Evaluation of expanded gamut software solutions for spot color reproduction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Expanded gamut printing is an approach in color reproduction that expands the color gamut of conventional CMYK printing processes via the use of additional colorants, such as Orange, Green, and Violet inks. This study evaluates the ability of commercial color management software to create an accurate solution for an expanded gamut printing system. In this study, two printing processes were used, an Epson SureColor P9000 inkjet printer/proofer and an HP Indigo 7900 digital production press, both with 7‐color expanded gamut ink sets. Software solutions from Alwan, CGS ORIS, ColorLogic, GMG Color, Heidelberg, and Kodak were evaluated. The systems were tested to see how well they could reproduce the colors in the entire PANTONE+ Solid Coated spot color library. It is shown that the solutions are able to reproduce 89% to 94% of the spot colors on the Epson P9000 inkjet printer and 77% to 87% of the library on the Indigo 7900, both to less than two CIEDE2000 (a typical tolerance in label and packaging work). The number of color patches in expanded gamut characterization test charts was noted, as this is still an area of proprietary, nonstandardized working practice. There are many different colorant combinations that can make the same color in expanded gamut printing. The ink build created by the different software solutions was studied, as it relates to press stability through appropriate choice of colorants. Pantone and Adobe provide everyday commercial tools for expanded color workflows. The study identified some issues with products from these companies that could confuse a less‐skilled user in a busy production environment. The conclusion of the study is that expanded gamut solutions for spot color printing produce totally acceptable results for digital printing processes; expanded gamut printing is ready, here and now. The findings show that expanded gamut printing can replace cumbersome conventional spot color workflows creating considerable savings and advantages, especially for label and packaging printers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".