VOID Pantograph

[FPGprepper]

After a long and arduous screening process, the company I work for has been approved to bid on the production of prescription pads for the State of New Jersey. Among the numerous security features required on these pads is the a "VOID" pantograph. The state provides approved bidders with source files containing the desired pattern, but it does NOT include the screens necessary to actually output the pads properly, nor does the state provide exact specifications for the screens to be used to produce the pattern. Although I had never composed any documents with a pantograph before, I was confident I could create it without much difficulty. However, after many trials with many combinations of screens run on our offset press, none have produced the "copy-evident" effect we were expecting. At this point, I'm beginning to think that this particular feature doesn't actually work regardless of how carefully it's created. Have any of you seen solid evidence that the "VOID" pattern used in New Jersey prescription pads actually become visible when photocopied, or am I wasting my time struggling with this problem?

[Santa]

Not sure but found these guys. 

http://www.amgraf.com/pages/voidmaker.html

Was always under the impression that the way to create it was "Copywrited" or "trademarked"

That was back in the 90's

[DCurry]

One way to create it is to "double-burn" the plate so you are using 2 different line screens within the same color. If your plating system doesn't support this, you can make it a 2-color job (but use the same ink for each color), and use different linescreens for each one. That's what I had to do last time I did one of these several years ago.

Essentially, the design had a screened background at one linescreen, and the word VOID was the same screen percentage but imaged at a different linescreen. You could only see the VOID if it was photocopied.

[FPGprepper]

Yes, I'm aware of Amgraf. I've been told that they've supplied pantographs to other printers who produce these pads. But I'll need some convincing that it actually works the way it's supposed to. Ideally, I'd like to know exactly what screen values, screen types, dot shapes and angles they're using, but I'm sure they don't freely give out such information (Why would they?). For all I know, I may have already exactly reproduced what they do. They charge hundreds of dollars for access to their files. I can't justify the cost if my own files are just as (in)effective.

[FPGprepper]

One way to create it is to "double-burn" the plate so you are using 2 different line screens within the same color. If your plating system doesn't support this, you can make it a 2-color job (but use the same ink for each color), and use different linescreens for each one. That's what I had to do last time I did one of these several years ago.

Essentially, the design had a screened background at one linescreen, and the word VOID was the same screen percentage but imaged at a different linescreen. You could only see the VOID if it was photocopied.

Sorry, but I'm not asking how to output two different screens in one document. I know how to do it. I would just like to know if this security feature works or not. The consensus seems to be combining a 65 lpi screen with a 133 lpi (or higher) screen should work. I've seen no solid evidence that it works on NJ Rx pads. The reason I suspect it doesn't is because of the shortcomings of the design itself; the "VOID" type is actually only an outline (they describe it as "hollow") and much of the pattern is knocked out by copies of the state seal in reverse. I don't think there's enough of the dot pattern to show up when photocopied.

[Slappy]

Edited:

Dur, I didn't read the OP close enough. 

[Tracy]

https://www.dropbox.com/s/eakq8jklj6cnrbp/VOID%20Safety%20Screen.eps?dl=0

Here is a Void safety screen, we output it at 150 line screen
however I tried it on another job using black instead of the "yelo" pms
and it does not work well.

I think the only way to insure these things work is to get the special paper.
It's a problem, and you could be liable for it not working.
Let us know if you get something to work, I'd be interested!!

[FPGprepper]

https://www.dropbox.com/s/eakq8jklj6cnrbp/VOID%20Safety%20Screen.eps?dl=0

Here is a Void safety screen, we output it at 150 line screen
however I tried it on another job using black instead of the "yelo" pms
and it does not work well.

I think the only way to insure these things work is to get the special paper.
It's a problem, and you could be liable for it not working.
Let us know if you get something to work, I'd be interested!!

Thanks for the file, but I'm afraid it doesn't help much. The option to simply buy the paper is not viable, as the pattern mandated by the state of New Jersey includes multiple images of the state seal knocked out of the screen pattern... I've actually obtained samples of different store-bought preprinted VOID pantograph papers with the VOID patterns, scanned them, enlarged them, precisely determined the screen values and replicated them in various layouts. In spite of the fact that the preprinted samples produce the desired effect when copied, my own offset-printed samples DO NOT. Let me make clear that all the specifications for these RX pads have been spelled out by the state, EXCEPT the parameters for the screens. It's almost as if it's a test to see if bidders can figure out how to do it. The ink colors have been specified as well, and are included on widely circulated lists of inks which work with pantographs. There are numerous other printers who produce these pads, but I've seen no conclusive evidence to date that the effect works as intended. On the face of it, this appears to be one of the best kept secrets in printing!

[Tracy]

With copiers getting better and better, I would say this does not work.
and with the way ink lays down, I would say even if it did, It's not 100% effective.
I would like to know the "secret" tho :laugh:

[David]

we did it and it needs to be a 1 bit tiff (screens embedded) at your output device res (like 2400 or 2540, whatever your platesetter is).
and it needs to be placed in your file at 100% scale, not enlarged or reduced.

[FPGprepper]

we did it and it needs to be a 1 bit tiff (screens embedded) at your output device res (like 2400 or 2540, whatever your platesetter is).
and it needs to be placed in your file at 100% scale, not enlarged or reduced.

Thanks, but I'm aware of these facts. Nobody, however, has replied with the crucial information I'm looking for: Screen rulings, screen angles and dot shapes. I expect to learn the answers to these questions soon and I intend to post a complete explanation of all the relevant information.

[David]

using the word "void" in a rectangle, ours was set up with the outside background at 200 line screen at 45º and the inside  word "void" was 150 line at 75º, at 2400 dpi

[FPGprepper]

using the word "void" in a rectangle, ours was set up with the outside background at 200 line screen at 45º and the inside  word "void" was 150 line at 75º, at 2400 dpi

Interesting. Your "low frequency" screen seems a bit high at 150. All of the research I've done indicates that it should be around 65 lines. How did you arrive at these values and how did your printed sample fare when photocopied?

[Tracy]

David understands it better than I do, we print our void screen at 150 also

[David]

Interesting. Your "low frequency" screen seems a bit high at 150. All of the research I've done indicates that it should be around 65 lines. How did you arrive at these values and how did your printed sample fare when photocopied?

the values of the line screen can vary, it just needs to be two different line screens at different angles to work. We used the higher screens at 2400 dpi, they are just a little more sensitive to press conditions when you run them at that line.