Jump to content

Variable copyfit alters overprint behavior?


esmith

Recommended Posts

We have a FP template that has always output to PDF format in the past. The output contained two spot colors of which one is a background color that prints as a spot on an Indigo press while the other is converted to a process build by the Indigo RIP (it's a spot in the file to allow an option of printing files from the same template on an offset press as a 2-color job).

 

Recently we attempted to output JLT files from this template due to larger data files. When we unchecked the spot color box from the Advanced/Color menu and the Composition/Output tab, we found that the process build now overprints the spot background. We need the text to knockout for correct color matching and it was my understanding that FusionPro did not support overprinting currently.

 

Even more interesting though is that the variable text that overprints will instead knockout the background if the copy is reduced in size using the default copyfit rule created by choosing the "Adjust text to fit" option in the Overflow dialog (with text forced to integer sizes in Composition/Advanced tab).

 

Can anyone confirm this "problem" on their end and offer an explanation for why this is happening? As a result of this issue, we are forced to continue to use the PDF output format which is severely impacting our production times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The upcoming FusionPro 7.2 release will offer an option to set a color to Overprint, which I think will resolve the issue. Currently all colors are set to knock out by default, at least in PDF. JLYT may work a bit differently, however, and I'm personally not as familiar with that particular output format. I suggest sending a sample job which reproduces the problem to Support for investigation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should add that there is another fix in 7.2 which prevents extra frames from being drawn for drop shadows when copyfitting is in effect. I'm not sure that this is exactly the same problem you're seeing either, but I think things will work better overall for you in 7.2. So again, if you can send the job, we can investigate it and actually try it out with the new, as-yet-unreleased, 7.2 code.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...