2018 en MulticolorForum Presentation

Fogra Multicolor Forum 2018, 2018-10-04
Fogra Multicolor Forum

2018
Dr. Andreas Kraushaar | kraushaar@fogra.org !1

Agenda
1.Aim and motivation of the Forum
2.Test programme & Findings
1.Characterising
PART I 2.Proofing
3.Spectral Prediction
4.Separation of images
5.Separation of spot colour
3.Partner presentation (How they

tackled the tasks)
Visiting Foyer
PART II 3.Q&C - Discussion

4.Multicolor Forum 2019
1. Idea and motivation

Born at Fogra Colour Management Symposium 2018
Aims:
¬ Provide an vendor neutral overview of Multicolor technologies
¬ Using actual printed samples
¬ Rely on agreed upon rules and Fogra as competent referee
¬ No winner, but comparisons of actual findings
Solutions from:
AGFA, Alwan,
Huber supplied
CGS, ColorGate,
spot samples
ColorLogic,
ESKO, GMG,
Heidelberg & manroland
Kodak printed
testforms
11 partners
2. Test programme
Testform A Testform B 4 Spot colours
PDF + Prints + CxF/X-4a (Blue) PDF incl. CxF/X-4b samples
5 use cases (tasks):

1. Characterising (e.g. ICC-Profiling)
2. Proofing (Testform A)
3. Spectral Prediction
4. Separation of images
5. Separation of spot colours
2. Test programme: Printing uniformity/consistency

Print run consistency: Testform A
476 Doublets ➡ 476 MCDM (∆E76)

average for each measured sheet (ID)
1,5
0,5
Print run ID

2. Test programme: Print(Testform A) = Print(Testform C)?

TVI
Testform A
tone value (data set)

TVI
Testform C
tone value (data set)
∆E00max = 12.48 (0,0,100,0,0,100)

∆E0095th = 5,1
∆E00avg = 2.30
∆E00Median = 1.96

2. Testform setup
CMYK only OGV only
Separations:

2.1 Characterising
¬Based on a provided spectral reference (ECG V4) with 4200 patches
¬More information on ECG-V4 in the Kodak presentation (Ron Ellis)
¬Creating an ICC-profile (or another data transform)
Findings:
Avg_∆E76 Avg_∆E00 Max_∆E76 Max_∆E00 95% Quantile 95% Quantile
∆E76 ∆E00
AGFA* 0.4 0.3 5.6 6.9 2.3 1.4
AGFA 0.9 0.6 13.5 10.9 4.0 2.9
ColorLogic 0.4 0.3 4.6 4.0 1.3 1.0
KODAK 0.8 0.5 6.9 5.3 2.0 1.5
Heidelberg 2.7 1.8 16.2 18.3 7.1 5.1
Alwan 1.0 0.6 9.5 6.1 2.7 1.9
ColorGate 0.4 0.3 7.3 5.2 1.6 1.2
GMG (MXN profile) 0.0 0.0 2.6 2.3 0.0 0.0
CGS 7.3 5.1 32.8 30.3 16.5 12.9
CGS* 1.0 0.6 6.9 6.0 2.5 1.6
Dr. Andreas Kraushaar | kraushaar@fogra.org *re-submission, see problem statement during partner presentation !8
2.2 Proofing: General

¬Create contract proofs for the given reference print
¬Printing Condition: wet offset, KCMYVOG, 70/cm, coated stock
¬Add Fogra MediaWedge Multicolor and apply ISO 12647-7:2016
¬Focus on colour accuracy and not on infrastructure (status line, conformity etc.)
40 40 40 0 0 0 0
70 70 70 0 0 0 0
100 100 100 0 0 0
40 40 40 40 0 0 0
Composed grey patches

Findings:
Spirit of ISO 12647-7 allows for multicolor implementation
CMYK Primaries (Max) ➡ All process primaries (Max)

2.2 Proofing: Results
ISO
Evalua&on Agfa Alwan CGS ColorGATE
12647-7:2016
A-2 A-3 A-2 A-3 A-2 A-3 A-2 A-3
Substrate (Max) 3,0 2,4 2,1 2,5 2,5 2,5 2,7

All patches (Avg) 2,5 0,9 1,0 1,4 1,4 1,1 1,0
All patches (Max) 5,0 4,2 3,9 3,5 3,5 4,9 5,0
CMYK Primaries (Max) 3,0 3,0 3,3 not parAcipaAon 2,5 2,5 1,4 0,9
CMY Primaries ΔH (Max) 2,5 2,2 2,3 5,1 4,8 1,2 1,6
Comp. Grey ΔCh (Max) 3,5 0,9 0,9 2,6 2,6 2,6 2,9
Comp. Grey ΔCh (Avg) 2,0 0,6 0,6 1,9 1,9 1,8 1,7
Evalua&on ColorLogic ESKO GMG Heidelberg KODAK

A-2 A-3 A-2 A-3 A-2 A-3 A-2 A-3 A-2 A-3
Substrate 2,6 2,7 2,4 2,6 1,8 1,7 2,7 2,8 2,0 2,0
All (Avg) 1,2 1,2 0,8 1,0 0,7 0,6 1,3 1,3 1,2 1,2
All (Max) 4,8 4,7 2,4 2,6 2,6 2,5 4,5 5,0 3,9 4,2
CMYK (Max) 1,7 1,8 1,6 1,2 1,1 1,2 1,7 1,4 2,8 2,9
ΔH (Max) 3,3 2,5 1,5 2,1 0,8 0,7 1,0 0,9 2,4 2,5
ΔCh (Max) 3,6 3,4 1,1 1,1 1,4 1,3 1,9 1,8 3,0 2,9
ΔCh (Avg) 1,9 1,9 0,7 0,8 0,7 0,7 1,5 1,3 1,8 1,5

2.3 Spectral prediction - Test Scenario

¬Basis: Printing Condition: wet offset, KCMYVOG, 70/cm, coated stock
ECG-V4
4200 samples
Reference
45° 15° 75° 0° 45° 15° 75°
¬Test: Identical Printing Condition: wet offset, KCMYOGBlue, 30 min later
ECG-V4
4200 samples 
Test
45° 15° 75° 0° 15° 75° 45°

2.3 Spectral prediction - Task
ECG-V4
4200 samples
Reference ECG-V4
4200 samples 
Prediction
+
test-print
?
4200 CMYKOGV tone values
ECG-V4
4200 samples 
Test
2598 combinations using no Blue 1602 combinations with Blue 072

should be identical with the reference

2.3 Spectral prediction - Evaluation I

¬ How accurate the given reference data can be reproduced?
¬ Comparing the spectral predictions with provided data (reference)
¬ Focus on 2598 patches (without using Blue 072 at all) - based on provided meas. data
ID Avg_∆E76 Avg_∆E00 Max_∆E76 Max_∆E00
95% Quantile 95% Quantile
∆E76 ∆E00
AGFA 0.20 0.10 0.76 0.23 0.47 0.17
ColorLogic 0.04 0.03 0.11 0.12 0.08 0.07
GMG (MXN Profile) 0.03 0.03 2.57 2.35 0.08 0.06
ESKO 0.02 0.01 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.02
Heidelberg 0.04 0.03 0.11 0.12 0.08 0.07
Alwan 0.02 0.01 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.02
KODAK 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.02
Dr. Andreas Kraushaar| kraushaar@fogra.org !13

2.3 Spectral prediction - Evaluation II

¬ What is the printing noise (run to run consistency & uniformity)
¬ Checking colour differences of doublets by mean and maximum
colour difference of the mean (of all found doublets)
ID 95% Quantile
95%
Avg_∆E76 Avg_∆E00 Max_∆E76 Max_∆E00 Quantile
∆E76
∆E00
Printer Noise   1.14 0.69 7.49 5.98 2.56 1.62

(Doublets, MCDM & MaxCDM)
¬ So you can not get better (than lying between all patches)
For instance:
0 0 0 0 100 0 0
L* a* b* ∆E00
62.9 60.4 80.3 0,3
63.7 58.6 79.2 0,6
63.1 60.6 79.6 0,4
mean 63.2 59.9 79.7 MCDM = 0.4
2.3 Spectral prediction - Evaluation III

¬ Since K and Blue shared the same screening angle (O&C and G&M)
¬ Check the difference between combinations using K and not using K
with the ground truth (test)

*re-submission, see problem statement during partner presentation
2.3 Spectral prediction - Evaluation IV

¬ For combinations using K
¬ How accurate are the colour predictions for Black + Blue 072 C
C M Y K O G Blue

2.3 Spectral prediction - Evaluation V

¬ For combinations using K
¬ How accurate are the 2 colour predictions (C+K+Blue, …)
C M Y K O G Blue
….
2.3 Spectral prediction - Evaluation VI

¬ For combinations using no K
¬ How accurate are the 2 colour predictions (C+Blue, …)
C M Y K O G Blue
….

2.3 Spectral prediction - Evaluation VII

¬ For combinations, that are not using any dot-on-dot combinations
¬ No C-O, no M-G and no K-V —> 573 patches
C M Y K O G Blue
ID Avg_∆E00 Max_∆E00
AGFA 5.4 16.3
Alwan 4.8 14.0
ColorLogic* 3.6 14.7
ESKO 4.8 21.9
GMG 2.6 9.9
Heidelberg 3.9 15.8
KODAK 5.0 20.6

….
2.3 Spectral prediction - Summary

¬ Overall evaluation using 1602 patches
¬ You see, that there are many details to be of interest
ID Avg_∆E76 Avg_∆E00 Max_∆E76 Max_∆E00 95% Quantile 95% Quantile
∆E76 ∆E00
AGFA 13.6 8.9 47.7 33.6 31.2 19.6

ColorLogic 8.8 5.3 28.3 19.4 19.4 11.6
ColorLogic* 5.5 3.8 18.9 14.7 11.5 8.4
GMG 5.0 3.2 16.6 12.0 9.7 7.5
ESKO 7.4 4.9 33.4 25.3 18.8 12.6
Heidelberg 6.1 4.2 32.7 30.4 14.2 10.0
Alwan 7.2 4.8 23.6 14.5 13.5 9.2
KODAK 6.4 4.3 25.5 20.6 14.3 9.6
¬ Contact your partner of interest for more details
¬ Optionally some partners have proofed Testform A for the modified
printing condition (KCMYOGBlue), please check how the presented
figures visually matters
2.4 separation of images: Task

¬ Based on given AdobeRGB images perform a preferable (visual
pleasant) rendering (7C PDF) for the given printing condition
¬ Testform C contains separations of all partners - check visually

2.5 separation of spot colours: Task

¬ Based on spectral readings of 4 physical samples
¬ 2x out of 7C-gamut: Pantone Purple C & 493C
¬ 2x within 7C-gamut: 353C & HKS14
¬ 7C recipes should be provided (to be printed: Testform C)
+
CxF/X-4b

2.5 separation of spot colours: Findings
ID ∆E00 ∆E00 ∆E00 ∆E00

AGFA 9.7 3.2 4.8 5.5
Alwan 6.8 1.9 1.6 3.1
CGS 6.8 2.2 1.8 3.0
ColorLogic 6.6 0.4 1.6 3.1
ColorGate 6.7 0.2 0.8 3.3
ESKO 6.5 1.9 1.2 3.5
GMG 6.4 1.7 1.7 3.4
Heidelberg 6.7 1.8 1.4 6.8
KODAK 6.6 1.2 2.1 3.2

ID ∆E00 ∆E00 ∆E00 ∆E00

AGFA 9.6 3.2 4.6 5.1
Alwan 6.6 1.8 1.5 3.0
CGS 6.6 2.1 1.6 2.7
ColorLogic 6.5 0.6 1.2 2.9
ColorGate 6.5 0.3 0.7 2.8
ESKO 6.5 2.2 1.1 3.3
GMG 6.3 1.9 1.6 3.1
Heidelberg 6.7 1.9 1.4 6.7
KODAK 6.5 1.2 1.9 3.0

ty were
0,00
'
les, and 000 1 00
Fogra Multicolor Forum 2018,
200
2018-10-04
300 4,00 ,00 600 700
Mean Rank
different
ues that 2.5 separation of spot colours: graininess
E00_std, After analyzing the results, it was determined that dE00
an, and std was the best of the six metrics to measure image qua-
Fogra method
an and lity. The following six categories based on dE00 std were
Image Quality Based on Graininess
ted and thus created for reading distance applications (40cm.) Fogra
ated by AIM
The aim of this experiment was to evaluate image quality Mean Rank vs avg dEOO_std
0,90
based on measurements of graininess and determine the 0,80
t ~·f
0 S AS 0,25 ................. Completely smooth with no visible grain best metric on which to judge samples.
0, 70
'B 0,60
R1 .:.Q,8808
~ I 0,5 0
0 ,40
·•
f
0,25 < B S 0,5 ................... Mostly smooth with a very slight grain PROCESS
First, six media wedges of various noise quality were
0,30
0,20
0,10 '
.
0,00
scanned at 300 dpi, converted to 8-bit LAB files, and 000 1 00 200 300 4,00 ,00 600 700
0,5 < C S 0,75 .................................................. Noticable grain evaluated for graininess in MATLAB at three different
Mean Rank
pixel tolerances (SxS, l0xl0 and 20x20.) The values that

0,75 < D S 1,0 ................................................. Grain is quite obvious were measured included max dE00_std, avg dE00_std, After analyzing the results, it was determined that dE00
avg dE76_mean, avg dE76_std, avg dE00_mean, and std was the best of the six metrics to measure image qua-
1,0 < E $ 1,25 ................................... Rough and grainy appearance 95perc dE00 quantile of dE00_mean . The mean and lity. The following six categories based on dE00 std were
standard deviation of these values were calculated and thus created for reading distance applications (40cm.)
F > 1,25 ...... Textured appearance with highly pronounced grain used for analysis. An example of a report generated by
MATLAB is displayed below: 0 S AS 0,25 ................. Completely smooth with no visible grain
__
0,25 < B S 0,5 ................... Mostly smooth with a very slight grain
...,,sradR11•t..»1u--.s ,~ira.•• 021021 0,5 < C S 0,75 .................................................. Noticable grain
., 0,75 < D S 1,0 ................................................. Grain is quite obvious

1,0 < E $ 1,25 ................................... Rough and grainy appearance
1
"
L II te:- l n1c,.,-.,.
.. F > 1,25 ...... Textured appearance with highly pronounced grain
__
a'flfflllll'ld~Til•O .WIM 1"9fflll1Jtl!l01>• 04J.161
.,.... - ---r- - _.,.... -,------,
~ "0 The second part of the experiment consisted of measu- i

!g • o 1\ t 1'~ '
1
•ao6 ' 1
1
•
1
"
.,
i!. t tt
, , P 6oc,, ."lo1,•
t,, °·J~ai,o~ 11 'I t•~r/oo /t l'a 0 \ L II te:-
~ä~ a.:;;~I°ytr~ ,~a:aC09~ao"6Cq-0cr~~a11 .a•~a·ooO 0': g.001t~~ "0
0
'~g:: The second part of the experiment consisted of measu-
0
7
' 11 •o '.lO .i
ring a before-and-after print sample and analyzing the

T11s1p11lches
ring a before-and-after print sample and analyzing the
differences in image quality based on the concieved met-
Next, a brief rank order experiment was conducted with
ric. An example of the data from a sample measurement
differences in image quality based on the concieved met- five participants. Test subjects ranked the six media wed-
ge samples from best to worst with respect to image qua-
is shown in the figure below:
ed with lity. The results of the experiment are displayed below:

ric. An example of the data from a sample measurement ,--~==---r--::;;;;;::=:-
..._"c'_•_"=·
ia wed- Stimuli Person 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person 5 Avg
'·i:t====c==~
- -- ~-~--~ --~----'-
- _j
is shown in the figure below: JKl 1,00 1,00 2,00 1,00 1,00 1,20 u
T~
.,........,,
.............,.u,·~-...«• • l ,11..Q
•• ,. •
ge qua- JK2
JK3
6,00
5,00
6,00
5,00
6,00
5,00
6,00
4,00
6,00
5,00
6,00
4,80 -
-'-
. -----~-----~
....--
,,
' "
JK4 4,00 4,00 4,00 5,00 4,00 4,20
elow: JK5 3,00 3,00 3,00 3,00 3,00 3,00
JK6 2,00 2,00 1,00 2,00 2,00 1,80

RESULTS
,--~==---r--::;;;;;::=:-
..._"c'_•_"=· The data from these two experiments were then ana-
Based on the results of the experiments, dE00 std was de-
termined to be the best metric on which to judge image
5 Avg
1,20
'·i:t====c==~
u - -- ~-~--~ T~
.,........,,
--~----'-
•• - _j
,. •
lyzed in Excel using a basic linear regression model in
an attempt to determine the best metric for measuring
image quality. An example of the resulting graph for
Mean Rank vs dE00 std is shown:
quality, and six categories were created. The samples used
in the experiments are presented in the following pages
of this report. Further research must be conducted to va-
lidate these results.
.............,.u,·~-...«• • l ,11..Q
6,00
4,80 -
-'-
. -----~-----~
.... --
,,
' "
4,20
3,00
∆E00STD ∆E00STD
ID ∆E00STD ∆E00STD
AGFA 0.19 A 0.25 A 0.25 A 0.18 A

Alwan 0.43 B 0.20 A 0.30 B 0.14 A
CGS 0.38 B 0.21 A 0.30 B 0.14 A
ColorLogic0.41 B 0.23 A 0.23 A 0.15 A
ColorGate 0.42 B 0.23 A 0.28 B 0.19 A
ESKO 0.45 B 0.24 A 0.34 B 0.14 A
GMG 0.47 B 0.18 A 0.29 B 0.29 B
Heidelberg 0.48 B 0.17 A 0.32 B 0.26 B
KODAK 0.48 B 0.23 A 0.31 B 0.20 A

3. Partner presentations
at the Fogra table you can see (under D50):
Offset prints:
Reference prints Testform A: KCMYVOG
Reference prints Testform A: KCMYOGBlue
Reference prints Testform C: KCMYVOG
Proofs:
Submitted partner proofs of Testform A: KCMYVOG
Submitted partner proofs of Testform B: KCMYOGBlue
Submitted partner proofs of Testform C: KCMYVOG
Submitted partner proofs of Testform C: KCMYOGBlue
Spots
Spot colour samples (Testform C)
with reference in the centre
Showcasing the dot on dot picture (fan out)

4. Questions & Answers —> Discussion
Lessons learned (so far):

¬ Multicolor Technology has left its infancy
¬ The available software tools are sophisticated for many existing
use cases (both spot colour replacements and utilising the
extended gamut)
¬ More and more tools and plugins exist to overcome the existing
shortcomings (in partial in the authoring process)
¬ A lot of room for standardisation (practical guidance)
¬ Avoiding dot on dot (moiré free) screening
¬ Universal ECG-Testchart (7C)
¬ Store and access multicolor measurement data
¬ Adopt existing standards to become multicolor ready (ISO
12647-8, PSO etc.)
¬…
5. Ideas for Multicolor Forum 2019
✓Test spot colour overprints

✓Using FM screen (offset, flexo or Digital)
✓Use improved images (no jelly fish)
✓Check PDF integrity (overprinting
behaviour)
✓CxF/X-4 compatibility
✓Print order changes
✓CMM variability
✓more ideas?

2018 en MulticolorForum Presentation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2018 en MulticolorForum Presentation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fogra Multicolor Forum 2018, 2018-10-04

Fogra Multicolor Forum

Dr. Andreas Kraushaar | kraushaar@fogra.org !1

3.Partner presentation (How they

PART II 3.Q&C - Discussion

1. Idea and motivation

PDF + Prints + CxF/X-4a (Blue) PDF incl. CxF/X-4b samples

5 use cases (tasks):

2. Test programme: Printing uniformity/consistency

476 Doublets ➡ 476 MCDM (∆E76)

Dr. Andreas Kraushaar | kraushaar@fogra.org !5

2. Test programme: Print(Testform A) = Print(Testform C)?

tone value (data set)

tone value (data set)

∆E00max = 12.48 (0,0,100,0,0,100)

Dr. Andreas Kraushaar | kraushaar@fogra.org !6

CMYK only OGV only

Dr. Andreas Kraushaar | kraushaar@fogra.org !7

2.2 Proofing: General

Composed grey patches

Dr. Andreas Kraushaar | kraushaar@fogra.org !9

2.2 Proofing: Results

Substrate (Max) 3,0 2,4 2,1 2,5 2,5 2,5 2,7

Evalua&on ColorLogic ESKO GMG Heidelberg KODAK

Dr. Andreas Kraushaar | kraushaar@fogra.org !10

2.3 Spectral prediction - Test Scenario

45° 15° 75° 0° 45° 15° 75°

¬Test: Identical Printing Condition: wet offset, KCMYOGBlue, 30 min later

Dr. Andreas Kraushaar | kraushaar@fogra.org !11

2.3 Spectral prediction - Task

2598 combinations using no Blue 1602 combinations with Blue 072

Dr. Andreas Kraushaar | kraushaar@fogra.org !12

2.3 Spectral prediction - Evaluation I

AGFA 0.20 0.10 0.76 0.23 0.47 0.17

ColorLogic 0.04 0.03 0.11 0.12 0.08 0.07

GMG (MXN Profile) 0.03 0.03 2.57 2.35 0.08 0.06

ESKO 0.02 0.01 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.02

Heidelberg 0.04 0.03 0.11 0.12 0.08 0.07

Alwan 0.02 0.01 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.02

KODAK 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.02

Dr. Andreas Kraushaar| kraushaar@fogra.org !13

2.3 Spectral prediction - Evaluation II

Printer Noise 1.14 0.69 7.49 5.98 2.56 1.62

2.3 Spectral prediction - Evaluation III

Dr. Andreas Kraushaar| kraushaar@fogra.org !15

2.3 Spectral prediction - Evaluation IV

Dr. Andreas Kraushaar| kraushaar@fogra.org !16

2.3 Spectral prediction - Evaluation V

2.3 Spectral prediction - Evaluation VI

Dr. Andreas Kraushaar| kraushaar@fogra.org !18

2.3 Spectral prediction - Evaluation VII

AGFA 5.4 16.3

Alwan 4.8 14.0

ColorLogic* 3.6 14.7

ESKO 4.8 21.9

GMG 2.6 9.9

Heidelberg 3.9 15.8

KODAK 5.0 20.6

2.3 Spectral prediction - Summary

AGFA 13.6 8.9 47.7 33.6 31.2 19.6

2.4 separation of images: Task

Dr. Andreas Kraushaar | kraushaar@fogra.org !21

Printer Noise   1.14 0.69 7.49 5.98 2.56 1.62