XMF is not a true workflow

[cosmo]

We have had XMF installed for a couple of weeks now and I have to say it is not a workflow but a simple system that is overcomplicated.

[michaelejahn]

We have had XMF installed for a couple of weeks now and I have to say it is not a workflow but a simple system that is overcomplicated.

I had to laugh when i read this;

FUJIFILM XMF is the first commercially available product to integrate the next generation Adobe PDF Print Engine, users are not only ensured of increased workflow speed and flexibility but also of a future-proofed modular technology that can grow with their business.

-- from here --> XMF | Fujifilm Global

As I was a product marketing manager at AGFA, I think we shipped a Mac based PDF RIP in 2002 right in their backyard...

Agfa - 過去の情報・Archives

Please share more - I have no real sense of what "simple system that is overcomplicated" means - is that like the make Hot Ice? Or is it "simple" in that it is a bunch of Acrobat Plug-ins, but complicate in that the interface is not intuitive?

[frailer]

Yep, I'd love you to elaborate too, cosmo, as the only thing slowing us from going from Celebrant to XMF at the moment is $$. The hardest thing is that you only really get to assess stuff AFTER you've bought and used it, regardless of vendor.

From what I've been led to believe so far, XMF:
-has a "render last minute" capability, on a page by page basis, due to its now breaking free from the grip of PostScript. (like all APPE 'flows, from other vendors). So, implicitly, it has "late page replacement" capability. In older .ps RIPs this was achieved through messy EPS (FPO replacement), setups. This has now been simplified due to the nature of the new beast.
-has a more-than-adequate imposition capability built in. I've quizzed Fujifilm people here on this, and it would seem to cover 95% of our imposition needs, including such stuff as shingling.

What I do know is that we increasingly have to do workarounds and watch our derrieres on transparency with CS4 files on Celebrant.

Hope this makes some sense.

[Barry Brown]

We have had XMF installed for a couple of weeks now and I have to say it is not a workflow but a simple system that is overcomplicated.

Interesting comment. The word "workflow" is a compound noun; the words "work" and "flow" are both nouns and verbs. The word has many connotations. In order to use a "workflow" you have to know what it is that you want it to do. If you can't do that, and are starting every job from scratch, then you don't really need a workflow.

XMF certainly is a workflow. You need however to start-off by setting-up the defining parameters, working from your press formats and bindery intentions backwards, through screening and colour management considerations, through to input and preflight settings. You need to try and preset every conceivable repetitive task, then only change those on a job-by-job basis if you need to (the exception rather than the rule). Once you've done a specific job once, you can stream any subsequent similar repeat job through the same workflow.

With XMF it's really easy to repurpose any job at the last minute. For example you could have done the job for printing on a B1 press, only to find that that press can't be used and you need to use your B2 press. Not only does that meen a completely plate size and different imposition, but it could mean different dot-gain and colour management too. By exchanging the press icon in the workflow XMF will figure out all the changes and do it automatically. The same goes for splitting a job between offset and digital printing methods.

At the same time I'll comment to Celebrant users. Celebrant is based on the CPSI (PostScript) RIP, so it can no longer reliably RIP the newer PDF formats (it depends whether the designer has used the newer features in the latter versions of pdf ). The rebate value for upgrading from celebrant to XMF is considerable, so I would certainly recommend any Celebrant user to transfer the residual value that you have in Celebrant across to XMF now, while it still has a value! XMF is a modular system; it is certainly possible to trade just the Celebrant RIP across to XMF RIP (XMF Processor), and continue to use the external impostion and 3rd party workflow elements that you used before. Alternatively you can convert XMF to XMF Complete, which has all the functionality expected of a modern cross-media workflow.
regards,
Barry

[cosmo]

Having used XMF for a bit longer now there are a few things that really disapoint me.

1.) Proofing, the ROOM proof option outputs each page or signature as a separate file, so if you had a 100 page book it will make 100 separate pdf of tiff files as your proof, that is just crazy, they need to have it combined into a single file. Also, the descreeing is quite poor, so this plug in is pretty useless, and since it uses the screened raster files, the plate calibration and characterization data are applied to the file, so it would be pointless making a colour match proof from these files unless you adjusted it back into the file in your proofing software, which you would need to adjust everytime you change any calibration, ROOM proof also does not export the spot channels, it converts them to CMYK.

The RIP proof generic proofer does the same thing as ROOM proof, no option for multipage file.

The Generic Digital Printer RIP proof does combine the files into a multipage PDF but outputs it as a JDF file with a filename template you have no control over.

The only way to show trap is to generate rasterised proof.

There is no way to export a vector PDF proof with trapping applied.

The 3D proof option is just the original file made to look like a book, not any rippped or process data so this option is also good for f**k all.

I havent figured out how to output a grayscale proof using any options yet, closest I can get is a pdf with and embedded gray output intent.

Barry, I would like to know what setup you use for your proofing, the best way I have found is to use PDF export with raster option turned for our client email proofs, and export PDF with vector to our digital copiers for mock up proofs and PDF export raster to EFI for inkjet proofing.


2.) Ink pallet settings are very limited, there is no option to overprint a spot colour.
3.) No option to convert some pages to grayscale, only all pages using the output intent of the press.
4.) No built in email for emailing proofs directly from XMF automatically to the client.
5.) Calibration manager, no option for adjusting curves, you need to add or subract the new values against the current values.
6.) Pitstop action lists must be applied to the complete document, not single pages.
7.) It comes with 5 viewer licenses and only 1 editing license as standard, I wasnt aware of this until after we purchased the software, so it means only 1 person can actually edit any jobs at 1 time unless you spend a couple of thousand $ for more licences.
8.) XMF doesnt actually modify the PDF file at all, it just applys settings when it generates raster data, unlike Prinergy which actually edits the PDF file adding traps and converting colours etc.

So with all these problems and others I dont consider it to be a true workflow like Screen or Prinergy.

All in all we are pretty unhappy with the product, its actually a real pain in the ass to set up as well, it is not as good as they tell you it is, it needs a lot of simple improvements. I would recommend Trueflow instead of XMF.

[hazzmatte]

Cosmo,

it's been a few months now. How is XMF working for you? My fuji rep is presenting this workflow because they dropped Trueflow for what he said is bad customer support. Any update would be appreciated.

[mattbeals]

Heck, if you want a truly modular workflow then you should look at PowerSWITCH. You can create a lights out production system or a modular one where you automate tasks that make sense in your environment to automate. Things like sending or receiving emails, FTP, network, getting files from URL's, etc. Taking in different file formats and converting to PDF. Preflight the PDF's with the preflight engine of your choice (Callas or Enfocus), flattening of transparency, managing color. You can integrate with proofing systems from ICS and others. Impose jobs with Quite, Ultimate or Dynagram. You can even use Metrix if you like. Then send the files off to be RIPped and trapped with an existing workflow or using a Harlequin RIP. If you want automated trapping we can plug-in iTrap from Lucid Dream and tie it all together. Proofing is a snap also. Using scripts you can log job status information into your MIS system or create a system status dashboard.

You build a modular workflow with the tools you want and need. You upgrade the workflow with other tools as you need without having to go back to Kodak, Agfa or Fuji. If it's a program that Enfocus PowerSWITCH can control or feed with a hot folder you can add it to your workflow. The workflows can be upgraded any time in a very easy to use way.

[frailer]

Cosmo,

it's been a few months now. How is XMF working for you? My fuji rep is presenting this workflow because they dropped Trueflow for what he said is bad customer support. Any update would be appreciated.

We have been using it for about 4 months now. My 'take' on it may be from a limited viewpoint. We essentially regarded it as a necessary step from CPSI to APPE. (We were on Celebrant). We are not, (currently at least), looking for leaps in automation, as we are a fairly low volume in-house operation, although our content has to be watched very carefully as we do mostly glossy, short-run entertainment printing.
Overall, pretty happy. Ugly/dangerous flattening issues have pretty much disappeared with APPE. Having got used to the on-board imposition, I like it, and it's fully integrated, so late page replacement works really well.
Cosmo is right...beware the imposition license thing. If you have more than 1 operator, and you're a busy place, make sure you push for enough imposition seats. If you have fewer than the number of operators, and it's not on a dedicated machine, someone will have to QUIT the client before someone else can pick it up. A PITA. Reps can undersell this aspect, for their own reasons.
If you've used Dynastrip or PREPS, your learning curve on the impo will not be too bad. Certainly some similarities with Dyna, particularly.
I like the PDF proofing, also the Viewer 3D proofing.
If there are any nitty-gritty things, ask. May be able to answer some stuff.

[hazzmatte]

frailer,

What platform do you use - mac or PC? I also read some stability issues while using a mac.

[frailer]

We have a Windows server (HP), running XMF. All apps, including XMF Clients, are on Mac.

No real stability problems, apart from XMF Client not being compatible with Snow Leopard yet, and a bit sluggish running the Clients on PPC/10.4.11. Snow Leopard fix supposed to be in March.