PPML issues; request for RIP test by others

[tobias]

Hi guys,

I'm currently developing a product for prepress. For this, I made some PPML (as every time; we do all our impositionings in PPML so I usually have no difficulty with this). But this time, I got strange results. And now I am wondering if someone else can try RIPping this document to see if it gives the same output on other hardware.

The document: <PPML Label='myTestDocument'> - Anonymous - Qcix6LZx - Pastebin.com (it uses SVG Text to place text, so no external assets are needed to test this.). It will generate 3 duplex sheets in black only, which together can form two booklets. Booklet 1 begins at page 1, ends at 12; booklet 2 begins at pagenumber 13 and ends at 24.

When I rip this document on my HP Production Pro Print Server Matrix RIP, I lose the content of page 1 and 2; they are replaced with nothingness. Also, since the impositioning is generic for any number of pages, if I add 8 <PAGE>'s (so 1 more sheet), I suddenly lose page 3 as well. If I reduce it to 2 sheets (16 pages total), only page 1 is lost. If I reduce it to 1 sheet (8 pages), the document is correct. So somewhere, magic is happening.

So basically to see if this is a bug or a feature ;-), I would like to kindly ask you guys to try and rip this file (just copy/paste into notepad and save as 'somefile.ppml' and import it into your favorite RIP).
Then see if you can export as PDF, or other image file, or screenshots, or whatever, and post it back here.

Or, if you know why this breaks, I would like to know too. ;-)

Thanks!

 

[prepressing]

What other software have you tested this with? You can download a demo of the Harlequin RIP from the following link to test:
Harlequin RIP Demo, RTI Harlequin Demo TIFF, Epson, HP, CTP Platesetter RIP Software

The demo would allow you to output either a TIFF or PDF Raster file for viewing.

 

[tobias]

Thanks for the link, didnt know Harlequin provided a demo version. I dont think it's going to make a difference though, since the RIP engines in the HP Matrix RIP system are actually rebranded Harlequin RIPs. But i'll try and see what happens thanks.

-edit-

Hm. That version does not support VDP, and thus, no PPML consumer is built in. It doesnt accept .ppml files, nor does it accept .xml files. So I guess i'm still dependant on other people that might want to spare a minute of riptime for me...

I didnt try it on any other rip since I have no other RIPs. Although when I think of it, I do have an old HP RIP that came with the Indigo 5000... and also the builtin RIP engine on the 5000. I'll give those a whirl as well after the weekend.

 

[michaelejahn]

Export to either PostScript or PDF

Export to either PostScript or PDF

Hi guys, I'm currently developing a product for prepress. For this, I made some PPML (as every time; we do all our impositionings in PPML so I usually have no difficulty with this). But this time, I got strange results. !

I stopped reading at "developing a product for Prepress" and asked "what PDF Library is he using I wonder".

PPML - Home - does your code work with CheckPPML_Pro ?

Most system intemperate PostScript and PDF reliably, and while they may *support* other types of files (like PPML for example), few vendors / companies that buy and build RIPs using RIP SDKs will really implement and QC anything but PostScript (which is hard enough haven been frozen years ago) and PDF (which is still evolving)

another misconception you seem to have appears in this part of your comment "...are actually rebranded Harlequin RIPs." Well, I work for Compose - we also are a Global Graphic developer, as are many many others - we all do things to PostScript / PDF *prior* to interpretation and many of use do things *after* rendering and rasterization. This is also true of JAWs SDK customers and Adobe SDK customers.

The way to "test" is to create a PDF. Use Distiller. If you can't Distill, chances are you code will not process reliably. Some developers new to this space use GhostScript - Ghostscript: Ghostscript - and when they need to create a commercial product, and do not have a bazzillion dollars - they licence the commercial version of GhostScript from

Artifex Software Inc.

I know why you want to discover if you PPML code *works* - the only gold standard like thing is to test and then prove that you PPML code is not crap, and the only real way is to enable people to "see" the results.

Caslon - CheckPPML_Pro

Now, from a marketing standpoint, you might disagree, but, i could care less if you code simply *works* on several popular RIPS.

You would need to show it is faster, less prone to errors, and works with my variable *problems* on my digital printing RIP / Workflow...

my three euros...

Hope this helps.

 

[tobias]

I stopped reading at "developing a product for Prepress" and asked "what PDF Library is he using I wonder".

PPML - Home - does your code work with CheckPPML_Pro ?

No; CheckPPML Pro does not support impositions. Which is, on itself, the only reason we use PPML in the first place; dynamic impositions that we can generate using XML tooling. I am aware of the tooling and the complete spec of PPML. My PPML is OK according to the spec. But still, it gives weird results. Thus I'm wondering what the output looks like on other PPML consumers (being RIPs). I have not been able to find a free/shareware PPML RIP 'out there' on the internets.

Most system intemperate PostScript and PDF reliably, and while they may *support* other types of files (like PPML for example), few vendors / companies that buy and build RIPs using RIP SDKs will really implement and QC anything but PostScript (which is hard enough haven been frozen years ago) and PDF (which is still evolving)

PPML for us is a necessity and it is specced well. It is not hard to implement. We require PPML to impose sheets so that all is properly imposed for postprocessing (cutting, creasing, folding, sowing, etc). This is not possible (in such a way) with PDF (ppml and its binary assets are seperate files).

another misconception you seem to have appears in this part of your comment "...are actually rebranded Harlequin RIPs." Well, I work for Compose - we also are a Global Graphic developer, as are many many others - we all do things to PostScript / PDF *prior* to interpretation and many of use do things *after* rendering and rasterization. This is also true of JAWs SDK customers and Adobe SDK customers.

I am aware of this. My comment was a bit shortsighted, thats true. I don't know which part of the HP RIP actually interprets the PPML (and renders the SVG Text elements); it seems in the userinterface, the RIP nodes stay idle. I can understand how you first render the elements of a page (like, for instance, PDF assets) and then impose them on the sheet according to the PPML file's spec. Also, the RIP nodes really are rebranded Harlequin RIPs. Even the license manager is the same.

The way to "test" is to create a PDF. Use Distiller. If you can't Distill, chances are you code will not process reliably.

My problem is not with PDF, nor is it affiliated with PDF. I am prototyping purely in PPML. This gives me unpredictable results. Because I brought it back to such a pure techtest, and still see this issues, I'm wondering how other RIP vendors' products would interpret this PPML file. And thus, my initial question was posted.

-ghostscript-snip-

I know why you want to discover if you PPML code *works* - the only gold standard like thing is to test and then prove that you PPML code is not crap, and the only real way is to enable people to "see" the results.

Caslon - CheckPPML_Pro

As I said; CheckPPML does not support impositions. My problem is in the imposition handling of PPML. I want to know if the implementation HP is using is buggy, or if my code is FUBAR.

Now, from a marketing standpoint, you might disagree, but, i could care less if you code simply *works* on several popular RIPS.

You would need to show it is faster, less prone to errors, and works with my variable *problems* on my digital printing RIP / Workflow...

my three euros...

Hope this helps.

I really don't know what you mean with this last statement i'm not trying to convince you to PPML, i'm just asking to see if anybody wants to rip this PPML and see what it outputs. If I can't reproduce this error on other machines (vendors), I have a bugticket to take care of with HP. If it reproduces in the same way on other systems, I have a flaw in my PPML, which will help me in finding it and solving it.

Thanks for your time to answer

 

[tobias]

*kick* Can someone please just simply download my PPML and see if their RIP eats it up, and post the output?

Thanks

(http://pastebin.com/Qcix6LZx)

 

[tobias]

is there noone out there with a rig that'll rip PPML files and 5 minutes of spare time?