Workflow comparison: Heidelberg Prinect, Agfa Apogee, Kodak Prinergy

[gsherrold]

Hello everyone,
We have worked with Trueflow software for several years, but now we decided to change it.
My company is willing to purchase a new one.
I would like to know opinions about which one is the best: Prinect, Apogee or Prinergy.
Our main jobs are books, magazines and leaflefts.
Thanks in advance.

 

[MacTwidget]

I would also suggest looking into RAMPage.

 

[zombie]

Why are you changeing it? It is so bad? What about the cost and learning curve?

 

[rich apollo]

zombie's question is the right one - "Why are you changing it?"

I've run both TrueFlow and Apogee. The last time I looked at TrueFlow, it looked strikingly similar to Apogee, so you might catch onto Apogee more easily.

I liked TrueFlow. It was consistent and repeatable. No surprises. It has some very nice flexibility with impositions that Apogee does not have. For instance, if you need to change your layout - for example to accommodate a paper change - in TrueFlow you simply select the new imposition and go. Apogee has to go through the job again in it's entirety - re-render, re-trap, re-screen, et cetera. Same thing if you want to change the plate curve.

Apogee has no trap editing, per se. But, the automatic trapping is extremely good.

TrueFlow converts incoming PDFs into a proprietary format (at least it used to). Apogee maintains PDF throughout which makes it easy to pop into a page that's all ready in a job and make edits.

TrueFlow has 2nd order stochastic, Apogee only has 1st order. TrueFlow's hybrid screening is WAAAAAAAAYYY different than Apogee's.

I have to do a lot of scaling and shifting of pages within the imposition because I receive a large number of incorrectly sized files. Apogee allows me to do that - I'm not sure if anyone else allows for that.

Apogee is running the Adobe PDF Print Engine. I don't believe TrueFlow is.

Both have good tech support, though I think I'd have to tip the scale slightly in favor to TrueFlow, BUT I was dealing with TrueFlow 5 years ago. A lot could have changed - and I don't have any real complaints with Apogee's tech support. TrueFlow just seemed to have a smaller company feel to it.

So, in the end they both have strengths, they both have weaknesses. The choice totally depends on your needs. TrueFlow has better screening options, flexibility and is super-dependable. Apogee is PDF throughout the workflow, runs on the APPE, has no problems with transparency effects, and has very good auto-trapping. The two workflows seem to be embodiments of the cultures from which they spring. Apogee seems more rigid and to involve more forethought - TrueFlow is looser and allows for greater adjustment on the fly.

Maybe if you laid out your pain-points folks could give more pertinent opinions.

 

[DCurry]

Never worked with Trueflow or Prinect, so I can't offer an opinion on those, but I have worked with Prinergy and currently use Apogee and between those 2, I would pick Prinergy hands down. While Apogee does a good job and is reliable, Prinergy to me just seemed much more flexible, user-friendly and well thought out. Apogee is tricky to configure, and the support documentation could be a lot better.

When I installed and trained on Apogee, I had just come from using Prinergy for about a year and although I can't remember specifics, I do recall being frustrated by the way Apogee handled a lot of things as compared to Prinergy. As previously mentioned above, Prinergy's Trap Editor is awesome. Apogee lets you influence traps, but not really fully control them.

PS, I am using Apogee 6, so if you are looking at 7 there are some improvements I'm sure.

 

[chevalier]

zombie's question is the right one - "Why are you changing it?"...................Maybe if you laid out your pain-points folks could give more pertinent opinions.

Exactly. What's broken with TrueFlow? Being able to know that will permit others to give more useful input.

My background is Apogee, Prinect, Prinect, Creo, Prinect, Prinect, Prinect.

I've evaluated Fuji XMF, Agfa Apogee, Heidelberg Prinect, Kodak Prinergy, Screen TrueFlow and Esko. Each system has strengths and weaknesses.

Prinect can be an awesome product when properly utilized and configured. It can be a horrible headache if you refuse to conform to the way it works or just refuse to learn how to use it to its potential (I've seen all three scenarios first hand). It's been a while since I've imposed a book (I left commercial printing for packaging) but Heidelberg SignaStation was(still is?) hands-down the best imposition program out there for commercial work like you described. If you are utilizing modern Heidelberg presses, folders, cutters, stitcher/binders it will integrate and talk directly to the equipment (reduced makeready/setup, quality-control, etc.). This integration seems to be the focus of Heidelberg Prinect R&D much to the detriment of some common and desperately needed prepress/preflight functionality.

Prinergy is an awesome product with a huge footprint in the industry. I worry what will happen to it with Kodak being in such dire financial condition. A huge software platform requires massive R&D dollars. I suppose the same thing could be said about Heidelberg though.

I haven't seen Apogee in a few generations. It's been around for a long time and has a very loyal user base. Beyond that I don't have much input.

I'd suggest taking a look at Fuji XMF, RAMPAGE and Esko as well so that you have a clear understanding of what is out there and what your options are. It's never a good idea to write other options off without investigation.