A thermal printing company requested our assistance with a mysterious problem—barcodes that intermittently grade well and poorly. They had a trusted verifier but their confidence was shaken. Even on the same label, grades were randomly good and then not good. Samples were requested to be sent to our barcode testing lab.

What we received was alarming: Code 128 barcodes encoding lots of data on a small label which required a very small bars. Challenging when everything is working perfectly. Very small bar width provides little tolerance—but these barcodes did not show any significant gain or loss on the 5 mil bar widths.

eBook Banner

Reviewing the verification reports the customer provided, we noted that the ISO grading also reported a 5 mil aperture was used: a 5 mil aperture for 5 mil bars. The industry standard is an aperture of 80% of the smallest bar. That could lead to inconsistent grading, but they were seeing dramatic grade differences—B’s and F’s. We brought out the heavy weapons—the magnifier.  It was inspirational–and horrifying.

When examining problematic thermal and thermal transfer barcodes, we always look for evidence of burned out pixels: white streaks from top to bottom of the direction of travel. Easy to detect in ladder orientation, harder to detect in picket pence. Depending on factors such as gain, when a verifier uses an aperture the same size (or larger) than the X dimension, the scan may be unable to detect minute voids in bars. Depending on where those voids are located, a barcode may scan and grade well in one location, but scan poorly in a slightly higher or lower area of its height. This would account for intermittent grading.

Here is what we saw:

 

 

 

We saw a barcode pocked with spots of missing pigment in the bars. Spots of various sizes in various random locations.

A small spot in the middle of a wide bar may be undetectable to the verifier’s scanner, but a wider spot could make that wide bar appear to be two adjacent narrow bars. A spot on the edge of a wide bar would make it narrower. A spot on the edge of a narrow bar could sever it altogether, making it invisible to a scanner pass, altering the count of transitions from light to dark, disrupting the decode algorithm and causing a failing grade.

How could this happen in thermal transfer printing? Pocks or voids are caused by pigment not adhering to the label substrate. Dust, dirty or oily substrate can do this, but usually you would see this only at the beginning of a print run, where the first few feet of the label roll was exposed to artifacts or vapors in the local environment.

Pocks and voids in the entire print run are the result of mismatched ribbon and label. Synthetic labels behave differently than plain paper. Coated and uncoated label adds another variable. Ribbons can be wax, resin or a blend of both. Ribbons and labels must be matched to each other to perform properly. When they are not, pocks and voids occur.

 

 

 

A mismatch caused the intermittent grading that alerted the customer to the problem.

A visualization of the problem, from the verifier software, illustrates this. A successful complete pass is a solid green line. Intermittent breaks in the scan pass are shown in red.

 

Your questions or comments are welcome. Contact us here.

eBook Banner

3db Barcode Testimonial

Our company (an advanced software company) recently worked with Barcode Test to source a barcode verifier.  Not long ago, we were awarded a contract requiring products to be marked with IUIDs in accordance with MIL-STD-130.  For that standard, marking labels must pass a verification test that evaluates many variables (contrast, size, clarity, syntax, modularity, and more).  After a thorough search, we reduced our options to a select few.

In our search for a verifier, the Axicon line caught our attention.  Barcode Test is our regional reseller for this product.   From the beginning, they were very prompt with their responses.  We ended up having a quick call with John Nachtrieb to go over our needs.  John was extremely easy to work with and provided a lot of great information.  He was very knowledgeable on the matter and was quick to offer up a demo unit (free of charge).

Upon receiving the demo verifier and testing it, a few questions arose.  John joined a call with us and answered all our questions.  Ultimately, the Axicon verifier wasn’t the best fit for us, so we shipped the demo back.  John was completely understanding.  A few weeks later, Barcode Test reached back out with another possible verifier for us to try.  While they didn’t sell that brand, they just wanted to help us find the best option that met our needs. They even offered to send us the unit that they have in-house to see if it worked to our liking. 

Barcode Test is truly a great company to work with.  Their service and willingness to help the customer are far beyond what you typically get from other companies.  They are experts in barcode quality assurance and seem willing to help in any way they can (even if that means not getting a sale and recommending another option that better fits the customer’s needs).  If anyone is in the market for barcode verification/scanning services or products, I would highly recommend giving Barcode Test a call.

Regards,

Production Manager