Because of the problems I have encountered in creating an imposed PDF from the resources I have (CS4, Acrobat 7.1, and a temporary license for Quite Imposing), I'm going to try a different method, solely using CS4. I'm not convinced Acrobat 7.1 is a suitable vehicle for my requirements.
Here's the idea:
1. Export the whole document to PDF. In the case of a document with ''text on a path'' after page 70, I will have to export in segments.
2. Using a modified version of the PlaceMultiPagePDF.jsx script, impose the PDF as the pages are placed back into a new InDesign document. If I can't find someone to modify the script, I'll use the existing script and manually rearrange.
3. In the case of a segmented PDF (''text on a path problem''), I'll create several new InDesign documents and combine.
4. Print on the iGen from this imposed InDesign document.
QUES 1
Setting aside any question of problems with the iGen handling transparency (it doesn't appear to have any for PDFs, if the test print I have just received back is any indication); are there any issues in general with printing an InDesign file composed solely of PDFs, as compared with printing an ''exported to PDF'' version?
QUES 2
When an InDesign file that contains only PDFs is exported to PDF, does InDesign have to do much? For instance, exporting a 3.5 GB, 800-page, non-PDF-containing document takes an hour or more. For an identical-looking document that contains only PDFs, will that export quicker? Or does InDesign have to break down the PDFs, and then convert them to PDF?
I'm hoping a scriptwriter might like to tackle the modified script mentioned in (2) above. I have posted further details at:
http://forums.adobe.com/message/2219778#2219778
Thoughts on another method of imposing...Hi Guy,
I think you would be better off using Quite rather than re-frying the
pdf in InDesign.
Why do you think otherwise?
Harbs
Thoughts on another method of imposing...Hi Harbs,
What do you mean by ''refrying'' a PDF in InDesign. Is it undesirable to reimport a PDF that has already been exported? Why? Are images degraded?
I have archived my preliminary test results at Mediafire if you want to have a look:
http://www.mediafire.com/?xzmoeyiz4mj
It includes the InDesign file from which I generated the various PDFs, and it also contains some of the PDFs. Take a look if you want to see what a mess Acrobat 7.1 can make of things. I'm pretty certain that InDesign %26gt; PDF %26gt; InDesign couldn't possibly be any worse -- and a whole lot neater and quicker.
I don't really understand what is going on. All I know is that generating a distilled PDF that has grayscale transparency, and then trying to analyse it in Acrobat, results in a muddle. Here are my thoughts so far, taken from a file that is included in the archived version. It's me, talking to me, for future reference.
Transparency Testing
Testing an InDesign file being converted to PDF by exporting or distilling, using either CMYK or RGB mode, then additionally flattened in Acrobat and/or imposed with Quite Imposing.
Tested on an InDesign file called Test Transparency.
閳?File names indicate the Transparency Blend Mode used (RGB or CMYK); and whether
閳?Exported or Distilled; and whether
閳?Flattened in Acrobat; and whether
閳?Imposed with QI
1. Test RGB Export. No problems with text or images.
2. Test RGB Export (flattened). Problems: When the raster/vector slider was set to 100 for flattening, the drop shadow on the colour image and the B%26amp;W image became CMYK (previously it was black only), and all the sliced transparent images also became CMYK. The B%26amp;W images remained as ''K''.?When the slider was set to 0, the grayscale images were also converted to CMYK. This is unacceptable for me, because of the additional costs associated with B%26amp;W images unnecessarily being converted to colour.
3. Text RGB Export was imposed with Quite Imposing. All the images, all the text, and the drop shadows became CMYK as indicated by the Output Preview. Yet Preflight ''non-B%26amp;W'' did not report the B%26amp;W images (or text) as CMYK, but it did report a new item as colour -- a thing called Form XObject.
This is confusing. I suspect what has happened is that during imposition, QI (or Acrobat) has placed this Form XObject around the entire original page, and it appears to me to be a thing that carries transparency. Why do I think that? Because when I tried to edit one of the B%26amp;W images that originally did not carry transparency, I was warned via a dialog box that it was now transparent, and to be aware of making changes.
So what has happened to my B%26amp;W image under imposition?
閳?Output Preview reports CMYK values all over the image; yet
閳?''Not B%26amp;W'' does NOT report it as colour;
閳?Trying to edit the image reports it as transparent; yet it was not transparent to start with;
閳?When I do open it in Photoshop, it opens as Grayscale.
What a mess. All I want to know is how is it going to print: CMYK or K. Acrobat/QI have done something to my B%26amp;W images that make Acrobat unable to clearly tell me what colour numbers the image contains. And that's unacceptable to me.
4. Test CMYK Export. No problems with text or images, except the B%26amp;W images were obviously washed out compared to the RGB version. This is unacceptable; the colour numbers appear to have been changed (yet to be confirmed in PS).
5. Test CMYK Exported (flat, 100): No problems. Text black, images as they should be, drop shadow black. But -- and this is confusing because it is different to the result in No 3 in terms of reporting colour. This time, Output Preview says the B%26amp;W images (and text) are K only; Preflight ''non B%26amp;W'' does not report them as colour (so far so good); but it does report the original transparent B%26amp;W image as colour (it is K only). I opened it in PS to check, and it was CMYK mode, but K only. So Preflight says they are colour, yet they are K only. Again, Preflight is reporting information that is confusing. Even if an image is CMYK, if it is K only it should not be reported as colour.
6. Test CMYK Exported (imposed). Seems okay, but Preflight reported five objects as not B%26amp;W (only four of them were originally colour). Four of the objects are correctly reported, but one (called Form XObject), is a new one and covered the whole page. It seems to be a thing with transparency that applies transparency to the entire page, because when I selected objects that didn't originally have tranparency, they now do have tranparency. Very confusing.
Testing still uncompleted.
I have just done some tests to compare first generation and second generation PDFs.
閳?By ''first generation'' I mean a PDF exported from InDesign.
閳?By ''second generation'' I mean that the first generation PDF is Placed into the same InDesign document from which it came, and then exported with the same settings as the first one.
The PDF had text in various colours and sizes, large areas of filled colour, vectors drawn with the Line Tool, an RGB image, and colour gradient fades. When I compared the two file sizes, they were: 14,720,140 versus 14,720,137. That might be accounted for by the time difference when I saved them. When I compared them with Acrobat %26gt; Document %26gt; Compare Documents, both tests (visual differences and textural differences) came back as identical.
I tried to compare the documents using Toast's compare facility, but I couldn't get past the file size difference.
Then I extracted the same image from both, and saved in TIF format. The files were the same size.
Then I pasted one on top of the other in Photoshop, and zoomed in. I could detect no difference anywhere on the image.
I could detect no difference between 1st and 2nd generations. My next step is to go out to generation 10 and compare that to generation 1. If there is any degradation occuring, that should tell me.
None of the above is conclusive as I dont' know how to do a byte-by-byte comparison of the important data within the files. Any suggestions as to how I could do that?
Let me first say that I seriously admire you tenacity.
But...your time is worth something, too. Just buy Quite Imposing or find someone to impose the PDF for you for a few bucks.
The answer to your first question is there should be no problems with re-exporting an InDesign file made up solely of PDFs.
Bob
I already have Quite Imposing -- at least on a temporary license. Tech support at QI are suggesting I buy Acrobat 9, but they can't say it will fix the problems. It's easy to say buy this, buy that -- but will they work?
It's all a bit sus actually, invoking 4 programs (InDesign, Distiller, Acrobat, QI) to impose. I'm beginning to warm to the idea of doing everything from InDesign, even if it means manually imposing 800 pages. I reckon that would only take 3-4 hours. I could have manually imposed the entire Encyclopaedia Britannica in the time I've spent trying to impose with InDesign, Distiller, Acrobat and QI.
And as for paying someone a few bucks to impose for me -- no one would be prepared to do so even for hundreds of dollars because I have very difficult-to-meet requirements. For the imposed files as printed on an iGen:
閳?vectors remain as vectors;
閳?K remains as K;
閳?Pure C, M %26amp; Y remain pure (text and vectors);
閳?''text on a path'' after ~page 70 is exported;
閳?nothing is rasterised except images;
閳?I am charged at the ''K'' rate when an impression only has K.
To guarantee the last item (I could be up for thousands of dollars extra, if CMY appears where it shouldn't), I have to have software that accurately tells me when CMY occurs on a page. And from my testing, Acrobat can't do that reliably. InDesign can. It's a shame it can't impose directly to PDF.
Anyone who can't meet those ''demands'' doesn't belong in this business.
Bob
You could download the trial for Acrobat 9, too.
As long as you don't include automatic marks when exporting or priting your PDF, you won't get any CMY added to a page that doesn't already have it. I use a modified version of the the add marks script that makes K only marks, or add them manually on the master page.
Guy,
Yesterday I did not realize how many discussions you have authored. Today if I get some time I will try to read through all your threads.
Concerning manual imposition in InDesign, it is a viable option. True you lose out on automation. If you plan on imposing lots and lots of jobs, I wouldn't use?manual imposition. But I am happy to say that I have on occasion imposed 400+ page books manually in InDesign (I don't make a habit of it though)
Regarding your grayscale troubles. Yes, Acrobat 9 is better than Acrobat 7. I had a discussion in CM forum recently about it:
http://forums.adobe.com/message/2171192#2171192
Just to clarify, there is no such thing as grayscale in ID. It all goes to RGB, CMYK, or DeviceN.
Will read through your material (it is a lot) if time allows, maybe I can help if I have a clear understanding of your problems.
Manual imposition is horrible idea if you have any autonumbering features including page numbers.
Bob
BobLevine wrote:
Manual imposition is horrible idea if you have any autonumbering features including page numbers.
Bob
I assumed Guy was intending to move live ID pages around. If it's PDFs then you are correct. Disable transparent backgrounds and make sure you don't have bounding box selected when placing them.
Bob
Good point about the bounding box.
Guy, if I were imposing in ID, I would output the PDF from the page file with no marks. Include a standard bleed area. Then you could place the PDF in the impo file using either crop or bleed box. Place them in pre-drawn white boxes that match the bleed size.
Any marks are drawn in the impo file, underneath the white boxes on a layer below.
From the sound of things, this Quite Imposing is causing some issues. My feeling is, it's a demo, and an unneeded variable. If it's not working then placing PDF pages in InDesign may be the way to go.
There is an issue with certain forms needing to be K only. Well, InDesign has 2 answers for that:
1. Sep preview will tell you if there are CMY elements.
2. Print separated post script for the black only forms, and just print the black plate. Guarantee you won't see CMY then in the final imposed output.
Printer_Rick wrote:
There is an issue with certain forms needing to be K only. Well, InDesign has 2 answers for that:
1. Sep preview will tell you if there are CMY elements.
2. Print separated post script for the black only forms, and just print the black plate. Guarantee you won't see CMY then in the final imposed output.
Is two separate outputs not an option? One separated K only, for the form sides printing K only, and all the rest composite?
Maybe you can't do that because the pages have to stay in sequence?
What sort of output format is sent to IGen? If PDF, you could combine the separate PDF outputs into one using Acrobat, and get the page sequence correct there. Then submit the final combined PDF to the IGen.
I'm still getting a handle on the whole problem Guy is having. There are several threads. It's a lot of reading. I just replied to one of his older posts that no one else had replied to.
Two separate output streams might be an option, but it starts to make an already nightmarish imposition scheme even worse.
Peter: Yep, I'm scoring and folding by hand. If you think I'm having problems with imposition, I'm still trying to learn how to fold. Check this out:
http://www.bookbinding.net.au/viewtopic.php?t=166
I skimmed that reference, but didn't read the whole thing. One thing you'll notice is that you're unlikely to get perfect alignment if you gather and fold an entire signature (so marks won't help much), and I never expect perfect front-to-back registration through an entire digital run (though the iGen should be close, I imagine, after adjustment). The technology on digital equipment is different than presses and the alignment stops are not as positive. You should allow for this in your design by using margins wide enough to disguise minor shifting if you can.
No comments:
Post a Comment