Kodak Prinergy vs. Heidelberg Prinect

[Binks]

Kodak Prinergy vs. Heidelberg Prinect

Hi everyone,

We are currently looking at upgrading our Brisque v5 RIPs. They've been brilliant but their age is beginning to show with regard to speed of ripping and their inability to cleanly handle transparency.

My question is:

Kodak Prinergy vs. Heidelberg Prinect


Which system is generally regarded as the better and for what reasons?

I have no experience of either but naturally the respective sales reps say their system is the best so i'm after some (less) impartial advice.

Many thanks in advance,
Binks

 

[chris_r]

Re: Kodak Prinergy vs. Heidelberg Prinect

i have no experience whatsoever with heidleberg prinect, but i did see a lot of demonstrations on it along with prinergy. being as it wasnt may decision to make anyway, my company went with prinergy. but i thought prinect looked pretty awesome. i loved the whle signastation approach of imposing files. the nuts and bolts of it are escaping me, i saw it well over a year ago.

as for prinergy, we made the brisque to prinergy jump in january, and it was seamless. prinergy allowed us to reuse archived CTLW files when we had to pick up old jobs, it allows us to cotinue using our current preps template library, and on top of that it is an unbeleivably flexible workflow. not a person here misses the brisque.

i know this isnt a very specific response, but the point of it is if you did choose prinergy, i don't think you would have any serious issues moving from the brisque.

if you have specific questions, id be happy to help try and answer what i can.

cr

 

[SlaveToTheMan]

Re: Kodak Prinergy vs. Heidelberg Prinect

We're in the beginning stages of switching to Prinergy also, Prinergy Evo to be exact. Just had the hardware installed Monday & working on training the next coupla days. I'm doubting we'll miss the Brisque either, but it sounds ike it will stay around for a while anyway. I guess as a backup in case the Prinergy takes a dump.

 

[chris_r]

Re: Kodak Prinergy vs. Heidelberg Prinect

we had to keep the brisque...as an interface to one of our old Lotems. for reasons which i admit are beyond my scope of knowledge, when we queue up a job from prinergy to our old lotem, it has to feed through the brisque, and then get sent to the lotem.

that is the nly reason we still have it.

cr

 

[AmosRid]

Re: Kodak Prinergy vs. Heidelberg Prinect

We kept a Brisque in my shop to drive our Dolev 800 after we switched to Prinergy & Trendsetters, but it is basically a hotfolder for the Dolev.

We could have purchased TIFFExpose to get rid of the Brisque, but it was easier/cheaper to keep with Brisque with no support than to buy something new.

 

[Binks]

Re: Kodak Prinergy vs. Heidelberg Prinect

Thanks for your answers everyone.

I have a feeling that we will go with Prinergy because of the CT/LW legacy stuff. But I must admit, I always thought it was a no-brainer, then I looked at a couple of Prinect systems and I was amazed how good they were.

Prinergy's Insite seems far superior to the Prinect equivalent but Prinects colour management & JDF compatibility with our Heidelberg presses is a major advantage.



Kind regards
Binks

 

[alang66]

Re: Kodak Prinergy vs. Heidelberg Prinect

Ive not really had a good look at Prinect but I have used Creo/Kodak equipment and Heidelberg equipment for many years. It is my opinion that Heidelberg have a tendency to over-complicate systems and Creo/Kodak have a tradition of simplifying systems. I used SignaStation for a few years and compared to Preps it was very much more advanced but most of the features we never used. I would imagine that Prinect is the same – very technical and detailed but not much use if you don't feel comfortable with it and get the most out of it.
As far as JDF compatibility goes, how much info are you requiring? Ink key setting data can be created for Heidelberg machines albeit with an extra bit of software inbetween. Colour management is also pretty good on Prinergy too but is an additional module. Insite is very good and also very easy to implement, use and administer

 

[chris_r]

Re: Kodak Prinergy vs. Heidelberg Prinect

i cant speak on the prinect side of it, but on the kodak side you can find yourself getting nickeled and dimed (5k - 10k) to death. if you do choose prinergy, make sure you sit down and really get to know the features you need, the features you want, and what you really dont need. we have had to purchase several features that were taught to us in prinergy training after the fact. kodak provides you with a list of features, all itemized, but take your time and read through it carefully, and you will get an accurate idea of how much dough you will need to shovel out. it is worth the effort.

cr

 

[Binks]

Re: Kodak Prinergy vs. Heidelberg Prinect

I like the look of the image control (CPC24) unit for the heidelberg system. Prinect can import readings from this unit directly to a) generate new tone rep curves in minutes b) diagnose the press. From my previous Brisque experience creating new curves has always been a considerable pain.

On the flip side. We would like to start moving into remote proofing and Kodaks Insite blows the prinect equivalent out of the water.

Thanks again for replies


Jim

 

[marktonk]

Re: Kodak Prinergy vs. Heidelberg Prinect

Hi James


Did you see this article from Andrew Tribute "What is Workflow?" it was published on several independent sites. You may find this interesting as to how far we are integrating JDF with Prinect:

http://www.us.heidelberg.com/www/html/en/content/articles/prinect/whatisworkflow?contentid=309035

Also, we just launched Remote Access 2.0. The feedback at Graph Expo was extremely positive, some even said it has a cleaner and more direct interface.

Not mentioned in the article is what we have been doing. Most everyone can set ink zone setting to the press. What we do differently is allow for unlimited paper/ink combinations. This makes the presets more accurate and therefore shorter make ready. Great thing is it can be identified in the MIS, the JDF is picked up in Printready, job is automatically set up, if stripping parameters are involved, Signa is launched automatically and the templates generated, pages can automatically populated and then sent for proof. The operator can check and change if needed. Once approved, plates are made and the CP2000 press console can extract the job from a data base. Once the operator calls up the job, the proper printing characteristic curve for that paper/ink combo is loaded. Also, depending on feeder, the side guide can be automatically set, the paper thickness, etc, . This is beyond the more accurate ink zone settings. We have integrated to press better then anyone. Yes, having the prepress and press R&D working together has made this possible but that is one of our unique forte's.

Now that we have implement the centralized JDF server, Prinect Pressroom Manager and Prinect Integration Manager for the press, we will complete the post press migration at Drupa. Good luck to you.

Good luck.


Regards,

Mark Tonkovich
Heidelberg USA
Product Manager, CtP & Proofing

 

[prepressguru]

Re: Kodak Prinergy vs. Heidelberg Prinect

James I have used both workflows. I have a simple example of how the 2 compare. Prinergy is like using every other graphics software on your system. Printready is like using a spreadsheet to do graphics work.

Neither are perfect solutions but spend the time using and evaluating them because once you commit you will be stuck with it. The commnets posted here are on the mark. Kodak does seem more expensive after you purchase your package. On the otherhand Printready is overly complicated and requires much more support to get the bugs out.

Good Luck