Log In | Become a Member | Contact Us


Leading printing executives into the future

Connect on Twitter | Facebook | LinkedIn

Featured:     European Coverage     Production Inkjet Analysis

GMG comments on results at 5th annual IPA Proofing RoundUP

Tuesday, July 03, 2007

Press release from the issuing company

Hingham, MA, USA (July 2, 2007) - Once again, GMG proofing entries delivered excellent results during the 5th annual IPA Proofing RoundUP, directed by Dr. Abhay Sharma, Ryerson University and a team of leading industry experts. The event was conducted during the recently concluded IPA Technical Conference, held from June 5-7. GMG results mirrored performance at previous IPA events and at similar events worldwide.
Since its inception in 2004, the IPA Proofing RoundUP has led to substantial improvements in the quality of proofing technologies and techniques. In 2007 the IPA aimed to test the efficiency of its community of proofing equipment suppliers and the proofing capabilities of its user community: trade shops, printers, graphic solutions providers. In addition to 34 systems (hard copy, monitor-based, and remote) submitted for testing by the world's leading proofing manufacturers, 64 entries were received by a user community comprised of premedia, printers, creative agencies and other graphic solutions providers.
GMG's supplier entries were submitted from three different inkjet printers. Two were from HP inkjet printers with built-in spectrophotometers: the HP Z2100 and the HP Z3100. The third set was generated from an Epson 7800 printer. GMG entries performed admirably in all tests; all three demonstrated particularly strong results in spot color test.
"This year, many hard copy proofing system performed well. We're pleased to see the overall industry has made substantial progress in delivering accurate proofs. It is still clear, however, that many systems require significant operator expertise. For example, although most supplier entries performed better than user entries (average delta E of 1.07 vs. 2.23), a large group of users scored better than some of the vendors. This demonstrates the differences in system ease of use and consistency, among other factors, that affect the true accuracy and total cost of system ownership," explains Jim Summers, President, GMG Americas. "In fact, one softproofing entry-a 'home brew' utilizing Adobe Photoshop-did very well, showing that good operating practices strongly influence the results."
While some in the industry believe differences in proofing systems' accuracy have become insignificant, the results of the event demonstrate otherwise. In a remote proofing application, for example, a 1 delta E difference could be +1 delta E in the red direction at one site, and- 1 delta E in the green direction at another site. This two delta E would be quite visible to even the casual observer. Additionally, not all quality parameters are easily quantified. There were clear discrepancies between the objective, measured accuracy of a proof and the visual scores given by the panel of judge.
GMG also delivered four of the seven remote proof entries, each with at least three remote sites.  "We are pleased to see that the IPA incorporated remote proofing into their tests. GMG's remote proofing capability has been part of the product for over a decade, so we were confident our customers would deliver superior results," remarks Summers. "Because of GMG's unique 4D process, where remote printers are calibrated to standardized printer profiles for each product model-rather than creating unique profiles for every printer at every location in the world-it is much easier to assure great results. We hope the IPA will continue to focus on the importance of remote proofing where, due to the globalization of the print supply chain and the pervasiveness of the Internet, proofing accuracy and repeatability is of paramount importance."

 

 

SHARE

Email Icon Email

Print Icon Print

Become a Member

Join the thousands of printing executives who are already part of the WhatTheyThink Community.

Copyright © 2016 WhatTheyThink. All Rights Reserved