ERA European Rotogravure Association

Packaging Conference
11-12 October 2006, Osnabrck, Germany

Flexo vs. Gravure in

Packaging Printing

Dr. Martin Dreher DFTA-TZ, Stuttgart

Disclaimer

Please mind that the version of this presentation at hand had to

be composed at a point in time when some important input data
may have not yet been available.
Therefore, this presentation may not reflect the latest known
status of the subject.
Please check for potential later versions under www.dfta-tz.de or
contact the author directly under dreher@dfta-tz.de.

Speaker

Name:
Position:

Experience:

Job Tasks:

Mission:

Dr. Martin Dreher

Assistant Manager of DFTA-TZ,
Stuttgart (Technology Centre of the
German Flexo Technical Association),
designated Scientific Leader
22 years in printing industry: apprenticed litho
pressman, >16 years of work in Flexo, >20 years of
observing Gravure and others
Training, education, technical assessments,
technical developments, presentations, etc.
advancing and enhancing packaging printing (1)

(1) holding what is probably the last fundamental printing patent about a hybrid system between Gravure and
Flexo, later in this presentation to be referred to as a Hybrid Printing Method

Flexo vs. Gravure in

Packaging Printing

Intro and Preface

Technical aspects What makes Gravure and Flexo tick?
Market shares
Cost The differentiating factor in an ever more cost-sensitive
world.
Outlook What may change the game?
Closing

Preface

Some of the following pieces of information have been derived

from other than my own sources. They have been marked
accordingly.
Such information will be passed on as direct as possible, i.e.
some data had to be generalised or anonymised because the
underlying studies and calculations contained information that
was private to the sender.
I will give my personal ratings and comments about such data as
direct and unbiased as possible.

Flexo vs. Gravure in

Packaging Printing

Intro and Preface

Technical aspects What makes Gravure and Flexo tick?
Market shares
Cost The differentiating factor in an ever more cost-sensitive
world.
Outlook What may change the game?
Closing

The Technical Status Quo

Gravure

Flexography

Lithography

Lithography and other printing methods to be set aside here.

Both Flexo and Gravure have their particular strengths and

weaknesses.
The following review relates to the respective characteristics as they
are perceived in packaging printing.

Flexographys Strengths

Less expensive process

Versatility in substrates
Flexibility due to exchangeability of parts of the print design
Easy and simple plate making
Good sharpness of bar codes, type and linework
Best revolution-to-revolution registration even with thinnest
substrates due to CI presses

Flexographys Weaknesses

Increasing cost due to growing quality demands in Anilox rollers,

printing inks, printing forms, tapes, etc.
Limitations in Packaging Design
Sporadic limitations in print quality due to:

Squeezed ink
Lack of coverage in solids
High dot gain
Insufficient uniformity of print production

Gravures Strengths

Simple schematic of printing presses

Any (odd) repeat length
Typically very good print quality in images

Gravures Weaknesses

plate making is demanding due to:

treatment of metals
handling of massive metal cylinders
limitations in imaging systems, etc.

Lack of flexibility due to long delivery times and missing

exchangeability of design elements
Uniformity and repeatability quite demanding (larger impact of
substrate surface characteristics than in Flexo)

Limited sharpness of type and linework

Registration concerns with flexible substrates (revolution-torevolution)

Characteristics of Flexo & Gravure

From: Gravure vs Flexo - Cost Comparison, PLGA

FLEXO

GRAVURE

Solids and process may need to be

separated

Ability to print solids, type and

process on the same print station

Limitations in reverse and fine type

work (improvements due to C to P
and DD technology)

Ability to print fine type and line

work (further improved via laser
technology) down to 1 point text.

Can print up to 150 lpi

Can print process work up to 250 lpi

Closed solids need correct

combination of plate, tape and ink

Can produce rich colors in solids

and achieves excellent brilliancy

Due to plate elasticity and

tolerances, reproducibility is largely
dependent on prepress conditions
and operator skill.

Excellent reproducibility, largely

independent of operator skill

My Conclusions and Ratings

on the Technical Aspects

I do agree with some of the above statements (see markers).

However, I do strongly oppose the overall notion of these
statements!
Neither is Gravure that advanced overall, nor is Flexo that
handicapped on average!

Flexo vs. Gravure in

Packaging Printing

Intro and Preface

Technical aspects What makes Gravure and Flexo tick?
Market shares
Cost The differentiating factor in an ever more cost-sensitive
world.
Outlook What may change the game?
Closing

Flexible Packaging by Process and Region

North America
$175MM

Gravure
23%

Flexo
75%

Europe
$240MM

Gravure
41%

Flexo
57%

Asia Pacific
$132MM

Gravure
85%
Flexo
10%

South America Gravure

18%
$49MM

Flexo
82%

Flexo dominated
Global Print Form Market $595MM

Gravure dominated
Source: Courtesy of DuPont Cyrel

Market Share Interpretations

Flexo drastically outnumbers Gravure in North America and

South America. Gravure is the underdog, hence the
aforementioned aggressive statements.
In Asia, Gravure is almost unrivalled in its market share and
standing. However, that has been sponsored in the past by
environmental legislation being less harsh than in EU and the
Americas which enabled less expensive, but more hazardous
plate making techniques (etching) to be used.
In Europe, Flexo enjoys the largest market share, but is being
challenged by Gravure constantly.

Flexo vs. Gravure in

Packaging Printing

Intro and Preface

Technical aspects What makes Gravure and Flexo tick?
Market shares
Cost The differentiating factor in an ever more cost-sensitive
world.
Outlook What may change the game?
Closing

In Summary: Advantage Flexo

Advantage Gr avur e

-60%

-40%

-20%

Advantage Fle xo
0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

160%

180%

200%

220%

240%

260%

XXXXX

Gravure vs. Cyrel round

XXXXX

Gravure vs. Flexo

XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX

XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX

XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX

Source: Courtesy of DuPont Cyrel

Summary of Press Related Cost Factors

Compact design of Flexographic Central Impression Cylinder

press:

Less capital investment

Less labour cost
Lesser floor space requirements
Lesser energy requirements

=> Advantage of Flexo over Gravure

=> Very large advantage of Cyrel round over Gravure

Source: Courtesy of DuPont Cyrel

Print Forms: Typical Prices

Where does Hell

Gravures Cellaxy
sort in ?

Gravure Cylinder: Imaging incl. Copper plating and Chrome

plating (raw cylinder not included!)

250 - 1100

Flexo: Silicone Rubber direct Laser engraving (incl. Sleeve)

~ 980

Flexo: Rubber direct Laser engraving (incl. Sleeve)

~ 800

Cyrel Flexo Fotopolymers

~ 850

Cyrel round
Cyrel - Plate-on-Sleeve (inc sleeve)

~ 500 - 800

Cyrel - Plate on Sleeve -adapter mandrel (incl. mounting)

~ 440

Cyrel - digital plate on steel cylinder (incl. mounting)

~ 350

Cyrel - analog plate on steel cylinder (incl. mounting)

~ 250

Thin walled mylar sleeves, no composite, no bridge mandrels

Western Europe, /m
Typical sizes: ~ 0.4 to 0.6 m
Source: Courtesy of DuPont Cyrel

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

Why this Large Range of Prices?

Plate Making fixed costs:

Gravure: approx. > 80%
Flexo: approx. 60%

Capacities with high fixed cost drives prices and cost:

Gravure cylinder makers must use their capacities (at any price)
Expansions of capacity are costly (large capital investment)

Cost of Flexo Plate Making: high portion of variable cost

Flexo plate makers may expand and reduce their capacity more freely
Flexo is more flexible and open for innovation

Source: Courtesy of DuPont Cyrel

Summary of Variable Costs

Printing forms: comparable

Substrate waste: advantage Flexo
Printing inks: advantage Flexo

=> Small advantage of Flexo over Gravure

Source: Courtesy of DuPont Cyrel

My Conclusions and Ratings

on Cost Aspects

I do agree with most of the above statements.

However, in that some of the perceived cost benefits that Flexo
enjoys over Gravure, are being based on the use of the
(costly) Cyrel round seamless sleeves, it must be noted that
the production capacities available for them in the EU market
are currently insufficient for satisfying larger market demands
(as is the case with direct Laser Engraving of Gravure cylinders).
Hence, such cost comparisons reflect only a small niche of the
market.
The lions share of the packaging printing market will need to be
compared upon the basis of electromechanically engraved
Gravure cylinders vs. digitally imaged Flexographic fotopolymer
plates (then giving Flexo a somewhat smaller, yet noticeable
cost advantage).

Flexo vs. Gravure in

Packaging Printing

Intro and Preface

Technical aspects What makes Gravure and Flexo tick?
Market shares
Cost The differentiating factor in an ever more cost-sensitive
world.
Outlook What may change the game?
Closing

Digitally Imaged Fotopolymer Sleeves

Digitally imaged Fotopolymer Flexo sleeves

on the rise!

Some of the printing related advantages are

short make-ready
seamless designs
higher press speed possible
substrate savings

No plate mounting
cost savings in personnel and machines
time savings
no mounting tape cost

New technical opportunities

alternative halftone screens with less patterns and
less mottling through excellent registration (first time
and continuous)

Cost of raw material is substantially higher

than with plate materials, but will be more
than compensated for by the aforementioned
benefits.

Laser Engraved Gravure Cylinders

Laser engraving has been around for quite

some time, but Hell Gravure Systems
Cellaxy is about to re-heat the debate due to
its capability of using Copper as a medium
again.
Benefits should be
Plating process may remain unchanged
Very high engraving speed
Versatility of engraving better structures

Aspects that remain to be seen are

Cost of ownership and running
Reliability

Certainly a very interesting new alternative to

look at.

Halftone Screening

Advantage of Flexo over Gravure due to Flexos superior

registration quality of CI presses => Flexo may use new
screening alternatives, which require good registration and,
given that, may yield

sharper printed pictures with

much less halftone-related structures and
a standardisation in screen angles, coupled with
production safety through much less sources of error.

Plastics as Gravure Print Forms

It has been attempted repeatedly to use high-tech and highvalue plastics (in particular some Polyamides) for plate making
in Gravure, thus trying to avoid the costly, environmentally
critical and time consuming copper (or zinc) plating process.
None of the attempts has yielded a product that enjoyed
noticeable market penetration so far. However, some trials are
still in process.
Hence, whether or not such high-tech plastics will be successful
in replacing metals remains to be seen.
I personally believe in the flexible Gravure form approach, i.e. using elastic materials,
which do open up a whole new line of thought ...

Hybrid Printing Method

Working title used to be Helioflex*, reflecting the combination of

Gravure and Flexo
Soft and elastic printing plate

Plate making through fotopolymerisation (exposure!) feasible, utilising Flexo

printing plate materials
Special doctoring system
plate making preferably with Flexo plates or seamless sleeves
Imaging with special Gravure-adapted positive (vs. negative) colour
separation
plate making even easier and cheaper than in Flexo due to shallow relief
High definition of type and linework with autotypical imaging methods (film
or platesetters)
Rasterisation methods of Flexo applicable
Optimum ink transfer - ink is squeezed out of cells through elasticity

Building a CI Gravure press is feasible

* this title has been brand protected by Hell Gravure Systems later and therefore must not be used any
more, but older documents may still refer to the process under this name

Digital Printing Methods

We have a saying in the German language: Wenn zwei sich streiten,

freut sich der Dritte. (If two struggle with one another, a third party is happy.)
Hence, if Flexo and Gravure struggle with one another, will Digital
Printing be the happy winner?
What are the benefits that Digital Printing can claim?
No plate making times and cost factors
Design change flexibilities

Disadvantageous factors are:

Limited applicability (sizes, substrates etc.)
High cost (specially treated substrates, costly inks, etc.)

My personal conclusion: Digital printing methods will have to go a very

long way before they may challenge conventional methods in more than
isolated market niches! Digital printing will be complementing
conventional methods for quite a number or years to come.

Flexo vs. Gravure in

Packaging Printing

Intro and Preface

Technical aspects What makes Gravure and Flexo tick?
Market shares
Cost The differentiating factor in an ever more cost-sensitive
world.
Outlook What may change the game?
Closing

Closing

Technical benefits of either Flexo or Gravure over one another may be

identified, but can only be weighed in light of particular print jobs.
The best achievable print qualities of either printing method are on a
par, the average print quality level is typically higher with Gravure.
Cost, versatility and ever shortening-runlength aspects do speak for
Flexo as the preferred method and the increased penetration of the
digitally imaged fotopolymer sleeves is likely to enhance this trend.
However, is the cost advantage of Flexo over Gravure still large enough
to make an established Gravure printer invest in flexographic printing
equipment? Maybe not.
On the other hand, is the overall print quality benefit of Gravure over
Flexo still large enough to make a Flexo printer invest in Gravure
printing equipment? Again, maybe not.
Therefore, we have something like an impasse situation now.

Closing (continued)

Admittedly, I am a Flexo proponent. In being so, I certainly dont need

to apologize for anything Flexo wouldnt be capable of doing (quality,
flexibility etc.), particularly in light of the further advancements that
Flexo is about to enjoy.
Nonetheless, I am far from declaring victory! When considering the
overall level, Gravure is certainly the quality leader.
We have experienced a time of struggle between the Flexo and
Gravure printing methods in packaging printing.
Instead, I am advertising a peaceful co-existence of both the major
packaging printing methods, Flexo and Gravure, for the purpose of
advancing packaging printing as such. Please join me in this effort!

The Last Word

The Future comes step by step.

Thats what makes it
endurable.
Alfred Polgar

ERA European Rotogravure Association

Packaging Conference
11-12 October 2006, Osnabrck, Germany

Flexo vs. Gravure in

Packaging Printing
Thank you very much!

Dr. Martin Dreher DFTA-TZ, Stuttgart

dreher@dfta-tz.de