-Lisa- Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Is there a way to create a Work & Turn or Work & Tumble imposition using FP imposer and still be able to use the stacking feature for a variable data job?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian F. Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 I'd like to see it even without the stack option. I've been hoping they would add it ever since I started using FP 2+ years ago. I can't understand why FP Imposer isn't capable of an imposition that is so commonly used in the printing industry. I guess only the digital workflow was considered and not the traditional offset method. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Lisa- Posted December 9, 2009 Author Share Posted December 9, 2009 Ahhh, so I take it this still cannot be done? I had hoped with all the enhancements that had recently been completed that this had been added. Trust me, Brian, I feel your pain. I've been looking for this since we began using Printable. Hopefully at some point (and I sure hope it's sooner than later!) the folks at Printable come through for us! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhilger Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 Hi all, This has certainly come up a number of times and is an enhancement we have discussed. Brian is correct in that FusionPro - being a VDP product - is designed for the digital workflow with the work turn/tumble capability is more applicable to an offset workflow, from what I understand. I am interested to hear from users as to what the intended use is of this feature. Are there any applications to a digital workflow? If so, please detail the workflow so I understand. If this is purely for an offset workflow, are other options such as a 3rd party imposition tool for non-VDP type jobs (QuiteImposing, ImpoStrip, etc) considered? Assuming I understand the workflow and the intention is to make 1 plate for an offset press and then execute a work turn/tumble production, what is the downside to laying out the plate in something like InDesign? Thinking this could be done in a few short minutes (unless I'm not fully understanding the need here). Thanks in advance for your feedback! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Lisa- Posted December 10, 2009 Author Share Posted December 10, 2009 Hi Mark, In our case, we have an Indigo press which has what is called a "3/4 bump". When printing a solid, we need to avoid having the solid print within this area, otherwise banding can occur greatly compromising the quality. In this instance, we would still be within a digital workflow however work & turn would allow us to impose so that the solid area is away from the bump on both sides of the sheet. The project I'm currently working on is indeed a variable data job so I need to run it digitally, and I need to impose accordingly. Unfortunately it looks like at this point I'm going to have no choice but to run the 2nd unit on the sheet within the bump and hope for the best because I cannot provide my Prepress department 2100 1-up PDF's and ask them to impose work & turn. Aside from the lengthly labor, the file is going to require an extremely long time to RIP to press. I just do not have the time or resources available to me to be waiting for this file to get to the press. Usually for our offset needs, we output 1-up PDF's (both from Desktop and/or the Dashboard for our MarcomCentral/web needs), and we impose manually when necesary. I'd much rather be able to automate things and be assured of the file's integrity by having this as an option through FP Imposer. Once a third party (be it another imposition program or an operator) alters that file, the integrity can be compromised and I would much rather not risk something in the file changing or dropping out from the time I pulled it from the Dashboard or composed it in FP Desktop to the time it is sent to my platesetter. I'm happy to answer any questions you might have regarding our current workflow and needs if you need any more information. I actually discussed this many, many years ago with my then-CPM - long before FP Imposer was even developed - so this has been a long term thing for me.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esmith Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 I checked with my pressman since we have an Indigo as well, and I had never heard of a "3/4 bump." My co-worker was familiar with the term, but claims that whenever that issue has come up (which apparently isn't a day-to-day occurrence), he just changes the blanket on the Indigo which fixes the problem. He did indicate that the problem can be more prevalent with lighter colors that have a large coverage area, but that we have always been able to rotate the sheet or alter the hardware to get around the issue. Does HP have any input regarding your situation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhilger Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 Lisa, Thanks for the reply. I think I understand what you are saying but please correct me if I'm wrong. It sounds like there is a certain area on the sheet where you do not want to print solid colors on to get around a banding issue you are seeing. Would it help if you could rotate individual rows/columns of the imposed output 180 degrees so the solid area does not print on that part of the sheet? Say this area is on the outside of the sheet near the edge and that's where the solid is to print. Rotating would put the solid area in towards the center of the sheet vs. the outside. If this is what you are looking for, there is an ability to do this. In FP Imposer, go to the "Layout" area (select on the left side). Now in the preview window where you see the imposed items on the sheet, right click on one of those imposed items in that preview. I believe it's a CTRL-Click on Mac. You should see a menu appear that lets you rotate that item. You can either rotate the individual item (called "signature"), the whole row of items, or the whole column of items. Not sure if this helps in your situation but please let me know. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Lisa- Posted December 11, 2009 Author Share Posted December 11, 2009 Mark - Unfortunately the entire background of the 7 x 10 card we are producing is a solid color. If I rotate the one unit, I will not be able to optimize my press sheet and therefore will be running double the number of sheets (and being charged double the number of clicks) than I need to as well as doubling my run time. Eric - The 3/4 bump is definitely an issue HP is aware of. It's not something that goes away once the blanket is changed - at least not on our model Indigo. Usually as a blanket gets older, the more banding will appear. This is usually resolved when a blanket is changed - but it does not remove the bump. HP is aware of the issue but because it only happens on large solid areas they recommend working around it by altering the imposition so that the solid area does not fall within the bump. That's where the work & turn imposition comes into play. Unfortunately I'm working with a 7 x 10 card. If I rotate the card, I'm only getting 1 out which, as I mentioned to Mark above, is not effective both production-wise and cost-wise. I'm in a lose/lose situation right now.... Thank you both for your continued replies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Lisa- Posted December 11, 2009 Author Share Posted December 11, 2009 OK so I was resorted to the fact that I would have to deal with the 3/4 bump on one unit on each of my press sheets. That is until I was just brought a sheet for approval. And it's beyond terrible. I can't send this job out like this. So here's my thought (and I just asked the question to Support as well).... I can "fudge" a layout by creating a 12 x 18 PDF (my sheet size) with two units and crop marks in position. I can bring that into Desktop and assign my variables (thankfully it's only text). My problem is, when I compose, the composition engine will automatically place the data from Record #1 into both units because it's going to consider Page #1 one large piece of artwork. Does anyone know of a way - maybe with JS? - that I can force the engine to compose two records at once without altering the data file?? There is so much work (including a match mailing) with this piece that I cannot afford to pull apart the data file without causing a major issue come time to mail. I'm desperate for ideas! Thanks in advance! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Korn Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 Does anyone know of a way - maybe with JS? - that I can force the engine to compose two records at once without altering the data file?? Add this to your JavaScript Globals: var PreviousFields = new Object;And then add this in OnRecordStart: if (FusionPro.Composition.inputRecordNumber % 2) { FusionPro.Composition.composeThisRecord = false; for (var prop in FusionPro.Fields) PreviousFields[prop] = FusionPro.Fields[prop]; } else { for (var prop in PreviousFields) FusionPro.Composition.AddVariable(prop + "_Previous", PreviousFields[prop]); } Then for one of the sets of frames (units) in the 2-up template, change the name of each variable you're using in the Text Editor, so that instead of "Name," you're using "Name_Previous," etc. You may need to ensure that you have an even number of records in the data, but other than that, this should work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brew Posted January 29, 2010 Share Posted January 29, 2010 Has this been addressed yet with a feature in Imposer? Right now, we have to use Quite Imposing after the fact. From an automation standpoint, we'd love to be able to have a scenario where we are imprinting 2 up shells, fronts and backs, where on the "front of the sheet, there is Page 1 of Record 1 and Page 2 of Record 2 and so forth. The code posted above is fine if we don't need to cut and stack (in a situation where we need to keep our pieces in order to tray them), so we're constantly messing with data manually and doing something similar to the above code example. Just wanted to "vote" for that feature, since it is a thorn in our sides at times. (Might just be my OCD to want to automated everything, but isn't that what computers are for?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.