Web-based Imaging Management Services: RE: WIMS> Black vs Mo

RE: WIMS> Black vs Mono

From: Bergman, Ron (Ron.Bergman@rpsa.ricoh.com)
Date: Thu Apr 28 2005 - 04:26:58 EDT

  • Next message: Bergman, Ron: "RE: WIMS> Black vs Mono"

    My reason for bring up this issue was due to the absence of highlight color for images.
    When I discussed this with Peter, his view is that an image, other than full color, does
    not have a colorant associated until it is processed by the printer. To be consistent
    with this assumption, the term "black" should be replaced with "monochrome". An
    inconsistent solution would be to add highlightImages to the counters spec.
     
        Ron

    -----Original Message-----
    From: owner-wims@pwg.org [mailto:owner-wims@pwg.org]On Behalf Of William A Wagner
    Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 3:36 PM
    To: wims@pwg.org
    Subject: RE: WIMS> Black vs Mono

    Harry,

     

    I do not agree that the argument for using "black" for images is the same as using "black" for impressions. For example, you are not interested in colorant usage in image counters; indeed there is no inherent reason to believe that the image will ever be printed. But quite frankly, I don't feel that strongly one way or the other. Ron, how critically do you take this issue?

     

    We do have significantly more far reaching issues that this. If we are dropping the counter MIB because we believe all counters should be fully defined in the counter spec, then I suggest we will have the same problem mapping to a schema. Without being able to map to a form that can be communicated as useful parameters, the counter spec becomes useless.

     

    Bill Wagner

     

     

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl@us.ibm.com]
    Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 3:41 PM
    To: McDonald, Ira
    Cc: William A Wagner; wims@pwg.org
    Subject: RE: WIMS> Black vs Mono

     

    Thanks, Ira.

    I was aware of the inconsistency (but not all the specific references). I think it is a result of a rather sloppy (on our part) mapping of marketing and technical terms into our standards and semantics. This shows the value of, now, having a common semantic model where definitions from parallel work groups must be reconciled (we didn't have this in the past). Throughout the past 20 years, it has been common in the MARKET PLACE to distinguish between "monochrome" and the emerging "color" market in printers. Monochrome (in my opinion) was basically a technical term used by marketing as a more concise (and "sexy") way to describe what the average public would otherwise refer to as "black and white".

    Of course, PWG members understand the term both technically and in it's market use. In the past, we got away with assuming our spec reader could also be as ambidextrous in their use of the terms.

    When we came to the Counter Spec, where we are actually wanting to measure the use of black colorant in exclusion of any other mixtures, I think we were right to choose the term BLACK as it is more explicit than monochrome.
    ----------------------------------------------
    Harry Lewis
    IBM STSM
    Chairman - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
    http://www.pwg.org
    IBM Printing Systems
    http://www.ibm.com/printers
    303-924-5337
    ----------------------------------------------

    "McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald@sharplabs.com>

    04/25/2005 01:24 PM

    To

    Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS, William A Wagner <wamwagner@comcast.net>

    cc

    wims@pwg.org

    Subject

    RE: WIMS> Black vs Mono

     

     

     

    Hi Harry,

    The Job Mon MIB (of which you are a co-editor) uses
    the term monochrome once in the (badly written)
    definition of 'Impressions'.

    Later in HighlightColorImpressions, it uses the term
    black (to describe the black colorant). There, it
    does not refer to monochrome.

    The Printer MIB uses the term monochrome once to say
    "process color of 1 implies monochrome".

    The Printer MIB uses the term black once to refer to
    the colorant in prtMarkerColorantValue.

    Cheers,
    - Ira

    Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
    Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
    PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839
    phone: +1-906-494-2434
    email: imcdonald@sharplabs.com

    -----Original Message-----
    From: owner-wims@pwg.org [mailto:owner-wims@pwg.org]On Behalf Of Harry Lewis
    Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 12:33 PM
    To: William A Wagner
    Cc: wims@pwg.org
    Subject: RE: WIMS> Black vs Mono

    The reasoning for using the term Black (vs Monochrome) sure seems identical
    in either case (Images or Impressions)... just that Images are scanned and
    Impressions are "deposited". If we have used both terms in past, normative
    definitions, I guess we'll have to live with them. If not, we should think
    seriously about converging on "Black" and making sure we embellish any
    explanations where needed.
    ----------------------------------------------
    Harry Lewis
    IBM STSM
    Chairman - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
    http://www.pwg.org
    IBM Printing Systems
    http://www.ibm.com/printers
    303-924-5337
    ----------------------------------------------

    "William A Wagner" <wamwagner@comcast.net>
    04/25/2005 10:12 AM ToHarry Lewis/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS
    cc<wims@pwg.org>
    SubjectRE: WIMS> Black vs Mono

    Harry,
     
    I agree with your comments, and would argue that "Black" impressions is
    preferable to "Monochrome" impressions. However, Ron did not refer to
    impressions but rather to images. So this is not a question about what is
    actually deposited on media, but what is defined in a job. If no color is
    defined, then the image may be considered monochrome. A job where a cyan
    image is defined would be treated as full color, even if it were the only
    color. If this is Ron's reasoning, I think it makes sense. The question
    then is if the use of "black" with impressions and "monochrome" with images
    adds to understanding or to confusion.
     
    Bill Wagner
     
    -----Original Message-----
    From: owner-wims@pwg.org [mailto:owner-wims@pwg.org] On Behalf Of Harry
    Lewis
    Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 10:21 AM
    To: William A Wagner
    Cc: wims@pwg.org
    Subject: WIMS> Black vs Mono
     

    As background... we discussed Black vs Mono at the Tokyo f2f. There is an
    intuitive question of whether we are really trying to count BLACK (only)
    pages vs Full Color or Spot Color pages or whether we are using Black as a
    synonym for Monochrome vs Full Color. The result would be nearly the same
    except that with the later one could ask how to count a completely Cyan
    (unlikely) page, for example. In Tokyo we concluded that, indeed, we are
    counting BLACK (only) pages. Aside from being inherently monochrome, Black
    has a unique role in printing as many printers have various contone
    components (of which Black is one) and spot colors but Black (only)
    impressions may be accomplished without engaging the contone features or
    pathway in some cases. Also, Monochrome and Black really ARE synonymous,
    Black being so much so the majority of monochrome that other cases (Cyan
    only, Magenta only) become pathological.

    I know another thread ensued abut where and what documents already carry
    these definitions but I wanted to share this "common sense" dialog which
    occurred in Tokyo at the Last Call review also, prior to the next WIMS
    teleconference.
    ----------------------------------------------
    Harry Lewis
    IBM STSM
    Chairman - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
    http://www.pwg.org
    IBM Printing Systems
    http://www.ibm.com/printers
    303-924-5337
    ----------------------------------------------



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Apr 28 2005 - 04:27:41 EDT