Mottling Assessment of Solid Printed Areas and Its Correlation to Perceived Uniformity

  • Albert Sadovnikov
  • Petja Salmela
  • Lasse Lensu
  • Joni-Kristian Kamarainen
  • Heikki Kälviäinen
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3540)

Abstract

Mottling is one of the most important printing defects in modern offset printing using coated papers. Mottling can be defined as undesired unevenness in perceived print density. In our research, we have implemented three methods to evaluate print mottle: the standard method, the cluster-based method, and the bandpass method. Our goal was to study the methods presented in literature, and modify them by taking relevant characteristics of the human visual system into account. For comparisons, we used a test set of 20 grey mottle samples which were assessed by both humans and the modified methods. The results show that when assessing low-contrast unevenness of print, humans have diverse opinions about quality, and none of the methods accurately capture the characteristics of human vision.

Keywords

Machine Vision Human Visual System Printing Process Weber Fraction 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: IGT information leaflet w57: Back trap mottle, 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: 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, IS&T, Springfield VA, pp. 421–425 (1999)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wolin, D.: Enhanced mottle measurement. In: PICS 2002: IS&T’s PICS conference, IS&T, pp. 148–151 (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, IS&T, Springfield VA, pp. 808–812 (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.
    Pratt, W.: Digital Image Processing. A Wiley-Interscience publication, Hoboken (1991)MATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    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
  16. 16.
    Coltman, J.W., Anderson, A.E.: Noise limitations to resolving power in electronic imaging. In: Proceedings of the Institute of Radio Engineers, vol. 48, pp. 858–865Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Albert Sadovnikov
    • 1
  • Petja Salmela
    • 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