Prepressforums.com

vikaswalia · #1 (**permalink**) 04-10-2006, 08:35 AM

Please advise if we can output PDF files on brisque 4.2.1 or not.....

vikas

rtwdwk · #2 (**permalink**) 04-10-2006, 08:38 AM

Only if you paid for the lic for it.
Either Normalize or PDF to go, for Raster PDFs

vikaswalia · #3 (**permalink**) 04-10-2006, 08:43 AM

Thanks for replying so quickly.
what do you mean by licence? do i need some special licence for outputting PDF files on brisque?

regards

vikas

PrepressRabbit · #4 (**permalink**) 04-10-2006, 09:00 AM

Outputting pdf from the Brisque sucks. Because it combines the ct and lw into one raster object you end up with either too big of a pdf or one that is not legible. Brisque 5 is somewhat better but still not very good.

gig0 · #5 (**permalink**) 04-10-2006, 10:01 AM

PDF2Go sucks...

DO NOT WASTE MONEY ON THIS LICENSE BECAUSE IT'S GARBAGE!

Use the normalizer instead. It's Brisque's version of Distiller.

rtwdwk · #6 (**permalink**) 04-10-2006, 10:29 AM

I wont get in to the PDF 2 go debate, I will only say that we produce a entire product with PDF to go everyday. We send these files to 17 remote printers and have never had a problem.
Yes file size is a issue.

Nornlizer in Brisque 4 is very dated, based on Acrobat 4
What are you trying to do?
Rip to CT/LW then make a PDF youe need PDF to go
Distill PS on the Brisque to PDF then you need to use normolize module.

mc_hristel · #7 (**permalink**) 04-10-2006, 10:32 AM

Oh, so that's how it works. I knew that they both made PDF's and ones from PDF2Go were crappy but I didn't know what the difference was.

gig0 · #8 (**permalink**) 04-10-2006, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rtwdwk

I wont get in to the PDF 2 go debate

I will.

It's a scam. It doesn't work like it's intended in many cases. Maybe in a controlled environment with inhouse designers using the same template for different products it will work (slowly) but if you have to run a gamut of different jobs from different customers it won't work like was advertised.

It's broke. It can't handle it's own proprietary files. It sucks.

mattbeals · #9 (**permalink**) 04-10-2006, 02:21 PM

It's not that PDF2Go files are crappy, it is that they work best with other CT/LW workflows. All a PDF2Go file is, is the CT & LW files wrapped inside a PDF. Downsampling them for softproofing is a a risky at best solution. If you need a low res PDF then run the incoming PS file through normalizer as a second process. Or, do all that work up front.

PDF2Go work quite well, I published magazines every month with it and TIFF/IT-P1 files too. I also sent PDF2Go files to my QuickMaster DI and didn't have any problems. And we were a general commercial printer...

gig0 · #10 (**permalink**) 04-11-2006, 06:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mattbeals

All a PDF2Go file is, is the CT & LW files wrapped inside a PDF that garbles the CT and LW data

I fixed what you really meant to say Matt

Case in point: http://www.prepressforums.com/module...ig0/PDF2Go.pdf

This is a vector .eps that ripped fine and then exported through PDF2Go using default settings with whatever compression I can turn off. Creo claims PDF2Go files could be used as a soft proof for your customers. You think they won't mind the artifacts?

Note the segments. The eyedropper tool in PitStop won't tell you something is seriously wrong, so use the separations preview. Zoom in by the 'S' in Cavaliers and get your readings by the artifacts. It's not a visual anomaly. It's in the file. Go ahead and rip the pdf.

PDF2Go is broke.