Esko Backstage/Packedge/CSx vs. Prinergy

[wesley]

Any Esko users have experience using Kodak workflow products? Looking for comparisons from real end users who have worked in both systems for complex packaging flexo work. We have been using Esko tools from Illustrator client files for years. Does the Kodak suite of tools work in a similar way? How is it different and what do you think of the productivity? No responses from sales personnel by either company please.

 

[khasmir]

I'm not a sales guy but don't forget to consider Artpro and Nexus (former Artwork Systems but by no means dead)
But I think that choice mainly comes down if you want to use Mac or PC since they have roughly the same features.

 

[PrepressDan]

Wesley. I have used Prinergy in a commercial enviroment. It is a great system. But they really arent geared for Packaging. Kodak is the king of Commercial while EskoArtwork is the king of packaging and label. As far as editors go, kodak really doesnt have any kind of "suite" like eskoartwork has for editing. They have a PDF editor (OEM of pitstop) but that is it. Packedge & Artpro are almost identical editor and very much supreme.

 

[jetzerm]

I have to agree. I have Prinergy PowerPack and Connect. We are a combination shop about 50/50 commercial and packaging (offset and flexo.) We use Prinergy for a few reasons:

1. Great for Commercial
2. Long history with Scitex/Creo/Kodak
3. Digital Print Center

If I was solely a Flexo Packaging Print I would go with Esko. They have an excellent suite and tools. Prinergy is great for commercial, but is only good for Packaging. We do it and do it very successfully. It's just not as a mature workflow for packaging. I would recommend Prinergy to anyone doing 40/60 Packaging/Commercial to use Prinergy. If you're 60/40 Packaging/Commercial get Esko.

 

[PrepressKev]

As the Prepress Manager for a company that specializes in Flexible packaging, I would have to disagree. Kodak understands packaging very well. They have built many tools that help packaging customers be more efficient as they prep plate ready files. They were the first to implement that PDF Print Engine that solved the transparency issue that has plagued packaging for years. I see stronger automation, screening and color management from Kodak.

 

[CHM]

They were the first to implement that PDF Print Engine that solved the transparency issue that has plagued packaging for years. .

Not realy exact, The total Rip frome AWS (now EskoArtwork) wast the 1st Rip that could handle transparanties, it has been around and working for about 4 years now. The Adobe pdf rip has been released last year.

Just to set things right:=)

 

[PrepressKev]

Yes you are correct but the Total Rip did not refine transparencies as adobe intended them to. My comment was directly related to the Adobe PDF Print Engine.

 

[CHM]

There is nothing to refign The total rip rips the transparanties native without translating.
So no issius what so ever with transparanties frome Adobe software.

Whe are using this here with suc6.

 

[Vee]

Yea, I didn't think Esko / Artworks was an Adobe based RIP. So technically they don't render native from PDF, but interpret PDF into their output format/screening.

I use several different packaging vendors in the pharma realm, one of them uses Prinergy, and they struggle in prepress in comparison to the others running Artpro.

 

[PDL]

Wesley - Contact me with info about in what areas you would like to address regarding your productivity/production issues. As you may know EskoArtwork has a fairly indepth suite of solutions.

peter

 

[khasmir]

Yes you are correct but the Total Rip did not refine transparencies as adobe intended them to. My comment was directly related to the Adobe PDF Print Engine.

I'm sorry but I do not understand what point you are trying to make here.
The PDF RIP that has been in Nexus for some years now is a native PDF RIP, it does not do any extra conversions, it goes from PDF (up to 1.6 I think) directly to screened or unscreened TIFF, DCS, EPS, ...
All transparencies are rendered as described in the PDF specs, not using the Adobe PDF Print Engine has nothing to do with this.

Personally I think it's a good thing that it's not using anything from Adobe, if there would be a problem then you have to wait forever until you get a solution from Adobe before it can be fixed in the RIP.
Also, ever tried calling Adobe to get some kind of support from them...?

 

[Vee]

Hi Khasmir,

I don't think refine is to appropriate word. Maybe, render?
I believe what prepresskev (please correct me if I'm wrong..) is trying to say is that AWS Total RIP doesn't render PDF direct to an output device (proof - film - plate) but rather it interprets it into their format (thus not native to Adobe and/or PDF whom created this format) then it's output to a device. So in essence their is a conversion here.

Not to say Total RIP is not a great product, I'm sure it is, but it's not utilizing the native PDF format. It's utilizing AWS's flavor or format... whatever that might be..

Do you run the Total RIP?

 

[CHM]

Vee, the total rip dus not render it in his own format, it rips it to the output format. So there is no conversion what so ever.

 

[alang66]

To say Prinergy is "not great for packaging" is to say "PDF is not great for packaging". It's a PDF workflow with a lot of tools on refine. What you supply to Prinergy and how you configure it dictates how good it will work with packaging. All workflows purport to be PDF workflows so does this make them all "not great at packaging"?

Cannot understand why thread title includes CSx with Esko but not with Prinergy either. What will files originate in if they don't originate in CS?

Personally I think because the customer base all uses Acrobat and the PDF format, a workflow that uses this throughout as a digital master is the ideal workflow. No conversions back at post-repro stage. All other systems purport to handle PDF files so well there should be no problem receiving a PDF output file. The customer can open the final ouput file without any extra software or conversion (RAM/hardware permitting).

I don't rate Pandora as a step and repeat app (having said that - it's long time since I looked at it). We prefer ArtPro and just export full sheet PDFs from ArtPro but render from Prinergy. Occasionally, a file causes a problem but it is usually a transparency issue from ArtPro.

 

[CHM]

Occasionally, a file causes a problem but it is usually a transparency issue from ArtPro.

hi

And what transparantie problems would that be?
ArtPro uses the same transparanties out off CS, so if you have transparantie problems out off ArtPro you should have the same problems out off CS apps.

 

[jetzerm]

As the Prepress Manager for a company that specializes in Flexible packaging, I would have to disagree. Kodak understands packaging very well. They have built many tools that help packaging customers be more efficient as they prep plate ready files. They were the first to implement that PDF Print Engine that solved the transparency issue that has plagued packaging for years. I see stronger automation, screening and color management from Kodak.

I guess you misunderstood my meaning. I use Prinergy PowerPak (used Brisque Pak before that.) I love my Prinergy System for all the things you have listed and service is 2nd to none in my area. However, if you take a good long look at the tools Esko offers for prepping files, managing files they have a better suite for the packaging world. Deskpack, their PDF editors, and other tools are designed for packaging. Exceptions are the rule in packaging, flexo for certain. Esko allows you to put a ton of information into the source files and allows editting like you wouldn't believe.

Would I trade my Prinergy system for Esko right now? No, but I would give it serious look if I was primarily a packaging printer.

 

[Jose Gonzales]

The PDF RIP that has been in Nexus for some years now is a native PDF RIP, it does not do any extra conversions, it goes from PDF (up to 1.6 I think) directly to screened or unscreened TIFF, DCS, EPS, ...
All transparencies are rendered as described in the PDF specs, not using the Adobe PDF Print Engine has nothing to do with this.

Personally I think it's a good thing that it's not using anything from Adobe, if there would be a problem then you have to wait forever until you get a solution from Adobe before it can be fixed in the RIP.
Also, ever tried calling Adobe to get some kind of support from them...?

Not to say Total RIP is not a great product, I'm sure it is, but it's not utilizing the native PDF format. It's utilizing AWS's flavor or format... whatever that might be..

Vee: AWS's Flavor or format is build around the PDF specifications same as the APE does, so you can say native! I think Khasmir has given the ideal explanation on this.