Digital BW, The Print

I'm having a bit of trouble getting QTR Beta 9 working on my OS
X10.2.8 system and Epson 1280 w/Piezo Selenium inks on Epson Heavy
Weight Matte.  All my problems are around partitioning &
linearization.  I'm hoping these problems have been seen before....

I started w/the 1280-piezo.txt, added my curve name, printer name, &
set calibration to 'yes'.  The magenta & light magenta positions have
the same inks as do the cyan & light cyan positions.  I printed the
inkpattern.psd (cmyk).  I also have inkseparation.psd (rgb).  The
instructions for calibration referenced the cmyk file.  I don't know
which file is the current one.

I printed out the file following the calibration instructions - output
mode was QuadtoneRip calibration.  The spectrocam device measured 100%
cyan to be 1.22 and the 100% light cyan to be 1.09.  100% magenta is
0.58 and 100% light magenta is 0.67.  I waited about 5min for the
paper to dry a bit before measuring.  The patches look different just
by eye.  I was not expecting such a large difference.  How have other
people handled this situation?

I turned off calibration mode & created a new profile.  At this point
I should have a set of curves for just the basic partitioning.  Next I
printed 21step.psd & measured the density of the patches.   My 100%
black measured 1.45 and the 95% patch measured 1.56.  Seems like the
100% patch is not overprinted w/the dark gray. My linearization entry
is below in my curve file.  Then I generated a new set of curves. 
Note I didn't have calibration turned on.  Any suggestions?  Having
100% black less dense than 95% black makes for interesting output. 
What is the correction for this issue?

Thanks,
Dave G.

My curve file below:

#
#  quadtone curve descriptor file
#
#
# the printer name
# the curve name
#   no spaces or special characters, except - or _  (dash or underscore)
#
PRINTER=Quad_1280
CURVE_NAME=PiezoSel-Mb-EHM03bb6102
CALIBRATION=NO
GRAPH_CURVE=YES

#
# number of inks must be 4, 6, or 7
# the ink limits are percentages
#   usually they are all the same but they can be individually set
#
N_OF_INKS=6
DEFAULT_INK_LIMIT=80

LIMIT_K=
BOOST_K=100
LIMIT_C=
LIMIT_M=
LIMIT_Y=
LIMIT_LC=
LIMIT_LM=
LIMIT_LK=

#
#  Describe Usage of each Ink: K,C,M,Y,LC,LM,LK
#    All Inks of Printer must be listed
#

#
# Gray Partition Information
#  use ink names: K,C,M,Y,LC,LM,LK
#
N_OF_GRAY_PARTS=6
GRAY_INK_1=K
GRAY_VAL_1=100

GRAY_INK_2=C
GRAY_VAL_2=40

GRAY_INK_3=LC
GRAY_VAL_3=40

GRAY_INK_4=M
GRAY_VAL_4=11

GRAY_INK_5=LM
GRAY_VAL_5=11

GRAY_INK_6=Y
GRAY_VAL_6=6

GRAY_INK_7=
GRAY_VAL_7=

GRAY_HIGHLIGHT=4
GRAY_SHADOW=8

GRAY_OVERLAP=10
GRAY_GAMMA=1
GRAY_CURVE=

LINEARIZE="0.0 0.09 0.18 0.29 0.40 0.51 0.62 0.67 0.75 0.81 0.89 0.94
1.01 1.06 1.14 1.33 1.37 1.44 1.46 1.56 1.45"

#
# Toner Partition Information
#
N_OF_TONER_PARTS=0
TONER_INK_1=
TONER_VAL_1=
TONER_INK_2=
TONER_VAL_2=

TONER_HIGHLIGHT=0
TONER_SHADOW=0

TONER_GAMMA=1
TONER_CURVE=

#
# Unused Inks
#
N_OF_UNUSED=0
UNUSED_INK_1=
UNUSED_INK_2=
UNUSED_INK_3=
UNUSED_INK_4=

#
# the following is a special UltraChrome ink flag
# it copies the light-black curves to the light-cyan and light-magenta
inks.
# this insures that the LC and LM inks are used to directly neutralize
# the color of the light-black.
# the color balance of inks is controlled by the LIMIT_... values above.
#
UC_NEUTRALIZER=NO

Hi Dave,

I think the first problem is that you are getting too much ink on the
paper.  I don't use HWM in general but the ink limit of 80 seems
too high.  When you get too much ink very often you get a reversal in
the densities such as you 100% being less dense than the 90%. 
I would try a default ink limit of 70 or maybe even slightly less like 65 to 69.
Also the BOOST_K value should come down to about 80 or so.
With so many grays you probably don't need the GRAY_OVERLAP,
i.e. make it 0 (this is extra overlap the basic curves do overlap already).
This would reduce the total quantity of ink in the paper as well.

Its strange that your LC and LM inks don't match the C and M inks
-- they are supposed to be the same ink.  But its not really a problem.
Once you reduce the ink limits, print another inkseparation page.
(the CMYK file was the older version but it only worked on jaguar,
the newer RGB file now works on both jaguar and panther).

From the inkseparation page you should first order the inks by
density -- it looks like the LM should come before M -- and 
calculate values for GRAY_VAL's.  The 40,11,6 are probably close
but if you do it more accurately the ramps will be smoother.

Finally when you do the linearization all the density values should
be increasing -- if it levels off or decreases you still have too much
ink.

Try this all out and if there's still problems let me know.
Once you get a good profile if you'd like to share it with others
I'd be glad to include it on the download page.

Roy


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "dgabbe2001" 
<dgabbe@a...> wrote:

> I'm having a bit of trouble getting QTR Beta 9 working on my OS
> X10.2.8 system and Epson 1280 w/Piezo Selenium inks on Epson Heavy
> Weight Matte.  All my problems are around partitioning &
> linearization.  I'm hoping these problems have been seen before....
> 
> I started w/the 1280-piezo.txt, added my curve name, printer name, &
> set calibration to 'yes'.  The magenta & light magenta positions have
> the same inks as do the cyan & light cyan positions.  I printed the
> inkpattern.psd (cmyk).  I also have inkseparation.psd (rgb).  The
> instructions for calibration referenced the cmyk file.  I don't know
> which file is the current one.
> 
> I printed out the file following the calibration instructions - output
> mode was QuadtoneRip calibration.  The spectrocam device measured 100%
> cyan to be 1.22 and the 100% light cyan to be 1.09.  100% magenta is
> 0.58 and 100% light magenta is 0.67.  I waited about 5min for the
> paper to dry a bit before measuring.  The patches look different just
> by eye.  I was not expecting such a large difference.  How have other
> people handled this situation?
> 
> I turned off calibration mode & created a new profile.  At this point
> I should have a set of curves for just the basic partitioning.  Next I
> printed 21step.psd & measured the density of the patches.   My 100%
> black measured 1.45 and the 95% patch measured 1.56.  Seems like the
> 100% patch is not overprinted w/the dark gray. My linearization entry
> is below in my curve file.  Then I generated a new set of curves. 
> Note I didn't have calibration turned on.  Any suggestions?  Having
> 100% black less dense than 95% black makes for interesting output. 
> What is the correction for this issue?
> 
> Thanks,
> Dave G.
> 
> My curve file below:
> 
> #
> #  quadtone curve descriptor file
> #
> #
> # the printer name
> # the curve name
> #   no spaces or special characters, except - or _  (dash or underscore)
> #
> PRINTER=Quad_1280
> CURVE_NAME=PiezoSel-Mb-EHM03bb6102
> CALIBRATION=NO
> GRAPH_CURVE=YES
> 
> #
> # number of inks must be 4, 6, or 7
> # the ink limits are percentages
> #   usually they are all the same but they can be individually set
> #
> N_OF_INKS=6
> DEFAULT_INK_LIMIT=80
> 
> LIMIT_K=
> BOOST_K=100
> LIMIT_C=
> LIMIT_M=
> LIMIT_Y=
> LIMIT_LC=
> LIMIT_LM=
> LIMIT_LK=
> 
> #
> #  Describe Usage of each Ink: K,C,M,Y,LC,LM,LK
> #    All Inks of Printer must be listed
> #
> 
> #
> # Gray Partition Information
> #  use ink names: K,C,M,Y,LC,LM,LK
> #
> N_OF_GRAY_PARTS=6
> GRAY_INK_1=K
> GRAY_VAL_1=100
> 
> GRAY_INK_2=C
> GRAY_VAL_2=40
> 
> GRAY_INK_3=LC
> GRAY_VAL_3=40
> 
> GRAY_INK_4=M
> GRAY_VAL_4=11
> 
> GRAY_INK_5=LM
> GRAY_VAL_5=11
> 
> GRAY_INK_6=Y
> GRAY_VAL_6=6
> 
> GRAY_INK_7=
> GRAY_VAL_7=
> 
> GRAY_HIGHLIGHT=4
> GRAY_SHADOW=8
> 
> GRAY_OVERLAP=10
> GRAY_GAMMA=1
> GRAY_CURVE=
> 
> LINEARIZE="0.0 0.09 0.18 0.29 0.40 0.51 0.62 0.67 0.75 0.81 0.89 0.94
> 1.01 1.06 1.14 1.33 1.37 1.44 1.46 1.56 1.45"
> 
> #
> # Toner Partition Information
> #
> N_OF_TONER_PARTS=0
> TONER_INK_1=
> TONER_VAL_1=
> TONER_INK_2=
> TONER_VAL_2=
> 
> TONER_HIGHLIGHT=0
> TONER_SHADOW=0
> 
> TONER_GAMMA=1
> TONER_CURVE=
> 
> #
> # Unused Inks
> #
> N_OF_UNUSED=0
> UNUSED_INK_1=
> UNUSED_INK_2=
> UNUSED_INK_3=
> UNUSED_INK_4=
> 
> #
> # the following is a special UltraChrome ink flag
> # it copies the light-black curves to the light-cyan and light-magenta
> inks.
> # this insures that the LC and LM inks are used to directly neutralize
> # the color of the light-black.
> # the color balance of inks is controlled by the LIMIT_... values above.
> #
> UC_NEUTRALIZER=NO

I¹ve just upgraded to the latest Beta, and am building .quad files for my
7000.  I was able to print the calibration files one day, then shut down and
came back to it to finish the next day.

Now it won¹t print-  In PS, I am able to see the quad profiles, and PS
prints successfully.  However, the print monitor just stays at 1% complete,
and the 7000 never starts printing.

I have uninstalled and reinstalled Gimp, and uninstalled and recreated the
QTR.  I have installed the 10.2 USB fix, and re-created the ­calib profiles-
the printer won¹t print....  (sigh)

Any thoughts?

Thanks so much,

Bill


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Roy,

Thanks for your help about a month ago
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/message/43660>.
 I've resolved the initial problem, which I misunderstood how to set
the profile.txt for the ink limit test.  I'll follow-up privately so
as not to confuse anyone else in the group.

I'm curious if you or anyone else has first hand knowledge of getting
a 1280 w/Cone inks profiled.  My current setup, compatible w/the Cone
plug-in (& not the new ICC profiles) is:

Black = Museum Black
Cyan = PiezoTone Selemium, cyan/light cyan postion
Magenta = PiezoTone Selemium, magenta/light magenta postion
Yellow = PiezoTone Selemium, yellow postion
Light Cyan = PiezoTone Selemium, cyan/light cyan postion
Light Magenta = PiezoTone Selemium, magenta/light magenta postion

After I established the ink limit for each channel, I created &
installed a new profile.  The ink pattern page printed in calibration
mode has a couple of interesting characteristics.

The first is that the 100% black patch density is 1.52.  This seems a
bit low compared to the final target density of 1.6 to 1.7.  May be
I've jumped the gun & should wait for the complete profile.

The 100% cyan patch density is 1.19 and the light cyan patch is 1.12.
 This is not a measuring difference.  This is a printer difference.  I
don't know if there is a variation in the ink bottles or if the heads
are slightly different.  The difference is very consistent, however.

The same holds for magenta - 0.62 and light magenta - 0.66.  As long
as I compute the relative darkness to black seperately, my assumption
is QTR will handle the rest.  Other alternatives include using only 4
out of the 6 heads. 

Thanks for any insights,
Dave G.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Roy Harrington"
<roy@h...> wrote:
> 
> Hi Dave,
> 
> I think the first problem is that you are getting too much ink on the
> paper.  I don't use HWM in general but the ink limit of 80 seems
> too high.  When you get too much ink very often you get a reversal in
> the densities such as you 100% being less dense than the 90%. 
> I would try a default ink limit of 70 or maybe even slightly less
like 65 to 69.
> Also the BOOST_K value should come down to about 80 or so.
> With so many grays you probably don't need the GRAY_OVERLAP,
> i.e. make it 0 (this is extra overlap the basic curves do overlap
already).
> This would reduce the total quantity of ink in the paper as well.
> 
> Its strange that your LC and LM inks don't match the C and M inks
> -- they are supposed to be the same ink.  But its not really a problem.
> Once you reduce the ink limits, print another inkseparation page.
> (the CMYK file was the older version but it only worked on jaguar,
> the newer RGB file now works on both jaguar and panther).
> 
> From the inkseparation page you should first order the inks by
> density -- it looks like the LM should come before M -- and 
> calculate values for GRAY_VAL's.  The 40,11,6 are probably close
> but if you do it more accurately the ramps will be smoother.
> 
> Finally when you do the linearization all the density values should
> be increasing -- if it levels off or decreases you still have too much
> ink.
> 
> Try this all out and if there's still problems let me know.
> Once you get a good profile if you'd like to share it with others
> I'd be glad to include it on the download page.
> 
> Roy
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "dgabbe2001" 
> <dgabbe@a...> wrote:
> > I'm having a bit of trouble getting QTR Beta 9 working on my OS
> > X10.2.8 system and Epson 1280 w/Piezo Selenium inks on Epson Heavy
> > Weight Matte.  All my problems are around partitioning &
> > linearization.  I'm hoping these problems have been seen before....
> > 
> > I started w/the 1280-piezo.txt, added my curve name, printer name, &
> > set calibration to 'yes'.  The magenta & light magenta positions have
> > the same inks as do the cyan & light cyan positions.  I printed the
> > inkpattern.psd (cmyk).  I also have inkseparation.psd (rgb).  The
> > instructions for calibration referenced the cmyk file.  I don't know
> > which file is the current one.
> > 
> > I printed out the file following the calibration instructions - output
> > mode was QuadtoneRip calibration.  The spectrocam device measured 100%
> > cyan to be 1.22 and the 100% light cyan to be 1.09.  100% magenta is
> > 0.58 and 100% light magenta is 0.67.  I waited about 5min for the
> > paper to dry a bit before measuring.  The patches look different just
> > by eye.  I was not expecting such a large difference.  How have other
> > people handled this situation?
> > 
> > I turned off calibration mode & created a new profile.  At this point
> > I should have a set of curves for just the basic partitioning.  Next I
> > printed 21step.psd & measured the density of the patches.   My 100%
> > black measured 1.45 and the 95% patch measured 1.56.  Seems like the
> > 100% patch is not overprinted w/the dark gray. My linearization entry
> > is below in my curve file.  Then I generated a new set of curves. 
> > Note I didn't have calibration turned on.  Any suggestions?  Having
> > 100% black less dense than 95% black makes for interesting output. 
> > What is the correction for this issue?
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Dave G.
> > 
> > My curve file below:
> > 
> > #
> > #  quadtone curve descriptor file
> > #
> > #
> > # the printer name
> > # the curve name
> > #   no spaces or special characters, except - or _  (dash or
underscore)
> > #
> > PRINTER=Quad_1280
> > CURVE_NAME=PiezoSel-Mb-EHM03bb6102
> > CALIBRATION=NO
> > GRAPH_CURVE=YES
> > 
> > #
> > # number of inks must be 4, 6, or 7
> > # the ink limits are percentages
> > #   usually they are all the same but they can be individually set
> > #
> > N_OF_INKS=6
> > DEFAULT_INK_LIMIT=80
> > 
> > LIMIT_K=
> > BOOST_K=100
> > LIMIT_C=
> > LIMIT_M=
> > LIMIT_Y=
> > LIMIT_LC=
> > LIMIT_LM=
> > LIMIT_LK=
> > 
> > #
> > #  Describe Usage of each Ink: K,C,M,Y,LC,LM,LK
> > #    All Inks of Printer must be listed
> > #
> > 
> > #
> > # Gray Partition Information
> > #  use ink names: K,C,M,Y,LC,LM,LK
> > #
> > N_OF_GRAY_PARTS=6
> > GRAY_INK_1=K
> > GRAY_VAL_1=100
> > 
> > GRAY_INK_2=C
> > GRAY_VAL_2=40
> > 
> > GRAY_INK_3=LC
> > GRAY_VAL_3=40
> > 
> > GRAY_INK_4=M
> > GRAY_VAL_4=11
> > 
> > GRAY_INK_5=LM
> > GRAY_VAL_5=11
> > 
> > GRAY_INK_6=Y
> > GRAY_VAL_6=6
> > 
> > GRAY_INK_7=
> > GRAY_VAL_7=
> > 
> > GRAY_HIGHLIGHT=4
> > GRAY_SHADOW=8
> > 
> > GRAY_OVERLAP=10
> > GRAY_GAMMA=1
> > GRAY_CURVE=
> > 
> > LINEARIZE="0.0 0.09 0.18 0.29 0.40 0.51 0.62 0.67 0.75 0.81 0.89 0.94
> > 1.01 1.06 1.14 1.33 1.37 1.44 1.46 1.56 1.45"
> > 
> > #
> > # Toner Partition Information
> > #
> > N_OF_TONER_PARTS=0
> > TONER_INK_1=
> > TONER_VAL_1=
> > TONER_INK_2=
> > TONER_VAL_2=
> > 
> > TONER_HIGHLIGHT=0
> > TONER_SHADOW=0
> > 
> > TONER_GAMMA=1
> > TONER_CURVE=
> > 
> > #
> > # Unused Inks
> > #
> > N_OF_UNUSED=0
> > UNUSED_INK_1=
> > UNUSED_INK_2=
> > UNUSED_INK_3=
> > UNUSED_INK_4=
> > 
> > #
> > # the following is a special UltraChrome ink flag
> > # it copies the light-black curves to the light-cyan and light-magenta
> > inks.
> > # this insures that the LC and LM inks are used to directly neutralize
> > # the color of the light-black.
> > # the color balance of inks is controlled by the LIMIT_... values
above.
> > #
> > UC_NEUTRALIZER=NO

Hi Dave,

I haven't personally worked with the piezotone inks, but it all looks
like you are doing the right thing.   I'm not sure why you are getting
some variation in ink density -- are these numbers with all the same
ink limits?  I haven't any idea what consistency tolerance the heads
are made to.  The curves all blend one ink into the next very gradually
so it shouldn't present any problem.

Your dmax of 1.52 seems a little low but what paper are you using and
where did you get the target value of 1.6 to 1.7?

Roy


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "dgabbe2001" 
<dgabbe@a...> wrote:
> Roy,
> 
> Thanks for your help about a month ago
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/message/
43660>.

>  I've resolved the initial problem, which I misunderstood how to set
> the profile.txt for the ink limit test.  I'll follow-up privately so
> as not to confuse anyone else in the group.
> 
> I'm curious if you or anyone else has first hand knowledge of getting
> a 1280 w/Cone inks profiled.  My current setup, compatible w/the Cone
> plug-in (& not the new ICC profiles) is:
> 
> Black = Museum Black
> Cyan = PiezoTone Selemium, cyan/light cyan postion
> Magenta = PiezoTone Selemium, magenta/light magenta postion
> Yellow = PiezoTone Selemium, yellow postion
> Light Cyan = PiezoTone Selemium, cyan/light cyan postion
> Light Magenta = PiezoTone Selemium, magenta/light magenta postion
> 
> After I established the ink limit for each channel, I created &
> installed a new profile.  The ink pattern page printed in calibration
> mode has a couple of interesting characteristics.
> 
> The first is that the 100% black patch density is 1.52.  This seems a
> bit low compared to the final target density of 1.6 to 1.7.  May be
> I've jumped the gun & should wait for the complete profile.
> 
> The 100% cyan patch density is 1.19 and the light cyan patch is 1.12.
>  This is not a measuring difference.  This is a printer difference.  I
> don't know if there is a variation in the ink bottles or if the heads
> are slightly different.  The difference is very consistent, however.
> 
> The same holds for magenta - 0.62 and light magenta - 0.66.  As long
> as I compute the relative darkness to black seperately, my assumption
> is QTR will handle the rest.  Other alternatives include using only 4
> out of the 6 heads. 
> 
> Thanks for any insights,
> Dave G.
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Roy Harrington"
> <roy@h...> wrote:
> > 
> > Hi Dave,
> > 
> > I think the first problem is that you are getting too much ink on the
> > paper.  I don't use HWM in general but the ink limit of 80 seems
> > too high.  When you get too much ink very often you get a reversal in
> > the densities such as you 100% being less dense than the 90%. 
> > I would try a default ink limit of 70 or maybe even slightly less
> like 65 to 69.
> > Also the BOOST_K value should come down to about 80 or so.
> > With so many grays you probably don't need the GRAY_OVERLAP,
> > i.e. make it 0 (this is extra overlap the basic curves do overlap
> already).
> > This would reduce the total quantity of ink in the paper as well.
> > 
> > Its strange that your LC and LM inks don't match the C and M inks
> > -- they are supposed to be the same ink.  But its not really a problem.
> > Once you reduce the ink limits, print another inkseparation page.
> > (the CMYK file was the older version but it only worked on jaguar,
> > the newer RGB file now works on both jaguar and panther).
> > 
> > From the inkseparation page you should first order the inks by
> > density -- it looks like the LM should come before M -- and 
> > calculate values for GRAY_VAL's.  The 40,11,6 are probably close
> > but if you do it more accurately the ramps will be smoother.
> > 
> > Finally when you do the linearization all the density values should
> > be increasing -- if it levels off or decreases you still have too much
> > ink.
> > 
> > Try this all out and if there's still problems let me know.
> > Once you get a good profile if you'd like to share it with others
> > I'd be glad to include it on the download page.
> > 
> > Roy
> > 
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "dgabbe2001" 
> > <dgabbe@a...> wrote:
> > > I'm having a bit of trouble getting QTR Beta 9 working on my OS
> > > X10.2.8 system and Epson 1280 w/Piezo Selenium inks on Epson Heavy
> > > Weight Matte.  All my problems are around partitioning &
> > > linearization.  I'm hoping these problems have been seen before....
> > > 
> > > I started w/the 1280-piezo.txt, added my curve name, printer name, &
> > > set calibration to 'yes'.  The magenta & light magenta positions have
> > > the same inks as do the cyan & light cyan positions.  I printed the
> > > inkpattern.psd (cmyk).  I also have inkseparation.psd (rgb).  The
> > > instructions for calibration referenced the cmyk file.  I don't know
> > > which file is the current one.
> > > 
> > > I printed out the file following the calibration instructions - output
> > > mode was QuadtoneRip calibration.  The spectrocam device measured 100%
> > > cyan to be 1.22 and the 100% light cyan to be 1.09.  100% magenta is
> > > 0.58 and 100% light magenta is 0.67.  I waited about 5min for the
> > > paper to dry a bit before measuring.  The patches look different just
> > > by eye.  I was not expecting such a large difference.  How have other
> > > people handled this situation?
> > > 
> > > I turned off calibration mode & created a new profile.  At this point
> > > I should have a set of curves for just the basic partitioning.  Next I
> > > printed 21step.psd & measured the density of the patches.   My 100%
> > > black measured 1.45 and the 95% patch measured 1.56.  Seems like the
> > > 100% patch is not overprinted w/the dark gray. My linearization entry
> > > is below in my curve file.  Then I generated a new set of curves. 
> > > Note I didn't have calibration turned on.  Any suggestions?  Having
> > > 100% black less dense than 95% black makes for interesting output. 
> > > What is the correction for this issue?
> > > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > Dave G.
> > > 
> > > My curve file below:
> > > 
> > > #
> > > #  quadtone curve descriptor file
> > > #
> > > #
> > > # the printer name
> > > # the curve name
> > > #   no spaces or special characters, except - or _  (dash or
> underscore)
> > > #
> > > PRINTER=Quad_1280
> > > CURVE_NAME=PiezoSel-Mb-EHM03bb6102
> > > CALIBRATION=NO
> > > GRAPH_CURVE=YES
> > > 
> > > #
> > > # number of inks must be 4, 6, or 7
> > > # the ink limits are percentages
> > > #   usually they are all the same but they can be individually set
> > > #
> > > N_OF_INKS=6
> > > DEFAULT_INK_LIMIT=80
> > > 
> > > LIMIT_K=
> > > BOOST_K=100
> > > LIMIT_C=
> > > LIMIT_M=
> > > LIMIT_Y=
> > > LIMIT_LC=
> > > LIMIT_LM=
> > > LIMIT_LK=
> > > 
> > > #
> > > #  Describe Usage of each Ink: K,C,M,Y,LC,LM,LK
> > > #    All Inks of Printer must be listed
> > > #
> > > 
> > > #
> > > # Gray Partition Information
> > > #  use ink names: K,C,M,Y,LC,LM,LK
> > > #
> > > N_OF_GRAY_PARTS=6
> > > GRAY_INK_1=K
> > > GRAY_VAL_1=100
> > > 
> > > GRAY_INK_2=C
> > > GRAY_VAL_2=40
> > > 
> > > GRAY_INK_3=LC
> > > GRAY_VAL_3=40
> > > 
> > > GRAY_INK_4=M
> > > GRAY_VAL_4=11
> > > 
> > > GRAY_INK_5=LM
> > > GRAY_VAL_5=11
> > > 
> > > GRAY_INK_6=Y
> > > GRAY_VAL_6=6
> > > 
> > > GRAY_INK_7=
> > > GRAY_VAL_7=
> > > 
> > > GRAY_HIGHLIGHT=4
> > > GRAY_SHADOW=8
> > > 
> > > GRAY_OVERLAP=10
> > > GRAY_GAMMA=1
> > > GRAY_CURVE=
> > > 
> > > LINEARIZE="0.0 0.09 0.18 0.29 0.40 0.51 0.62 0.67 0.75 0.81 0.89 0.94
> > > 1.01 1.06 1.14 1.33 1.37 1.44 1.46 1.56 1.45"
> > > 
> > > #
> > > # Toner Partition Information
> > > #
> > > N_OF_TONER_PARTS=0
> > > TONER_INK_1=
> > > TONER_VAL_1=
> > > TONER_INK_2=
> > > TONER_VAL_2=
> > > 
> > > TONER_HIGHLIGHT=0
> > > TONER_SHADOW=0
> > > 
> > > TONER_GAMMA=1
> > > TONER_CURVE=
> > > 
> > > #
> > > # Unused Inks
> > > #
> > > N_OF_UNUSED=0
> > > UNUSED_INK_1=
> > > UNUSED_INK_2=
> > > UNUSED_INK_3=
> > > UNUSED_INK_4=
> > > 
> > > #
> > > # the following is a special UltraChrome ink flag
> > > # it copies the light-black curves to the light-cyan and light-magenta
> > > inks.
> > > # this insures that the LC and LM inks are used to directly neutralize
> > > # the color of the light-black.
> > > # the color balance of inks is controlled by the LIMIT_... values
> above.
> > > #
> > > UC_NEUTRALIZER=NO

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Roy Harrington"
<roy@h...> wrote:
> 
> Hi Dave,
> 
> I haven't personally worked with the piezotone inks, but it all looks
> like you are doing the right thing.   I'm not sure why you are getting
> some variation in ink density -- are these numbers with all the same
> ink limits?  I haven't any idea what consistency tolerance the heads
> are made to.  The curves all blend one ink into the next very gradually
> so it shouldn't present any problem.
> 
> Your dmax of 1.52 seems a little low but what paper are you using and
> where did you get the target value of 1.6 to 1.7?
> 

I measured this on Epson Heavy Weight Matte.  About a year ago, there
was much discussion on the Piezo list & this one regarding the dMax
people were encountering.  The new inks raised the bar to 1.6. 
Included in the QTR distribution is a set of ideal densities w/the
black ranging from 1.6 to 1.7

The 1.52 is only w/black ink.  It's not the result of a 21 step wedge
and the completed profile.  I will also measure a step wedge w/the old
piezo plug-in.

> Roy
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "dgabbe2001" 
> <dgabbe@a...> wrote:
> > Roy,
> > 
> > Thanks for your help about a month ago
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/message/
> 43660>.
> >  I've resolved the initial problem, which I misunderstood how to set
> > the profile.txt for the ink limit test.  I'll follow-up privately so
> > as not to confuse anyone else in the group.
> > 
> > I'm curious if you or anyone else has first hand knowledge of getting
> > a 1280 w/Cone inks profiled.  My current setup, compatible w/the Cone
> > plug-in (& not the new ICC profiles) is:
> > 
> > Black = Museum Black
> > Cyan = PiezoTone Selemium, cyan/light cyan postion
> > Magenta = PiezoTone Selemium, magenta/light magenta postion
> > Yellow = PiezoTone Selemium, yellow postion
> > Light Cyan = PiezoTone Selemium, cyan/light cyan postion
> > Light Magenta = PiezoTone Selemium, magenta/light magenta postion
> > 
> > After I established the ink limit for each channel, I created &
> > installed a new profile.  The ink pattern page printed in calibration
> > mode has a couple of interesting characteristics.
> > 
> > The first is that the 100% black patch density is 1.52.  This seems a
> > bit low compared to the final target density of 1.6 to 1.7.  May be
> > I've jumped the gun & should wait for the complete profile.
> > 
> > The 100% cyan patch density is 1.19 and the light cyan patch is 1.12.
> >  This is not a measuring difference.  This is a printer difference.  I
> > don't know if there is a variation in the ink bottles or if the heads
> > are slightly different.  The difference is very consistent, however.
> > 
> > The same holds for magenta - 0.62 and light magenta - 0.66.  As long
> > as I compute the relative darkness to black seperately, my assumption
> > is QTR will handle the rest.  Other alternatives include using only 4
> > out of the 6 heads. 
> > 
> > Thanks for any insights,
> > Dave G.
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Roy Harrington"
> > <roy@h...> wrote:

Last night I finally managed to get perfect prints from QTR! I've been
struggling with microbanding problems for the longest time, and I
discovered a major reason for this was that I had set density to 2
instead of 1. I still got microbanding after I changed this setting, but
the prints looked much better. Then I did a head cleaning and a print
head alignment and suddenly everything worked perfectly.

I'm very glad to finally be able to use this excellent piece of software
after putting so much effort into making it work on Linux and networking
it with Windows. 

Two questions for Roy:

- Do you think it would be possible to fix the long pause at the end of
each print before the paper is ejected? Unless I remember incorrectly
this has been fixed in one of the later version of Gimp-Print. Maybe
there is some code that could be ported back into QTR?

- I remember you were going to look into a windows version. Did you find
out what it would take for that to happen? I imagine it could be a big
project.

--
Daniel Staver
http://daniel.staver.no

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Daniel Staver" 
<daniel@p...> wrote:
> Last night I finally managed to get perfect prints from QTR! I've been
> struggling with microbanding problems for the longest time, and I
> discovered a major reason for this was that I had set density to 2
> instead of 1. I still got microbanding after I changed this setting, but
> the prints looked much better. Then I did a head cleaning and a print
> head alignment and suddenly everything worked perfectly.
> 
> I'm very glad to finally be able to use this excellent piece of software
> after putting so much effort into making it work on Linux and networking
> it with Windows. 

Hi Daniel,

I'm so glad you've get it working -- I know you've gone through a
lot of frustration.

> 
> Two questions for Roy:
> 
> - Do you think it would be possible to fix the long pause at the end of
> each print before the paper is ejected? Unless I remember incorrectly
> this has been fixed in one of the later version of Gimp-Print. Maybe
> there is some code that could be ported back into QTR?

I know in general that it's because the whole page is always completely
rendered instead of moving the margins in.  I'll have to see if I can
find a way to special case that and eliminate the wasted effort.

> 
> - I remember you were going to look into a windows version. Did you find
> out what it would take for that to happen? I imagine it could be a big
> project.

It's in the works and getting closer.

Roy

> 
> --
> Daniel Staver
> http://daniel.staver.no

Roy wrote -
  Its strange that your LC and LM inks don't match the C and M inks
  -- they are supposed to be the same ink. But its not really a problem.

This is not strange, it is the new Piezotone positions for ICC, Jon 
Cone has changed the ink positions so that ICC is different from the 
old plug in and other RIPS. I found this out today when I tried to do 
the set up on QTR and got terrible looking 21 step charts.

Here are the new positions-
Cyan - Dark Gray
Magenta - Medium Gray
Yellow - Light Gray
Light Cyan - Medium Gray
Light Magenta - Light Grey

Once I changed the GRAY_VAL numbers around to match this I got good 
results.

cort

--
Cort Anderson
Training Wheels, llc
www.trwheels.com
620-488-2960
620-488-3196 fax