Author Topic: Spectacular printing service for Arcade art. Must see! (Read 19250 times)

Frostillicus · « **Reply #40 on:** January 19, 2004, 08:30:06 pm »

They could be using a giclee-type printer, in which case that would explain the high quality 'inkjet'. Not sure on the cost, usually that stuff is pricey - better than your average inkjet, eh booboo?

Bottom line - good stuff is good stuff. And consider the audience, if it's just for you and your family/friends enjoyment, then it doesn't have to be a museum quality, award winning print. For example, I printed my marquee at work on two pieces of paper and just taped them together on the back. It looks fine.

Your cab looks great, BTW, Justin!

Sasquatch! · « **Reply #41 on:** January 19, 2004, 09:15:49 pm »

This thread convinced me to give them a try at printing up my custom-made control panel overlay. I just made the order a couple of minutes ago...I'll be sure to report back once I get it!

Sasquatch! · « **Reply #42 on:** January 25, 2004, 10:22:30 am »

Quote from: Sasquatch! on January 19, 2004, 09:15:49 pm

This thread convinced me to give them a try at printing up my custom-made control panel overlay. I just made the order a couple of minutes ago...I'll be sure to report back once I get it!

I just received my custom-made CPO from classicarcadegrafix.com. It's 34" x 17", so they told me to just order a "Grid style 2p Mame CPO" for $45.00 and put in the notes that it was for a custom job, and then upload the photoshop file to their FTP site.

I have to admit, I'm very impressed with the quality of the print. No visible dithering or anything like that. It's printed on a self-adhesive laminated vinyl (more on that in a minute)*. The only complaint that I have is that there appears to be some kind of scuff marks or warping or some other kind of irregularity underneath the laminating of the vinyl.

I emailed them about that and was told "Sometimes there are small air pockets under the lamination, usually they disappear during shipping(24 hours or so). If it does not look better in a couple of days let me know and I will make another one."

So good print quality and good customer service! I'd definitely use them again.

* About the printed material: like I said, it's a self-adhesive laminated vinyl. It is thick and STRONG. I already had my CP planned out as being 5/8" MDF with a 1/8" of plexi on top of it (to equal 3/4" total), but honestly, this appears to be tough enough that you probably could have this be the top-most surface with no problems. They told me that they offer two different thicknesses: the thicker one that I got, or a thinner one that would be better if you were wrapping the CPO around corners.

Justin · « **Reply #43 on:** January 25, 2004, 10:31:45 am »

Hey Sasquatch...

Thanks for following up. Any pictures of your custom CPO? How about some closeups so we all get an idea of what the texture is like?

What color was the vinyl? And also, how bright are the colors? (Printing on black vinyl could produce very dull colors, I presume)

-J

patrickl · « **Reply #44 on:** January 25, 2004, 10:32:47 am »

OK, that sounds like good news.

So the print is indeed laminated. Lovely. Is this a glossy or textured finish?

Minwah · « **Reply #45 on:** January 25, 2004, 02:02:31 pm »

Quote from: Sasquatch! on January 25, 2004, 10:22:30 am

I just received my custom-made CPO from classicarcadegrafix.com. It's 34" x 17", so they told me to just order a "Grid style 2p Mame CPO" for $45.00 and put in the notes that it was for a custom job, and then upload the photoshop file to their FTP site.

I have to admit, I'm very impressed with the quality of the print. No visible dithering or anything like that. It's printed on a self-adhesive laminated vinyl (more on that in a minute)*. The only complaint that I have is that there appears to be some kind of scuff marks or warping or some other kind of irregularity underneath the laminating of the vinyl.

I emailed them about that and was told "Sometimes there are small air pockets under the lamination, usually they disappear during shipping(24 hours or so). If it does not look better in a couple of days let me know and I will make another one."

So good print quality and good customer service! I'd definitely use them again.

* About the printed material: like I said, it's a self-adhesive laminated vinyl. It is thick and STRONG. I already had my CP planned out as being 5/8" MDF with a 1/8" of plexi on top of it (to equal 3/4" total), but honestly, this appears to be tough enough that you probably could have this be the top-most surface with no problems. They told me that they offer two different thicknesses: the thicker one that I got, or a thinner one that would be better if you were wrapping the CPO around corners.

Thanks for posting your findings - I'm designing some CP stuff and was considering getting them printed by classicarcadegraphics...

Could you say how thick the vinyl you have actually is? I didn't realise two thicknesses are available - I'm in two minds now

Sasquatch! · « **Reply #46 on:** January 25, 2004, 06:21:54 pm »

Okay, I tried to take some closeup shots of it, but I'm not very good with the digital camera, because it was near impossible for me to get a shot without too much light or flash reflecting off of the whole damn thing. $:-\$

Here's one shot:

I'm pretty sure that it's printed on white vinyl. To that end, the black isn't quite as dark as I'd like it to be, but I think it's good enough. The lines are really crisp, and given the tradeoff between crisp lines and a lighter black, I'll take the lighter black. Also, I'm not sure if part of the reason that the black might not be so dark is because of the laminate on top of it. I actually think that IS part of the reason, but I'm not sure...

Here's another pic:

This is a picture that I sent to classicarcadegrafix when I was trying to explain the irregularity underneath the laminating. You can see it the middle of the arrows. I'm now pretty damn sure that this won't just go away, but I'll still give it a day or two before I ask classicarcadegrafix to replace it for me.

This picture also gives you a good idea of the texture of it too: it's more of a "rough" laminate - you can see it where the flash is bouncing off the surface.

Minwah: According to my caliper, the total thickness of the CPO is 0.0275".

patrickl · « **Reply #47 on:** January 25, 2004, 06:31:39 pm »

Does the black come out more washed out because of the flash or is it really that "bright"? I'm kinda surprised by these pictures, since the pictures that Justin took looked a lot more vibrant (the blacks on his bezel were quite deep).

It almost looks like there is some protective film still on the CPO.

Minwah · « **Reply #48 on:** January 25, 2004, 06:42:58 pm »

Those pics show the surface finish well Sasq, thanks

Would the 'thick' stuff you have bend around corners? Do you know if the 'thin' stuff has a similar laminate, or is it just vinyl?

Thanks for the measurement, I wasn't expecting an answer that accurate!

Justin · « **Reply #49 on:** January 25, 2004, 06:59:29 pm »

Quote from: patrickl on January 25, 2004, 06:31:39 pm

Does the black come out more washed out because of the flash or is it really that "bright"? I'm kinda surprised by these pictures, since the pictures that Justin took looked a lot more vibrant (the blacks on his bezel were quite deep).

The main difference here is that mine was printed on plain vinyl (it was a bezel) while this is printed on texturized vinyl. Not sure if this has anything to do with the outcome of black printout, but thought I'd mention it.

mahuti · « **Reply #50 on:** January 25, 2004, 10:28:24 pm »

The black quality might depend on your setup & their prepress as well.

In a 4 color printing process, if you want something that looks REALLY black, you use rich-black roughly 100% black 60% cyan, 40% magenta, 0% yellow, depends on who you ask... there are tons of different recipes for rich black. Depends on what you are printing on, and the type of ink, too. Some papers can't handle more than 300% ink (out of 400%)

Again, it depends on their prepress. Some prepress apps have rich-black conversion built-in, some don't. If they don't have prepress... then you would automatically just get whatever you gave them.

As far as the arguments about inkjet versus screenprint... there are many, many printing processes between the 2, and some that have a higher quality than the analog screenprint (based on the types of ink used, its durability & resistance to sunlight.) The only argument should be price & quality. It's one thing if you are a purist, and can't bear the idea of an incorrectly "fashioned" piece of material. Most of us here aren't purists, so the manner in which we get our work completed is pretty much moot.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck...

Sasquatch! · « **Reply #51 on:** January 25, 2004, 11:41:06 pm »

Quote from: patrickl on January 25, 2004, 06:31:39 pm

Does the black come out more washed out because of the flash or is it really that "bright"? I'm kinda surprised by these pictures, since the pictures that Justin took looked a lot more vibrant (the blacks on his bezel were quite deep).

It almost looks like there is some protective film still on the CPO.

The flash is definitely contributing a lot to the brightness / washed-out appearance. I'll try to take a picture of it tomorrow that doesn't look like that (if I can). But it does look a lot better than that in person.

And no, there is no protective film over the CPO. What you see IS the top-most surface.

Quote from: Minwah on January 25, 2004, 06:42:58 pm

Would the 'thick' stuff you have bend around corners? Do you know if the 'thin' stuff has a similar laminate, or is it just vinyl?

No, this would not bend around corners at ALL. It's really stiff. I don't know the mechanics of the differences between this and the "thin" option. No problem with the measurements, BTW.

Quote from: Justin on January 25, 2004, 06:59:29 pm

The main difference here is that mine was printed on plain vinyl (it was a bezel) while this is printed on texturized vinyl. Not sure if this has anything to do with the outcome of black printout, but thought I'd mention it.

I'm sure the surface does have a lot to do with it, because - like I said - a lot of that is the camera flash kind of "illuminating" the whole thing.

pfriedel · « **Reply #52 on:** January 26, 2004, 10:21:30 am »

Yeah, I got my CPO the other day, it's a stock item for them (minus MAME art and controls layout), andd I'm really impressed. Perhaps because mine is a known job, the blacks are _black_, and while there is a bit of dithering in sections, but you have to get your nose in it to see it - at typical viewing distances it's crisp and clean. It doesn't crosss boundaries - it's only within sections, though.

I'm really happy with the results. Probably the best $45 I spent on my cab.

Stingray · « **Reply #53 on:** January 26, 2004, 02:26:31 pm »

I'd like to hear from someone who has purchased the thiner version. My CP has two bends in it, so I'll need the thinner type for sure.

-S

Sasquatch! · « **Reply #54 on:** January 26, 2004, 08:50:18 pm »

Quote from: Stingray on January 26, 2004, 02:26:31 pm

I'd like to hear from someone who has purchased the thiner version. My CP has two bends in it, so I'll need the thinner type for sure.

Well, your wish is about to be granted!

Since classicarcadegrafix.com is going to replace my CPO, I asked if I could get the thinner one instead, and they said yes. So I'll actually have one of each type to be able to do a side-by-side of them. I'll post back with the results.

pfriedel · « **Reply #55 on:** February 01, 2004, 12:30:20 pm »

Just a heads up that might be obvious to anyone who has ever done this before, but it was a near disaster for me - even though their CP art comes backed with adhesive, don't expect it to stick to untreated wood - I (for some reason) spray adhesived down the edges of my CPO, leaving the center to the supplied adhesive. Unfortunately, it started pulling up, and I couldn't stop it. Thankfully I was able to pull it off my CP, get medieval with the 3M Super 77 Spray Adhesive, and re-apply it without too much damage. (there are some slight crease lines where I was a little too aggressive pulling it off, but I'll see if it's the end of the world after I get everything back on it.)

So either use spray adhesive or seal the wood - the stock adhesive is only just tacky enough to make you think it'll adhere. It'd probably stick like a dream to a metal control panel, but it's lost on wood.

Sasquatch! · « **Reply #56 on:** February 01, 2004, 05:50:54 pm »

Quote from: pfriedel on February 01, 2004, 12:30:20 pm

So either use spray adhesive or seal the wood - the stock adhesive is only just tacky enough to make you think it'll adhere. It'd probably stick like a dream to a metal control panel, but it's lost on wood.

My CP has a coat of primer and a coat of paint on it, so hopefully it'll be okay. I haven't gotten my replacement (thin) CP yet, but I'm hoping to in the next couple of days.

pfriedel, which CPO did you get: the thick one or the thin one?

pfriedel · « **Reply #57 on:** February 03, 2004, 04:30:44 pm »

I would assume it's the thick stuff - bending it is out of the question. I had to knock the corner off of it so it wasn't so aggressive on my palms on the edges of the CP. All told I'm pretty happy with it - see attached picture. Hint for the thick stuff, if you don't have a router to trim it back with - cut _close_ with a razor, then sand it flush - trying to cut it exactly is _begging_ to mess it up.

Sasquatch! · « **Reply #58 on:** February 04, 2004, 11:47:19 pm »

I got my thinner CPO from www.classicarcadegrafix.com. Thankfully, the "scratch marks" that I had in the thicker version aren't present.

Overall, I'm still pretty impressed with how crisp the lines are - I don't see any signs of dithering. That said though, the colors are a little washed out. Maybe it's just a byproduct of the printing process and would happen with anyone? I don't know. Not enough that I'm dissatisfied - because I am very happy with it - but enough that I'm not singing their praises like Justin did in his original post. For print quality, I'd actually give them an "average" rating.

The thinner CPO is a lot easier to work with. It's still a laminated vinyl, but you can cut the holes out with an x-acto knife easily. I would definitely recommend getting the thinner CPO if you're going to cover it with plexi or lexan. It could easily be bent or wrapped around corners if you wanted.

The thicker CPO is nice though, in that it's tough/thick enough that it can be mounted as the top-most surface: no plexi/lexan required. It would be a lot harder to cut (like pfriedel said), but you're saving yourself from having to cut or drill or route plexi/lexan.

Since I received two identical CPOs on the two different materials, I do have to say that the printing is more detailed on the thicker CPO. Maybe there's a reason for this? If there is, I'm unaware of what it might be.

I'm still not thrilled that the first CPO was scuffed up, but they were very quick and hassle-free about replacing it, so points there.

I think that the packaging that they use might be a bit too small, because the CPO was twisted up pretty badly. After letting it sit on a table for a couple of days, I still had to peel the backing off and reapply it to itself to get the bends and folds out.

My CP was primed and painted, so I didn't have any problems with it peeling up. The adhesive isn't overly strong, but in a good way (for me, anyway).

So I guess overall, I'd give them an "average" or "slightly higher than average" rating. The print quality is crisp, but I find it to be a bit washed out. The product quality (the actual laminated product) is a bit below average to me. Their customer service is very good. I'm not sorry that I went with them, but I think I'm going to have my marquee printed elsewhere just to compare quality. So in conclusion: I like them, but I don't love them.

(Picture attached. The thicker CPO is on the left, the thinner one is one the right.)

Minwah · « **Reply #59 on:** February 05, 2004, 05:27:14 am »

Thanks for posting your new findings Sasq...

Presumably then the image is better on non-laminated material...I wonder if just printed vinyl would be OK (hard-wearing) enough for a CP?

patrickl · « **Reply #60 on:** February 05, 2004, 05:47:09 am »

Quote from: Sasquatch! on February 04, 2004, 11:47:19 pm

I'm not sorry that I went with them, but I think I'm going to have my marquee printed elsewhere just to compare quality. So in conclusion: I like them, but I don't love them.

Weren't the rave reports that we got earlier based on a bezel and marquee print. They probably use another material for their marquees as well. So if you compare a marquee from another vendor with this CPO then you will see a difference, but from what Justin and Kevin report the bezel and marquee prints from classicarcadegrafix look much better also. Perhaps the problem is just in the lamination? Did they say anything about your complaints that the colors on the CPO are a bit washed out?

sTyLeS · « **Reply #61 on:** February 05, 2004, 08:31:30 am »

I've mentioned this in another thread HERE which also has pics of my CPO, but cafepress.com has done a superb job with their poster paper and ink quality. The largest they print, however, is 35" x 23", but that's still fairly large, and for $17.99 I haven't found a place that can beat it.

Due to the subject of this current thread, I just felt compelled to repost this info here.

Stingray · « **Reply #62 on:** February 05, 2004, 10:11:23 am »

Thanks for the additional information Sasquatch. Take a look at this picture of my CP if you would:

http://www.stingrays.dk/arcade/CP03.jpg

Do you think the thinner material would make those two bends okay? The panel is metal, with a coat of primer.

-S

Sephroth57 · « **Reply #63 on:** February 05, 2004, 10:34:18 am »

those CPOs dont really look that great IMO. the colors look a little washed out and dark. although the other stuff ive seen from them looks good, so maybe its just bad pics?

pfriedel · « **Reply #64 on:** February 05, 2004, 05:56:52 pm »

Yeah, I should comment that it isn't that washed out and dark (at the same time!) in real life, it's my camera. In real life it's a lot more even and tonally appropriate. But I'm not going to dig out the tripod and lights to get a beauty shot, heh.

Sasquatch! · « **Reply #65 on:** February 06, 2004, 01:39:43 am »

Quote from: Stingray on February 05, 2004, 10:11:23 am

Thanks for the additional information Sasquatch. Take a look at this picture of my CP if you would:

http://www.stingrays.dk/arcade/CP03.jpg

Do you think the thinner material would make those two bends okay? The panel is metal, with a coat of primer.

Oh yeah, the thinner CPO is very flexible. It would do wraps no problem.

Quote from: pfriedel on February 05, 2004, 05:56:52 pm

Yeah, I should comment that it isn't that washed out and dark (at the same time!) in real life, it's my camera. In real life it's a lot more even and tonally appropriate. But I'm not going to dig out the tripod and lights to get a beauty shot, heh.

Your one picture turned out better than anything I took!

But yeah, pfriedel right: it does definitely look a lot better in real life. But again, I do think that the colors are a bit washed out. Not as much as my pictures would have you believe, but still a bit.

mmmPeanutButter · « **Reply #66 on:** February 06, 2004, 09:48:51 pm »

Sasquatch,
You had mentioned that the thinner would do bends but should have lexan while the other couldn't do bends but required no lexan.

I am thinking about using a custom overlay on my centiped cab (bends required). So I'm pretty much stuck using the thinner stuff. I e-mailed the company and they said the thin stuff was durable enough to not use any other cover (lexan/plexi).

So now that you've has a little more time to play with it, would you say that it would be durable enough, or still sticking to the first remark.

How thick was the original centipede cp?? anybody know?

Also, as an aside. I e-mailed them to ask if they had a tiny sample to send me and they said no. You would think that with an operation like that they would have a piece of scrap kicking around.

Sasquatch! · « **Reply #67 on:** February 06, 2004, 11:19:29 pm »

Quote from: mmmPeanutButter on February 06, 2004, 09:48:51 pm

So now that you've has a little more time to play with it, would you say that it [the thinner CPO material] would be durable enough, or still sticking to the first remark.

For home use, yeah, it'd probably be okay - I would imagine that it would survive normal wear-and-tear. I certainly wouldn't put the thinner CPO into an actual arcade environment, but for a home cabinet it should be okay.

patrickl · « **Reply #68 on:** February 09, 2004, 06:38:07 am »

I just had a thought about the "washed out colors". As I understand the lightness is caused by the flash reflecting of the textured laminate, but apart from that the colors are less intense right? A few days ago I printed my Galaga CPO on my Epson 1270 inkjetprinter (and I must say it looks stunning) and a thing I noticed was that I was unable to print the colors exactly as they were on the screen. Problem is that printers use a different color space than computer screens and thus printers cannot produce every color your screen can display. A program like Adobe Illustrator or CorelDRAW will show the printed color besides the RGB color you select.

When you convert an image to the CMYK color model (which printers use) then I guess you could say the colors look washed out. I made an example:

The upper row are the RGB colors and the bottom row are the CMYK equivalents. So if you'd print the upper row on a printer, I guess it would show up as the washed out row in the bottom. A printer is just unable to reproduce these RGB colors. (BTW Silkscreening wouldn't have such problem, so that technique would be able to accurately reproduce all colors in a CPO).

Could that be the problem with the colors noticed in the printed control panel overlays?

RandyT · « **Reply #69 on:** February 09, 2004, 07:42:40 am »

Quote from: patrickl on February 09, 2004, 06:38:07 am

The upper row are the RGB colors and the bottom row are the CMYK equivalents. So if you'd print the upper row on a printer, I guess it would show up as the washed out row in the bottom. A printer is just unable to reproduce these RGB colors. (BTW Silkscreening wouldn't have such problem, so that technique would be able to accurately reproduce all colors in a CPO).

Could that be the problem with the colors noticed in the printed control panel overlays?

A few things to keep in mind:

Silkscreening would have similar issues if you tried to use it for a "full-color" print. Mostly it is used as "spot colors" so the colors were as vibrant as the particular paint that was used. It might have also have taken advantage of whatever dithering was possible based on the color combinations available.

In the case of the CPO, you are looking at it through a piece of material that is not fully transparent with a textured surface that diffuses light as it reflects. You are also looking through an adhesive. This is likely what causes it to look "washed out".

The phenomena you illustrated is related to the gamut (or range) of colors available for any particular printing method based on, like you said, the color model. This doesn't mean that a printer that uses RGB can achieve the colors seen on a monitor. Mixing light on a CRT is an additive process. Mixing dyes on a piece of paper is subtractive, and much is reliant upon the whiteness of the paper and quality of the dyes. The effect you described is even more of a problem when pigmented inks are used, as the gamut for those kinds of inks is even smaller than traditional dyes. This results in a print that holds up a little better under UV, but at the expense of color vibrancy and accuracy in some circumstances.

I hope this helps to shed some light on things.

RandyT

patrickl · « **Reply #70 on:** February 09, 2004, 07:55:50 am »

Quote from: RandyT on February 09, 2004, 07:42:40 am

I hope this helps to shed some light on things.

Ehm no, not really

But yes you did add some details I left out.

The point I was trying to make is that when you expect a print to look as it on screen it can be a dissapointment if you don't take the CMYK conversion into account.

Actually, it's more of a question from me since I want to order my prints from them too and if washed out is explained by CMYK conversion then I have no problems with it, but if it is that for instance black is printed as darkish grey then I do have a problem. Lamination will of course add some "haze"but that should be acceptable (allthough it will destroy a flash picture you take of it as shown in the pictures taken)

pfriedel · « **Reply #71 on:** February 09, 2004, 11:29:46 am »

Quote from: RandyT on February 09, 2004, 07:42:40 am

In the case of the CPO, you are looking at it through a piece of material that is not fully transparent with a textured surface that diffuses light as it reflects. You are also looking through an adhesive. This is likely what causes it to look "washed out".

Additionally, the backing adhesive (I _suspect_ the prints in question are actually printed directly to the "wrong" side of the vinyl, not laid down and then adhered, but that's just from destructive testing, not firsthand knowledge) isn't exactly the most.. Bright? Reflective? Thing out there. So any light that actually makes it through the ink and is reflected off of the backing surface can get lost instead of actively brightening the print. Which is fine if you have the usual HEAVY METAL NYAR dark color control panel (as I do), but could be an issue if you want something bright and vibrant.

KevSteele · « **Reply #72 on:** February 09, 2004, 11:32:04 am »

Patrickl,

The RGB to CYMK conversion problem is exactly what I think happened to the "washed out" print.

The ClassicArcadeGraphix site specifically recommends sending any custom graphics to them in Photoshop CYMK format. They can convert them from RGB format, but do warn of color changes.

I think you nailed it on the head.

Kevin

RandyT · « **Reply #73 on:** February 09, 2004, 11:34:47 am »

Quote from: patrickl on February 09, 2004, 07:55:50 am

Ehm no, not really But yes you did add some details I left out.

The point I was trying to make is that when you expect a print to look as it on screen it can be a dissapointment if you don't take the CMYK conversion into account.

I was trying to be polite about it, but you brought out the rolly-eye guy so I'll be blunt.

You are oversimplifying the cause and some of your conclusions are just incorrect.

Silkscreening does have similar issues unless you use spot colors. And even then, you would have one heck of a time mixing them properly to perfectly match anything done 20 years ago.

The CMYK conversion is based entirely on a profile that is either based on an existing accepted standard (like SWOP Coated) or a custom profile based on the color gamut of your output device. If you are using Photoshop, you can go to Preferences>Color Settings>CMYK Setup. Play with the settings in there and you will see that you can freely alter the results of the RGB>CMYK conversion. This is all related to color gamut and calibration of what you see on the screen relative to what is created on the output device.

Most inkjet printers are considered RGB printers when using drivers under Windows. Even though the inks used are the primary CMYK, the drivers are calibrated for and expect to be handed RGB color values. On Windows machines, there is a certain amount of built in calibration through the use of color profiles. Anyone who has used a "universal" ink refill in their printer has probably noticed a color shift due to this. The ink isn't the problem, the driver/profile is. It expects the ink to have certain properties, but as it is manufactured to approximate the average of each manufacturers "blend", it doesn't match any of them perfectly.

In short, in a properly calibrated system, a large number of RGB colors can be accurately reproduced with CMYK inks. There's no such thing as perfect calibration and it is considered to be the "holy grail" of the printing industry. But you can get very close.

As stated before, the problem gets worse when different types of CMYK colors are used. There are pigmented inks, dyes of differing tonal qualities, waxes, resins, etc. Each having their own color gamut. Some will faithfully reproduce more RGB colors than others. Dyes generally perform the best, followed by pigmented inks, followed by waxes and resins.

Also, don't confuse large format printers with the kind you have sitting on your desk. While many of the modern ones use similar technology, they often use different types of drivers. Most, if not all large-format printers require special software/hardware to take full advantage of the printers capabilities. The Windows drivers included with these are usually supplied only as a stopgap to provide basic functionality.

As one can surmise, there is a huge margin for error here, but to say that CMYK cannot reproduce RGB colors is innacurate. But to say that it cannot reproduce all RGB colors is a true statement.

Media is also important. If the media is very porous, expect much of the ink to be absorbed well below the surface, which will make it appear gray instead of black (per your example). Looking at a solid black image through a cloudy adhesive or a less than totally transparent substrate will give you exactly the same result. And even with both of these issues under control, a poorly calibrated system can cause the same kind of problem.

So the simple answer to your "question" is that there is no simple answer. There are many variables at play, and to chalk it up simply to CMYK conversion would be an incorrect assumption.

RandyT

*edit*
Lousy spelling....

RandyT · « **Reply #74 on:** February 09, 2004, 11:46:53 am »

Quote from: kevsteele on February 09, 2004, 11:32:04 am

The RGB to CYMK conversion problem is exactly what I think happened to the "washed out" print.

The ClassicArcadeGraphix site specifically recommends sending any custom graphics to them in Photoshop CYMK format. They can convert them from RGB format, but do warn of color changes.

I think you nailed it on the head.

Kevin

Without your monitor being properly calibrated, knowing what color standard is being used by the printer (there are a dozen or more in the CMYK setup for Photoshop), and their printer actually adhering properly to that specified standard, using CMYK won't do a bit of good.

Without the above information, it might even be less accurate by artificially limiting the colors you can use, even though the printer may be able to use them, and allowing you to use colors that it can't reproduce based on it's color gamut.

RandyT

patrickl · « **Reply #75 on:** February 09, 2004, 12:02:30 pm »

Randy,

I was also trying to be polite about it when you went on to explain the details behind the CMYK conversion proces. Though, in reality who cares what's behind it. It's the result that interests us (or at least me). Your explanation just confuses things unnecessarily.

The end result is that if you make up your artwork in RGB it won't come out looking exactly the same in print. That's just what the gamut warnings are about in drawing programs.

You can think up all the circumstances that could prevent this, but in practice regular users won't do this. That's basically why I asked if this was the case and I indeed did leave out the technical mumbo jumbo so as to not overly confuse things.

patrickl · « **Reply #76 on:** February 09, 2004, 12:07:19 pm »

Quote from: kevsteele on February 09, 2004, 11:32:04 am

Patrickl,

The RGB to CYMK conversion problem is exactly what I think happened to the "washed out" print.

The ClassicArcadeGraphix site specifically recommends sending any custom graphics to them in Photoshop CYMK format. They can convert them from RGB format, but do warn of color changes.

I think you nailed it on the head.

Kevin

Kevin,

Yes that's what stuck in my mind too. They do warn about the CMYK conversion. I thought they said you should send in in RGB though, but that you should check for the CMYK result too. I forgot about it but yesterday I was working on some vecotrizing and then I remembered this thread and what happened to me the first time I downloaded a bit of Galaga artwork from Mametrix. At that time I had exactly the same of: "Damn this looks washed out". As it happens my drawing program had (wrongly) opened it in CMYK instead of RGB.

RandyT · « **Reply #77 on:** February 09, 2004, 12:09:44 pm »

Quote from: patrickl on February 09, 2004, 12:02:30 pm

Randy,

I was also trying to be polite about it when you went on to explain the details behind the CMYK conversion proces. Though, in reality who cares what's behind it. It's the result that interests us (or at least me). Your explanation just confuses things unnecessarily.

The end result is that if you make up your artwork in RGB it won't come out looking exactly the same in print. That's just what the gamut warnings are about in drawing programs.

You can think up all the circumstances that could prevent this, but in practice regular users won't do this. That's basically why I asked if this was the case and I indeed did leave out the technical mumbo jumbo so as to not overly confuse things.

*sigh*

Patrick, this is not technical "mumbo-jumbo". It is important info that you should read if you wish to understand what is at play here. The statement you just made about the warnings tells me that you didn't read what I wrote, or you still don't understand it.

Those warnings are based on the the CMYK profile you have active at the time, and the profile is based on the color gamut of the output device. Change the profile, and the warnings in the drawing programs change. There is no "one-size-fits-all" solution.

RandyT

patrickl · « **Reply #78 on:** February 09, 2004, 04:54:46 pm »

Quote from: RandyT on February 09, 2004, 12:09:44 pm

The statement you just made about the warnings tells me that you didn't read what I wrote

I do understand (I don't need your quotes from the "Printing for dummies" handbook to explain), but all I could see was a lot of quotes like "if you do it this way" and "if the printer works like that" or "if you use spot colors". Too many if's that didn't apply so then I skipped. Besides I tried to keep it to a simple question wich was about the case at hand and not about some theoretical situation that "could be". I understand you can create a situations were color conversions are not an issue, but I doubt the people posting here are using completely calibrated studios to do their work in.

Anyway, if anyone who made a print is still reading this thread then I hope they can still find it in their heart to answer. Especially since the print I saw pictures of uses a lot of pure blue which are sure to be hard to print on a normal CMYK printer.

RandyT · « **Reply #79 on:** February 09, 2004, 05:39:49 pm »

Quote from: patrickl on February 09, 2004, 04:54:46 pm

Besides I tried to keep it to a simple question wich was about the case at hand and not about some theoretical situation that "could be". I understand you can create a situations were color conversions are not an issue, but I doubt the people posting here are using completely calibrated studios to do their work in.

This is not "theory", this is actually how these things work. At least it's what I've experienced first hand owning and using large format printers over the last 10 years. But I guess it is possible that I've been doing it wrong all this time.

Ok, let me summarize for those who don't wish to learn anything about the process or difficulties one will encounter when trying to get a good reproduction of their work:

1: CMYK means nothing by itself. Working in CMYK will NOT guarantee a better result.

2: Ask the printshop which color standard their equipment is calibrated to. If they don't know, find a different printshop.

3: Unless your monitor is of reasonably high quality and properly calibrated, you will never have a clue whether the print you received was done improperly. Basic calibration does not require a controlled studio, just a little care and knowledge on your part.

4: Look at the picture of the 2 panel prints side by side, you'll see one is blue and the other is purple. This is not a CMYK conversion issue. But if you re-read my post, you''ll most likely be able to figure out some possible cause to the problem...

5: If this seems like too much for you to concern yourself with, just pay the $40 and cross your fingers. Just try not to be too hard on the guy when you don't get what you expected.

RandyT

(BTW, where can I get a copy of this book you speak of?

)


Main	Restorations	Software	Audio/Jukebox/MP3	Everything Else	Buy/Sell/Trade
Project Announcements	Monitor/Video	GroovyMAME	Merit/JVL Touchscreen	Meet Up	Retail Vendors
Driving & Racing	Woodworking	Software Support Forums	Consoles	Project Arcade	Reviews
Automated Projects	Artwork	Frontend Support Forums	Pinball	Forum Discussion	Old Boards
Raspberry Pi & Dev Board	controls.dat	Linux	Miscellaneous Arcade	Wiki Discussion	Old Archives
Lightguns	Arcade1Up	Try the site in https mode		Site News


Unread posts \| New Replies \| Recent posts \| Rules \| Chatroom \| Wiki \| File Repository \| RSS \| Submit news