Transparency and processing time

[Barry]

This is a general question. Please pardon any incorrect terminology and ignorance, and feel free to correct me on it.

I assume that transparency effects applied in InDesign (or any app for that matter) add significantly to the time it takes to process a file. (When I say process, I mean the processing that happens as soon as you hit print or export in their respective dialogue boxes and keeps you from doing anything else in InDesign until it's done.)

Are there any tips to reduce this processing time as much as possible?

FYI: I'm using a custom transparency flatter preset set to 0, 300, 300.

I've got a file that's taking about 4 minutes to process and I need to to output up to 100 variations of it a day.

Edited by: Barry on Aug 7, 2008 3:05 PM

 

[maxon]

Re: Transparency and processing time

I believe you should turn your attention to the computer platform you use, as these tasks are quit processor intensive (as about disk usage I guess all resources used in the file are already on your hard disk, right ?).

 

[almaink]

Re: Transparency and processing time

If you need to flatten the transparency obviously it's going to take longer to print as it's one more thing that needs to be done before the job can print.

 

[Dov Isaacs]

Re: Transparency and processing time

Actually, if you export PDF to any version other than PDF 1.3, use of any non-opaque objects or transparency effects in an InDesign (or Illustrator) document results in no extra overhead because the transparency is not prematurely flattened (or perhaps better said, ruined).

If you are printing directly from InDesign or creating retrograde PDF, obviously there is overhead in producing output that is an opaque representation of your content. The overhead / processing time (time to create flattened PostScript or PDF for example and to then process same at printer or PDF consuming program) is obviously a direct function of the complexity of the transparency and the techniques used in flattening. Higher quality is generally achieved by using the 100% vector setting (it really means 100% vector or what it is possible to use vector for) with rasters at full device resolution and gradient settings at about 25% of that device resolution.

If your setting of "0, 300, 300" means 0% vector with raster at 300dpi, unless you have a very low resolution output device, your results may be very poor, especially for printing!!! Ironically, such settings will probably incur fairly low flattening overhead as opposed to "100, 1200, 300", the typical "high resolution" flattener preset, but I wouldn't consider your settings viable for anything I do.

What I don't understand is your major concern about "reducing this processing time as much as possible" if the results will be exceptionally suboptimal. The difference is processing time is an awful lot less time that it took to RIP pages not too many years ago. Unless you have some very special needs in mind, your priorities in terms of overhead versus quality don't seem quite right here.

- Dov

 

[Lukas Engqvist]

Re: Transparency and processing time

A workstation is cheap compared to a RIP. (ie the investment is small and so workstation time is cheaper than RIP time)
While I believe in live transparency in the future, my experience is that it still gives artifacts, if this is due to the first generation APPE or beacuse of vendors choosing flattening to occur at too low resolution I can't say… I will keep testing with every hotfix and upgrade, but for now I find we get superior results with correctly made PDFx1-a

Edited by: Lukas Engqvist on Aug 7, 2008 9:57 PM

 

[rich apollo]

Re: Transparency and processing time

Not a big X/1-a fan. There are a couple of gotchas in there.

What artifacts are you seeing, Lukas? I know you're on the ApogeeX platform - so am I. The APPE seems to work as advertised. Anytime I've thought it was giving me trouble, it turned out to be something else.

I know that you know a hell of lot more about ApogeeX than I do, but I'd suggest reviewing your RIP settings.

To the original poster, I gotta' agree with Dov. Your settings don't sound appropriate to me. You may not need to flatten at all. And you are correct - flattening will slow down your processing considerably. Look into Zervix Batch Output. This could save you A LOT of time. You can set up all your exports as a batch process. Good product.

 

[Lukas Engqvist]

Artifacts from the APPE in ApogeeX

Artifacts from the APPE in ApogeeX

If I use 175-200lpi I have seen artifacts that look as if the image is flattened at a too low resoloution. It's classic blocks or cells that span across several lines. Also embossed shape does not get the smooth edge I get from the same source file when going to x4 as when I go to x1a.

I'll see if i can post screen dumps of my raster preview. (see picture 35.png) top image x1a, and bottom image x4. I sent these screen dumps, comented to Adobe via ASN and to Agfa december last year, have heard nothing so they've had a head start before I post it on a public forum.

It is possible that this is not a problem if line screen is 120 or 133, I didn't test, bt it was irrelevant to test. It looks very much like the image was rasterised at 150 lpi or less.

OK, seems attatcments got working now