It is a strange situation but the two leading Japanese prepress and inkjet suppliers that normally cooperate in their marketing and distribution have both come up with new products that are very similar, and it appears that neither company knew of the other company's developments. The interesting this is both companies are in the same hall at drupa with the new products facing each other across the aisle. These developments are both sheet fed inkjet B2 format presses to print in offset quality. The first of these companies is Fujifilm with their JetPress 720 press and now we have Dainippon Screen introducing their new Truepress JetSX. Both presses are built upon an offset press platform onto which is grafted a four-color inkjet print engine. Both have a pre-coating module to coat the standard offset paper to allow for the ink to stay on the top of the paper rather than sinking into it. Both printers cannot perfect (duplex for digital people) without having to unload the printed sheets and put them back through the press and print the second side.
At present I have been unable to have a look at output from both presses, both of which are scheduled for delivery in 2009. The Screen press is the slower of the two with a speed of 1,600 sheets per hour of a maximum size of 530 x 740 mm, roughly the same as the Fujifilm press that does 2,700 sheets/hour. This means the new Truepress JetSX handles around 106 A4 images/min compared with the 180 of the Fujifilm press.
I will write an article later looking at the market potential of these two devices compared with the B3 format electro-photographic devices in the market today. We expect a big announcement from Xerox later today so I will include this in my assessment.
Discussion
By John Galto on May 29, 2008
A few years ago Frank Romano talked about how inkjet had the greatest potential to replace offset lithography for smaller runs. The Screen and Fujifilm press are doing that literally by building on an offset press frame. If the products are as cost effective as offset lithography, then soon the pressroom will have two kinds of inks. But what do we do with the electrophotographic digital presses? Will their higher quality than inkjet be their value or are they a bridge technology? Can inkjet technology ever produce the image quality of electrophotographic digital presses?
By Sam on May 29, 2008
I think electrophotography has in fact been relegated to a bridge technology, and what Kodak is showing for example with their STREAM technology is evidence that inkjet will be in fact capable of producing image quality that rivals both EP and offset. HP's new inkjet web press is very interesting, but I hear that at least today it is not capable of producing offset-class quality. This product I understand will be better suited for the transpromo market, at least when it is first introduced. I'd love to hear if anyone else has viewpoints or information that differs from this.
By swarnangka on May 31, 2008
Hi John
I have been lucky enough to touch and feel the Stream Concept press from Kodak see it running and examine teh samples. Its true production machine which produces offset class quality...at 500 fpm. I am amazed by this.Its nota bridge technology its the future.
By Erik Nikkanen on Jun 01, 2008
The real battle that is going on is for the future technology of printing. This is what we are seeing and of course the battle has been going on for a long time. Now we have the arrival of fantastic ink jet and toner technologies but let's put things into perspective. What is really behind all this technical development and where will it go.
Of course, if the goal is to have variable print then it is logical that offset is not going to meet that need. But if we think of the great battle taking place in the non variable printing camps, then it really seems to come down to a battle of other printing processes against offset lithography. Offset lithography is the standard all other processes are being compared with.
One can reduce every printing process to the fundamental task of placing a consistent amount of pigment in a consistent location. If that can be done, then colour management can be applied, which will result in the capability of reproducing images. The better technical control one has over the amount and placement of the pigment, the better one can reproduce an image.
The battle for the future printing technology will not just be restricted to the above technical capability of the process. It will more importantly be related to the ratio of performance to cost and to the risk of ownership. Performance issues would be the speed, consistency and predictability of the process. Cost issues would be related to the price and resale value of technology, waste, materials, energy, labour and maintenance. Risk of ownership issues would be related to future support of a technology that might become obsolete. Think of how many of the older computer related technologies are not supported now.
In one camp, we have very talented and innovative engineers, who are producing very remarkable technologies with ink jet or toner systems. In the traditional offset camp, we have not so talented and not so innovative engineers, who have not fundamentally changed the inking process in several decades.
Over the years, we have had new technologies introduced with limited success. Waterless, keyless, single fluid inks, etc. The main existence for all of these attempts was to avoid addressing the problems that lithographic offset presses have had with controlling density or specifically in controlling the amount of ink being applied to the plate at all locations. This weakness in performance is due to the lack of understanding and innovation by the engineers in the traditional offset camp to design out the factors that cause these problems. These factors are related to the problems with ink feed, ink presetting and ink film management on the rollers. Correcting these problem factors in offset presses would also result in lower cost technology.
So even if we marvel at the fantastic technical developments in the jet and toner camps, this does not guarantee that it will eventually win the battle for the future printing technology. If offset lithography is the standard now, what would it be if the faults were designed out of the process? If offset was very predictable, consistent and easy to operate, would there be any interest to run waterless or keyless? Would the high tech suppliers of ink jet and toner systems invest in an attempt to replace a very fast, dependable and low cost existing process? I think this very interesting battle has a long way to go and the outcome is not certain.
By Greg Imhoff on Jun 02, 2008
Erik makes positive points and so once digital presses prove standard color consistency to match offset imaging resolution abilities wit: digital camera acceptance by the customer then business will follow.
Offset is the standard that others compare to for many reasons most notably quality and efficiencies and this bar keeps moving up. This brings us back to the known need for proven color consistencies as the one true measuring bar of client acceptability.
Printing is both revolutionary and evolutionary so to choose one technology over another today may be a true Hobson’s Choice. It really is more about manufacturing to efficiently satisfy market demands.
Companies such as FUJI and Kodak are investing in each market along with Oce, Xerox and HP to challenge Heidelberg, MAN Roland, KOMORI et al. Lets remember the reality of the end user is driving our industry, as opposed to the other way around. This is about fulfilling color communications for repro branding needs.
Producing color consistently profitably matters. Global standardization helps to affordably achieve in either choice. The best choice then may be to apply GRACoL G7 and or ISO 12647-2 standardization as more is at stake than just choosing an “output” investment.
Patrick Henry from wtt.com sums this well in his 5/27 posting : … “I think that in the contrast between these two outcomes, we hear all that we need to hear about the urgency of bringing process automation and the techniques of digitally integrated manufacturing to printing. From now on, more than any other factor, digital automation will spell the difference between printing companies that continue in business and those that pass from the scene.” …
Our industry is about updating technology to efficiently produce and satisfy customer needs knowing this is a manufacturing based business. The tools of the future are present now for both old presses and new processes where new presses may be the result, rather than other way around.
Printers who use their Gray Matter with client needs in mind normally win. Likewise for suppliers to printers.
Sincerely,
Greg Imhoff (708) 557 –2021
President GRIPdigital, inc.
www.gripdigital.com
By Jan Eskildsen on Jun 05, 2008
Greg has a good point. In the report for Canon (The Insight Report - digital printing directions), Frank Romano states, that 76% of the customers find quality in digital print satisfying, while 67% of the printers disagree.
We might see printers go away, because of their obstinacy.
By the way: Fujifilm is not first, they're not printing with "the box" at their stand - Screen is, also with a web fed inkjet printer, that seems to produce high quality.
Discussion
Join the discussion Sign In or Become a Member, doing so is simple and free