In recent years, display technology has developed rapidly and liquid crystal displays have become mainstream. Liquid crystal displays have enjoyed widespread popularity for their advantages such as low power consumption, low radiation, and good display uniformity, and have become the standard configuration of most computer systems. However, it also has obvious shortcomings such as small viewing angles and changes in color when observed in different directions. Therefore, it is not popular in the printing industry. With the advent of high-end liquid crystal displays such as EIZO, Apple Cinema, etc., the performance of liquid crystal displays has been greatly improved, these shortcomings have been overcome to a large extent, and the color gamut that is very close to printing can be presented, making it the first choice for soft proofing of screens.
At present, the printing industry generally adopts the color management technology to enable various devices to present relatively uniform colors, which provides a prerequisite for the application of soft proofing. There have been some screen-soft proofing products on the market, such as Kodak's VirtualProof and ICS's RemoteDirector.
In summary, the soft proofing of the screen is a very new technology, which is restricted by many factors such as equipment, technology, and use. Therefore, it is necessary to carry out relevant experiments and research. A soft proofing experiment was designed in this project, and preliminary evaluation of the soft proofing effect was conducted. Some meaningful results were obtained.
In this experiment, the display and printer were calibrated and characterized by color management, and the printed hard copy proofs were compared with the display results. The viewers evaluated the display results against the hard copy proofs, and checked the correlation between the subjective evaluation results and the measured color difference. This tests the result of soft proofing.
The monitor used in the experiment was an EIZO ColorEdge CG19 liquid crystal display, the color management software was MonacoOPTIXPro 2.0, the measurement instrument was GretagMacbeth Eye-one, and the white field color temperature was 6500K.
The printer that generates hard copy proofs is Epson StylusPro 7600, the color management software is MonacoPROFILER 4.7.2, and the measurement instrument is X-Rite DTP70. Specimen observations were performed in GretagMacbeth Judge II standard room lighting with a simulated D65 light source. First perform color management on the monitor and the printer so that the color difference it presents is as small as possible. The color-corrected display was tested using IT87/3 color and gray series samples with a total of 963 color measurement data (CIELAB). The average color difference between the screen color measurement data and the standard data was 3.02, and the maximum color difference was 30.81. The standard deviation was It is 5.07. Among them, 53.6% of the samples had a color difference of less than 1 and 72.1% of the samples had a color difference of less than 2. The samples with large color difference were all colors that exceeded the display color gamut. After the color-corrected printer was tested with the same 963 color data as described above, the average color difference was 1.35, the maximum color difference was 6.15, and the standard deviation was 0.86. Samples with a color difference of less than 1 accounted for 41.8%, and samples with a color difference of less than 2 accounted for 82.0%.
The color measurement of the hard copy sample was directly compared with the measurement value displayed on the display. The color difference increased, the average color difference rose to 3.54, the maximum color difference was 30.90, and the standard deviation was 4.95. Among them, sample with color difference less than 1 accounted for 28.1%, sample with color difference less than 2 accounted for 58.3%, sample with color difference less than 3 accounted for 70.5%, abscissa was color difference value, ordinate was the number of corresponding sample, and three color bars denoted respectively The color difference distribution of monitors, printers, and displays relative to the printer. Since the out-of-gamut color has the greatest influence on the display color difference of the display, the number of samples in the large color difference region mainly depends on the color difference of the display, while the sample of the small color difference region depends on the interaction between the two, so the objective evaluation of the color difference is considered. The color difference of soft proofing can be accepted by the printing industry, indicating that the color-corrected display and printer can reach a relatively good state, and the color presented is basically accurate.
In order to evaluate the effect of soft proofing, it is necessary to conduct an actual visual evaluation and visually evaluate whether the color difference of the soft proof can be accepted. For this experiment, subjective evaluation experiments were designed.
The subjectively evaluated sample is the S8.Tif file in ISOSCID, which contains 104 color patches that are evenly distributed in the color space. The image file is converted into the LAB mode in advance, and its LAB value is displayed on a color-managed monitor display and printer, and the color difference between the display and the print is measured according to the foregoing method. The evaluation level is classified as “not visibleâ€, “ There is a slight color difference "," there is a large color difference "and" there are four levels of color difference, each level assigned 1 ~ 4, the greater the value, the greater the color difference. The color standard color is displayed in Photoshop, so we must first Profile is set up correctly in Photoshop.
When observing, use a black paper to dig out the hole of a color block and compare only one of the 104 color blocks at a time to avoid the influence of the adjacent color on the observation result. Between imperceptible and weak color difference, it shows that most of the color blocks can only notice very weak color difference, and the effect of soft proofing is better. The color difference of subjective evaluation is only 1.9. The relationship between the color difference rating and the CIELAB measurement color difference The reason for the lower correlation coefficient between the two is that the data points are scattered. This is more in line with the laws of subjective feelings. The correlation coefficient r = 0.4446 obtained by logarithmic fitting has greatly improved the linear correlation coefficient.
In this paper, the effects of soft proofing on the screen were objectively tested and subjectively evaluated. The objective test results show that under the condition of strict color management for both display and output devices, the average color difference produced by the soft proofing of the screen is 3.54. The main reason for the large color difference is that the display and the printing color gamut are not completely consistent. The color of the excellent domain can produce a color difference up to ã„“E ab=30, and has a good display effect for colors in most color gamuts, so it can be applied to printing proofing. This experiment is only a preliminary experiment of soft proofing. The color difference tolerance of soft proofing has not been examined. The inequality of CIELAB color space and the influence of complex images on color evaluation have not been taken into account. Therefore, other color difference formulas are needed in the next step. The test and the effect on the color of the complex image are tested using the S-CIELAB protocol and the CIECAM02 color appearance model.
At present, the printing industry generally adopts the color management technology to enable various devices to present relatively uniform colors, which provides a prerequisite for the application of soft proofing. There have been some screen-soft proofing products on the market, such as Kodak's VirtualProof and ICS's RemoteDirector.
In summary, the soft proofing of the screen is a very new technology, which is restricted by many factors such as equipment, technology, and use. Therefore, it is necessary to carry out relevant experiments and research. A soft proofing experiment was designed in this project, and preliminary evaluation of the soft proofing effect was conducted. Some meaningful results were obtained.
In this experiment, the display and printer were calibrated and characterized by color management, and the printed hard copy proofs were compared with the display results. The viewers evaluated the display results against the hard copy proofs, and checked the correlation between the subjective evaluation results and the measured color difference. This tests the result of soft proofing.
The monitor used in the experiment was an EIZO ColorEdge CG19 liquid crystal display, the color management software was MonacoOPTIXPro 2.0, the measurement instrument was GretagMacbeth Eye-one, and the white field color temperature was 6500K.
The printer that generates hard copy proofs is Epson StylusPro 7600, the color management software is MonacoPROFILER 4.7.2, and the measurement instrument is X-Rite DTP70. Specimen observations were performed in GretagMacbeth Judge II standard room lighting with a simulated D65 light source. First perform color management on the monitor and the printer so that the color difference it presents is as small as possible. The color-corrected display was tested using IT87/3 color and gray series samples with a total of 963 color measurement data (CIELAB). The average color difference between the screen color measurement data and the standard data was 3.02, and the maximum color difference was 30.81. The standard deviation was It is 5.07. Among them, 53.6% of the samples had a color difference of less than 1 and 72.1% of the samples had a color difference of less than 2. The samples with large color difference were all colors that exceeded the display color gamut. After the color-corrected printer was tested with the same 963 color data as described above, the average color difference was 1.35, the maximum color difference was 6.15, and the standard deviation was 0.86. Samples with a color difference of less than 1 accounted for 41.8%, and samples with a color difference of less than 2 accounted for 82.0%.
The color measurement of the hard copy sample was directly compared with the measurement value displayed on the display. The color difference increased, the average color difference rose to 3.54, the maximum color difference was 30.90, and the standard deviation was 4.95. Among them, sample with color difference less than 1 accounted for 28.1%, sample with color difference less than 2 accounted for 58.3%, sample with color difference less than 3 accounted for 70.5%, abscissa was color difference value, ordinate was the number of corresponding sample, and three color bars denoted respectively The color difference distribution of monitors, printers, and displays relative to the printer. Since the out-of-gamut color has the greatest influence on the display color difference of the display, the number of samples in the large color difference region mainly depends on the color difference of the display, while the sample of the small color difference region depends on the interaction between the two, so the objective evaluation of the color difference is considered. The color difference of soft proofing can be accepted by the printing industry, indicating that the color-corrected display and printer can reach a relatively good state, and the color presented is basically accurate.
In order to evaluate the effect of soft proofing, it is necessary to conduct an actual visual evaluation and visually evaluate whether the color difference of the soft proof can be accepted. For this experiment, subjective evaluation experiments were designed.
The subjectively evaluated sample is the S8.Tif file in ISOSCID, which contains 104 color patches that are evenly distributed in the color space. The image file is converted into the LAB mode in advance, and its LAB value is displayed on a color-managed monitor display and printer, and the color difference between the display and the print is measured according to the foregoing method. The evaluation level is classified as “not visibleâ€, “ There is a slight color difference "," there is a large color difference "and" there are four levels of color difference, each level assigned 1 ~ 4, the greater the value, the greater the color difference. The color standard color is displayed in Photoshop, so we must first Profile is set up correctly in Photoshop.
When observing, use a black paper to dig out the hole of a color block and compare only one of the 104 color blocks at a time to avoid the influence of the adjacent color on the observation result. Between imperceptible and weak color difference, it shows that most of the color blocks can only notice very weak color difference, and the effect of soft proofing is better. The color difference of subjective evaluation is only 1.9. The relationship between the color difference rating and the CIELAB measurement color difference The reason for the lower correlation coefficient between the two is that the data points are scattered. This is more in line with the laws of subjective feelings. The correlation coefficient r = 0.4446 obtained by logarithmic fitting has greatly improved the linear correlation coefficient.
In this paper, the effects of soft proofing on the screen were objectively tested and subjectively evaluated. The objective test results show that under the condition of strict color management for both display and output devices, the average color difference produced by the soft proofing of the screen is 3.54. The main reason for the large color difference is that the display and the printing color gamut are not completely consistent. The color of the excellent domain can produce a color difference up to ã„“E ab=30, and has a good display effect for colors in most color gamuts, so it can be applied to printing proofing. This experiment is only a preliminary experiment of soft proofing. The color difference tolerance of soft proofing has not been examined. The inequality of CIELAB color space and the influence of complex images on color evaluation have not been taken into account. Therefore, other color difference formulas are needed in the next step. The test and the effect on the color of the complex image are tested using the S-CIELAB protocol and the CIECAM02 color appearance model.
Block Bottom Bag,Bag With Valve,Degassing Valve Bag,Block Bottom Valve Bag
ZHEJIANG IMERIC ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. , https://www.imeric-valvebags.com