Nexus raster trapping vs TotalRip's PDF trapping

[disbellj]

Hello all,

I've read that when using TotalRip from EskoArtwork, that it's a lot slower processing a file than NexusRip.

I like NexusRip because:
1. I can send PDF/X-1a to it all day long with no speed problems.
2. It has the best automatic trapping I have seen. I only had one instance when I have to re-trap: When light LW type is over dark CT background, where my normal CT to LW trapping "eats" the type away and I have to go change the options and re-trap.

Now, we're getting a "special" deal that will give us upgrade to TotalRip from Nexus for about the same as we spend on one year of support.

My question is:
If TotalRip is slower, what makes this better than just buying (for a MUCH cheaper price) Iceni Infix latest version, doing type changes as necessary in it instead of getting Neo with the TotalRip upgrade, and then outputting as PDF/X1-a and trapping as I have done before?

Now if it's fast, and comparable to a competitor's workflow that uses Adobe PDF Print Engine 2, then I can see getting it, but really, wouldn't I rather stay with the old Nexus I have or move to a workflow that uses the Adobe PDF Print Engine 2?

Regards and thank you,

Don

 

[pcmodem]

We had the TotalRip from EskoArtwork installed 4 weeks ago. We are not using it yet due to problems on our end not theirs. Nexus Manager requires at least OS X 10.4 (Tiger) to run. Then we found out Preps 5.1.3 wouldn't read the Eve3 Preps key dongle because 10.3 was the last version to support it. After which we also found we had to upgrade to Preps 5.3.2 so it would work in Tiger. NOTE: Preps 5.3.2 allows for JDF output and the ability to select which colors you want to print and mapping of spot colors ie the colorbar SSiColors to an actual color.

We had the same type of deal proposed to us. From what we gather, they are trying to get all of their users to a PDF workflow because this is were they see things going. They also might want to stop support on the Raster workflow at some point as well as raster isn't changing much any more.

I will let you know how things go in the future.

 

[bluvoodoo7]

Well, we have both in house and we use the TotalRIP for 98% of our jobs. The few jobs that we have problems with, we send through Nexus RIP. Total RIP is a little bit slower on jobs that have a ton of vectors (lots of type, etc.) but other than that it works pretty well. We're still running Nexus 8.6, haven't upgraded to 9.1 or whatever the current version is. I'm hoping in the next couple of months....

We switched because we wanted to be in a true PDF workflow, but really we only use the TotalRIP for the PDF trapper. Haven't messed with the actual RIP portion of it much.

The PitStop tools are pretty cool as well.

 

[disbellj]

pcmodem,

I don't know. Believe it or not, I use Preps 4.1 on a G4 Mac running Tiger here. The dongle is an iKey-1000 and also on it it says Rainbow. I had two machines running it, but the dongle on one machine stopped working (called Kodak but never got a response. Guess they don't care since this was purchased before they took over ScenicSoft).

Regards,

Don

We had the TotalRip from EskoArtwork installed 4 weeks ago. We are not using it yet due to problems on our end not theirs. Nexus Manager requires at least OS X 10.4 (Tiger) to run. Then we found out Preps 5.1.3 wouldn't read the Eve3 Preps key dongle because 10.3 was the last version to support it. After which we also found we had to upgrade to Preps 5.3.2 so it would work in Tiger. NOTE: Preps 5.3.2 allows for JDF output and the ability to select which colors you want to print and mapping of spot colors ie the colorbar SSiColors to an actual color.

We had the same type of deal proposed to us. From what we gather, they are trying to get all of their users to a PDF workflow because this is were they see things going. They also might want to stop support on the Raster workflow at some point as well as raster isn't changing much any more.

I will let you know how things go in the future.

 

[disbellj]

bluevoodoo7,

How does the PDF trapping compare to raster trapping? I noticed a while back that the *then vector workflow, not PDF) trapping wasn't near as good as the raster trapping when looked closely at. I was wondering if that has changed. Since I used to trap manually, I guess I know what is right and wrong. Many people wouldn't know. Raster trapping is not perfect, but it sure used to be a lot better than vector trapping in Nexus' vector workflow.

Regards,

Don

Well, we have both in house and we use the TotalRIP for 98% of our jobs. The few jobs that we have problems with, we send through Nexus RIP. Total RIP is a little bit slower on jobs that have a ton of vectors (lots of type, etc.) but other than that it works pretty well. We're still running Nexus 8.6, haven't upgraded to 9.1 or whatever the current version is. I'm hoping in the next couple of months....

We switched because we wanted to be in a true PDF workflow, but really we only use the TotalRIP for the PDF trapper. Haven't messed with the actual RIP portion of it much.

The PitStop tools are pretty cool as well.

 

[pcmodem]

The reason for upgrading to Preps 5.3.2 was so we could output JDF files and control the separations, not necessarily because of Tiger.

Preps 5.3.2 also gave us the ability to center a dupe mark, instead of having to use the special postscript code you add to your eps file. We had a 42" colorbar being used for our colorbar scanner and the colorbar needed to be centered on the press sheet and cropped .25" from the edge of the sheet for everything to work correctly. PDF doesn't allow you to add this special code, so Preps added the feature within the dupemark.

 

[CHM]

Wanna put some things straight about this. The PDF Trapper (in Pdf Processor) and the Vector Trapper (in Nexus Processor) are the same, thier both vector bazed trappers. This means they can trab before you go into a RIP. The diffirence here is the file format where it wil trap on, PDF trapper does trapping in PDF files, Vactor Trapper does it in ArtPro files.
The Raster Trapper is a RIP bazed trapper and is not supported annymore in the Total RIP.

 

[bluvoodoo7]

Well, I will say this, when we first installed the TotalRIP package and started using the PDF trapper I had TONS of problems with it. However, in 8.5 it started to get a lot better. in 8.6, it's even better than that. All in all, I think it traps correctly about 95% of the time. When it doesn't, we try making the pdf differently or send it through the Raster Trapper.

We had Nexus Processor prior to this and it was one slow hungry beast. We abandoned it very quickly. All in all, the PDF trapper does pretty good trapping, of course there is still the whole vectored lines not previewing correctly in acrobat issue... But again, most of the time it's not much problem.

Hope this helps.

bluevoodoo7,

How does the PDF trapping compare to raster trapping? I noticed a while back that the *then vector workflow, not PDF) trapping wasn't near as good as the raster trapping when looked closely at. I was wondering if that has changed. Since I used to trap manually, I guess I know what is right and wrong. Many people wouldn't know. Raster trapping is not perfect, but it sure used to be a lot better than vector trapping in Nexus' vector workflow.

Regards,

Don

 

[disbellj]

bluvoodoo7,

Thank you.

Someone else talked about the differences. I know the differences between what is trapped (PDF in PDF worklflow, or ArtPro file in Nexus vector WF (which I will not use), or ripped files in Nexus raster WF).

I just wanted to know how well the PDF trapper is doing. You have answered my question when you said it had TONS of problems (that's what I remember from using the trapper in ArtPro, a lot of manual trapping, and not as good as my raster trapping, so why bother, right? I just stayed with the better more efficient raster trapper and still use it without having to manually trap ever, and only having to adjust settings - instead of CT to LW I may have to use different settings - only once in a while). So I hope someone can see why I wouldn't want to go from it being really good to beta testing software, right?

You have helped by saying it got a lot better in 8.5 and even better in 8.6. This shows that all this time, it's basically been beta software IMHO (why pay to have to test many versions before you get to one that actually works!? You are paying them to beta test the software!). Anyways, I've done the whole "beta" testing on paid software when the company was Artwork Systems. I vowed to not do it again, because all it was was a waste of my time (they didn't even put the transparency flattener in vector WF until many small point versions, but they sold it as being able to flatten transparency even when it was not true). Either they have stuff that works that they sell, or I can stay with the old trusty workflow. You know what I mean?

Thanks again.

Don

 

[bluvoodoo7]

I'm right there with you man. Unfortunately, when my boss wants something, he gets just that. No matter how big of a headache it is for me.

bluvoodoo7,

Thank you.

Someone else talked about the differences. I know the differences between what is trapped (PDF in PDF worklflow, or ArtPro file in Nexus vector WF (which I will not use), or ripped files in Nexus raster WF).

I just wanted to know how well the PDF trapper is doing. You have answered my question when you said it had TONS of problems (that's what I remember from using the trapper in ArtPro, a lot of manual trapping, and not as good as my raster trapping, so why bother, right? I just stayed with the better more efficient raster trapper and still use it without having to manually trap ever, and only having to adjust settings - instead of CT to LW I may have to use different settings - only once in a while). So I hope someone can see why I wouldn't want to go from it being really good to beta testing software, right?

You have helped by saying it got a lot better in 8.5 and even better in 8.6. This shows that all this time, it's basically been beta software IMHO (why pay to have to test many versions before you get to one that actually works!? You are paying them to beta test the software!). Anyways, I've done the whole "beta" testing on paid software when the company was Artwork Systems. I vowed to not do it again, because all it was was a waste of my time (they didn't even put the transparency flattener in vector WF until many small point versions, but they sold it as being able to flatten transparency even when it was not true). Either they have stuff that works that they sell, or I can stay with the old trusty workflow. You know what I mean?

Thanks again.

Don

 

[pcmodem]

We have just started to use the Nexus PDF RIP and so far we haven't had any problems with the trapping.

 

[disbellj]

CHM,

The thing is, they are different type of files, and the problem lies there. We have owned ArtPro for years, but I have never seen the evidence where it is better than native, so I have used it only a few times. Go ROI? No.

Neo on the other hand does the ONE thing that ArtPro NEVER could do for prepress:
Give us a file where we could edit type using the customer's embedded fonts.

Type edit-ability is like 50% of what I'm expected to do (the rest happens with the push of one button
LOL

For real, the boss says I must be able to edit type (wonder why he'd need that? LOL), so I tell him I can't use what he bought, and I haven't. That and the fact that a Nexus AWS upgrade broke my proofing, which kept me stuck on an old Nexus. We have the chance to jump forward to what we really we expecting years ago, and I'm on board.

So if trapping has improved since I used it last, to the point where a trapping professional of old like myself can say it's good enough, then I'll be very happy. And have the added benefit to actually take the file I get from my customer all the way through the workflow without being converted to another format, with totally editable type using embedded fonts, totally editable transparency if a change there ever needs to be made, trapped, archived, and I think I read all we would have to save would be the trapped PDF (with trapping on another layer, my idea years ago, but just makes sense) and the JDF file which would carry the imposition information, screening info, etc.

Man that is a far stretch than all files having to be saved in a Native document and supporting fonts and images > PostScript > Raster workflow to going to one file that is totally editable and a configuration file. I don't know JDF, don't even know if our equipment here is able to make JDF viable here, but definitely headed in the right direction I think. Now if I can just make sure that we never buy dongled software, get native Mac software (is TotalRip come in Mac version? Please say it does ), and virtualize what Windows applications we must use, I can have one machine run everything, and back everything up in one file per machine virtualized (doing that right now in fact, and can say I like it very much).

Regards,

Don

Wanna put some things straight about this. The PDF Trapper (in Pdf Processor) and the Vector Trapper (in Nexus Processor) are the same, thier both vector bazed trappers. This means they can trab before you go into a RIP. The diffirence here is the file format where it wil trap on, PDF trapper does trapping in PDF files, Vactor Trapper does it in ArtPro files.
The Raster Trapper is a RIP bazed trapper and is not supported annymore in the Total RIP.

 

[Joe]

CHM,

Type edit-ability is like 50% of what I'm expected to do (the rest happens with the push of one button
LOL

For real, the boss says I must be able to edit type (wonder why he'd need that? LOL), so I tell him I can't use what he bought, and I haven't. That and the fact that a Nexus AWS upgrade broke my proofing, which kept me stuck on an old Nexus. We have the chance to jump forward to what we really we expecting years ago, and I'm on board.

Regards,

Don

The only way type is fully editable in a PDF is if the font is completely embedded or you have the font loaded on your system. Doesn't matter if you are using Acrobat or NEO. The problem with trying to get customers to fully embed fonts is 1) dealing with customers and getting them to do anything is difficult and 2) it appears you can't fully embed TrueType and OpenType fonts.

 

[disbellj]

pcmodem,

That sounds good. So that's two votes that say it's good now. That helps.

Thanks again.

Don

We have just started to use the Nexus PDF RIP and so far we haven't had any problems with the trapping.

 

[disbellj]

Joe,

Number 1 is true. But it's as difficult or more dealing with people inside the company.

1) So if I can get a PDF/X-4 joboptions built that uses GRACoL 7 profile for coated jobs and ISO uncoated (or newer PSO) for uncoated jobs, along with color settings, al downloadable from our website (or pointing to an official profile on another website), and IF our customers were told to use it and they did, THEN (and I admit only then) it would be just like me making the PDF. And fully embedded fonts would be a part of that .joboptions file.

2) That sucks to hear about TrueType and OpenType fonts. I was not aware of that. Have any documentation on that? Thanks in advance.

Regards,

Don

The only way type is fully editable in a PDF is if the font is completely embedded or you have the font loaded on your system. Doesn't matter if you are using Acrobat or NEO. The problem with trying to get customers to fully embed fonts is 1) dealing with customers and getting them to do anything is difficult and 2) it appears you can't fully embed TrueType and OpenType fonts.

 

[Joe]

No documentation. I tried it about a week ago and the TrueType and OpenType fonts always came out as subset from InDesign CS4 export. Admittedly, I never tested with Quark or by distilling.

 

[geozinger]

No documentation. I tried it about a week ago and the TrueType and OpenType fonts always came out as subset from InDesign CS4 export. Admittedly, I never tested with Quark or by distilling.

The font issue has mostly to do with Adobe and copyrights.

AFAIK, InDesign has never given you the option of fully embedding a font in a .PDF file distilled directly from an Indy file. Quark could embed all fonts as of version 6, but from 7 on, always subsetted, no choice on the matter. I haven't distilled a postscript file in months/years, but I think that's set to subset also. Maybe someone can verify...

Bottom line, it will be increasingly more difficult, if not impossible to embed all of the fonts in .PDF documents.

 

[Joe]

The font issue has mostly to do with Adobe and copyrights.

AFAIK, InDesign has never given you the option of fully embedding a font in a .PDF file distilled directly from an Indy file. Quark could embed all fonts as of version 6, but from 7 on, always subsetted, no choice on the matter. I haven't distilled a postscript file in months/years, but I think that's set to subset also. Maybe someone can verify...

Bottom line, it will be increasingly more difficult, if not impossible to embed all of the fonts in .PDF documents.

I got InDesign to fully embed postscript fonts by changing the font subset setting to 0% but it had no effect on TrueType or OpenType fonts.

I agree it's only going to become more difficult to fully embed fonts.

 

[geozinger]

I got InDesign to fully embed postscript fonts by changing the font subset setting to 0% but it had no effect on TrueType or OpenType fonts.

I agree it's only going to become more difficult to fully embed fonts.

OK, that's good to know. Maybe the times I've tried to embed fonts in Indy they were TrueType or OpenTypes.

I still haven't tried Acrobat Distiller, I got interrupted with work. Imagine that!

 

[macdevin]

CHM,

The thing is, they are different type of files, and the problem lies there. We have owned ArtPro for years, but I have never seen the evidence where it is better than native, so I have used it only a few times. Go ROI? No.

Don

I'm not sure what files you get, but I have case after case where converting to artpro and then back to another format has messed up the files. The whole thing with artpro in a nexus workflow is why convert file types just to trap. everytime you convert to something else your at risk of something going wrong. This is why TotalRIP is a better..

macdevin