Saturday, May 8, 2010

The Wayback View – 1924 - The first color photograph transmitted by wire

The first color photograph transmitted by wire was of the famed actor Rudolf Valentino.
Valentino starring in the motion picture of "Monsieur Beaucaire"

The original separations were sent from Chicago to New York in 1924 by Dr. Herbert E. Ives of the Bell Telephone Laboratories. The separations were made by Max Hofsetter of Powers Photo Engraving of New York. Powers made a three color reproduction using the lines created by the transmission process to create the halftone screening.
Close up of eye area showing the halftone screening of the three-color reproduction.

Rotating each of the three separations as it was mounted on the transmitter enabled the colors to be screened by the transmission process at the appropriate angle relative to one another.
Dr. Ives and the transmitter that was used to send the first color picture in 1924.

To watch a video showing how photographs used to be sent by wire, clink on the link HERE

Wednesday, May 5, 2010

JPEG images for print production - the facts

Saving an image file in the JPEG format is a commonly used method of "lossy" compression for digital photographic images. The degree of compression can be adjusted, allowing for a user selectable tradeoff between storage size and image quality. The greater the image compression the smaller the resulting image file and the greater the loss of image quality.

By default, images are JPEG compressed when saved as a PDF file.

How JPEG compression works

JPEG compression works by chunking similar image pixels that have slightly different color values into groups of pixels with the same color value.
The above original image file size is 1.5 MB.

The same image file saved at highest compression/lowest quality is only 92 KB. (Note: this level of extreme image compression would never be used in production work.)

Subtracting the pixels of the original image from the JPEG image reveals where pixels are different. Note that large areas of no detail like the sky have been chunked into large pixel groupings while areas of fine detail have been chunked into smaller pixel groupings.

The resolution of the original image impacts the effect of JPEG image compression

On the left is the original high resolution image. On the right is the JPEG version. Note that the JPEG artifacts are barely visible.

On the left is an original medium resolution image. On the right is the JPEG version. Note that the JPEG artifacts have become visible.

On the left is an original low resolution image. On the right is the JPEG version. Note that the JPEG artifacts are now very visible.


Bottom line - high resolution images can tolerate a greater degree of compression than low resolution images.

Resaving images, even edited images, in JPEG format does NOT reduce quality further

The original image saved at highest compression/least quality to exaggerate the effects of JPEG compression.

The same image resaved 15 times at the highest compression/least quality. The image was altered before each save to force recompression.

Subtracting the pixels of the original image from the 15th version of the resaved JPEG image reveals where pixels are different. Note that only the areas where the image was altered are different despite being resaved 15 times with high compression/low quality. All other pixels are the same.


Resaving images that have been cropped DOES reduce quality further

On the left is the original image saved with high compression/low quality. On the right is the same image that has been cropped and resaved with the same high compression/low quality setting. Cropping the image causes the chunking of pixels during compression to be redone and introduces artifacts.

Subtracting the pixels of the original image from the cropped version of the resaved JPEG image reveals where pixels are different.


Bottom line - multiple resaves of images with JPEG compression has no effect on pixels (image detail) that have not been edited. Pixels that have been edited will be "chunked" to the same degree as the pixels in the original image. In other words, images do not degrade after multiple resaves using JPEG compression.

The most common level of compression used does NOT result in any visible image degradation.

Click images to enlarge

Original image at left - high quality/low compression on right (Photoshop level 12)

Original image at left - high quality/low compression on right (Photoshop level 10 - the most common level of JPEG compression)

Original image at left - medium quality/medium compression on right (Photoshop level 8)

Original image at left - medium quality/high compression on right. (Photoshop level 6)
Subtle image degradation is becoming visible.

Original image at left - low quality/high compression on right. (Photoshop level 4)
Image degradation is becoming visible.

Original image at left - very low quality/very high compression on right. (Photoshop level 2)
Image degradation is clearly visible.

Original image at left - extremely low quality/extremely high compression on right. (Photoshop level 0)
Image degradation is obvious

Bottom line - at typical JPEG compression levels there is no visible degradation of the original image. In fact, one has to go to unusual levels of compression before artifacts are seen (at least level 8 in Adobe Photoshop).
Images with lots of small detail compress less and mask JPEG artifacts better than images with large smooth tone areas.

Double bottom line - there is no reason to be concerned about saving images in JPEG format so long as the highest quality/least amount of compression option is selected.

Special blog production note.

Unless otherwise stated, all "Original" images were low resolution images. JPEG compression was "0" (lowest quality/highest compression). It was the only way to exaggerate the difference enough to demonstrate the issues. If I had used the actual original images - 14 megapixels in this case - the differences would mostly have been invisible. Note that the Blogger website compresses the images that I upload so there will be compression artifacts in the posted "Original" images that were not in the images that I uploaded.

I strongly encourage you to repeat any of these tests yourself with your own images to confirm, or contradict, my findings.

I'm not suggesting that you use JPEG as your preferred image file type. My intent is only to show how saving an image in the JPEG file format introduces, or does not introduce, artifacts and hopefully shed a light on some commonly held beliefs about this image file format.

Sunday, May 2, 2010

Top reasons why color instruments don't agree

The increased use of instruments like spectrophotometers in the print industry has created an apparent increase in the level of precision in the measurement and description of color. However, the objective accuracy may not be as it seems - when comparing the measurement results from different instruments - even when coming from the same vendor.

Even when properly calibrated instruments can deliver different measurement values (>DeltaE 7 according to a PIA/GATF study) simply because of how the various instruments respond to the gloss on coated paper, aqueous coatings, UV coatings, and lamination. The use of UV cut filters (as is popular in Europe) can also increase the disagreement between instruments.

The top reasons why color instruments don't agree

• Variations in ambient conditions including instrument Induced sample heating resulting in "thermochromism" where Ink changes color due to a change in temperature and "hygrochromism" because humidity changes the way ink interacts with paper and hence its color.It's a good idea to record temperature and humidity levels whenever measurements are taken.

• Noise introduced by reflectometer instability, instrument and environment induced noise and dark current drift.

• Fluorescence in the substrate coupled with variation in the spectral power distribution of the instrument's illumination - too little or too much UV light.

• Instrument Geometry. There are typically no geometric tolerances on low end instruments. Fiber optic instruments tend to have wide geometric tolerances.

• Spectral bandwidth function may be too narrow or too broad and be too variable from wavelength to wavelength.
• No, or inadequate, black level adjustment. Non-black light trap or directionally sensitive light trap.

• Poor instrument maintenance.

• Infrequent or lack of recertification by factory. Lack of periodic verification

Sunday, April 25, 2010

Printer in Kentucky is closest to Quality

It's true, Printer in Kentucky is closest to Quality.

The community of Printer Kentucky.

The community of Quality Kentucky.

According to Google Maps, Printer and Quality are only 5 hours and 19 minutes apart.
Compare that to the distance from Printer in Kentucky to the lack of substance in Quality California:
Quality California.

Quality in California is a whopping 37 hours away from Printer.

Now some people argue that Luck is involved with Quality:
Luck Wisconsin.

Well according to Google maps, Luck and Quality are 14 hours and 30 minutes apart:
That's quite a separation so it's doubtful that Luck is involved with Quality. But there's even a greater separation between Luck and Printer - a 16 to 17 hour separation in fact. So Luck and Printer probably don't go together at all.
I know that this relationship between Printer, Quality, and Luck may be strange. However, the facts can be verified by anyone by going to http://maps.google.com/ or http://www.bing.com:80/maps/

Wednesday, April 21, 2010

Tolerancing color in presswork - CIE L*a*b* and DeltaE

This method attempts to bring an objective, system independent, instrument-based method to color tolerancing. Because this method uses instruments to define colors, the range of tolerance and deviation from the target it is considered to be objective and unambiguous. It is much more sophisticated than the more subjective methods so far described in my other posts. As a result, a bit of background knowledge about color science is needed in order to understand how this system works and to understand its value and potential pitfalls.

A scientific approach to describing color
From a color science point of view, any color can be described by three basic attributes:

1) Lightness. This is the attribute of a color by virtue of which it is discernible as bright, dark, or somewhere between those extremes.
2) Chroma.This is the attribute of a color by virtue of which it is discernible as purity or intensity of color relative to a neutral color like grey. Also referred to as "saturation."
3) Hue. This is the attribute of a color by virtue of which it is discernible as red, green, etc., and which is dependent on its dominant wavelength, and independent of intensity or lightness.
So, from a scientific point of view, describing a color requires three values/numbers. One for Hue, one for Lightness, and one for Chroma.

Describing a specific color this way can be visualized as finding the location of a specific room in a building.One goes up a central elevator representing the range from neutral dark to light. Then one gets out of the elevator at a specific floor/specific lightness level and travels outward from neutral grey to an increasing amount of chroma/saturation as they move toward the outside edge of the building. Once they reach the desired amount of chroma/saturation one moves to the left or right to find the specific room/hue. So, directions to the specific room/color can be expressed as a recipe: Up X levels (lightness/floor level), Move X Distance (Chroma/Down hallway), Move X degrees (Hue/Along perimeter) = Room/Color.

This three coordinate method of describing a color can be visualized in cut-away form as in this graphic:In reality this 3D color space map is more complicated (you can see a movie of a real 3D color space HERE). However it should be good enough to explain this complex subject.

This three coordinate system (LCh) can then be used to map the location of a specific color.
Unfortunately, LCh has not been widely adopted to describe a color's location within a color space. Instead, the less intuitive L*a*b* notation is most commonly used. L*a*b*, more properly written CIE L*a*b* uses the same 3D model but identifies the color according to it's "L" lightness, "a*" axis value (+a* = more red, -a* = more green compared to neutral grey) and "b*" axis value (+b* = more yellow. -b* = more blue compared to neutral grey).

Defining a color location using CIE L*a*b* coordinates
Using the three coordinate CIE L*a*b* system allows us to numerically identify any color within a color space. In this example, I'll use a print color space and identify the desired color within that color space:
Tolerancing a color using CIE L*a*b*
Color tolerancing using CIE L*a*b* involves comparing the measurements, taken with a spectrophotometer, of a color sample (the output) to the data of a known color (the specification or input value). Then the "closeness" of the sample to the specification is determined. If the sample's measured data is not close enough to the requested color values, it is deemed to be unacceptable and adjustments to the process may be required.

The amount of "closeness" between two colors can be caluculated using a variety of methods. These methods calculate the distance between the two sets of measurement coordinates (e.g. CIE L*a*b* values) within the three dimensional color space. The size of the distance is defined by the size of the tolerance and is expressed as a "DeltaE" value (Delta Error).

To calculate the "closeness" of the specified color and the sampled color, the specified color is pinpointed by its position in CIEL*a*b* color space. Then a theoretical "tolerance sphere" is plotted around the color.The sphere, with the specified color at its center, represents the acceptable amount of difference between the specified color and other measured samples (the color output). The actual size of the tolerance sphere is determined by the customer's specification's for acceptable color difference. The tolerance value is expressed in delta (∆) units such as ∆E usually written as DeltaE (delta error). Measured data that falls within the tolerance sphere represents acceptable color.Measured data that falls outside the tolerance sphere represents unacceptable color.

Typical customer tolerances in the graphic arts industry usually range between 2 and 6 ∆E. This means, for example, that samples outside the tolerance sphere lie more than 6 ∆ units away from the specified color. Tolerances less than 2 ∆ units are typically unachievable given normal process variation. Differences between two colors that are up to 4 ∆ units away from each other are usually not visible to most viewers.

Issues, concerns, and caveats when using CIE L*a*b* DeltaE tolerancing
While this method can bring an objective and potentially unambiguous method to color tolerancing there are several issues to be aware of that can cause misunderstanding and error.

1) CIE L*a*b* DeltaE tolerancing is instrument dependent, however, different instruments can deliver different values from the same color sample.
Some of the reasons include: poor maintenance of instrumentation, infrequent recertification by the factory, lack of periodic verification, spectral bandwith differences, lack of geometric tolerances, variations in fluorescence in the substrate and instrument illuminant, instrument and environment induced noise, dark current drift, variations in ambient conditions, thermochromism (ink changes color due to a change in temperature), hygrochromism (humidity changes the way ink interacts with paper and hence its color).

2) CIE L*a*b* DeltaE values are dependent on the formula used - and there is no universally agreed standard for the formula that should be used.
Some formulas are: DeltaE 76 (sometimes referred simply as DeltaE), DeltaE 94, DeltaE 2000, and DeltaE CMC. In general, DeltaE 76 values are highest, DeltaE CMC values the lowest especially for saturated colors, DeltaE 94 and 2000 are lower than DeltaE 76 but higher than DeltaE CMC.

For example, these two color patches are made up with the indicated CIE L*a*b* values:The DeltaE difference between these two colors as reported by the different color difference formulas:
CIE 76: 7.10 (a large difference - unacceptable)
CIE 94: 1.51 (well within typically acceptable variation)
CIE 2000: 1.57 (well within typically acceptable variation)
CMC: 2.26 (within typically acceptable variation)

So, depending on the formula used to calculate the difference in color a measured sample may, or may not, be within acceptable tolerance.

3) It is harder to see the differences when colors are very saturated. It is easy to see a difference when colors are near neutral.
Formulas like CIE 94 attempt to compensate for this difference in visual color acuity, however, it is not the predominantly used formula. That honor goes to CIE 76. It's therefore important when discussing color variation to specify which formula is being used to calculate DeltaE values so that the numbers can be better interpreted.

4) The color performance of a system or press sheet is sometimes reduced to a single DeltaE value as a statement of being within tolerance. This can be very misleading since the single DeltaE value is an average of all sampled colors and will likely not reflect the performance of specific critical colors.
Statements such as "This press sheet is within 2 DeltaE of the proof" are virtually meaningless.

5) There are no CIE L*a*b* controls on a press.
If a color on a press sheet is out of DeltaE tolerance - the press operator effectively has to guess at what should be done to correct the problem using tools not designed for this function like solid ink density, water, impression pressure, etc. to effect a change in color.

Sunday, April 18, 2010

Presenting Season Two....

Each week, famed chef and Michelin Star winner Chef Gordon Ramsay steps out of his own five-star establishments and into some of the country's most interesting restaurants to help them turn their businesses around, or close their doors forever, in the hit TV show Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares.

Whoa, that's one of the things that I did during my tenure at Creo/Kodak. Not with restaurants though, but with printshops. So step aside Chef Gordon Ramsay - this is where the blanket really hits the plate as revealed in a few more of the conversations I had with printers during those years. (Season One is HERE)

Chef Gordo: "I can't believe it! The file was RAW!"

Chef Gordo to printshop owner: So how do you manage your quality? Who sets the standard?
Printshop owner: That's easy, Frank - the lead press operator on the CD 102.
Chef Gordo: One of your press operators is responsible for your whole shop's quality standard?
Printshop owner: Yeah, sure, Frank's got "the eye" for quality.
Chef Gordo: Bloody hell!

Chef Gordo to printshop owner: So why would a print buyer favor your print shop rather than the one down the street?
Printshop owner: Because we're a quality printer.
Chef Gordo: But that's what your competition says about their shop.
Printshop owner: Well, yes maybe, but we're the quality printer.
Chef Gordo: Bloody hell!

Chef Gordo: "You must be joking!"

Chef Gordo to prepress and pressroom: Your presswork and proofing don't seem to be in alignment. Who set you up?
Prepress and pressroom: I think our vendor did when we first got their equipment.
Chef Gordo to prepress and pressroom: So how was it set up? Who's in charge of maintaining it?
Prepress and pressroom: Let's see. We're not sure. It was working before. But we've changed inks, blankets, and fount solution since then. Is that important?
Chef Gordo: Bloody hell!

Chef Gordo: What's that smell?
Printshop owner: Oh, ah, that might be Mongo.
Chef Gordo: Mongo?
Printshop owner: Yeah, he does all our deliveries.
Chef Gordo: I see, so Mongo delivers your presswork to your customers smelling like an abattoir?
Printshop owner: Well, he's cheap. I mean he's cost effective.
Chef Gordo: Bloody hell!

Chef Gordo - Bloody hell! See you next time!