US4303832A
Expired / Lapsed
US
⏱️ 0.0 years remaining
Process for assessing the quality of a printed product
Assignee: Gretag AG
•
Filing: 1979-12-11
•
Granted: 1981-12-01
•
Expires: 1999-12-11
Abstract
Abstract Specimens, the quality of whose print is to be examined, are scanned photoelectrically point-by-point and compared point-by-point with one or more originals. The resulting reflectance differences are processed in different correction stages and then subjected to a point-by-point threshold decision, an individual threshold value being used for each image point. The threshold values are produced by analysis of specimens which have acceptable deviations, the maximum positive and negative reflectance differences due to their deviations being used directly as the threshold values. The analysis is effected by reference to electronically simulated specimens, an original or originals and a specimen being electronically displaced relatively to one another and reflectances being electronically varied in order to simulate register deviations and shade or tone deviations.
Inventors
- 👤 Kurt Ehrat
Bibliographic Details
Application Number
—
Jurisdiction
US
Data Source
google_patents
Last Synchronized
2026-11-02 23:31
CPC Classifications
B; B41; B41F; B41F33/00; B41F33/0036; G; G07; G07D; G07D7/00; G07D7/06; G07D7/12; G07D7/121
Claims Analysis
Total Claims: 13
Claim 1
Independent Claim
125 words
A process for assessing the quality of a printed product by point-by-point comparison of a specimen under test and an original, comprising the steps of forming values representing the differences between the reflectances of individual image points of the specimen produced by point-by-point photoelectric scanning and the reflectances of image points of the original corresponding to the image points of the specimen, processing the resultant difference values in accordance with specific criteria, and evaluating said values by making a final threshold value decision utilizing at least one of an individual positive threshold value and an individual negative threshold value for each individual image point, said threshold values being produced by error analysis for each image point of reference printed products having the maximum acceptable errors.
Claim 2
Dependent Claim
125 words
A process for assessing the quality of a printed product by point-by-point comparison of a specimen under test and an original, comprising the steps of forming values representing the differences between the reflectances of individual image points of the specimen produced by point-by-point photoelectric scanning and the reflectances of image points of the original corresponding to the image points of the specimen, processing the resultant difference values in accordance with specific criteria, and evaluating said values by making a final threshold value decision utilizing at least one of an individual positive threshold value and an individual negative threshold value for each individual image point, said threshold values being produced by error analysis for each image point of reference printed products having the maximum acceptable errors.
Claim 3
Dependent Claim
51 words
A process according to claim 1, wherein the threshold values utilized for each image point are in each case the maximum positive and the maximum negative deviation between the associated reference image points and the original image points occurring on examination of the reference printed produts immediately before the threshold decision.
Claim 4
Dependent Claim
35 words
A process according to claim 2, including the steps of using reference printed products having electronically simulated deviations which are close as possible to the boundary of what is visually acceptable, for said error analysis.
Claim 5
Dependent Claim
22 words
A process according to claim 3, including electronically simulating displacement between the specimen and the original to provide positional and register errors.
Claim 6
Dependent Claim
26 words
A process according to claim 3, including the step of simulating shade or tone errors by correction of the reflectances in at least one colour channel.
Claim 7
Dependent Claim
25 words
A process according to claim 2, wherein the threshold values used are respectively the maximum positive and maximum negative deviations increased by a constant amount.
Claim 8
Dependent Claim
53 words
A process according to claim 2, including storing deviations from a standard printed product image-wise for each simulated reference printed product, the maximum positive and the maximum negative value being stored as threshold values for the associated image point and located in each case for each image point from all the stored values.
Claim 9
Dependent Claim
29 words
A process according to claim 1, including making a threshold decision directly by reference to the reflectance differences formed by the point-by-point comparison of the original and the specimen.
Claim 10
Dependent Claim
16 words
A process according to claim 8, including low-pass filtering the reflectances obtained from the photoelectric scanning.
Claim 11
Dependent Claim
49 words
A process according to claim 1, including the step of algebraically adding the reflectance difference values of the image points surrounding each image point with a distance-dependant weighting to the reflectance difference value associated with each image point, and making a threshold decision by reference to these added values.
Claim 12
Dependent Claim
53 words
A process according to claim 5, including storing deviations from a standard printed product image-wise for each simulated reference printed product, the maximum positive and the maximum negative value being stored as threshold values for the associated image point and selected in each case for each image point from all the stored values.
Claim 13
Dependent Claim
49 words
A process according to claim 7, including the step of algebraically adding the reflectance difference values of the image points surrounding each image point with a distance-dependent weighting to the reflectance difference value associated with each image point, and making a threshold decision by reference to these added values.
References Cited (Backward Citations)
US3275985A
Cited
US4184081A
Cited
USPTO Annuity & Maintenance Windows
| Annuity Stage | Window Opens | Payment Deadline | Surcharge Period Until | Estimated Fee | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3.5 Years (Year 4) | 1984-11-30 | 1985-06-01 | 1985-12-01 | $2000.00 | Window Closed / Lapsed |
| 7.5 Years (Year 8) | 1988-11-30 | 1989-06-01 | 1989-12-01 | $3760.00 | Window Closed / Lapsed |
| 11.5 Years (Year 12) | 1992-11-30 | 1993-06-01 | 1993-12-01 | $7700.00 | Window Closed / Lapsed |