
. 0 Comments

This should really be considered part two of Golden Nugget #12, which dealt with the importance of dimmable light booths (check www.JimRaffel.com if you did not get #12 in e-mail format). I decided in the past week to test this out myself.

For those who are not yet aware, our new ProofPass(t).com product pulls collected spectral data from our database, and displays it in your web browser in the sRGB color space (other color spaces will be available as time goes on). So, if your monitor is calibrated the colors displayed in the browser should closely match those of the color bar swatches on your printed samples.

The first step for me was to re-calibrate my notebook computer LCD. I must admit that with a busy Summer I had not calibrated since March. The correct schedule for someone like me who is not working color on a daily basis is probably more like a month. For those of you who look at critical color on your monitors regularly I would be more inclined to think weekly would be the correct interval.

Next, I started up my browser and brought up a blank white web-page. With my surround lighting off, I adjusted the brightness of the light booth to match the monitor. Then, I went to the ProofPass.com web-site, and displayed two color bars I had recently measured side-by-side in the browser window.

I then compared the two physical strips as viewed in my new light booth to the strips on screen. I would personally be very comfortable discussing shifts in the physical samples based upon what I was seeing on my monitor. In other words, remote diagnostics of hard copy color problems is now a reality.

As a side note, there are instruments available for measuring ambient light temperature. I used a Gretagmacbeth i1 design to confirm that my new light booth provides 5000K lighting, and it does. Use of the instrument is, however, how I determined all the surround lighting in our office needs to be turned off and the window blinds closed.

Over all, I was very impressed by the result of this little test.