Kodak NX vs Esko Full HD Flexo

[msmhms]

Dear PR members,

I am planning to invest on new laser for flexo CTP.
If there is anyone who run both Kodak NX and Esko FHD flexo workflow, I would like to ask something.

1. For Solid Ink Density matter, Digicap NX and FHD Microcell, which performs better?

2. For plate production speed, which one is faster? Beside water washable plate with CDI.

I have talked with both Esko, and Kodak sales man. I can not believe 100% what they say. They both said they are the best.

[Zmeushgo]

You are asking technical details on warez forum))

1. Digicap NX performs better but it's just like ready-to-use thing you can use it during making TIL on Flexcel NX CTP or not. With Esko HD you can choose different variations of surface screening but all results that I saw is not so good as Digicap NX.

2. Usually the Kodak is faster system because it images TIL not plates.

3. If speaking generally Kodak FlexCel NX is most stable and the best quality technology for photopolymer flexoplates for now. But it's propietary technology because plates and TIL only from Kodak also officially it's the "whole plate" technology - you can;t use parts of plates. Last but not least: with Kodak you are not participating in "anilox arms race", because with Esko HD you have to buy new aniloxes and it's not cheap affair. Pleasant bonus that you have smaller ink consumption on press.

Hope this helps.

[saifou]

first this is not warez forum so correct your knowledge , and there is a lot of technical information for software and hardware
, for man who asked for flexo CTP there is a lot of machine out there
Fuji , esko , screen , amskey , kodak, flexolaser and so on

[msmhms]

You are asking technical details on warez forum))

1. Digicap NX performs better but it's just like ready-to-use thing you can use it during making TIL on Flexcel NX CTP or not. With Esko HD you can choose different variations of surface screening but all results that I saw is not so good as Digicap NX.

2. Usually the Kodak is faster system because it images TIL not plates.

3. If speaking generally Kodak FlexCel NX is most stable and the best quality technology for photopolymer flexoplates for now. But it's propietary technology because plates and TIL only from Kodak also officially it's the "whole plate" technology - you can;t use parts of plates. Last but not least: with Kodak you are not participating in "anilox arms race", because with Esko HD you have to buy new aniloxes and it's not cheap affair. Pleasant bonus that you have smaller ink consumption on press.

Hope this helps.

Thank you for the information
It helps a lot.

[submeg]

Thank you for your information!

You are asking technical details on warez forum))

1. Digicap NX performs better but it's just like ready-to-use thing you can use it during making TIL on Flexcel NX CTP or not. With Esko HD you can choose different variations of surface screening but all results that I saw is not so good as Digicap NX.

2. Usually the Kodak is faster system because it images TIL not plates.

3. If speaking generally Kodak FlexCel NX is most stable and the best quality technology for photopolymer flexoplates for now. But it's propietary technology because plates and TIL only from Kodak also officially it's the "whole plate" technology - you can;t use parts of plates. Last but not least: with Kodak you are not participating in "anilox arms race", because with Esko HD you have to buy new aniloxes and it's not cheap affair. Pleasant bonus that you have smaller ink consumption on press.

Hope this helps.

[Zmeushgo]

first this is not warez forum so correct your knowledge , and there is a lot of technical information for software and hardware
, for man who asked for flexo CTP there is a lot of machine out there
Fuji , esko , screen , amskey , kodak, flexolaser and so on

Flexolaser is history for now. It's already called Xeikon Thermoflexx for some years - http://thermoflexx.com/. And if you read first post the guy asked about Kodak-Esko comparison not for abstract flexo CTP.

[saifou]

Flexolaser is history for now. It's already called Xeikon Thermoflexx for some years - http://thermoflexx.com/. And if you read first post the guy asked about Kodak-Esko comparison not for abstract flexo CTP.

this not warez forum and what about other good product there is a lot of good machine out there and look like you are kodak or esko reseller

[msmhms]

I think Esko, ThermoflexX, Screen, Etc., they are all similar technology that uses LAM layerd photopolymer. I think Esko has the best in their class with best software and hardware combination. For example, many screening options. May be ThermoflexX catching up Esko lately. But Kodak imager is different technology.

So, may be I was asking whatever the best imager that process LAM layered photopolymer Vs. Kodak imager.

[Zmeushgo]

this not warez forum and what about other good product there is a lot of good machine out there and look like you are kodak or esko reseller

You are repeating and I'm DLE reseller

[Zmeushgo]

I think Esko, ThermoflexX, Screen, Etc., they are all similar technology that uses LAM layerd photopolymer. I think Esko has the best in their class with best software and hardware combination. For example, many screening options. May be ThermoflexX catching up Esko lately. But Kodak imager is different technology.

So, may be I was asking whatever the best imager that process LAM layered photopolymer Vs. Kodak imager.

Esko and Kodak have working complete solution and thats the main distinction from other manufacturers which just copy: Esko made the surface screening we made also and so on. But when you buy Screen, Xeikon ThermoflexX and any other machine actually you are buying long testing for your production because you buy just flexo CTP and you have to find out what is the best screening, best plate for your production and so on.

Esko has UV inline inside CDI which uses for Full HD Flexo and any other flexo CTP manufacturer has this option.

[msmhms]

Esko and Kodak have working complete solution and thats the main distinction from other manufacturers which just copy: Esko made the surface screening we made also and so on. But when you buy Screen, Xeikon ThermoflexX and any other machine actually you are buying long testing for your production because you buy just flexo CTP and you have to find out what is the best screening, best plate for your production and so on.

Esko has UV inline inside CDI which uses for Full HD Flexo and any other flexo CTP manufacturer has this option.

Yes, I agree with you. IMO, the key factor for increasing SDI through surface screening is flat top capability. For that, Esko uses high intense UVA output LED lamp.
But, it takes so much more exposing time that nomal UVA lamp exposure. Also, the dot definition from esko laser can not beat Kodak's Square spot laser. And Kodak uses lamination method for flat top capability which is much faster exposing time than UV LED exposing.
But I wasn't sure that how Kodak perform in real work. Because, theoretically, I think Kodak is better but can not just disregard Esko's long time build up Flexo knowledge, also, they dominate current flexo imager market.
So, I would like to hear opinion from who has experience both.
Currently, I am running very old CDI 5080 Advanced model(2540dpi). Base on what we experience with Esko, we should not go for Esko anymore. They've been ripping my wallet for a looong time.

[Zmeushgo]

Yes, I agree with you. IMO, the key factor for increasing SDI through surface screening is flat top capability. For that, Esko uses high intense UVA output LED lamp.
But, it takes so much more exposing time that nomal UVA lamp exposure. Also, the dot definition from esko laser can not beat Kodak's Square spot laser. And Kodak uses lamination method for flat top capability which is much faster exposing time than UV LED exposing.
But I wasn't sure that how Kodak perform in real work. Because, theoretically, I think Kodak is better but can not just disregard Esko's long time build up Flexo knowledge, also, they dominate current flexo imager market.
So, I would like to hear opinion from who has experience both.
Currently, I am running very old CDI 5080 Advanced model(2540dpi). Base on what we experience with Esko, we should not go for Esko anymore. They've been ripping my wallet for a looong time.

Kodak is the former LAMS engraving market player. It produced ThermoFlex flexo CTP which were modified Lotems. Later Kodak sold ThermoFlex brand to Xeikon which buyed Flexolaser. Kodak just rebooted from the scratch their flexo solutions and made FlexCel NX. The main advantage of Kodak is that TIL works as some kind if lense and the result is that you have not just flat top dot but also some kind od special upper part of dot with exact the same flat platform and this platform helps the plate to give stable results in print. Press operator can't make very different variations during printing like with standard LAMS plates. Also the quality of Kodal FlexCel NX plates are more stable than LAMS plates. They doesn't require the new type aniloxes. As you may know the price of Esko HD certifiied aniloxes generally is 30 percents higher.

[Zmeushgo]

Yes, I agree with you. IMO, the key factor for increasing SDI through surface screening is flat top capability. For that, Esko uses high intense UVA output LED lamp.
But, it takes so much more exposing time that nomal UVA lamp exposure. Also, the dot definition from esko laser can not beat Kodak's Square spot laser. And Kodak uses lamination method for flat top capability which is much faster exposing time than UV LED exposing.
But I wasn't sure that how Kodak perform in real work. Because, theoretically, I think Kodak is better but can not just disregard Esko's long time build up Flexo knowledge, also, they dominate current flexo imager market.
So, I would like to hear opinion from who has experience both.
Currently, I am running very old CDI 5080 Advanced model(2540dpi). Base on what we experience with Esko, we should not go for Esko anymore. They've been ripping my wallet for a looong time.

If you have such big CDI and you are planning to make plates only for your own production take the look on DLE solutions like http://leadlasers.com/. I made tests from DLE elastomer plates and I like reults.

[msmhms]

If you have such big CDI and you are planning to make plates only for your own production take the look on DLE solutions like http://leadlasers.com/. I made tests from DLE elastomer plates and I like reults.

Thanks for your comment Zmeushgo.
Actually, we don't run our own print. We are a prepress provider.
For DLE I think I should wait for some years.

[doubtful]

Another important issue is the material of the plate. Kodak NXH plate monomers are more durable than their competitors monomers. As a result, highlight dots don't loss in printing.