Imagesetters - Alive And Kicking

While digital solutions seem to be the answer to more and more problems, for many in-plants imagesetters are still the best bet.

IF YOU think everybody's gone digital— think again.

While it is indisputable that computer-to-plate (CTP) solutions are the wave of the future, right now there is still some productivity left to be squeezed out of analog-based technology (read imagesetters).

Granted, CTP devices can be fantastic additions for in-plants who already use digitally based systems, but if you aren't already digital—watch out. Building the infrastructure, persuading clients to provide digital files, learning how to imposition on a digital device and learning new software can be time consuming and costly.

"I agree," concurs Dave Carey, film marketing manager, for Agfa. "In today's market, computer-to-plate really is sexy and that takes the hype. And sure there'll be lots of imagesetters that will be replaced in 2001 and moving forward. But the majority of the opportunity, from a manufacturer's perspective, is still imagesetters. It still remains the largest business out there today."

The reason for that is simple: a lot of people still use film. Their clients use it, they use it, everyone's used to it, and it's easier to fix mistakes. The list of advantages goes on and on.

Basically, though, if you're deciding whether or not to stay with an imagesetter or go with a CTP device, the decision hinges on two words: productivity and profitability. There is no reason in the world to "upgrade" to a CTP device if it won't improve your in-plant in one of these two ways.

Bang For The Buck

The first thing to consider when weighing the decision to go CTP is whether or not converting to CTP will actually save you money. Typically, CTP devices cost two to three times more than imagesetters, making ROI more difficult to justify. Plus, an all-digital workflow must be in place—complete with proofing solutions and an imposition scheme—before you can realistically consider replacing a film output device with CTP.

While this doesn't make CTP an impractical choice—Xanté estimates that 40 to 50 percent of small in-plants are considering buying a platesetter in the next two years—it can make it an expensive and difficult choice to master.

"A lot of times what folks need to keep in mind is they might already have facilities in place for imagesetting," explains Kimberly Meyers, marketing manager of CreoScitex. "Whereas if they're going to CTP, now they really need to take a look at the prebake oven, the postbake oven and all the facilities for CTP. In terms of ROI it might be better to keep an imagesetter."

The next thing to consider is how long will it take to master a CTP device. Learning how to imposition files on a CTP device takes time. Furthermore, an in-plant has to consider what percentage of its clients are already submitting digital files and then add in time to educate and migrate the others toward a CTP solution.

But staying film-based can help here too. By purchasing an imagesetter that can output polyester plates, in-plants can buy time to help prepare both staff and customers alike for a switch to digital, while saving money and building employee skills.

Too often in-plants see visions of sugarplum fairies when they think about eliminating stripping and burning film. But what they don't consider is how long it will take to master a CTP workflow and train their customers to begin submitting jobs digitally.

The Need For Speed

After you've assessed whether or not you can afford to implement a CTP device, the next step is determine whether or not it will actually improve your prepress production time.

Although most CTP devices can output around 20 plates an hour, ready for press, many imagesetters can image up to 40 impositioned flats an hour. Even with additional time added for stripping and burning, platesetters just can't compete with this kind of output, especially at such a comparatively low price.

"Just because of staff experience in the pressroom your imagesetter is probably going to be a bit faster," observes Meyers of CreoScitex. "The other thing is, if there is a mistake it's easy to burn a piece of film, strip that in and burn your new plate and you're up and running, where on a CTP device you're burning that entire new plate."

However, this flexibility isn't limited to fixing mistakes, with a film-based system you always have the opportunity to stream in additional material, making imagesetters not only faster but more versatile.

Is There A Future?

But not everyone agrees that imagesetting is viable, or even necessary. In fact, some vendors take issue with the idea that there is much of a market for imagesetting at all.

"The percentage which uses hardcopy to duplicate is so slim," counters Arthur Verwey, vice president of world wide marketing for Xanté. "And even if a customer is running in with a hardcopy, these shops they have their computers, they have their scanners, so they scan the document and print it on the plate after that. They make it digital."

Nevertheless, Dean Meyer, product manager of output systems for Heidelberg USA, sees it differently.

"Overall, computer-to-film is going down, but not as quickly or dramatically as we thought. The reason for that is there is still a fairly high entry-level price into CTP, when you're talking metal. I have to say when you look at some of these imagesetters they're pretty quick, and when you put a polyester plate into some of these film recorders, then you have a CTP device that's faster than any of the metal ones."

by Allan Martin Kemler