Does anyone know what the supported rips are for IDEALink? The only information I can find says “Supports most popular rips”. I would be using it with ColorBurst, Onyx and possibly Wasatch.
IdeaLink simply gives you curve values to input into a Rip (percent values to enter into CMYK LUTs). Whether or not the Rip is “supported” depends on whether or not you have the ability to control CMYK curves individually by entering such values.
Michael Eddington | North American Color, Inc.
QA Manager|Gracol G7 Certified Expert
5960 S. Sprinkle Road | Portage, MI 49002
P. (269) 323-0552 | F. (269) 323-0190
From: Robert Fulford
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 8:31 PM
Subject: IDEALink and G7
Does anyone know what the supported rips are for IDEALink? The only information I can find says “Supports most popular rips”. I would be using it with ColorBurst, Onyx and possibly Wasatch.
-------------------- m2f --------------------
Sent from colorforums.com
To start new topics, do not reply to this message. Cut and paste the forum address into a new email.
Return to www.colorforums.com for subscription administration
©2004-5 CHROMiX, Inc.
[url=http://one.imports.literateforums.com/t/idealink-and-g7/467/1]
-------------------- m2f --------------------
Post generated from email list
Robert,
The IdeaLink tool was designed for adjusting plate curves and not for third party inkjet rips. These plate curves are often adjusted in a prepress rip that controls a plate setter.
I hope that helps.
JimRich
On 7/19/07 8:30 PM, “Robert Fulford”
Post generated from email list
Can I get official confirmation on what Jimrich stated? The official Gracol How To Training Guide has an entire section for proofing either with a analog or digital based proofing system and consistantly refers to various previous sections within the training guide that uses the Idealink Curve.
See sections 10.11.1, 10.2 and various other sections that revert back to the “proofing a press sections” (7.2 to 7.6) consistantly state that it can be used and should be.
If you can not use the Idealink Curve with a 3rd part RIP with a digital proofer, why does the How to Training Guide state otherwise? I am well versed in .ICC profiles, so I am not assuming at all this can be done without the use of a successfully made ICC work flow, however wouldn’t the Idealink software help in getting the foundation set?
This is not an accusation, nearly a question as to the inconsistency in what I see mentioned with in the manual and the post as I am getting knee deep into this now.
It depends on the proofing system whether or not it could be used. For a laminate based proofer like the Kodak Approval, yes, it certainly can be used. Many inkjet proofing systems won’t allow for G7 calibration, and the benefits could minimal even if they did.
Taken from the G7 How To guide: If the proofer already requires ICC profiles (or equivalent) for color matching, there may be less advantage in calibrating the proofer to G7 gray balance and NPDC curves, but if the proofer is capable of approximating a commercial press WITHOUT a 4-D transform (true of most halftone digital proofers) then calibrating to G7 gray balance and NPDC curves should optimize quality, even without further color management.
Hmm,
After re reading what I wrote. Let me say this, if you are trying to have a direct interface to a third party rip say like a Rampage system or Prinergy the IDEA link tool does not do that.
However, one way to interpret what the How to guide states is some thing like this.
The IdeaLink tool was designed for adjusting plate curves and not for interfacing directly to third party inkjet rips. However, you can send a p2p target through a workflow via a rip and then use the IDEA Link to analyse the measurements. I think that is the context of the How to document.
I hope that is a little clearer.
Jim Rich
On 7/31/07 12:16 PM, “Xavier”
Post generated from email list
Don Hutcheson recently made a post (7-16-07) to the Printing Across Borders mailing list where he describes his view of the G7 methodology with regards to third party Rips, including inkjet Rips. Its rather lengthy, but the gist is G7 could have value in replacing the “daily calibration” of some inkjet Rips. Again, most high end inkjet Rips probably won’t support such a substitution and benefits might be minimal or invisible on them.
To those who have interest in using the G7 process for third party inkjets.
My sense is that yes you can in fact take the time to learn how to use the G7 process to adjust any number of third party ink jet rips, but the caveat is that you will be on your own for support. And if things go wrong in production you are putting your business at risk.
My observation in todays ink jet rip market is that each one of the third party inkjet rip have their own way of working to produce proper linearizations, inklimiting and to use profiles. And these rips were not created to be used with the G7 calibration process.
While it is possible to go into your own R&D mode to figure out how a rip works and then jury rig it to react like Fugi final proofs and Kodak Approvals, using the G7 calibration process, going that route does not appear to be a practical endevor. The reason is simple, todays rips are not made to do that. And while there are some who might advocate going this route the pros and cons of trying it are not clear (at least to me) how this process would be done. And until rips are made to work logically with the G7 calibration process.
That’s my view of this.
Jim Rich
On 7/31/07 4:07 PM, “Michael Eddington”
Post generated from email list
I’ve been rather busy and its taken me a while to get back to this subject. Thanks to all who have replied to my post and thank you for pointing me to the PAB mailing list and the post by Don Hutchinson. I found it very helpful.
I should state that my goal is not G7 compliance or proofing the G7 process. I am interested in obtaining a common neutrality accross a range of printers and medias. I have read the G7 spec several times and I feel that I have the tools within my rip software to accomplish a G7 calibration or at least get close enough for my current purposes.
Whether or not IDEAlink can help me accomplish this remains to be seen. Considering what has been stated in this thread my gut reaction is no. At anyrate, It is probably best that I try it first without the IDEAlink software to get a better feel for the process.