Discussion

By Tim Henschel on Aug 12, 2010

Adam,
I really enjoyed yesterday’s Webinar. The live polling you did on “What’s your next big equipment investment” was a cool feature.
However, the results that were shown during the Webinar are different from above. Am I missing something? Can you explain the differences? I went back and looked and you had the following as the poll result during the Webinar:

Offset press = 6%
Digital press= 43%
Production Inkjet = 24%
Wide format or super wide format = 6%
Mailing equipment = 6%
Bindery equipment = 14%

Thanks,
Tim

By Adam Dewitz on Aug 12, 2010

After the webinar we recalculated the results after removing responses from vendors. The numbers reported are based on the responses of printers. I've updated the post to clarify the discrepancy.

By Eddy Hagen (VIGC) on Aug 13, 2010

The poll reflects what is being talked about in the press, in other places. And there is one thing that isn't sexy to talk about: offset printing.

However: if you look at the demos that were shown at Ipex, a few months ago, printing companies should seriously look at the newest generation of offset presses. As Andy Tribute reported in one of his first video reports on Ipex: Heidelberg showed a demo of 3 jobs, all 600 sheets, with complete plate changes in a time span of... only 10 minutes! That's production. It's not the sexy inkjet, but it is real production. With a quite mature technology, with known consumables. And what you need today in your company, is not a technology with a lot of potential in the future, it is a solution that will generate money, from the day it has been installed.

Don't get me wrong: inkjet does have a lot of potential and you can do things with it that you can't do with offset or toner. But when investing in production equipment you need to have a production tool, not a just some 'sexy' technology that everybody is talking about.

So when looking at 'production inkjet', do look at 'production offset' and compare the two, on productivity levels, on cost, on possibilities and make your own evaluation.

By Michael Jahn on Aug 13, 2010

I was unable to attended this, and need to thank WTT for both organizing this and also posting this so we can watch it.

I have no idea if the mentioned this, but to me, the "next big thing" a printer should be taking a hard look at investing in is a web site (AKA Web2Print) that is designed as a project dashboard for current and prospective customers, and beginning to look into APIs like the ones offered by companies like Mimeo.

New to W2P ?
http://thewebandprint.com/web-to-print/implementation-3-reasons-to-pilot/

Already started with APIs, but never heard of Mimeo, and wonder how they can help ?
http://www.mimeo.com/solutions/mimeo-connect.php

Hope this helps - now, off to watch that video !

By Howie Fenton on Aug 13, 2010

As someone one conducts a lot of surveys these are still somewhat puzzling numbers to me because it says that almost 1/3 people will be looking for something called "production inkjet". I don't think that means the 1/3 will be looking to spend $2-10 million on an inkjet press. I suspect a large portion is looking for a large format inkjet printer (for signage) and a smaller portion looking for an inkjet press.

By Roland on Aug 13, 2010

Have you done this poll before?

I wonder how it has changed from last year and the years before.

By Buck Crowley on Aug 15, 2010

Comparing ‘production inkjet’ to ‘production offset’, Inkjet is actually very mature. It is the same technology used in very high volume large-format and desktop for 15 years now. Your desktop inkjet, that inexpensive 8ppm printer, is moving the cartridge at 200fpm. The industrial versions just move the paper instead and put several cartridges beside each other.

Quality?
Look at your family photos on your desktop.

Inkjet ink types and media?
Consider large format, print-on-anything, including UV inks that have been in high volume production for many years. (While at Graph-Expo, time the large format inkjet head speeds, you may be surprised.)

Ink cost?
Offset ink is say 30% dispersants, 60% oil.
Inkjet ink is less than 10% dispersants, and up to 95% water.
Which do you think will end up being much less expensive?

There is nothing technical standing in the way of high speed (800fpm), high quality (600dpi), zero setup, zero waste, push-button printing.

By next year at Graph Expo 2011, the on press inkjet modules the bigger companies have now will be commonly replacing traditional printing units, adding new life to your existing paper processing iron.
Buck at BuckAutomation.com

By Eddy Hagen (VIGC) on Aug 18, 2010

@ Buck: inkjet has a very wide spectrum of applications, going from coding of boxes, over photographic prints, proofing, lfp/wfp, even to printing of human tissue. Depending on that application, it is very mature (coding application), or not at all. So we need to be very specific when discussing the productivity of 'inkjet'. When I hear 'production inkjet', I think about the claims of e.g. the B2 inkjet presses replacing sheetfed offset. So please read my comments with that in mind.

'Production': let's compare the two B2 inkjet presses with a 'regular' offset press of the same size. The Screen Truepress Jet SX does 1620 simplex B2/hour, the Fujifilm JetPress 720 does 2700 sheets/hour. A similar size offset press does 15000 sheets/hour. With job changes of just a few minutes, even (very) small runs can be done on those machines.

Quality: the desktop photos may look great, but that's only on special paper, with an appropriate coating. And printing (small) text with it doesn't give you the same sharp, crips quality that offset gives.

Ink cost: the argument that inkjet ink will be the least expensive because it contains up to 95% water isn't a real argument (btw: in many regions of the world water is really expensive). What matters is the cost of the pigments/dyes that are put on the paper to get the same visual impression. I could even argue the contrary of your argument: you need to transport 95% of 'waste' from the ink factory to the printer... The water is a necessity in some inkjet applications (please don't forget that not all inkjet is water based... there is also solvent based an UV-curable), but it doesn't bring any added value to the end product. So I could argue that you have to take into account the logistics part, the transportation cost of that 95%.

And touching the water issue: that is one of the real challenges when going into 'production inkjet' with water based inks. You need to get rid of that water once you've put the ink on the paper. Which will take a lot of energy. In my opinion, energy consumption, energy cost will be the next 'big thing' in the industry (some vendors were already advertising the energy consumption at Ipex). Making that 95% water disappear will cost you a lot of energy (here the Xerox technology demo at Ipex has a real advantage: no extra energy needed for drying the ink).

And drying the water based inks is not the only issue: paper doesn't like water. If you have looked at the finished book samples at the HP booth (the 'Wine Lover's Guide to Italy', printed with their T200 Color Inkjet Web Press), you will know what I mean. You could easily identify, from a meter away, the pages with high ink coverage: they curled like hell. A book showing this would probably be rejected by many publishers (at least here in Europe).

So: there is still some work to be done if inkjet wants to replace sheetfed offset. And don't forget: also 'old' technology still evolves.

In other areas (like WFP/LFP, special substrates, ...) of course inkjet is the main, often the only realistic option.

By Buck Crowley on Aug 18, 2010

Hello Eddie,
I appreciate your point of view and all your points are valid. They remind me of that old story outlining the compelling pitch as to why a horse was better that the first autos. This logic causes the less knowledgeable to miss why it is that the big and innovated printers are buying so much production inkjet, even in this terrible economy. It is because the big picture and the fundamentals make a compelling case for inkjet. 64% said their Next Big Equipment Investment was Digital Press and Production Inkjet. 64%!! I pioneered, patented and commercialized many breakthroughs in production printing. I always hate it when those who miss out on technologies fade away and are not around to enjoy the celebration party,

By Erik Nikkanen on Aug 18, 2010

Buck, were most of your patents issued under the name of H W Crowley?
There were a lot under that name.

Thanks. Just curious.

By Buck Crowley on Aug 18, 2010

Hello Erik,
Yes HW is my real name, Buck is easier to say.
Regards,
Buck

By Eddy Hagen (VIGC) on Aug 19, 2010

Buck: your comparison with the horse/car pitch is not a valid one. Those 'horse loving people' were laughing at cars. I'm not laughing at inkjet. I'm even a strong believer in the potential of inkjet. Certainly piezo DoD.

But at this moment, people who are going to invest in something 'full color' on paper at GraphExpo should certainly look at the advancements in offset printing. And do the math.

VIGC, the organisation that I work for, is an independent not for profit that support printers with advise on technological issues. From time to time we are contacted by people that are not happy with the investments that they made (both digital and traditional): "It doesn't work the way it should." Our first question is always if they tested it up front. "No...". Did they give a list with requirements to the vendor? "No...". So why did they buy it? "Because we read that this was the best, newest, most promising technology..." Such wrong investments can really hurt companies, even break them, certainly in bad economic times. And this is the harsh reality that we are confronted with on a regular basis.

When interpreting the results of the poll, be careful when adding up 'digital press' and 'production inkjet'. There is a wide array of non inkjet digital presses. You can't compare a Xeikon 8000 (the x-th generation) with a Fujifilm JetPress 720 (the first generation). But even when you do add them up, it perfectly illustrates my case: there is so much rumour, so much fuss about that 'production inkjet', that people are neglecting that other option: sheetfed offset. Which made huge efficiency gains over the last years. And I don't want any printer to miss out on that celebration party! I know multiple printers who did invest in new, fully automated (incl. inline color control) offset presses over the last 2 years (yes, in very bad economic times) and they are doing really, really well with them. Really productive (and therefor cheaper in production): very fast job changes, up to color in no time (<100 sheets), very stable color (thanks to inline controls) which mean less troubles with customers on color. Those are the guys that are surviving, even thriving in this terrible economy.

So before investing in technology, people should really research themselves whether it fits their business, whether the quality is what they need, whether the productivity level is what they want. And if they can get a real ROI. All of this based on actual jobs that they already have. Not fancy vendor presentations. Or nice articles, blog posts. Or hearsay. Or because something is supposed to be 'the next big thing'.

BTW: on your horse/car comparison: in many parts of the world horses (or oxes, mules, etc) are still used and that's not always because they can't afford a car/tractor. In some 'applications' it's still the best fit. E.g. in forestry they have recently seen that getting the cut trees out of the forest is best done by horses: way much better for the soil and therefor the forest. So new technology isn't always, in all cases better...

By Erik Nikkanen on Aug 20, 2010

Eddy,

I am a big supporter of the potential of the offset process but I can see how inkjet can develop into a technology that would replace a lot of offset use. I also think the fault of that happening sits with the attitude of the offset technical community.

Every now and then, I look through patents on my particular interest area, which is the density control problem in offset presses. What I tend to see are patents of the same concept being done over and over again decade after decade. Many of these patents are not workable. The few patents that are an attempt to take a new direction are clumsy and demonstrate a lack of understanding of the fundamental technical problem and commercial requirements.

Just recently I did this exercise looking at one of the major press manufacturers and I have to say that there are no significantly good ideas in the pipeline. When one reads patents and if one already understands some of the fundamental issues, it becomes quite clear how companies are thinking and what level of knowledge they have.

As you say, a lot of progress has been made in productivity. That is good. You bring up an example of in line colour control and the resulting makereadies of less than 100 sheets. One could also bring up the Anicolor press concept that has no high tech and expensive in line colour control technology but comes up to colour in 10 to 20 sheets. Anicolor is IMO not the future but it clearly shows that the design of the press has a huge impact on its capability.

Why has the industry gone to in line color control systems? Some reasons are that it has not made a big effort to understand why there is variation and what are the requirements for accurate presetting. And because there has been no interest to understand these critical issues, technologies are applied that don't require an understanding of those issues.

Who is at fault? Well there is a long list. Press manufacturers, graphic arts institutions, printers, and even the German engineering schools that are specifically related to printing technology. The resistance to new thinking by these groups is tremendous and it has only resulted in the stagnation of knowledge that is specifically required to move the offset process forward in order to defend itself from inkjet.

Every time the industry defends itself against criticism that it is not open to new ideas, it puts another nail in its own coffin. Stop defending yourselves and open up and try ideas and concepts that you don't yet understand.

Inkjet may win only because the offset community has a huge resistance to think differently.

By Eddy Hagen (VIGC) on Aug 22, 2010

Erik, don't get me wrong: I'm also a strong believer in the potential of inkjet. But the poll, this discussion is about what people are going to invest in at GraphExpo. That's now. That's with the current state of technology.

In let's say 5 years the situation can be very different.

And that's what people really need to separate: the current situation (for making investments, for writing cheques to vendors) and the future (for making strategic decissions, also on technology).