IPP> URGENT: Should impressions include blank last page back sides

IPP> URGENT: Should impressions include blank last page back sides

IPP> URGENT: Should impressions include blank last page back sides

Tom Hastings hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com
Wed Dec 17 16:03:48 EST 1997


At the JMP meeting on 12/5, we agreed that the definitions of
impressions would count the number of times a media side goes past
the marker, even if there are no marks made.


I think we agreed to that, becasue impressions is supposed to count
after the sheet is stacked, so that the sheet counter doesn't know whether
the back side of the last page (documents with an odd number of pages),
was marked or not, so we said that it SHALL count.


Howver, for an accounting application, the customers may get pretty
unhappy with having to pay for the final side they didn't use, as 
Angelo points out, when their document has an odd number of pages.


URGENT: I NEED FEEDBACK FROM THE JMP LIST BY THURSDAY 12/18 EVENING.
HEARING NO OBJECTIONS I'M GOING FORWARD WITH THE FOLLOWING:


So how about RECOMMENDING (but not requiring) that the number of impressions 
for two-sided printing not include counting both sides of sheets marked on
only one side.  It may be that the interpreter has to be involved in
counting impressions, rather than the sheet counter in the stacker or maybe
the implementation only worries about the last sheet and so there is just
an internal status bit that says whether a document has an odd number or an 
even number of sides in order to know whether to count the last sheet as 1
or 2 impressions.


I suggest changing the sentence in the definition of impression:


If a two-sided document has an odd number of pages, the last sheet still
counts as two impressions, if that sheet makes two passes through the
marker or the marker marks on both sides of a sheet in a single pass.  


to:


If a two-sided document has some sheets that only have marks on one side
(such as on the last sheet of a document with an odd-number of
impressions), those sheets SHOULD count as one impression, instead of two,
even if that sheet makes two passes through the marker.  


BTW, the current definition of "impression" in the IPP Model is:


12.2.15 impressions


An "impression" is the image (possibly many print-stream pages in different
configurations) imposed onto a single media page.


So it seems that the IPP Job Model is in agreement with the following
recommendation for the Job Mon MIB:




The full definition of the term impressions (as sent yesterday) is
for the Job Monitoring MIB:


Impression:  For a print job, an impression is the passage of the entire
side of a sheet by the marker, whether or not any marks are made and
independent of the number of passes that the side makes past the marker.
Thus a four pass color process counts as a single impression.  One-sided
processing involves one impression per sheet.  Two-sided processing
involves two impressions per sheet.  If a two-sided document has an odd
number of pages, the last sheet still counts as two impressions, if that
sheet makes two passes through the marker or the marker marks on both sides
of a sheet in a single pass.  Two-up printing is the placement of two
logical pages on one side of a sheet and so is still a single impression.
See "page" and "sheet".




I propose to soften that definition to:


Impression:  For a print job, an impression is the passage of the entire
side of a sheet by the marker, whether or not any marks are made and
independent of the number of passes that the side makes past the marker.
Thus a four pass color process counts as a single impression.  One-sided
processing involves one impression per sheet.  Two-sided processing
involves two impressions per sheet.  If a two-sided document has some
sheets that only have marks on one side (such as on the last sheet of a
document with an odd-number of impressions), those sheets SHOULD count as
one impression, instead of two, even if that sheet makes two passes through
the marker.  Two-up printing is the placement of two logical pages on one
side of a sheet and so is still a single impression.  See "page" and "sheet".




PLEASE SEND ANY COMMENTS BY THURSDAY EVENING.  NOT HEARING ANY OBJECTIONS,
I'M GOING WITH THE ABOVE DEFINITION FOR THE JOB MONITORING MIB.


Thanks,
Tom






At 07:18 12/17/1997 PST, Caruso, Angelo wrote:
>Tom,
>
snip...


>Your proposed definition of impressions is great except for the sentence
>"If a two-sided document has an odd number of pages, the last sheet
>still counts as two impressions, if that sheet makes two passes through
>the marker or the marker marks on both sides of a sheet in a single
>pass." I disagree with this. Why should the odd side count as an
>impression if it is not marked? And which impressions counters would you
>increment for the unmarked odd side? Some engine architectures require
>that the sheet pass through the marker twice even though the sheet only
>gets marked on one side. This seems like a rather arbitrary and unfair
>policy, especially from the customer's point of view. With this policy,
>if I printed 100 copies of a 5 page duplex document, I would pay for 600
>impressions even though I only made 500 impressions.
>
>Thanks,
>Angelo
>
>
>
>	-----Original Message-----
>	From:	Tom Hastings [SMTP:hastings at cp10.es.xerox.coM]
>	Sent:	Tuesday, December 16, 1997 5:37 PM
>	To:	jmp at pwg.org; Caruso, Angelo
>	Cc:	XCMI Editors only
>	Subject:	URGENT: Ambiguity in
>impressions|fullColor|highlighColorComppleteddefns
>
>	Angelo,
>
>	You've come up with a third interpretation of the
>impressionsCompleted,
>	fullColorImpressionsCompleted and
>highlightColorImpressionsCompleted!
>
>
>	I'm proposing the interpretation based on our discussion at the
>	Dec 5 JMP meeting (which you did not have the benefit of
>attending).
>
>
>	PEOPLE,
>	PLEASE RESPOND TO THE DL THIS WEEK, THURSDAY, 12/18/98, IF YOU
>OBJECT TO 
>	MY CLARIFICATIONS.
>	AGREEMENT REPLIES WELCOME, BUT SILENCE WILL BE INTERPRETED AS
>AGREEMENT.
>	I'M STILL PLAN TO FORWARD THE JOB MON MIB TO THE IESG THIS WEEK
>AS WE
>	AGREED AT THE JMP MEETING.
>
>	First, here is the definition of the term "impression" that we
>	came up with at the meeting (please review the text too, since
>it was only
>	the ideas that we agreed to at the meeting):
>
>	Impression:  For a print job, an impression is the passage of
>the entire
>	side of a sheet by the marker, whether or not any marks are made
>and
>	independent of the number of passes that the side makes past the
>marker.
>	Thus a four pass color process counts as a single impression.
>One-sided
>	processing involves one impression per sheet.  Two-sided
>processing
>	involves two impressions per sheet.  If a two-sided document has
>an odd
>	number of pages, the last sheet still counts as two impressions,
>if that
>	sheet makes two passes through the marker or the marker marks on
>both sides
>	of a sheet in a single pass.  Two-up printing is the placement
>of two
>	logical pages on one side of a sheet and so is still a single
>impression.
>	See "page" and "sheet".
>
>	The three interpretations of these three attributes are:
>
>	1. Does impressionsCompleted increment or not when a highlight
>or full color
>	impression is made?  The current above definition of impressions
>suggests
>	that it does, since an impressions is the passing of one side of
>the
>	media past the marker whether color or not.
>
>	2. Does the fullColorImpressionsCompleted count once for each
>side of
>	a full color impression or once for each color pass past the
>side of
>	a medium?
>
>	For example, if I had a 16-page document that had 10 black and
>white pages,
>	5 highlight color pages, and 1 full 4-color page, (number-up=1,
>sides=1), 
>	would the counts at the end of my job be:
>
>	                         highlightColor         fullColor
>	   impressionsCompleted  ImpressionsCompleted
>ImpressionsCompleted
>
>	1. 16                    5                      1
>	2. 16                    5                      20
>	3. 10                    5                      1
>	4. 10                    5                      20
>
>	I suggest that it is interpretation 1 that we are agreeing to
>and I'll clarify
>	the fullColorImpressionsCompleted, by adding the phrase,
>"independent
>	of the number of colors or color passes" to the end of the first
>	sentence, yielding:
>
>	The number of full color impressions completed by the device for
>this job
>	so far independent of the number of colors or color passes.
>
>	I'll also add the parenthetical remake to the
>impressionsCompleted
>	"(monochome, highlight color, and full color)" to the first
>sentence,
>	since it is clear from the definition of impression that it
>includes
>	all, yielding:
>
>	The total number of impressions (monochome, highlight color, and
>full
>	color) completed for this job so far.
>
>	Ok?
>
>	AGAIN, PLEASSE SEND E-MAIL, IF YOU DISAGREE WITH THESE
>CLARIFICATION.
>
>	Thanks,
>	Tom  
>
>	The current definitions of impressionsCompleted,
>	highlightColorImpressionsCompleted, and
>fullColorImpressionsCompleted are:
>
>	OBJECT-TYPE
>	SYNTAX      Integer32(-2..2147483647)
>	MAX-ACCESS  read-only
>	STATUS      current
>	DESCRIPTION
>	"The total number of impressions completed for this job so far.
>For
>	printing devices, the impressions completed includes
>interpreting, marking,
>	and stacking the output.  For other types of job services, the
>number of
>	impressions completed includes the number of impressions
>processed.
>
>	NOTE - See the impressionsCompletedCurrentCopy and
>	pagesCompletedCurrentCopy attributes for attributes that are
>reset on each
>	document copy.
>
>	NOTE - The jmJobImpressionsCompleted object can be used with the
>	jmJobImpressionsPerCopyRequested object to provide an indication
>of the
>	relative progress of the job, provided that the multiplicative
>factor is
>	taken into account for some implementations of multiple copies."
>	REFERENCE
>	"See the definition of the term "impression" in Section 2 and
>the counting
>	example in Section 3.4 entitled 'Monitoring Job Progress'."
>	DEFVAL      { 0 }      -- default is no octets
>	::= { jmJobEntry 8 }
>
>	fullColorImpressionsCompleted(114),
>Integer32(-2..2147483647)
>	INTEGER:  The number of full color impressions completed by the
>device for
>	this job so far.  For printing, the impressions completed
>includes
>	interpreting, marking, and stacking the output.  For other types
>of job
>	services, the number of impressions completed includes the
>number of
>	impressions processed. Full color impressions are typically
>defined as
>	those requiring 3 or more colorants, but this MAY vary by
>implementation.
>
>	highlightColorImpressionsCompleted(115),
>Integer32(-2..2147483647)
>	INTEGER:  The number of highlight color impressions completed by
>the device
>	for this job so far.  For printing, the impressions completed
>includes
>	interpreting, marking, and stacking the output.  For other types
>of job
>	services, the number of impressions completed includes the
>number of
>	impressions processed.  Highlight color impressions are
>typically defined
>	as those requiring black plus one other colorant, but this MAY
>vary by
>	implementation. 
>
>
>
>
>	At 12:37 12/12/1997 PST, Caruso, Angelo wrote:
>	>Tom,
>	>
>	>There's no ambiguity in my mind. You increment exactly one of
>the three
>	>counters ([monochrome]impressionsCompleted,
>	>fullColorImpressionsCompleted, or
>highlightColorImpressionsCompleted)
>	>for each SIDE completed. If the side requires 3 or more
>colorants to
>	>produce the impression then it's Full Color, black plus one
>other
>	>colorant would be Highlight color, and a side that uses only
>black would
>	>cause the monochrome counter to increment. To display job
>progress to a
>	>user you need to sum all three of these counters.
>
>	The advantage to saying that impressionsCompleted, counts
>black/white,
>	highlight color, and full color, is that an application only
>need to
>	look at one attribute if it doesn't care about the distinction
>of b/w,
>	highlight and full color.  Also the device might not implement
>	the other two, so it is easier for an application to just look
>at the
>	one attribute if that is all it is interested in.  Ok?
>	 
>	>
>	>For example, if you produce a duplex sheet with full process
>color
>	>graphics on the front side and black text on the back side,
>then you
>	>would increment fullColorImpressionsCompleted when the front
>side was
>	>completed and [monochrome]impressionsCompleted when the back
>was
>	>complete. Since the descriptions of these attributes were
>changed to say
>	>"For printing, the impressions completed includes interpreting,
>marking,
>	>and stacking the output", then this implies to me that both
>counters
>	>would be incremented simultaneously when this completed duplex
>sheet was
>	>delivered to the output.
>
>	So with my suggested resolution, the
>fullColorImpressionsCompleted
>	would count by 1 and the impressionsCompleted would count by 2
>in 
>	your example.
>
>	>
>	>Is there something else I'm missing here?
>	>
>	>Obviously these objects do not provide detailed colorant use
>information
>	>for each page. To do so would require objects to count the
>actual amount
>	>of each colorant transferred to each side. So as a compromise,
>we
>	>proposed these two new objects (which complement the previously
>existing
>	>[monochrome]impressionsCompleted counter) to provide enough
>information
>	>for an accounting application to bill at different rates for
>monochrome,
>	>highlight color, and full color impressions within a job.
>
>	I think that the accounting program can still bill correctly
>with
>	impressionsCompleted counting highlight and fullColor as well as
>monochrome.
>	It can substract out the monochrome, if it wants to, or build in
>the
>	charge for color to be less that the correct charge for coloer
>by the amount 
>	charged for monochrome and avoid subtracting.
>
>	>
>	>Thanks,
>	>Angelo
>	>
>	>> -----Original Message-----
>	>> From:	Tom Hastings [SMTP:hastings at cp10.es.xerox.coM]
>	>> Sent:	Friday, December 12, 1997 11:26 AM
>	>> To:	Angelo_Caruso at wb.xerox.com
>	>> Cc:	XCMI Editors only
>	>> Subject:	Ambiguity in XCMI & PWG Job Mon:
>	>> fullColorImpressionsCompleted(1
>	>> 
>	>> URGENT:
>	>> 
>	>> The current definition of fullColorImpressionsCompleted(114)
>and
>	>> highlightColorImpressionsCompleted(115) is:
>	>> 
>	>> fullColorImpressionsCompleted(114),
>Integer32(-2..2147483647)
>	>> INTEGER:  The number of full color impressions completed by
>the device
>	>> for
>	>> this job so far.  For printing, the impressions completed
>includes
>	>> interpreting, marking, and stacking the output.  For other
>types of
>	>> job
>	>> services, the number of impressions completed includes the
>number of
>	>> impressions processed. Full color impressions are typically
>defined as
>	>> those requiring 3 or more colorants, but this MAY vary by
>	>> implementation.
>	>> 
>	>> highlightColorImpressionsCompleted(115),
>	>> Integer32(-2..2147483647)
>	>> INTEGER:  The number of highlight color impressions completed
>by the
>	>> device
>	>> for this job so far.  For printing, the impressions completed
>includes
>	>> interpreting, marking, and stacking the output.  For other
>types of
>	>> job
>	>> services, the number of impressions completed includes the
>number of
>	>> impressions processed.  Highlight color impressions are
>typically
>	>> defined
>	>> as those requiring black plus one other colorant, but this
>MAY vary by
>	>> implementation. 
>	>> 
>	>> 
>	>> Suppose you have a 4 color process that makes four passes
>through the
>	>> marker
>	>> for each side,  does this attribute count by 1 for each pass
>or does
>	>> it still
>	>> count just the number of sides?
>	>> 
>	>> The advantage of counting the number of color passes is that
>something
>	>> 
>	>> counts for each pass which can be shown to a user.  Also
>accounting
>	>> may
>	>> want to charge for each color pass.  Conceivably, there might
>be a
>	>> variable
>	>> number of passes, depending on the colors demanded by each
>image?  
>	>> 
>	>> The advantage of only counting once per side, is that you can
>then
>	>> compare
>	>> the number of impressions for the job with the number of
>	>> fullColorImpressionsCompleted and determine the percentage of
>color
>	>> impressions in the job.  Also this definition seems to be
>more in
>	>> keeping
>	>> with the
>	>> concept of "stacking" the media mentioned in the definition.
>	>> 
>	>> Since Xerox proposed this attribute, what did we have in
>mind?
>	>> 
>	>> Thanks,
>	>> Tom
>	>
>	>
>
>



More information about the Ipp mailing list