APPE vs HARLEQUIN

[Gianni_S]

Hi Forumers,
time to upgrade here... vendors are offering us some solutions with these two rendering engines.
In my past experience I've used both with great results and nothing to regret.
Now my boss is asking for a cheaper solution, possibly open to future developements.
I used to belive that Harlquin was sticked to post script as APPE was sticked to pdf, but... after having seen a demo... I'm more confused than before.
Harlequin is very cheap, a little bit tricky to set up and faster than APPE.
On the other hand APPE is more reliable on rendering pdfs but very expensive (the reliability is a personal thought).
So what's your idea on these two different worlds?
Thanks a lot as usual!

 

[arossetti]

I did this comparison last year and found that Harlquin was capable of passing the Altona test. I would confirm on your own but that to me is proof that the APPE isn't the only game in town. http://www.gwg.org/workflow-tools/test-suites/

 

[Slammer]

I did this comparison last year and found that Harlquin was capable of passing the Altona test. I would confirm on your own but that to me is proof that the APPE isn't the only game in town. http://www.gwg.org/workflow-tools/test-suites/

The newest version of the HQN does a really good job of rendering PDF´s in my humble opinion. My main beef with APPE is that a lot of the workflow systems using APPE seem to chain you into their systems, Kodak, Esko, AGFA etc. are a lot like the Borg, once you are in their collectives that´s it, updates, "gold" service contracts, support and new releases all add to the initial cost, with a HQN you can pick and mix your workflow, add bits and pieces when you need to without begging for new licenses, it can be a bit tricky to set up but once it it done it is done, a HQN is very fast and very stable, I have been to customers where the new guys did not even know where the RIP was stationed, and once you have understood how a HQN works it is easy to maintain and to adapt also there are many people out there who can help you with a HQN at a fraction of the cost.
At the end of the day all we want are one bit tiff´s and both HQN and APPE do just that.

 

[Gianni_S]

Hi, thanks for you reply,
actually I'm testing both systems and I must admit that HQN it's faster than APPE.
PDFs are handed and rendered perfectly by both.
Speaking about tricky, Yes, HQN is very very tricky compared to APPE. But sometimes tricky means more possibilities.
I'll test Altona in next few days.
I admit that I'm positvely surprised by HQN!

 

[Slammer]

Hi, thanks for you reply,
actually I'm testing both systems and I must admit that HQN it's faster than APPE.
PDFs are handed and rendered perfectly by both.
Speaking about tricky, Yes, HQN is very very tricky compared to APPE. But sometimes tricky means more possibilities.
I'll test Altona in next few days.
I admit that I'm positvely surprised by HQN!

Keep us informed on your findings, methinks this is an interesting question.

 

[seratne]

Last I checked with Harlequin you couldn't trap files that had transparency.

 

[Gianni_S]

Hi guys,
after some weeks of strong testing here my opinion:

Harlequin 11 it's a great piece of software, no problem handling transparencies of any type and with trapping (APPE crashed when I submit a 2 Pantone job with some transparencies).
Testing the same job on both systems, Harlequin is faster than APPE, and that surprised me a lot!
I've noticed a better job rendering gradients. In HQN they seems to be smoother than in APPE, but this could be only my impression.
I must admit that they did a great job.

Personally when they told me "test the new HQN RIP" I wouldn't bet a cent on it, remembering the past experience.
Well, I was totally wrong!

Next week I will install and test their new hybrid screening module… I'll let you know.

 

[seratne]

I stand corrected. It does look like TrapPro in Harlequin 11 does trap files with transparency without the renderbands error that always showed up in previous versions.

Harlequin has always been faster than APPE and even CPSI, I think one of the causes of this is Adobe's CPSI engine had been around forever. CPSI is also a complete implementation of every possible postscript command and implementation, where Harlequin is newer and has never needed to be a reference implementation.

As far as cost, Harlequin is definitely cheaper. Especially if you're looking at the big workflows of Esko, Agfa, Kodak, Fuji, etc. But Xante Symphony is a APPE RIP that is more on the same level as a Harlequin based workflow. With the same options, but adding in FirstProof Standard or even Professional, the Xante offering is actually slightly cheaper. (This is based on an initial quote I received from Xante a while ago, and the list price of rti rip kits, so there may be some wiggle room to get the products even cheaper).

 

[arossetti]

As far as cost, Harlequin is definitely cheaper. Especially if you're looking at the big workflows of Esko, Agfa, Kodak, Fuji, etc. But Xante Symphony is a APPE RIP that is more on the same level as a Harlequin based workflow. With the same options, but adding in FirstProof Standard or even Professional, the Xante offering is actually slightly cheaper. (This is based on an initial quote I received from Xante a while ago, and the list price of rti rip kits, so there may be some wiggle room to get the products even cheaper).

But then you would have to deal with Xante.... which I find to be painful.