Editor’s note: Drupa 2008 promises to feature a host of emerging technologies that will force newspaper production managers to reassess their current modes of operation. Here, consultant Laurel Brunner discusses the differences between digital imaging and computer-to-plate as part of Newspapers & Technology’s exclusive coverage leading up to the quadrennial convention.

Brunner

For printers who need to protect the future of their businesses, direct digital output is the only option. That much is clear, but what is less clear is whether to choose computer-to-plate technology or to invest in a direct imaging press, where the platesetter is built into the press. The decision is not just a question of whether to buy a press with the platesetter built in, versus having a standalone CTP device. Now, more than ever, it is the applications that dictate investment preferences.

Talk to any of the numerous manufacturers of CTP systems and the view is that a digital platesetter is absolutely the only way to go, primarily because there are no format constraints. For Presstek and Screen, the only two manufacturers of both CTP and DI devices, the picture is less clear-cut because it depends on the business requirements. Although CTP tends to outstrip DI, both companies are also seeing steady sales in DI. According to Digital Dots research, there are slightly more than 5,200 DI presses and nearly 20,000 digital platesetters in production worldwide.

Specific uses

Most commercial printers preferring to go with DI have done so to meet very specific business applications, such as support for longer run lengths than a variable data digital press would be used for.

For the most part, such printers invest in DI to provide additional capacity, complementing a variable data digital press, and for medium-run lengths up to 10,000 copies. On the other hand, printers invest in CTP to streamline their workflows, save time and cut consumables costs and do not make the decision based on run lengths.

According to Tim Taylor, marketing director at Screen, “the one market that shows a preference for DI is the digital printer who has started with an Indigo [variable data digital press] or similar. He therefore does not have a CTP device and has found that his digital press is just not competitive on longer runs.”

CTP, he said, continues to grow, with Screen selling more machines last year in Europe than ever before and snagging a market share of about 36 percent. “We still have not seen the predicted drop in sales.”

Presstek Europe DI Director Stan Najmr said DI is attracting interest for short-run color situations.

“The short-run market up to 1,500 copies is best served by the digital type devices because of their ease of use,” he said, while mid-run printers can also reap benefits from the technology due to faster makereadies.

Long-run still remains the province of conventional presses and CTP, he said.

The growing requirement for 4-color print, combined with falling run lengths, increases the attractiveness of a DI press, particularly in the U.S. and European markets.

However, many printers still prefer the flexibility of a CTP system, whether it’s violet or thermal imaging, and the fact that platemaking can be done simultaneously with the press running. This could be a compelling argument for certain markets, particularly for commercial print, but format flexibility also offers considerable appeal. According to Fujifilm, the overall market for CTP will be worth some $3.2 billion by 2008. Projections for the DI market are not publicly available, but are believed to be substantially less than this.

The choice to go with DI or CTP depends entirely on a printer’s customer requirements, and the arguments are compelling for both technologies. There may be preferences from one market to another, but those preferences are dictated above all by the business demands.
 

Laurel Brunner is managing director for Digital Dots, an international consulting group.