Digital BW, The Print

In a message dated 11/18/06 11:32:15 PM, tyler@... writes:


> >..., one that certainly does not reflect what I am
> > seeing daily working with K3 printers and PrintFIX PRO....
> 
> 
> But you don't work daily with mono inksets do you? Could this be partitally 
> repsonsible for
> this disbelief?
> 
Well, lets see, I've consulted on the development of specialty B&W inksets 
with more multiple ink companies over several years. I've consulted with a 
number or RIP companies as well; in fact I worked extensively with both the highend 
RIPs that have been used in the Piezography system, before they were used in 
the Piezography system, and I've consulted on the development of inkset/RIP 
combinations based both on those more expensive RIPs and on the Bowhaus and QTR 
RIPs, using various generations of the newer pigment inks. 

It was actually this B&W system development process that brought me to the 
point of choosing an OEM ink/OEM driver based choice for ColorVision this year. 
The first generation of this process was an earlier pigment ink and the 
ColorBurst RIP. The results were good, I have a large print done that way on the 
wall here, and its quite reasonable. But the RIP cost was high. The next 
generation was with newer UC type inks and the low cost RIPs first the Bowhaus, then 
QTR. This was an improvement, worked with a wider range of media, and was more 
flexible, but not totally controllable. It also did not offer softproofing, 
and was not user profilable. Next was the K3 inks, in the K3 printers, using the 
same methodology and RIP as was used with the specialty B&W inks in the 
previous generation. This actually improved results over the specialty B&W ink 
method; most notably, it got rid of issues where the ink tone could not be 
controlled in relation to paper tone. But still no softproof, or user profilability 
(though it was linearizable, and CreateICC would offer a method of adding 
softproof). When I put the specialty tonable B&W ink results next to the same image 
on the same paper from the OEM K3 inks, using the same profiling and RIP 
system, the OEM ink results are definately preferable. That was an eyeopener. This 
would be quite a bit like your comparison, Tyler: a 7600/9600 printer with 
toned specialty B&W inks, and a 7800/9800 series printer with OEM inks, but via 
QTR, in this case.

So I looked at this last result (7800/9800, OEM inks, QTR RIP), and thought: 
gee, all that stands between this and an ICC-based solution, is the ability to 
do this with the driver, not a RIP, and profiling tools to control it. Thats 
what I've been working on most of this year. But it has all been within sight 
of Piezo prints and prints from all generations of the systems noted above. 

Its interesting that Roy Harrington (author of QTR) has just chimed in today 
with test results saying even 8 bits is way more than we can see in print, 
that four or five bits of depth is about all that can be distinguised as more 
detailed. That would be less than100 levels. I'm less and less convinced that we 
need more than two or three densities of gray ink, optimally utilized, to 
cover that.

>>Look, PFP is a great product. I regret not having the time to give it it's 
due.

Yes, we were looking forward to having you beta test it; but no matter how 
convenient the   preview and control functions are, its based on controlling an 
OEM driver, and something pretty close to OEM inks. So its on the other side 
of your great divide.

>> I think
everyone here should be enormously impressed with your attention to the needs 
and
desires of fine art B&W printers and the lengths you have gone to to put 
tools specifically
for them in your product.

We'll let testing and product acceptance decide that one...

>>I'd go so far as to say that no one else in the color management 
marketplace come
anywhere close in that regard. 

Certainly there has been no other focused attempt to offer tools for B&W 
under an OEM/ICC process to date...

>>That the new OEM setups have more Ks makes PFP even
more relevant in this regard.

Prior to two-gray systems I would not have been willing to even go down this 
road. Having all the light grays printed entirely from light cyan, light 
magenta, and yellow ink was not visually neutral enough, resistant enough to 
illuminant metamerism, or stable enough over time. Two-gray printers bring this just 
within reach. Further improvements in printer capabilities (even lower color 
in neutrals, possibly another level of extra light gray, more effective 
drivers and media settings) should improve such methods even more. Only time will 
tell. 

But this whole series of threads started with me expressing suprise that an 
OEM (2400 AWB) print was not just acceptable on the same wall with a bunch of 
specialty B&W prints; but that any weaknesses it may have had from its two-gray 
nature were less noticable than the weaknesses of many of the specialty 
system prints, which were far less linear, with far less appropriate densities in 
many areas. Your prints (Tyler's in case this is so long the people have 
forgotten <G>) were the notable exception, but it remains that the starting point 
for OEM B&W, was more in line than the baseline for a number of specialty system 
prints.

C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision Business Division
DataColor Inc.
CDTobie@...
www.colorvision.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]