Quantified and Perceived Unevenness of Solid Printed Areas

  • Albert Sadovnikov
  • Lasse Lensu
  • Joni-Kristian Kamarainen
  • Heikki Kälviäinen
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3773)

Abstract

Mottling is one of the most severe printing defects in modern offset printing using coated papers. It can be defined as undesired unevenness in perceived print density. In our studies, we have implemented two methods known from the literature to quantify print mottle: the standard method for prints from office equipment and the bandpass method specially designed for mottling. Our goal was to study the performance of the methods when compared to human perception. For comparisons, we used a test set of 20 grey samples which were assessed by professional and non-professional people, and the artificial methods. The results show that the bandpass method can be used to quantify mottling of grey samples with a reasonable accuracy. However, we propose a modification to the bandpass method. The enhanced bandpass method utilizes a contrast sensitivity function for the human visual system directly in the frequency domain and the function parameters are optimized based on the human assessment. This results a significant improvement in the correlation to human assessment when compared to the original bandpass method.

Keywords

Spatial Frequency Machine Vision Human Visual System Printing Process Human Evaluation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    IGT information leaflet w57: Back trap mottle. WWW:www.igt.nl (2002) [Accessed 2005-02-25]. Available: http://www.igt.nl/igt-site-220105/index-us/w-bladen/GST/W57.pdf
  2. 2.
    ISO/IEC 13660:2001(e) standard. information technology - office equipment - measurement of image quality attributes for hardcopy output - binary monochrome text and graphic images. ISO/IEC (2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Briggs, J., Forrest, D., Klein, A., Tse, M.K.: Living with ISO-13660: Pleasures and perils. In: IS&Ts NIP 15: 1999 International Conference on Digital Printing Technologies, pp. 421–425. IS&T, Springfield (1999)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wolin, D.: Enhanced mottle measurement. In: PICS 2002: IS&T’s PICS conference, pp. 148–151. IS&T, Springfield (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Armel, D., Wise, J.: An analytic method for quantifying mottle - part 1. Flexo, 70–79 (1998)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Armel, D., Wise, J.: An analytic method for quantifying mottle - part 2. Flexo, 38–43 (1999)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Streckel, B., Steuernagel, B., Falkenhagen, E., Jung, E.: Objective print quality measurements using a scanner and a digital camera. In: DPP 2003: IS&T International Conference on Digital Production Printing and Industrial Applications, pp. 145–147 (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Johansson, P.Å.: Optical Homogeniety of Prints. PhD thesis, Kunglika Tekniska Högskolan, Stockholm (1999)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rosenberger, R.R.: Stochastic frequency distribution analysis as applied to ink jet print mottle measurement. In: IS&Ts NIP 17: 2001 International Conference on Digital Printing Technologies, pp. 808–812. IS&T, Springfield (2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Barten, P.: Contrast Sensitivity of the Human Eye and its Effects on Image Quality. SPIE (1999)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schade, O.H.: Optical and photoelectric analog of the eye. Journal of the Optical Society of America 46, 721–739 (1956)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kang, H.R.: Digital Color Halftoning. SPIE & IEEE Press, Los Alamitos (1999)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Campbell, F.W., Carpenter, R.H.S., Levinson, J.Z.: Visibility of aperiodic patterns compared with that of sinusoidal gratings. Journal of Physiology 204, 283–298Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mannos, J., Sakrison, D.: The effects of a visual fidelity criterion on the encoding of images. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 20, 525–536 (1974)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Albert Sadovnikov
    • 1
  • Lasse Lensu
    • 1
  • Joni-Kristian Kamarainen
    • 1
  • Heikki Kälviäinen
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratory of Information Processing, Department of Information TechnologyLappeenranta University of TechnologyLappeenrantaFinland

Personalised recommendations