PANTONE PANTO N E P A N TON E PMS 156 C .05 M .12 Y .89 K .03 PMS 15 6 C .05 M .12 Y .8 9 KP .0M3 S C .0 156 5 M .1 2 Y PMS 156 C .05 M .12 Y .89 K .03 PMS 15 6 C .05 M .1 2 Y .89P K MS.03 C .0 156 5 M .12 PMS 156 C .05 M .12 Y .89 K .03 PMS 15 6 C .0 5 M .1 2 YP.8 M9S K .0 C .0 156 3 5 M PA N TO N .89 K.P M 0 3 C . S 156 05 M .12 Y . 89 K. E S FO GU RM I DE ULA oli d C oa te 03 Y .8 P 9 M K C . .0S3156 05 M .12 Y d .89 K. 03 .12 Y .8PMS C 9 K15 6 . 05 .0 3 M. 12 Y PMS 156 C .05 M .12 K .03 PMSY1.89 56 C .05 M .1 P 2 MYS.89 C .0 156K .03 5 M .12 PMS 1 CY .0 .89 5K6 5 M . .03 12 .89 K. 03 Y. 89 PMS 156 C .05 PM .12 Y .89 K .03 MS 156 C .05 MPM .1S2 .8 9 K C .0 1Y56P 5 M MS .03 C.12 1 . 05 Y .5869 M . K .03 1 2 Y. 89 Matthew Furr The Effect of Press Variation on Color Stability with 4-color and 7-color Process Color Tint Builds K. 03 PANTONE PA TO PN AP NTNE A P NONE A T NO N T OE N E K. 03 PMS 156 CP .05 Y .89 K .03 MSM15.12 6 C .0P5MM S .152 C .0 P1 M 6 Y .8 5C M S 15 9 K .03 .05.12 6 Y . M .12 89 K .0 3 Y . 89 K. Introduction Objective Methodology Hypothesis D.O.E Results Interpretation 03 Agenda • Introduction • Objective / Scope Introduction Objective Methodology Hypothesis D.O.E. Results Interpretation • Methodology • Hypothesis • Experimental Design • Results • Interpretation of Results Objective / Research Question ! Introduction Objective Methodology Hypothesis D.O.E. Results Interpretation This thesis attempt is to determine if there is a widely applicable color build logic that results in the least amount of variation in package printing. Specific attention will be given to 4C vs 7C build logic as well as no GCR vs. maximum GCR logic. Total Area Coverage (TAC) for each build will be calculated as a measure of relative ink consumption. Inks act as levers on the color tint build. Introduction Objective Methodology Hypothesis D.O.E. Results Interpretation Hypotheses Introduction Objective Methodology Hypothesis D.O.E. Results Interpretation 1 Maximum GCR results in the least color variation. 2 A color build logic using 7C and Maximum GCR results in the least color variation. 3 7C build logic results in the lowest ink consumption. Press Test (Profile) & Verification Simulation Introduction Objective Methodology Hypothesis D.O.E. Results Interpretation Ink Jet Proof & Test Start Initial Literature Review Finish Press Test (Curves) Sample Selection Final Press Run Introduction Objective Methodology Hypothesis D.O.E Results Interpretation K O V C G M Y LPI 175 175 175 / 180 175 175 175 175 Angle 82.5 22.5 82.5 / 7.5 22.5 52.5 52.5 7.5 Anilox 1200 / 1.7 900 / 2.19 900 / 2.18 1200 / 1.7 900 / 2.2 1200 / 1.7 1200 / 1.7 Inks UV UV UV UV UV UV UV L* a* b* 16.3, -.6, -.8 Impression Dot Area ∆E-P ∆E-P Dot Area ∆E-P Dot Area Dot Area Plate DFR .067 DFR .067 DFR .067 DFR .067 DFR .067 DFR .067 DFR .067 Tape Metering 67.7, 52.8, 77.3 28.2, 47, -61.8 59.6, -42.2, -40 63.6, -70, .9 51.3, 66, -13.1 87.7, -9.4, 97.4 Lohmann 5.1+ Lohmann 5.1+ Lohmann 5.1+ Lohmann 5.1+ Lohmann 5.1+ Lohmann 5.1+ Lohmann 5.1+ MicroTip MicroTip MicroTip MicroTip MicroTip MicroTip MicroTip Linearization P2P Targets Introduction Objective Methodology Hypothesis D.O.E. Results Interpretation Curve 2 Curve Pilot 12.1 OMYK Introduction Objective Methodology Hypothesis D.O.E. Results Interpretation CGYK CMVK PANTONE PANTO N E P A N TON E PMS 156 C .05 M .12 Y .89 K .03 PMS 15 6 C .05 M .12 Y .8 9 KP .0M3 S C .0 156 5 M .1 2 Y PMS 156 C .05 M .12 Y .89 K .03 PMS 15 6 C .05 M .1 2 Y .89P K MS.03 C .0 156 5 M .1 2 PMS 156 C .05 M .12 Y .89 K .03 PMS 15 6 C .0 5 M .1 2 YP.8 M9S K .0 C .0 156 3 5 M PA N TO N .89 K .0PM 3 C . S 156 05 M . 12 Y. 8 9 K. 03 Y .8 P 9 M K C . .0S3156 05 M .12 Y E S FO GU RM I DE ULA oli d C oa te d .89 K. 03 .12 Y .8PMS C 9 K15 6 . 05 .0 3 M. 12 Y. 89 PMS 156 C .05 M .12 K .03 PMSY1.89 56 C .05 M .1 P 2 MYS.89 C .0 156K .03 5 M .12 PMS 1 CY .0 .89 5K6 5 M . .03 12 Y. 89 PMS 156 C .05 PM .12 Y .89 K .03 MS 156 C .05 MPM .1S2 .8 9 K C .0 1Y56P 5 M MS .03 C.12 1 . 05 Y .5869 M . K .03 1 2 Y. 89 K. 03 K. 03 PANTONE PA TO PN AP NTNE A P NONE A T NO N T OE N E K. 03 PMS 156 CP .05 Y .89 K .03 MSM15.12 6 C .0P5MM S .152 C .0 P1 M 6 Y .8 5C M S 15 9 K .03 .05.12 6 Y . M .12 89 K .0 3 Y . 89 K. Introduction Objective Methodology Hypothesis D.O.E. Results Interpretation 600 Pantone colors were selected for comparisons. ! 03 Sample Selection 600 Pantones Selected Introduction Objective Methodology Hypothesis D.O.E. Results Interpretation Introduction Objective Methodology Hypothesis D.O.E. Results Interpretation Introduction Objective Methodology Hypothesis D.O.E. Results Interpretation • Randomized Targets • Comparisons Grouped Dot Gain Simulation Introduction Objective Methodology Hypothesis D.O.E. Results Interpretation Dot Gain Simulation Introduction Objective Methodology Hypothesis D.O.E. Results Interpretation Introduction Objective Methodology Hypothesis D.O.E Results Interpretation K O V C G M Y Set 1 - - - + - - - Set 2 - + - - - - - Set 3 - - - - - + - Set 4 - - - - + - - Set 5 - - - - - - + Set 6 - - + - - - - Set 7 + - - - - - - Introduction Objective Methodology Hypothesis D.O.E Results Interpretation K O V C G M Y Set 81 - - - + - - - Set 92 - + - - - - - Set Set10 3 - - - - - + - Set Set11 4 - - - - + - - Set Set12 5 - - - - - - + Set Set13 6 - - + - - - - Set Set14 7 + - - - - - - Introduction Objective Methodology Hypothesis D.O.E Results Interpretation K O V C G M Y Set Set15 8 - - - + - - - Set Set16 9 - + - - - - - Set 17 10 - - - - - + - Set 18 11 - - - - + - - Set 19 12 - - - - - - + Set 20 13 - - + - - - - Set 21 14 + - - - - - - Data Reporting Introduction Objective Methodology Hypothesis D.O.E. Results Interpretation Color Difference: 1. ∆E CIE 1976 2. ∆E 2000 ! 3 Types of Variation: 1. Common Component 2. Alternative Component 3. Gray Component Managing Data Introduction Objective Methodology Hypothesis D.O.E Results Interpretation Breakdown of Components 4C No GCR 7C Max GCR Introduction Objective Methodology Hypothesis D.O.E. Results Interpretation Common Component Common Component Alternative Component Alternative Component Grey Component Grey Component Introduction Objective Methodology Hypothesis D.O.E. Results Interpretation How much of the stability is related to the Black Grey Component? Breakdown of Components 4C No GCR 4C Max GCR Introduction Objective Methodology Hypothesis D.O.E. Results Interpretation Common Component Common Component Alternative Component Alternative Component Grey Component Grey Component ∆E 2000 in Grey Component Variation Introduction Objective Methodology Hypothesis D.O.E. Results Interpretation Y-O M-O M-V C-V C-G Y-G 4C No GCR 4C Max GCR 7C Max GCR 3.10 ■ 2.81 ■ 1.49 ■ 1.36 ■ 3.04 ■ 3.24 ■ 0.72 ■ 0.60 ■ 0.62 ■ 0.80 ■ 1.59 ■ 1.76 ■ 0.87 ■ 0.72 ■ 0.61 ■ 0.58 ■ 1.94 ■ 2.13 ■ Introduction Objective Methodology Hypothesis D.O.E. Results Interpretation Variation is reduced by 36% Breakdown of Components 4C Max GCR Introduction Objective Methodology Hypothesis D.O.E. Results Interpretation PANTONE 107 ! C 0 M 20 Y 88 K 0 7C Max GCR PANTONE 107 ! C 0 M 0 Y 82 K 0 O 8 Common Component Common Component Alternative Component Alternative Component Grey Component Grey Component Breakdown of Components 4C Max GCR 7C Max GCR Introduction Objective Methodology Hypothesis D.O.E. Results Interpretation Common Component Common Component Alternative Component Alternative Component Grey Component Grey Component Breakdown of Components 4C Max GCR Introduction Objective Methodology Hypothesis D.O.E. Results Interpretation PANTONE 2597 ! C 52 M 44 Y 0 K 0 7C Max GCR PANTONE 2597 ! C 0 M 38 Y 0 K 0 V 40 Common Component Common Component Alternative Component Alternative Component Grey Component Grey Component Breakdown of Components 4C Max GCR Introduction Objective Methodology Hypothesis D.O.E. Results Interpretation PANTONE 305 ! C 76 M 20 Y 0 K 0 7C Max GCR PANTONE 305 ! C 67 M 0 Y 0 K 0 V 14 Common Component Common Component Alternative Component Alternative Component Grey Component Grey Component Breakdown of Components 4C Max GCR Introduction Objective Methodology Hypothesis D.O.E. Results Interpretation PANTONE 362 ! C 70 M 0 Y 28 K 0 7C Max GCR PANTONE 362 ! C 63 M 0 Y 0 K 0 Y 22 Common Component Common Component Alternative Component Alternative Component Grey Component Grey Component Breakdown of Components 4C Max GCR Introduction Objective Methodology Hypothesis D.O.E. Results Interpretation PANTONE 107 ! C 35 M 0 Y 58 K 0 7C Max GCR PANTONE 107 ! C 0 M 0 Y 49 K 0 G 30 Common Component Common Component Alternative Component Alternative Component Grey Component Grey Component ∆E 2000 — Common Component Variation 2 Component Builds Introduction Objective Methodology Hypothesis D.O.E. Results Interpretation Y-O O-M M-V V-C C-G G-Y 4C Max GCR 7C Max GCR 2.03 ■ 4.03 ■ 4.00 ■ 3.12 ■ 2.82 ■ 2.59 ■ 1.83 ■ 3.53 ■ 3.24 ■ 2.40 ■ 2.02 ■ 2.00 ■ ∆E 2000 — Common Component Variation 3 Component Builds Introduction Objective Methodology Hypothesis D.O.E. Results Interpretation Y-O O-M M-V V-C C-G G-Y 4C Max GCR 7C Max GCR 1.88 ■ 3.42 ■ 3.76 ■ 3.54 ■ 2.35 ■ 2.04 ■ 1.63 ■ 2.60 ■ 2.88 ■ 1.84 ■ 1.53 ■ 1.67 ■ Breakdown of Components 4C Max GCR Introduction Objective Methodology Hypothesis D.O.E. Results Interpretation PANTONE 107 ! C 35 M 0 Y 58 K 0 7C Max GCR PANTONE 107 ! C 0 M 0 Y 49 K 0 G 30 Common Component Common Component Alternative Component Alternative Component Grey Component Grey Component ∆E 2000 — Alternative Component Variation 2 Component Builds Introduction Objective Methodology Hypothesis D.O.E. Results Interpretation Y-O O-M M-V V-C C-G G-Y 4C Max GCR 7C Max GCR 2.03 ■ 4.03 ■ 4.00 ■ 3.12 ■ 2.82 ■ 2.59 ■ 1.83 ■ 3.53 ■ 3.24 ■ 2.40 ■ 2.02 ■ 2.00 ■ ∆E 2000 — Alternative Component Variation 3 Component Builds Introduction Objective Methodology Hypothesis D.O.E. Results Interpretation Y-O O-M M-V V-C C-G G-Y 4C Max GCR 7C Max GCR 4.60 ■ 1.95 ■ 2.09 ■ 4.04 ■ 1.68 ■ 2.12 ■ 2.27 ■ 0.75 ■ 0.53 ■ 1.12 ■ 1.07 ■ 0.88 ■ Introduction Objective Methodology Hypothesis D.O.E. Results Interpretation Variation is reduced by 28% Summary of Findings: 1. Print Maximum GCR Introduction Objective Methodology Hypothesis D.O.E Results Interpretation 2. 7C Max GCR resulted in lower Common Component variation when compared to 4C Max GCR 3. 7C Max GCR resulted in significantly lower Alternative Component Variation when compared to 4C Max GCR 4. 18.8% difference in TAC in builds with 2 components 5. 12.2% difference in TAC in builds with 3 components Introduction Objective Methodology Hypothesis D.O.E Results Interpretation Questions?
© Copyright 2024 ExpyDoc
