TSB
Computers and Software => RIPs => Topic started by: middletownink on July 26, 2013, 08:53:47 AM
-
about 6 wks ago we got our new film output printer. Epson 4900. I am now finally getting around to linearizing it. I have the readings from a densitometer. When I put the numbers in I get a nice looking curve but my films print out like this.
The one on the right is my original print the one on the left is after I put in my new numbers. I went through the "knowledge base" online and the articles are not very helpful with this aspect of the dot gain.
Has anyone else run into this issue?
-
yup. same issues I had. I sent my films off to Pierre and I dropped the numbers in and I still couldn't dial it in. accurip really isn't too accurate. I need to make the change to film maker, one of these days.
-
O Homer..... :'( I was so hoping it was user error!!
-
O Homer..... :'( I was so hoping it was user error!!
very well could be, I know the ink and film had something to do with it too. I'm at the 2880 dpi setting now and it appears better but the 80% range and up goes to mud.
-
try their forum or online tech support. It is supposed to be free!
pierre
-
May be a long shot but have you adjusted the droplet weight in accurip?
-
Unbelievable, me too! Just over the weekend. I have a support request into AccuRIP, and they usually respond pretty well. Now, we run off one cartridge; check Multi-Black, uncheck all carts not being used. To set the droplet weight, you have to uncheck Multi-Black to reach that option. We're set on 12 (out of 15) to get the solid blacks we need. I was just reading over the instructions from AccuRIP, and they say to print the test, measure with the densitometer, and put the numbers into the appropriate boxes in the dot gain curve. Could that mean that we should be putting in higher numbers, since say, 20% is printing at 30%, should we be putting that into the 20% box, as opposed to the compensated numbers creating the new curve? That maybe AR compensates from there? That would be the opposite of creating the curve in Photoshop, yes? Hmmm...
Steve
-
Unbelievable, me too! Just over the weekend. I have a support request into AccuRIP, and they usually respond pretty well. Now, we run off one cartridge; check Multi-Black, uncheck all carts not being used. To set the droplet weight, you have to uncheck Multi-Black to reach that option. We're set on 12 (out of 15) to get the solid blacks we need. I was just reading over the instructions from AccuRIP, and they say to print the test, measure with the densitometer, and put the numbers into the appropriate boxes in the dot gain curve. Could that mean that we should be putting in higher numbers, since say, 20% is printing at 30%, should we be putting that into the 20% box, as opposed to the compensated numbers creating the new curve? That maybe AR compensates from there? That would be the opposite of creating the curve in Photoshop, yes? Hmmm...
Steve
Megan tried entering the readings into the boxes and the sizes were still wrong. . .
pierre
-
OK, this just in from AccuRIP
1. What brand film are you using?
2, Who's ink is being used?
3. Single black or all black ink system?
4. What resolution was the target print printed at?
5. Did you print a Density Test print page? What is the droplet weight number being used?
6. What kind of densitometer was used to measure your print and was it calibrated before the reading?
Once I gain a clearer picture I will be more helpful to discovering the reason for the heavy print outs.
Pierre, I'm pretty sure it's a transmissive densitometer, model perhaps?
We will get this right, I'm sure.
Steve
-
OK, this just in from AccuRIP
1. What brand film are you using?
2, Who's ink is being used?
3. Single black or all black ink system?
4. What resolution was the target print printed at?
5. Did you print a Density Test print page? What is the droplet weight number being used?
6. What kind of densitometer was used to measure your print and was it calibrated before the reading?
Once I gain a clearer picture I will be more helpful to discovering the reason for the heavy print outs.
Pierre, I'm pretty sure it's a transmissive densitometer, model perhaps?
We will get this right, I'm sure.
Steve
betalog something, 130 I think. Used in transmissive mode. calibration checked recently and is within 0.5% of the calibration page. I've been using it for years and it works fine.
feel free to pass my info to Charlie and have him call me directly if it would make things easier.
pierre
-
OK, I've heard from Charlie at AccuRIP; he says, print out the test target in AccuRIP, and have that read. When you get your readings back, and enter them, DO NOT reprint the test from AccuRIP, it's what he called a virgin file, the settings won't change it. So, I think, after you get the readings back, print out Pierre's test graphics and compare that to the original you kept when you sent it to him originally. I sent in one more question to be sure, and I'll post the answer once I get the it.
Steve
-
Apparently, this came in while I was typing the last update... I had asked if the 50% reading came back as 60%, should I enter 60% into the 50% box? His answer:
Correct. After you take the reading from the target print you put the numbers into the corresponding fields. If the 50% reads 60% put 60 into the 50 field and it will curve it back for you.
Remember that after that the Target print will never change regardless of the new settings. That is what makes it a Target print, its RAW data. What you will see change will be the prints form your graphics app that pass through the RIP after that.
Make a bunch of % squares in Illustrator and print you will see the difference.
Let me know of your understanding and success.
-
as with the rest of the AccuRIP, Charlie is trying to make the printer's life easier. It does make more sense to enter data that way.
I do think that we tried what he is saying, but at least we know now what's supposed to be done. I'll look around and see if I can find the old films I read for everybody and give the numbers to enter into the curve dialog.
pierre
-
Good info Steve, thank you for sharing..and thanks P for helping us out too.
-
as with the rest of the AccuRIP, Charlie is trying to make the printer's life easier. It does make more sense to enter data that way.
I do think that we tried what he is saying, but at least we know now what's supposed to be done. I'll look around and see if I can find the old films I read for everybody and give the numbers to enter into the curve dialog.
pierre
We should actually print the test target that comes with AccuRIP (in the dot gain control dialog) according to Charlie, but I'm not exactly sure how that would make a difference... anyway, this should end the head scratching. (Really, when the film came out darker, didn't it just suck the air out of you? :o)
Steve
-
as with the rest of the AccuRIP, Charlie is trying to make the printer's life easier. It does make more sense to enter data that way.
I do think that we tried what he is saying, but at least we know now what's supposed to be done. I'll look around and see if I can find the old films I read for everybody and give the numbers to enter into the curve dialog.
pierre
We should actually print the test target that comes with AccuRIP (in the dot gain control dialog) according to Charlie, but I'm not exactly sure how that would make a difference... anyway, this should end the head scratching. (Really, when the film came out darker, didn't it just suck the air out of you? :o)
Steve
does the target have the % indicated for the fields? If you guys send those over, I'll take the readings. . .
pierre
-
Yes, 5, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 95 and 100. I just printed 2 out, I'll send one out today.
Steve
-
Steve
Thanks so much for that info. I think my issue was not having that raw file read. I had a file read straight out of Illustrator. With the option to lock your angle and lpi in accurip, that makes more sense. I will print mine out today and have it examined. I will report my findings. There really are soooooooo many variables here to consider. It kinda makes you head spin!!!
-
got Steve's films and took the readings. For most ppl with AccuRIP using his settings will be pretty close until they get the actual readings.
Here's what came up:
lefts side is the printed percentage followed up by the actual readings (the number to be entered into the adjustment fields)
5-9
10-17
20-29
30-42
40-55
50-65
60-75
70-84
80-90
90-97
95-99.5
100-100
pierre
-
Thanks Pierre, that's great. Can't wait to have the next job go through... I hope I don't have to correct or re-output some old files, I'll have to output the whole job :o
Steve
-
Thanks Pierre, that's great. Can't wait to have the next job go through... I hope I don't have to correct or re-output some old files, I'll have to output the whole job :o
Steve
we've run into that before and it was a PAIN! We now print gradient boxes on all the sim process films so we can match it if the need ever comes.
pierre
-
OK, I finally had a chance to print out the old test (Pierre's) with the new settings, and it's much, much better. I haven't had a chance to really study it, but it's, well, much, much better.
Steve
Thanks for the help Pierre; you da man
-
I dropped these numbers in mine too and they opened up the 90% range and what I thought was 5% is actually closer to 15! thanks guys!
-
So is this a good base line for just about anyone? Or is it just for those running a particular printer?
-
This test was for my Epson 1400; running a single cartridge instead of all six, droplet weight is 12. 12 seems to give us a nice dense black for solids. When I get my 4800 up and running again, I'll run the test again for that as well, and save the profile. "Your mileage may vary..."
Steve
-
of the three RIPs I've tested, every single one was printing more than 60% where it should have been 50%. Most produce in 65-72% range. This was on three different printers (3000, 1400 and 4800).
So statistically speaking, this would make a good baseline, but there is no guarantee of what comes out. For what it's worth, if I had nothing, I would use those numbers rather than the factory settings.
Your best bet is to print the test and mail it out for the readings. 'cost you about a buck worth of stamps . . .
pierre
-
I just tried entering our readings into the Dot Gain Control Feature (thanks Pierre!) and Accruip gives the following error (see attachment) when trying to output films. The "initlinearization" means something is going on with the Dot Gain Feature, which was confirmed because when I unselect the Dot Gain Control films print with no problem. I submitted a ticket with Software For Screen Printers but was wondering if maybe someone else encountered this issue and knows what is going on.
Accurip Version 1.01 Build 53
Illustrator CS2
-
I mentioned this in another post I think but make sure you only have a zero or a five in the first decimal place.
-
Im a dope! I had 100 in more than one slot. Since 80 and above all read as 100 I just used 98.5, 99, 99.5, and 100 for the last 4 slots. I did remember your increments of .5 post and made sure to do that but I was unaware of the fact that multiple 100s would cause a problem even though it seems obvious in hindsight. Thanks Zoo!
-
Now another question...our 5% was reading as 14.5% so when outputting after adjusting the Dot Gain Control feature I get nothing printed at 4% and below. Is there anything that I can do to address this? This will not mean much of anything for 99.9% of the stuff we currently print but why settle for mediocrity!
-
Now another question...our 5% was reading as 14.5% so when outputting after adjusting the Dot Gain Control feature I get nothing printed at 4% and below. Is there anything that I can do to address this? This will not mean much of anything for 99.9% of the stuff we currently print but why settle for mediocrity!
This was my question from the other thread. Except I'm seeing data loss all over from it. If it just clipped 4% and below I would probably be cool with that for 99% of our jobs too, but it's clipping all over in relation to the linearization curve.
It's like it doesn't understand that I still want all the information available in the print file for each spot color, I just want it printed in a manner that compensates for gain. Instead it's eliminating elements of the art, choking off the file instead of the output. Seems kinda ass backwards to me.
-
I was wondering if that is what you were saying in your other thread...I'm a little slow sometimes!
This does seem like a big deal because it did the same thing on the 80+ adjustments for us (maybe elsewhere as well as I have not spent much time with it other than noticing the glaringly obvious problems). It outputs craziness, I guess because the highest percentages are so dark that the values you enter are close enough to make the rip output a mess.
Hopefully someone out there has some answers.
-
Any worthy rip options out there for Mac. Would love to try FilmMaker but it is PC only and I would like to achieve better results than Accurip is allowing me to achieve.
-
I think Wasatch can run on OSX. I hear ya on this and it's why I've been with AR for too long, I just hate having to switch between op systems, even though it's pretty easy with fusion, etc., but it is absolutely time to get setup with a better rip with some of the work we're running.
-
So I actually have Accurip set fairly well now. I ended up doing several rounds of printing a sample file with the the varying percentages and adusting the numbers in the Dot Gain control a little each time. For some reason if I took readings from the target file within Accurip and inputed the numbers in the Dot Gain feature it did not adjust them correctly.
I also emailed back and forth with Charlie and here are a couple reminders in the event that it helps anyone:
- for a gradient that fades away to nothing go from 100% of that particular spot color to 0% of that spot color and not from 100% of that spot color to white.
- if using illustrator use spot colors and output via host-bast separations and don't use the composite mode
Charlie said not doing the above can affect the films. He also emphasized the importance of good film and inks and their ability to make great strides in controlling dot gain.
I will now give this thread a rest as I am pretty darn happy with the results I am now getting even though it took a few headaches to get there!
-
Huh, so you need to test it against your own file out of Illy v. the target file?
Are you seeing that data loss I was referring to in the other post still with this method?
-
I guess that wasn't as clear as it sounded in my head!!!
The target file for me was useless because the dot gain control was not adjusting correctly. If the target 50% was reading as 65 I would input 65 in the 50 slot of the got gain control and then my sample file out of Illy would still be way off. Thus I just started printing the Illy sample file over and over adjusting the dot gain after each one. It is not perfect but it is waaayyyy closer than before and there is no data loss.
-
Cool, I'll try it. Maybe the linearization : test file is going over the top with the adjustments, which would explain the data loss. The numbers I have in my curve based off the test file are extreme.
-
Give it a shot because done the way they tell you to everything 90ish and above was solid and 4 and below was empty after inputting the numbers that were supposed to correctly adjust for the readings of the target. It seems the dot gain feature was making bigger adjustments than I was telling it to. Print your Illy file and read that and make small adjustments and repeat and hopefully you will have some success as I finally did. In the end my curve had a lot less of a curve than what the readings of the target had called for.
-
So, I tried this on the Epson 1430 due to my dots seeming too heavy. I entered the values Pierre listed and again, heavier than what I am getting.
In fact, I am reading 0% in Photoshop while the film is kicking out a 1%. Now, I know if you have the 0 set at 1, you will get 1% in all areas intended to be white so you don't want to have anything in the 0 location. This is not the case. I have a 0 in 0. So, I opened the art file and adjusted the curves to take out even more. Taking out what could be the 2% in this area. Still, dots come out.
What gets me, is this RIP, based on how you all are describing to enter the values, It's bass awards. Like, some of or all of the rips I've worked on for dot gain compensation, is like curves in photoshop. You want a 50, you drop the curve to 40 (for example). Here, if you want a 50, you enter what you are getting/reading. If it's a 60, you enter in the 50 spot. BUT, it's not happening for me. Still too heavy. The shadow tones especially. Will look at it more later.
-
Digging up this dinosaur thread. I have Black Pearl and had Pierre read my output. Entered the values and ran a new output and everything looked better but values 85-100 were very heavy. 85 was darn near solid and 90-100 were solid black. Any idea what I may have done wrong?
Here is a photo
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190429/4057f5de3dec6e5fe44cc2fd8a0e2f43.jpg)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Lancasterprinthouse,
I'm sure you have worked this out by now, but I would assume that the readings from Pierre's will get you close only. Better than none or most, but not 100% the same. The reason being, you need to be using the same type of inks, and the the same weight droplet. You can print out the Weight droplet test (onto film), and determine wha tis the best weight to use (to get solid images) with no light coming through...and down run or take a long time to dry. Thats what that test is for. THEN, you can put in Peirre's numbers...and get closer. You can even ask him what he used for a weight droplet, but film type plays another factor. All of these play. factor. Ink type, Film brand, weight droplet amount (and art). The art and color profiles are another much longer topic, but for started. Narrow down a good weight droplet and enter Pierre's numbers....and then lastly, adjust those numbers as needed.