Highly precise machinery is a marvel to see but one should not equate high precision with high functionality. The performance of a press is based more on its design and to a lesser extent on the precision of its construction. Fine mechanical Swiss watches are a things of beauty but do not keep time as well as a very low cost digital watch. Similarly, the modern press is a refinement of very old thinking and not a breakthrough design based on any new thinking on how the process actually works. Many problems still exist in the modern design of presses that result in lost money for printers. They could have been corrected if people were interested more in the rules that govern function than in the beauty of construction.

I would argue that these modern presses are both engineering marvels and masters of precision. Heidelberg, Komori, KBA, Mitsubishi, MAN Roland, and others spend millions perfecting the microscopic details of these machines. From the diamond dust on the feed grippers (Komori) to the spectacular simplicity of Heidelberg's fly-by-wire electronics, these machines outperform their predecessors in every way. The Speedmaster 74 CD at Cal Poly can actually print at 15,000 iph while its predecessor could run only 11,000 iph. Register precision, plate loading and unloading, ink-water balance and other factors are monitored and controlled with uncanny precision. If you want to be stunned, check out Komori's unload-load times, which minimize the time between jobs to just a few minutes. In the world of shorter-run offset production it is change-over that makes the difference. What would you have the press manufacturers improve next?

OK. Very good and interesting comments but your assumption is that precision in construction results in precision in function. This was my point. You are assuming that the modern press functions with precision and this is not always the case. It may perform better than past press technology but it still is not precise in very many ways. As you stated, change-over makes the difference and in particular the reduction of set up waste which is a direct cost. This implies the need for a press that gets to the target print colour with the least amount of wasted paper. Even modern offset presses are not precise in this very important respect. The fact that either an operator or a closed loop system is used, is evidence that the press design is not able to be consistent and predictable enough to get to the target on its own (hands off). It needs some kind of adjustments to iterate to the desired target. There are very many reasons for this. Ink key presetting technology still tends to use faulty algorithms and this provides an error filled starting point. Even if the presetting data was properly calculated, the press is not capable of delivering the ink quantities that would be requested. The ink key position has no direct relationship to the amount of ink that goes to the roller train. There is no adjustment on modern offset presses that has a direct relationship to the amount of ink being fed. Ink is not fed into modern offset presses in a positive way. The ink is fed in a state of equilibrium. Upset the equilibrium and the rate of ink feed changes even thought the ink key did not move. This lack of positive control of the ink feed is what fundamentally causes ink water balance. Basically all modern offset presses can not accurately set the zero set point. The zero set point is the datum for any presetting data. Without an accurate zero set point, precision of presetting is not possible. Modern offset presses still will print different densities at different locations that are inline with a colour patch. It could be different from top to bottom or in between. This is well known. What it means is that it is not possible to have a profile for the press that is independent of the image that is being printed. This lack of image independence results in a lack of printed colour predictability. No amount of software can change this. It is press design dependent. Then there are the other related issues of mechanical and starvation ghosting, etc. One might assume that printing ink is a precise process. This is also not quite true. If one is attempting to control a press with a density tolerance of +/- 0.05 pts, this might seem like a precise target. Well, this is ink strength dependent. For commercial inks, that density tolerance would be about +/- 8%. That is a range of 16%. A range of 16% of ink feed is hardly a precise requirement. The fact that the press lacks precision is this function accounts for the difficulty in obtaining consistency and predictability. Press manufacturers know much of this. Heidelberg knows much of this. Let’s look at their Anicolor press. It is an interesting concept but one I personally think is not the future. But let’s assume that everything they say about it is true. The Anicolor press is a single form roller design that has the same diameter as the plate cylinder. It is driven at the same speed as the plate cylinder and therefore it inks the plate in register. The form roller gets ink from an anilox inking roller, and in principle this supplies an even ink film to the image areas of the form roller. In principle, the form roller then inks the plate evenly in all locations. This concept should have no ghosting and the profile should be independent of any image that is printed with this press design. This should result in predictable colour in any part of the print. The response is also very fast and few sheets are required to get to colour. Heidelberg has implied and I am sure that they hope, that the Anicolor technology is better than their existing technology and will eventually replace much of it. The implication here is that even though you are very impressed with your new press, Heidelberg thinks that it has been made obsolete by the Anicolor type concept that prints more predictably and has much lower set up waste. You marvel at all the control technology that Heidelberg and others use. But if you have a press technology that is simple but is inherently consistent and predictable, one does not need expensive control technologies. It is hard to think that Heidelberg is going to apply any kind of closed loop colour control to the Anicolor press. There is also the other aspect of cost/performance of a technology. Printing businesses that can obtain lower cost technology that can perform better than their competitors will have an advantage. When the cost of technology goes up at a greater rate than the performance, this indicates that the suppliers lack knowledge and innovation in providing predictable performance in their technology. As an example. If the Anicolor concept is very successful, why was it not done 20, 30 or 40 years ago? The technology was certainly available. Man went to the moon in the sixties. If one does not understand how things function at a fundamental level and does not know what is possible, it is easy to be too impressed with expensive technology. If one does not understand the flaws in technologies, one will easily become frustrated and not know why. This is one reason I think that it is important to try to understand how things actually function and not be too impressed with technology, no matter how great it seems to look.