Standard Finishing


No announcement yet.

Screen Vs Magnus

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Screen Vs Magnus

    We are looking at a 8up 30pph unit and would appreciate some feedback from anyone running either a Screen or Magnus unit. Pros / Cons

    Thank you...

    Edited by: John Moriano on Jan 21, 2008 4:38 PM

  • #2
    Re: Screen Vs Magnus

    When the magnus is working correctly its a dream come true. We have a Magnus 400 with an auto cassette loader and an inline processor. We run up to 80 plates a day when we are doing good. There are only three prepress people in our dept. so its nice to have the plater take over and just spit out plates. In a perfect world we just que up the plates at the end of the day and come in the next morning, quickly QC everything and pop em' in the bin for the pressman.

    Now having said that. Here are some issues,
    1. Auto cassette loader pinchers do not always pick up slip sheets (regularly causing an error which stops all plating)
    2. Slip sheets in the punch area that were not moved into waste receptacle (regularly causing an error which stops all plating)
    3. Plates double loading with slip sheets... No error and its bad news when it comes out the other side.....clack, crunch, bang, bang.... (This rarely happens..but it has happened.)
    4. Slip sheets clinging to the plate after loading....going through inline processor and plugging pump and getting paper in the developer, water and gum rollers....(Periodically causing an error which stops all plating)
    5. Hot spots due to humidity or laser intensity which are not always caught and wind up on press and piss pressman and director of operations off. Bummer......that one is.
    6. Plates double punching and getting stuck in the punch mech, (This rarely happens..but it has happened.)

    Also dialing in the laser and getting the diodes set correctly is key. We tried using the 10 micro staccato and the pressman just bitch. We also had issues with banding but we did remedy that,

    We have had our system up a little over a year and we are still dialing it in.....
    OS X • RAMpage • Epson 9880 • Kodak Approval • Lotem PLatesetter •


    • #3
      Re: Screen Vs Magnus

      The only 8-up CTP from Kodak now are Magnus 800 (semi or fully automated, 15-40pph, internal punches) and Trendsetter (16-42 pph, manual or autoloader - 40 plates bay , no slip sheet removal, no punch option)
      For Magnus 800 the main present problems are due to static so I recommend a controlled environment or humidifier. This will be most probably fixed in the future. Some electronic issues to be addressed within next month-MSB boards. The machine itself is complicated, difficult to recover or troubleshoot for the operator, the error messages are misleading. Remote service abilities - limited. Escalations in Israel - slow and mainly by email given the time zone difference.
      Personally I consider it is too big and complicated for the performance it delivers
      On the other hand looks to be reliable with one of the best mtbf among Creo/Kodak CTP's and easy to operate.
      The Trendseter is a well known machine, stable and easy to operate/troubleshoot. Service is also much better as this is a well known machine. Remote service - easier and more reliable. Technical escalations available in US- Canada at all times
      Imaging quality is the same as both use the same laser head.


      • #4
        Re: Screen Vs Magnus

        We have had the same type of problems with our Screen machine, but not bad. Sounds like you got static problems with the slip sheet and plates. I would try either making the room cooler, or at least store the plates in the same room as the platesetter at least a day before using in platesetter.

        I also try to clean the rubber rollers that move the plates through the system, and after doing so I must always clean the the drum to clean off dust or we will get ho spots on the plates. After cleaning the drum however, it usually does well for a long while until I clean the rubber rollers again.



        • #5
          Re: Screen Vs Magnus

          im a screen user for years (Platerite 8000, platerite 8600 & 8800II) and i work on kodak trendsetter a couple of months ago.i found kodak/creo/prinergy a very good was a simple operation.what i really like in preps is that you can add independent can make a gangup imposition without special license.unlike flatworker in screen you need to bought the license separately.
          what im experiencing and up to the moment i'm figuring it out how to remedy the appears on flat screen.i can not use is very visible.
          generally both machine gives good output if maintained properly.
          make your choice!

          Edited by: Jun R. Visbal on Jan 22, 2008 11:19 AM


          • #6
            Re: Screen Vs Magnus

            Thanks for the info...

            I'm down in Miami so humidity is a big issue cause I just can't get rid of it or do much about it. So you are still getting hotspots? Interesting I understood that with the floating head in the Magnus unit hot spots were none existing. Are you using sword plates?

            how has the support been with Kodak on the Magnus?

            Don, do you mind telling me what plates u r using? and which screen unit u r running?

            We are either going with a Fuji/Screen combo or Kodak...


            • #7
              Re: Screen Vs Magnus

              Yep still getting hot spots. I would think having better humidity is a good thing, so you will do fine there. We are using sword plates. Support has been typical from Kodak, much like Creo has always been.

              OS X • RAMpage • Epson 9880 • Kodak Approval • Lotem PLatesetter •


              • #8
                Re: Screen Vs Magnus

                I use the screen platesetter and the autoloader.
                Sword Excel plates.
                One question: What RIP are you using?
                If you say you are considering Screen, then I have this to say.
                IF you go apples to apples - ie, Trueflow and a screen output
                then you get PIF connection. DIrect to the platesetter without a
                one bit tiff.
                I personally think that one bit tiffs are a bane to the whole world.
                I do not know if the magnus goes direct from a kodak rip or if it
                uses a one bit tiff. If magnus / kodak rip does use 1 bit then I would
                think about going trueflow / screen.

                BTW, independent of rip, I can say that I have made 70,000 plates in the
                past two years on my screen platemaker.
                I have had in service twice and both times have been pm's

                Edited by: Chris Prough on Jan 23, 2008 10:12 AM


                • #9
                  Re: Screen Vs Magnus

                  I'm using Nexus. I'm using the same plates and imagesetter but have had problems from the beginning. How's does your pressroom like the sword plates?

                  Can anyone tell me what the going rate is for a Magnus 800 V Speed (30pph) with a 3 cassette autoloader is. I just want to see where I stand with pricing....


                  • #10
                    Re: Screen Vs Magnus

                    From what I understand.... EVO is converting to a 1 bit tiff, but magnus will plot what you tell it. I think Kodak sets it up that way as a default. I could be wrong here but I remember my boss discussing it one day. Not really sure how to check, but if someone knows then I will be happy to. The pressman are OK with the sword plates, but they are not made for long runs. They seem to work pretty good for the typical run.

                    Magnus was a package deal with the contract and we have the 400, so I dont know for sure. There are so many options to toss around you need to see a rep and discuss the options.
                    OS X • RAMpage • Epson 9880 • Kodak Approval • Lotem PLatesetter •


                    • #11
                      Re: Screen Vs Magnus

                      I have I'm just trying to compare prices... :-)


                      • #12
                        Re: Screen Vs Magnus

                        John is inquiring about Magnus 800 MCU...

                        Magnus 400 and Magnus 800 are 2 completely different machines.

                        Magnus 400 is basically the old Lotem 400 with a new fiber optics system. Magnus 400 Quantum is the same, but it has a Creo laser inside (TH2 - Quantum).

                        Magnus 800 is completely new design to replace Lotem 800 line . It is using Creo thermal head TH2 only.

                        Magnus VFL is 100% Creo and replaces the Trendsetter VLF line - using Creo TH2 or TH3

                        Connectivity wise it is the laser head that matters.
                        Magnus 400 with fiber laser (LDA) is Tiff workflow only. The device control application is running on the internal PC, has internal screening board, data comes over the network in hf, processed internally and streamed to the laser head.
                        Magnus 400 Quantum and Magnus 800 which are Creo TH2 based require a separate Front-end (usually Prinergy Evo with Xpo). This will send data directly to the output device laser using a SCSI cable (soon to be replaced with Gbit connection). This configuration allows direct connection configuration from Prinergy (called GDAPI) or Tiff (through Xpo hot folders, mainly for 3rd party workflows).

                        I know it is confusing, but this is the result of 2 completely different architectures in one product (Creo laser in Scitex machine).
                        All Scitex based machines have a PC built in to drive the hardware (for Magnus 800 it sits outside but has the same functionality). All settings are located in Windows registry and operation is based on scripts. Creo based machines are firmware driven - all settings and operations are internal and the PC is only being used to send the job info and start the data stream.
                        Prinergy is a Creo product and was designed for direct connection to any Creo laser head based machine. I do not think there is any plan to implement any direct connectivity option for fiber heads since the Magnus 400 (LDA) is the only device using it, it is the low end product, targeted for a market where performance is not critical.


                        4OverStandard FinishingDuploSmartsoft (Presswise)CanonKBATharsternAvanti

                        Presswise Article


                        Automated Order Status Tracking
                        In PressWise Workflow Solution

                        Presswise order status
                        Quick overview of the order status tracking feature on PressWise’s automated workflow solution

                        Link to Video

                        4OverStandard FinishingDuploCanonSmartsoft (Presswise)TharsternKBAAvantiUltimate

                        What's Going On


                        There are currently 4951 users online. 83 members and 4868 guests.

                        Most users ever online was 6,597 at 10:25 AM on 04-20-2018.