Roberto Michelena wrote: > the real problem is determining the ink limits automatically. I'm not sure any automatic system can work based purely on measurement, at least when dealing with the underlying raw channel behaviour. For instance, the actual dot coverage will depend on the resolution an inkjet is being run at, so 100% channel value may correspond to an actual 200%, 400% or more ink coverage. On the Colorbus RIP we had a gross scale factor that had to be set, and then the more fine grained per channel limit (set by the density aim target) could be determined more automatically. The gross limit was determined by looking at things like "was the ink running off the page". There were additional magic numbers that needed to be set which determined light ink separation etc.
shape (for example, target being ISOCoated). Then I can clearly see, by rotating the graph and looking at it, which limits do I have to set in each ink channel to be able to encompass the target gamut. I can go that much, or higher; but not lower.
I would guess there are different aims for setting ink limits. If you have a particular gamut as a target, then you might find there is no need to push beyond what you need, or you might find that you have to push beyond the natural limit to be able to cover the gamut. On the other hand if you're just making pretty pictures, you'll probably aim for a comfortable limit. Graeme Gill.