which Ctp is the best?

[gordo]

[SNIP]
So i think that my criterias are:
the speed, the Jdf integration, the price.
I'm printing with 300 Dpi and I'm note using FM trame.
just a questin: do you think that if my CtP is producing an FM trame I'll be able to print it ? or I need a special printing machine?

You say you're currently doing 300 "Dpi" with your Prosetter. I assume you mean 300 lpi?
And you're considering doing FM. And you do magazine work.

So you should have already encountered any issues with high screen rulings with your current set up as far as plate imaging integrity and on press issues are concerned. Your own experience tells you whether violet is consistent and stable enough to do fine screens.
With a second order FM screen, like HD's Satin screening, at 20 micron the highlight dot is equivalent to an AM 1% dot at 120 lpi, or an AM 1.5% dot at 150 lpi. Lthographically it would be the same as about a 385 lpi screen - not that much finer than what you're using now.
That should answer Steve M's concerns. That being said, your success with violet and high screen rulings goes against every experience I've encountered.
So perhaps you should test HD's Satin screening with your existing setup.
Also, make 300 lpi and FM 20 micron capability a condition of the different systems you'll look at. Ask the vendors to give you reference sites that are doing this type of work for 100% of their jobs. Then contact those reference sites and find out directly what their experience has been and compare it to yours.

best, gordo

my print blog here: Quality In Print

 

[KevinC@EFI]

Kevin:
re:

<snip>
10,000 dpi imaging
<snip>

Isn't that really the size of the slit,
which is then dragged to fill the pixel?

Do you really have FM screens which
call for 1/4th of the pixel to be filled?
Wouldn't that be 2.5 micron FM?

Regardless of engine/plate capabilities,
if the pressroom can't hold a 2% dot at
175 lpi, then we can't even begin to
tackle 20/21 micron FM, let alone 10.

Regards,

Steve - yes, our imaging spot is really 2.5 microns in size. Do we have 2.5 micron FM screens? Well, we do offer systems for security printing that have >12000 dpi addressability, but that's another story. Printing of 2.5 micron dots isn't practical of course.

Instead, we use that 10,000 dpi resolution to image a grid of 4x4 spots for every single 10-micron pixel. We just draw it that much more accurately and consistently. It's the difference between drawing your halftone dots with a fat crayon (violet/gausian/glv) or coloring it in precisely with a sharp pencil (SQUAREspot). Or if you will, the difference between a 1MP digital camera and a 16MP one.

Staccato 10 isn't for everyone - it's for the super high-end printer who can market the quality value of the resulting work. However, a system capable of consistently doing that fine resoloution means it can do coarser screens rock-solid - absorbing the effects of many other variables throughout the production cycle, reducing variation and reducing your costs too.

I 100% agree with you that the pressroom has to be able to handle such fine screening too, or it's pointless. However, how will you ever know what the pressroom can do if you're living with variability in your prepress department?

I'll attach an image to show some data we collected which quantifies the latitude and forgiveness that SQUAREspot gives you against one isolated variable - in this case processing over the bath life of the developer. Everything else was the same (plate, processor, etc.). As the developer ages, the effect is clear on the two non-SQUAREspot devices (which you'd recognize, Steve) and would show up noticably on press. The SQUAREspot handles it nicely without press impact. The difference is more with finer screens, and less with coarser screens, but even at 175lpi there is an easily measurable difference. That translates into consistency and cost savings in the pressroom that any printer can benefit from.

Kevin.

 

[SteveAgfa]

Kevin:

I appreciate our mutual goal to provide practicality in pre-press and the pressroom.
However, touting a 2.5 micron spot is certainly not practical. (Actually - we're talking the depth, not width.)

Most moving optics (save the older basys grid system) fill a pixel with a spot smaller than the
dpi addressability, and drag to fill. And, the old argument about gausian vs. top-hat energy profiles
doesn't surround the shape of the pixel, rather the even energy profile across the spot.

In Gausian, there are ways to clip and deliver a more consistent energy profile than a simple bell-curve
would suggest. We did this in our SelectSet, Avantra and Galileo imagers. The proof of the pudding
is whether the system meets the needs of the application.

And to lump GLV into a squareSPOT vs. Gausian argument, also misses the boat. GLV also
delivers a slit, and fills the pixel. As a matter of interest, our Xcalibur/Avalon imagers combined
two 5.3 micron-width (at image plane) ribbons of light to create the single pixel-width spot of 10.6
microns, and it too dragged to fill the pixel depth. So, does this mean we we're doing 20,000 dpi
imaging? Regardless of 10,000, 20,000 - it's all rhetoric.

Does the proposed SYSTEM solution meet the need? That's the real question.
The SYSTEM that best meets the needs of a specific application is the "best CTP".

Regards,

 

[KevinC@EFI]

Does the proposed SYSTEM solution meet the need? That's the real question.
The SYSTEM that best meets the needs of a specific application is the "best CTP".
Regards,

I'll let the results speak for themselves. Consistency and stability throughout the process cuts costs as well as allows you to get the most out of your pressroom. Whether it be SQUAREspot or magic that delivers that stability doesn't matter to the customer - it's the end result that counts.

Attached - the same graph as before, but with normal AM screening. The numbers are clear.

 

[gordo]

I would like very much to hear a response from the OP, anouarsurvive, to my post - immediately before Steve and Kevin's posts - since anouarsurvive says that they're currently printing with 300 lpi and FM screening using Violet plates from a Prosetter.

best, gordo

 

[bharatk]

Refer to Gordo's post-
I would also like to know whether Anouarsurive is printing with 300 lpi AM and FM screening on Violet. Which plate are you using?

Regards
Bharatk

 

[sherry_xie]

suggestions

suggestions

Hello,
I'm loocking for a CtP, but i really don't know how to make my decision.
I'm an offset printer, I have 4 Heidelberg machines and this will be my second CtP after the prosetter of heidelberg.
If somone can advise me, it'll be great.
thank you.

Hi how about Kodak, cron and fuji brand? if you are interested i will discuss with your furtherly. Contact me [email protected]

 

[sherry_xie]

Hi how about cronbrand? if you are interested i will discuss with your furtherly. Contact me [email protected] It is a leading chinese brand. We also have Kodak and fuji brand CTP.

 

[anouarsurvive]

Refer to Gordo's post-
I would also like to know whether Anouarsurive is printing with 300 lpi AM and FM screening on Violet. Which plate are you using?

Regards
Bharatk

sorry for my late replay.
some days in graphItalia and I'm back.
so we are using Agfa plate, but never printing with FM. (I don't think that's possible.)
you want to know why I want to bay another CTP?
well:
1. My prosetter was broken down (because of a mechanical default. funny). So I made some plate by another printer who have the same prosetter. and it was to print a book wich I have soon printed before. And some trames appear in the new book (with the plate that I have made by another printer) but not in the book that I have printed by myself.
2. The Heidelberg technical team told me that impossible and I was wrong
3. The same person told me that's because of the old version of my METADIMENSION and SIGNASTATION.
4.no body know why I have this problem.
So I will get a new CTP from another brand (but not chinese CTP for the moment.), and I'll put or make the 12647's certification (color and quality).

what do you think about the screen PT-R 4300S MA-L ?
If some body can tell me the price. for this machine full automatic with 3 department(we call it casette in french).

thanks a lot for your replay.
I'll learn many thing from this forum.

 

[anouarsurvive]

You say you're currently doing 300 "Dpi" with your Prosetter. I assume you mean 300 lpi?
And you're considering doing FM. And you do magazine work.

So you should have already encountered any issues with high screen rulings with your current set up as far as plate imaging integrity and on press issues are concerned. Your own experience tells you whether violet is consistent and stable enough to do fine screens.
With a second order FM screen, like HD's Satin screening, at 20 micron the highlight dot is equivalent to an AM 1% dot at 120 lpi, or an AM 1.5% dot at 150 lpi. Lthographically it would be the same as about a 385 lpi screen - not that much finer than what you're using now.
That should answer Steve M's concerns. That being said, your success with violet and high screen rulings goes against every experience I've encountered.
So perhaps you should test HD's Satin screening with your existing setup.
Also, make 300 lpi and FM 20 micron capability a condition of the different systems you'll look at. Ask the vendors to give you reference sites that are doing this type of work for 100% of their jobs. Then contact those reference sites and find out directly what their experience has been and compare it to yours.

best, gordo

my print blog here: Quality In Print

thak yo for your reply.
your Blog is great. too many thing to learn from.
yeah i'm sorry I mean 300 Lpi.
as I mentioned before In Tunisia we don't have a good knowledge about the quality problem. with the same machine and the same file we tooke too different result. (i know It's funny but It's so.).
My problem is I didn't find a french speeking person who can help to improve my quality.
and I don't speak english very well (i don't know the technical word)

 

[gordo]

My problem is I didn't find a french speeking person who can help to improve my quality. and I don't speak english very well (i don't know the technical word)

Puisque c'est un forum international, vous pourriez essayer de poser votre question en français également. Je suis sûr qu'il y a beaucoup de personnes bilingues lisant ce forum. Le Français pourrait également nous aider `a comprendre votre anglais.

bonne chance Gordon P

Quality In Print

 

[anouarsurvive]

Puisque c'est un forum international, vous pourriez essayer de poser votre question en français également. Je suis sûr qu'il y a beaucoup de personnes bilingues lisant ce forum. Le Français pourrait également nous aider `a comprendre votre anglais.

bonne chance Gordon P

Quality In Print

merci pour la réponse.
effectivement c'est plus facile pour moi de parler en français.
qu'est ce que vous pensez du CTP screen que j'ai mentionné précédemment?

 

[gordo]

merci pour la réponse.
effectivement c'est plus facile pour moi de parler en français.
qu'est ce que vous pensez du CTP screen que j'ai mentionné précédemment?

Puisque j'étais un directeur de vente de CtP pour Creo/Kodak, je ne peux pas répondre `a votre question. Il serait meilleur a laissé d'autres répondre.

Désolé. Gordon P

 

[anouarsurvive]

Puisque j'étais un directeur de vente de CtP pour Creo/Kodak, je ne peux pas répondre `a votre question. Il serait meilleur a laissé d'autres répondre.

Désolé. Gordon P

malheureusement ils sont chère.

 

[gordo]

malheureusement ils sont chère.

Peut-être oui, peut-être non.
Le représentant de ventes devrait pouvoir expliquer Ã* toi la valeur de payer plus. Si ce qu'il dit ne te fournit aucune valeur, alors vous ne devriez pas payer le surcoût. Ou allez avec un CtP moins cher. Si vous devez vraiment faire FM, alors votre choix de CtP sera plus limité.

gordon p

 

[bharatk]

Gordo

Could you translate into english your posts. Would be educative for us too.

Regards
BharatK

 

[anouarsurvive]

I ask him to tell me what he think about the screen,
he Told me that he prefere to let someone else to answer becouse he was the Kodak/creo sales manager.
then I told him that the Screen is shipper he told me to ask the vendor for the cause.

 

[anouarsurvive]

does sombody use the Kodak's workflow?
what do you think about?
I use The metadimension from Heidelberg for the moment.

 

[gordo]

Gordo
Could you translate into english your posts. Would be educative for us too.
BharatK

Because of his difficulty with English but competence with French, I suggested that, since this is an international forum he might try also posting his question in French and that it would also help us understand his English.
He then asked what I thought of the Screen device he had mentioned in an earlier post. I replied that, because I had been a marketing manager for creo/Kodak CtP that I couldn't answer that question and that it would be best to let others respond.
To which he responded - sadly, Creo/Kodak CtP is expensive.
Which I answered by saying: Perhaps yes, perhaps no. Their sales representative should be able to explain the value of paying more. If what he says provides you with no special value, then you should not pay the extra cost - go with a less expensive CtP (Screen perhaps). However, if you really need to do FM screening, your CtP choices will be more limited.

That's it. I couldn't be very helpful I'm afraid. Best, gordo

my print blog here: Quality In Print

 

[bharatk]

Anouarsurvive and Gordo,
Thanks for the translation.

Screen is a mighty fine device. So is Kodak. And both can do 2nd generation FM. I would also suggest that you take a look at the workflow bundle being offered. Screen - Trueflow SE / Kodak - Prinergy Evo or Prinergy Connect.

Regards
BharatK