Nexus versus Prinergy EVO

[Joe]

Originally Posted by madmac

I didn't think Prinergy was PDF 1.6 complaint ( meaning it flattens any transparencies from Adobe products)

Where as Artpro and Nexus can handle these PDF features and Nexus Total Rip can separate them straight to tif with out flattening.

As from the support side which is what you all seem to be knocking. from what I have read it all seems to be about support in the US in the UK we don't seem to have these issues.

Nexus isn't all that super with transparency and their solution is to sell Odystar to you...which is a crap.

Total RIP takes at the very least twice as long to separate and rasterize. At this point it is unusable in our production workflow. Never fear though...Belgium is working on the problem.

[madmac]

Originally Posted by macdevin

PDF 1.5 is needed for transparencies not 1.6.

Your local support must be better, but the bad updates and slow respones comes from HQ. The Boys on the phone here are over taxed, and managment seems like they care, but can resolve nothing. They Blame HQ. I blame HQ, If HQ knew of the issue either with them or with the US staff it should have been fixed.

Devin

I am not sure about blaming HQ because some of what I have read on here about what US office has told them just hasn't seemed right. From what I know about the software so I think perhaps some of the support guys might not be as good or informed about the software as the yshould be. But that is just what it has seemed reading some of the posts on here.

A for PDF it is PDF 1.4 which gives transparency 1.5 adds layer support and JPEG 2000 compression and I can't remember what you get in 1.6.

Joe Nexus rip is a Postscript rip and as such flattens the effects before ripping them. It is Total Rip which is the PDF rip and that will separate a file to tif either 8bit for your proofer or 1 bit for plates.

Not sure about Odystar as not used it. But as for the companies handling of the effects I haven't seen anything else as good. Adobe certainly can't handle the effects they just make flatten it to CMYK and you loose all you spot info.

My original question was I didn't think that Prinergy could handle the transparencies which would mean they get flattened which is not always right.

It is still early days for PDF rips AWS make one as do Harlequin not sure if anyone else does make a complainant one a lot say they are compatible but that just means they flatten the effects and then run it as postscript.

[Joe]

Originally Posted by madmac

Joe Nexus rip is a Postscript rip and as such flattens the effects before ripping them. It is Total Rip which is the PDF rip and that will separate a file to tif either 8bit for your proofer or 1 bit for plates.

Not sure about Odystar as not used it. But as for the companies handling of the effects I haven't seen anything else as good. Adobe certainly can't handle the effects they just make flatten it to CMYK and you loose all you spot info.

My original question was I didn't think that Prinergy could handle the transparencies which would mean they get flattened which is not always right.

It is still early days for PDF rips AWS make one as do Harlequin not sure if anyone else does make a complainant one a lot say they are compatible but that just means they flatten the effects and then run it as postscript.

Yes, I know Total RIP is the PDF RIP...and it is soooooo slooooooooooow that it is unusable in a production eviroment. One of the solutions offered up by AWS is to flatten the imposed PDF in Odystar and then send it through Total RIP. Doesn't that defeat the purpose of Total RIP? If I flatten it I could send it through Nexus RIP and keep my $15,000 they charged us for Total RIP.

[macdevin]

True that 1.4 is the first version that supports transparencies but their our to many issues with 1.4 with complex transparencies. You should use 1.5 or 1.6 with nexus if you want some what good results.

Now on to HQ. The Only reason why I put most of the blame on them is two fold.
A. They are the BOSS, it's there jobs to make sure the US support represents them. If the US is to blame for having long wait times they should fixit! Poor staff training is an easy fix.
B. Updates/patches are from HQ. The updates are slow to come, proper beta testings is lacking.

I don't see the need for a Total RIP solution in our shop. Speed is a huge issue and it sounds like it's over priced.
From what I understand Total RIP keeps the files as a PDF for trapping, but why does a shop need this?

Nexus can do vector trapping so why Total RIP?

Devin

[Joe]

Devin,

Nexus is touting Total RIP for processing PDF files with transparency and never flattening them as it will separate PDF's that are unflattened. Bring in a PDF, trap it, impose it, (no CT & LW's...you get a low res link that is linked to your trapped PDF) and then rasterize through Total RIP and it never gets flattened. It does work but it's a BIG performance hit. It chokes our dual 2.4 ghz box with 4 gb ram.

I actually heard back from support this evening and they said the "lead" RIP developer is working on the problem and says it shouldn't be any slower than Nexus RIP. Evidently they don't test these things before they release them. It's great to be able to pay them to be their beta testers! :cry:

Joe

[macdevin]

Originally Posted by Joe

Devin,

Nexus is touting Total RIP for processing PDF files with transparency and never flattening them as it will separate PDF's that are unflattened. Bring in a PDF, trap it, impose it, (no CT & LW's...you get a low res link that is linked to your trapped PDF) and then rasterize through Total RIP and it never gets flattened. It does work but it's a BIG performance hit. It chokes our dual 2.4 ghz box with 4 gb ram.

I actually heard back from support this evening and they said the "lead" RIP developer is working on the problem and says it shouldn't be any slower than Nexus RIP. Evidently they don't test these things before they release them. It's great to be able to pay them to be their beta testers! :cry:
Joe

One would think it would be faster since there is less steps.
What bothers me about this is it's not a locked down format! PDF's can be changed. maybe it's old school for me to think and love CT/LW. I've just seen where you can get bit. I guess maybe the time Total RIP 4.0 is out they may have the bugs fixed

I will need to take a look at it when I'm at the Expo this year. Is the trapping the same as a vector trapping? I hope not, as vector trapping can suck, but it can get you out of a pinch.

Thanks for the info Joe!!
Devin

[Joe]

I've only ran a few files through the Total RIP trapping and it looked okay but then I'm not picky as most of my stuff goes on newsprint. What we're supposed to be doing is trapping the PDF's in Odystar and imposing, then coming out of Odystar with an unflattened trapped PDF for Total RIP to separate. Great theory but there is a lot wrong going down that path with Odystar and Total RIP.

[madmac]

In the UK don't know anyone who still use CT/Line work anymore. All trapping is done as vector as results are far better IMHO.

You talk about the fact that PDFs are still editable that is the benefit as you can repurpose the file at a later date. Also your PSTI files are editable in Insight.

I agree Total Rip is slower than Nexus.

I don't see why they are saying flatten your file in Odystar when Nexus can flatten the file in the Interpreter and I would have thought results should be the same as all the same technology. The Odystar tapping is virtually the same as the 4-stage trapper in ArtPro or Nexus.

[macdevin]

Originally Posted by madmac

In the UK don't know anyone who still use CT/Line work anymore. All trapping is done as vector as results are far better IMHO.

You talk about the fact that PDFs are still editable that is the benefit as you can repurpose the file at a later date. Also your PSTI files are editable in Insight.

I agree Total Rip is slower than Nexus.

I don't see why they are saying flatten your file in Odystar when Nexus can flatten the file in the Interpreter and I would have thought results should be the same as all the same technology. The Odystar tapping is virtually the same as the 4-stage trapper in ArtPro or Nexus.

There is now way nexus vector trapping is better. CT/LW trapping is so much faster you have more control. Vector trapping still has major issuess.

I don't want a file that can change once the proof goes out. I wan't it locked down and with CT/LW you get this. I'm not for a NORM workflow.

[Joe]

Originally Posted by madmac

In the UK don't know anyone who still use CT/Line work anymore. All trapping is done as vector as results are far better IMHO.

You talk about the fact that PDFs are still editable that is the benefit as you can repurpose the file at a later date. Also your PSTI files are editable in Insight.

I agree Total Rip is slower than Nexus.

I don't see why they are saying flatten your file in Odystar when Nexus can flatten the file in the Interpreter and I would have thought results should be the same as all the same technology. The Odystar tapping is virtually the same as the 4-stage trapper in ArtPro or Nexus.

Total RIP doesn't use the interpreter and Nexus RIP fails with the dreaded "Unsupported PDF 1.4 transparency" error on PDF files with transparency. If you do turn on the PDF flattener in the interpreter I've had less than stellar results.