TSB
screen printing => Screen Making => Topic started by: tonypep on April 27, 2023, 07:02:25 PM
-
Our Saati is here and still dialing in all the parameters, however, after having a DTS for two years in a previous shop well, I can say all signs lead to gamechanger. No consumables (ink/wax) is really just a plus. High res detail on lower mesh where applicable. Reduced dot gain on process and sim process. We are posed to be better and faster in a very short time.
-
What's your exposure times look like, say on a 156 mesh, and do both screens need to be the same mesh or can the settings be controlled independently?
How many screens do you typically produce in a shift?
What resolution does it expose at and what dot size halftones do you typically print?
It's a cool tool, how much did it cost and what model did you get?
Post pictures!
-
Give me a few weeks for specifics however this is not a plug it in and go piece of equip. Need a tech to install. Must be leveled and dialed in to your emulsion, mesh counts/color etc. Ours laser expose two 23/31s at a time (no bulbs). Halftone settings can be preprogramed to whatever you like (85 excessive for textiles but possible with a click) Helps to have auto coat for uniform EOM. Detail is amazing. Exposure time/speed/power need to be preprogrammed but its not necessarily faster than DTS just much better. This will change how we print... not only faster but better. So much to ponder. Off to meet the tech for final install and programming
-
I was just sent a video of a 1 up laser unit coming to market soon (not made in china). It exposed a 23x31 screen in 1 minute. Still waiting for more details but a 1 up machine makes more sense to me given everything thing I have heard about the Saati unit.
-
Which Laser did you get?
-
SAATI LTS 6080 holding most of 2% dots 55 dpi 305 mesh. Not long before I came along it was a struggle with 45/5% using white mesh/vellum/flourescent bulbs so.......!!!
Phase two will be 55 dpi high mesh DC UB w/ plastisol top colors.
-
SAATI LTS 6080 holding most of 2% dots 55 dpi 305 mesh. Not long before I came along it was a struggle with 45/5% using white mesh/vellum/flourescent bulbs so.......!!!
Phase two will be 55 dpi high mesh DC UB w/ plastisol top colors.
make sure it's calibrated. Not sure about laser, but the inkjet CTS tends to make the dots much, much bigger then they are supposed to be. Stuff I've seen was that 2% was actually over 10% in some cases!
pierre
-
SAATI LTS 6080 holding most of 2% dots 55 dpi 305 mesh. Not long before I came along it was a struggle with 45/5% using white mesh/vellum/flourescent bulbs so.......!!!
Phase two will be 55 dpi high mesh DC UB w/ plastisol top colors.
make sure it's calibrated. Not sure about laser, but the inkjet CTS tends to make the dots much, much bigger then they are supposed to be. Stuff I've seen was that 2% was actually over 10% in some cases!
pierre
What might cause this. Printhead distance to the screen?
-
SAATI LTS 6080 holding most of 2% dots 55 dpi 305 mesh. Not long before I came along it was a struggle with 45/5% using white mesh/vellum/flourescent bulbs so.......!!!
Phase two will be 55 dpi high mesh DC UB w/ plastisol top colors.
you can work with erik klein at saati, and he'll help you dial it in. I know of some friends that are doing tests, sending it to him, and he's tweaking the curves.
-
It was preset at the factory base on our emulsion, We can work with Eric/tech to dial in (not necessary so far) and SAATI is only 45 min away so they have offfered on site assistance if nec
-
How are you liking that Laser Tony? Or anyone else got one? I am considering moving to a LTS8012 Saati.
-
Loving it but as stated above calibration should be done on site with a tech. It is not a speed demon, and it takes some getting used to not having film, but resolution is amazing. I would say that, if you're dts/cts and its not causing any issues, I wouldn't rush out and swap for laser. We went from film to no film and don't burn hundreds and hundreds of screens per day (app burn time 2 screens 90 seconds) so this the best leap for us. It has had zero issues since install. We now dont use reg marks as the pre reg Roq pallet works 98% of the time. And of course no bulbs and consumables. Lasers don't print dots so dot size is zero issue. You can adjust DPI to whatever you like but 55 and 65 is all we need. 9.5 out of 10.
-
Left this out.....this was part of a package. Auto coat, auto reclaim, and LTS. Screen tech can perform any two, or possibly three I suppose, of these functions simultaneously. Had a part time guy coming in to reclaim but when he leaves we will not need to replace him. So labor reduced by app 35%.
-
Loving it but as stated above calibration should be done on site with a tech. It is not a speed demon, and it takes some getting used to not having film, but resolution is amazing. I would say that, if you're dts/cts and its not causing any issues, I wouldn't rush out and swap for laser. We went from film to no film and don't burn hundreds and hundreds of screens per day (app burn time 2 screens 90 seconds) so this the best leap for us. It has had zero issues since install. We now dont use reg marks as the pre reg Roq pallet works 98% of the time. And of course no bulbs and consumables. Lasers don't print dots so dot size is zero issue. You can adjust DPI to whatever you like but 55 and 65 is all we need. 9.5 out of 10.
Sales guy says on our emulsion we should be able to do easily more than 20 screens a hour. that Would be great for us. Our single head i-image could not do that speed. The one we are looking at is 2 Up as well, i think yours is 1 up isn't it?
-
2 up however you have to expose the same mesh count for both. The unit is calibrated for each mesh count and color (yes dyed mesh makes a difference) Or you can select single screen option. Auto coat is also 2 up. Units are on opposite sides of the room about five ft apart so operator pulls files/burn/rinse/coat all at once without breaking a sweat. If you really want to show off you can fire up the auto reclaim and do a little dance. Setup is pretty slick. The screen room is a pretty enjoyable place to work.
-
Extremely lightly used (almost new) one just popped up on Digitsmith its in ATL
-
Yikes, why are they selling I wonder. Thats a big expense to just bail out after 3 uses.
-
Yeah, head scratcher. Scott used to work for Brannon at Spot Color BTW.
-
My customer bought it and his business went in a different direction.
-
My customer bought it and his business went in a different direction.
Jesus, went a hard left then huh? Got me thinking theses things aint it if people are doing that.
-
Modern product development means first adopters are unknowing beta testers.
"We'll release a patch" gets you to market faster, followed shortly by "product has been discontinued
and replaced with xxx".
Not saying that's what happened here, I have no experience. But around these parts a whole lot
of people bought into Teslas as they came off the assembly line (tent?) and a few short years
later you heard those turd units creaking and rattling down the road like an electric Joad family.
Even the comically oversized touchscreen selling point wasn't working anymore.
But don't tell the fanboys, it's hard to admit when you've spent a bunch of money foolishly.
Software tends to be particularly terrible at this, as they can actually (ostensibly) release a patch to
fix problems, usually breaking something else in the process. Remember Windows 8.1?
That horrific abomination got swept under the rug real quick. I'm guessing the "free upgrade to 10" was
actually "avoiding class action lawsuits".
-
Modern product development means first adopters are unknowing beta testers.
"We'll release a patch" gets you to market faster, followed shortly by "product has been discontinued
and replaced with xxx".
Not saying that's what happened here, I have no experience. But around these parts a whole lot
of people bought into Teslas as they came off the assembly line (tent?) and a few short years
later you heard those turd units creaking and rattling down the road like an electric Joad family.
Even the comically oversized touchscreen selling point wasn't working anymore.
But don't tell the fanboys, it's hard to admit when you've spent a bunch of money foolishly.
Software tends to be particularly terrible at this, as they can actually (ostensibly) release a patch to
fix problems, usually breaking something else in the process. Remember Windows 8.1?
That horrific abomination got swept under the rug real quick. I'm guessing the "free upgrade to 10" was
actually "avoiding class action lawsuits".
There's definitely corner cutting on product development but I don't get the take on Teslas - the friends that have them all love them and would never go back to something else. Maybe that is in reference to the costlier, earlier models - S and X though? Everyone I know has either a 3 or Y. As for that software it's only been improving overtime with OTA updates...
How quickly things can be developed and to market now is scary, and means there are poor products and it's hard to sift through them, I agree with that kind of thing. Buying things off Amazon is still a crapshoot even if it's 4.5 stars with hundreds of reviews. Many products just don't last as long since they are built for affordability now and everyone has access to so many varieties. You can often get some knockoff that you think will be worth it but it has some faults that they fix with the next product run on Amazon. I don't think this applies to serious production equipment as much, but I would still advise to not go with the first product put out there. It can be successful just fine too though - we have a very early M&R Cobra press and it is great. I did wait on Tajima embroidery machines a little bit and that was worth it because they updated what I was close to buying earlier than I actually did.
-
My customer bought it and his business went in a different direction.
Jesus, went a hard left then huh? Got me thinking theses things aint it if people are doing that.
Yeah kind of crazy, but he is killing it in his business. He is still screen printing and subbing out shirts.
-
I have no idea what model Teslas, I pay no attention to that sort of thing. I just know that
the early ones I've been in and have heard driving down the road feel and sound like they are rapidly
devolving into base components.
the friends that have them all love them and would never go back to something else.
You'll find that with any major purchase that also doubles as a lifestyle or business statement.
I'm not saying that they are wrong or lying, just that as I said, it's hard to admit you made a bad decision.
The fella with the Tesla with the stupid giant touchscreen that didn't work had his smartphone
literally taped in front of the thing so he could navigate. All the while singing the praises of brother Elon...
we have a very early M&R Cobra press and it is great
That's because it's based on a well tested and time proven design, the Roq.
:)
-
That's because it's based on a well tested and time proven design, the Roq.
:)
You're thinking of the Copperhead...
The Cobra is basically a Super Sportsman.
Gauntlet 4 is a Super Cobra.
Challenger 4 will be a...Super Gauntlet?
-
...the early ones I've been in and have heard driving down the road feel and sound like they are rapidly
devolving into base components.
You can say this about most cars driving around on those tore up Bay Area streets.
-
How much are Saati asking for that unit "new"? If you buy them directly in China of the actual manufacturer they cost between US$80,000 - US$160,000. I think that is including someone coming over for installation. Of course you don`t get the "next day" tech support in case things go south.
-
Early anything can be a risk. Modern Tesla's are fantastic cars though. The short falling wasn't the car really, its the charging network in my area. Only really 2 spots to charge that aren't near me other than charging at home. Making spontaneous trips something I couldn't do in that car. So I sold it, in a big city/more populated area it would not be the same issue we saw. But the self driving, acceleration, awesome infotainment and such was great about those cars. I am not a over the top Elon fan boy, but he's doing electric cars better than anyone and its not close.
-
That's because it's based on a well tested and time proven design, the Roq.
:)
You're thinking of the Copperhead...
You're right. I see they kept the micro layout and beefed up pallet arms though. That's good, that's innovation.
I will say that the actual rear micros on our MHM are probably the best, new guys in particular are able to pick
up on those way quicker than the Roq's.
-
Teslas are every where, where I live. I don't know why they are more popular in some areas than others. What I do know is a lot of large employers around here (Aetna, P&W, Cigna Werox etc) Have free charging for their employees. I know if I worked for one of them I would consider the switch.
-
Teslas are every where, where I live. I don't know why they are more popular in some areas than others. What I do know is a lot of large employers around here (Aetna, P&W, Cigna Werox etc) Have free charging for their employees. I know if I worked for one of them I would consider the switch.
Charging ours at home, we had the upgraded charger and that would charge the car from dead to full in 4hrs. Never noticed a difference in electric bill, at all.. So if you figure that car was being driven daily like our others your saving hundreds in gas a month. For some that could be huge. If employer was also offering free charging that could be big for people.
The future will have electric cars, they are only getting better. Reality is though until they deal with the charging network its not going to matter.
-
Teslas are every where, where I live. I don't know why they are more popular in some areas than others. What I do know is a lot of large employers around here (Aetna, P&W, Cigna Werox etc) Have free charging for their employees. I know if I worked for one of them I would consider the switch.
lol, I feel like you just answered the question yourself there.
I spent $2700 on a second solar array that offsets more than all the energy for my EV, 3mWh a year. Bigger array is over double.
As for the build quality, the premium of the car is the tech, not fit and finish. These cars are built faster than other factories - to save on $, capital, space, expand into the market faster, etc. Also to keep the prices more affordable. I thought that was known but maybe not.
-
Transitioning to EV which of course many many years down the road is going to have a massive impact on the poor and lower working class. EV's will never have a viable used market in the low range that so many rely on to work and live. Battery storage and the motors themselves are so expensive and cannot ever come down far enough in price to sustain a used market. As more and more EV's take over the streets fuel will become more and more expensive as the need decreases. So yea there will always be combustibles around but running them will gradually become more and more expensive. I kind of see it as a dystopian future scenario, only the well to do will be driving around in their fancy EV's while the working class and poor rely on public transportation and walking biking. That in turns leads to more and more city congestion. Just rambling thoughts sorry
-
Transitioning to EV which of course many many years down the road is going to have a massive impact on the poor and lower working class. EV's will never have a viable used market in the low range that so many rely on to work and live. Battery storage and the motors themselves are so expensive and cannot ever come down far enough in price to sustain a used market. As more and more EV's take over the streets fuel will become more and more expensive as the need decreases. So yea there will always be combustibles around but running them will gradually become more and more expensive. I kind of see it as a dystopian future scenario, only the well to do will be driving around in their fancy EV's while the working class and poor rely on public transportation and walking biking. That in turns leads to more and more city congestion. Just rambling thoughts sorry
yeah....but.... sAve tHe whAleS...gLoBal wArmiNg...
I love these activists that say we need EV and electric stoves to save the planet...meanwhile we're DESTROYING the environment to make the batteries that can not be disposed of...... it's all optics, follow the money. Has nothing to do with saving the environment, at ALL...
-
I'll say this in just a few words Very smart people are going to tear this world apart!!!!!! over thinking!!!
-
Transitioning to EV which of course many many years down the road is going to have a massive impact on the poor and lower working class. EV's will never have a viable used market in the low range that so many rely on to work and live. Battery storage and the motors themselves are so expensive and cannot ever come down far enough in price to sustain a used market. As more and more EV's take over the streets fuel will become more and more expensive as the need decreases. So yea there will always be combustibles around but running them will gradually become more and more expensive. I kind of see it as a dystopian future scenario, only the well to do will be driving around in their fancy EV's while the working class and poor rely on public transportation and walking biking. That in turns leads to more and more city congestion. Just rambling thoughts sorry
yeah....but.... sAve tHe whAleS...gLoBal wArmiNg...
I love these activists that say we need EV and electric stoves to save the planet...meanwhile we're DESTROYING the environment to make the batteries that can not be disposed of...... it's all optics, follow the money. Has nothing to do with saving the environment, at ALL...
If everyone flipped to electric at the rate say California wants us all to.... we'd all see rolling black outs every day to offset the over run grid.
It's still over all short sighted. Think of it this way, even if we can all afford them. How do say people at apartments charge cars? They going to put 5 chargers out front for the 500 apartments? Just that issue alone is MASSSIVE. That would again assume the grid could provide it to start with. Even Elon literally says we should be building power nuclear power plants. We already have states that have power draw issues when its super hot and such. Adding power draw of everyone charging cars every night will not help this.
-
I agree with all said. Common sense says we simply are not advanced enough yet to switch to green energy across the board. At least not with a population pushing 8 billion. It is a pipe dream being forced upon us, many are keen to the impracticality of it all but so many are convinced by what their leaders tell them. With out any doubt to best path to green energy currently is nuclear power. Government has made nuclear power a non starter tho, bureaucracy and cost all imposed by the same government that also tells us we need to stop killing the environment. Nuclear power would be every where on this earth if it was really profitable because money is always the driving factor as said above. And lets not even start with fusion tech. It is always 30 years away and honestly the practicality of it is still in question. I have my doubts.
But like I said before I see a major increase in the divide between the haves and have nots as everything becomes more and more expensive.
-
These new fangled horseless carriages? How are we supposed to fuel them up? My Nelly eats hay, that's all the fuel I need to get around. Gasoline supply in EVERY TOWN? That's crazy!
-
On the bright side some time in the distant future it will look like Cuba around here. With all the old combustibles being repaired over and over.
-
And rebuilt early nineties Gauntlets with screens burned with sunlight
-
Also, current battery tech is barely good. It's way better than NiCad, but the limitations of LiPo shouldn't be ignored. The energy density is poor, they cannot be charged when below 32 degrees(they warm the batteries to charge), and they have reduced range in cold conditions.
Toyota is working on a solid state battery that is claiming a 900 mile range. That expands the applications for batteries in all kinds of uses. The current f150 lighting has a range of 95 miles while towing. That's useless in the real world.
-
These new fangled horseless carriages? How are we supposed to fuel them up? My Nelly eats hay, that's all the fuel I need to get around. Gasoline supply in EVERY TOWN? That's crazy!
lol that made me laugh.
The change to the grid is going to be similar to the air conditioning boom in the 60s and 70s. 2% per year (or less) on average for 20 years, possibly slower even...if we use the batteries like we should and not only let utilities dictate things, we can save money and have a more resilient grid even. My house batteries should let be arbitrage the energy, reduce the duck curve, etc.
On another note, there's a lot of misinformation and even disinformation here - I would say be careful if you are getting your information from only one side. Anyway, getting way off topic, so I'm going to bail now.
-
The current f150 lighting has a range of 95 miles while towing. That's useless in the real world.
It's less than that in reality, some pretty viral videos out there around half that mileage. Even Ford's CEO recently said it was poor.
Electric may be OK in a truck but not if you are using it like a truck. You'll be forever charging it.
-
Transitioning to EV which of course many many years down the road is going to have a massive impact on the poor and lower working class. EV's will never have a viable used market in the low range that so many rely on to work and live. Battery storage and the motors themselves are so expensive and cannot ever come down far enough in price to sustain a used market. As more and more EV's take over the streets fuel will become more and more expensive as the need decreases. So yea there will always be combustibles around but running them will gradually become more and more expensive. I kind of see it as a dystopian future scenario, only the well to do will be driving around in their fancy EV's while the working class and poor rely on public transportation and walking biking. That in turns leads to more and more city congestion. Just rambling thoughts sorry
There is really nothing wrong with a well-built public transport system or riding a bike or walking.
-
These new fangled horseless carriages? How are we supposed to fuel them up? My Nelly eats hay, that's all the fuel I need to get around. Gasoline supply in EVERY TOWN? That's crazy!
lol that made me laugh.
The change to the grid is going to be similar to the air conditioning boom in the 60s and 70s. 2% per year (or less) on average for 20 years, possibly slower even...if we use the batteries like we should and not only let utilities dictate things, we can save money and have a more resilient grid even. My house batteries should let be arbitrage the energy, reduce the duck curve, etc.
On another note, there's a lot of misinformation and even disinformation here - I would say be careful if you are getting your information from only one side. Anyway, getting way off topic, so I'm going to bail now.
I dont get my information from pundits I prefer scientists and engineers.
-
the reality is Hybrids make the most sense short term. There are plenty of issues with straight up EV's, many of them mentioned here already. Going hybrid gives the best of both worlds, longer range, less battery issues (they are expensive to replace at end of life which will reduce availability of cheap used cars), less demand on the power distribution and so on.
Most drives are 20-30 miles and having a 50 mile battery would make a significant impact on the market. smaller battery means less mining pollution, less strain on the grid, better "gas" mileage (lighter car), more affordable pricing, easier/cheaper battery replacement (increasing the longevity of the cars) and so on.
I was shopping for a hybrid, but could not find anything I liked in my price range. 'bought couple of cars this year and it will probably be the last time I get a straight up ICE vehicle.
pierre
-
This post is how government works, started off with one subject and before you know it's totally a different subject and you forget what the main subject was ;D
-
This post is how government works, started off with one subject and before you know it's totally a different subject and you forget what the main subject was ;D
isn't that what makes it fun?
-
This post is how government works, started off with one subject and before you know it's totally a different subject and you forget what the main subject was ;D
isn't that what makes it fun?
Yep I learn I can't Afford Laser to Screen or an EV, I'm walking to work and using the sun to burn screens ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
This post is how government works, started off with one subject and before you know it's totally a different subject and you forget what the main subject was ;D
isn't that what makes it fun?
Yep I learn I can't Afford Laser to Screen or an EV, I'm walking work and using the sun to burn screens ;D ;D ;D ;D
The laser units are only so expensive because Saati makes them so expensive by adding a healthy profit and offering some sort of support. You can buy them for $80,000 directly from the manufacturer, they offer support and install too. They can even build you custom-size solutions. I`m getting a quote for that soon. Of course for me getting support is not so difficult as my shop is in Japan.
-
I just bought an i image from a shop that had 2 saiti units installed side by side imaging two screens each.
It was pretty wicked.
-
SAATI LTS 6080 holding most of 2% dots 55 dpi 305 mesh. Not long before I came along it was a struggle with 45/5% using white mesh/vellum/flourescent bulbs so.......!!!
Phase two will be 55 dpi high mesh DC UB w/ plastisol top colors.
make sure it's calibrated. Not sure about laser, but the inkjet CTS tends to make the dots much, much bigger then they are supposed to be. Stuff I've seen was that 2% was actually over 10% in some cases!
pierre
This is very true for the WET INK CTS and the WAX. A lot of manipulation to the curves to get decent results.
It's also very true for the Laser. The thing about the lasers is that they are specifically dialed in for your emulsion, each mesh, and a specific emulsion thickness. This is key. An auto coater is a MUST if buying laser. If not, you are randomly obtaining small dots. One mesh you are, the next mesh you are not. So Auto coater FOR SURE.
Now for the kicker. No biggie. I don't mean that in a snarky way, but so your dots are not true. A 3% is a 6% for example. The 600dpi printers cannot form the 1% dot. It just can't physically create a small round dot out of 1-2 square squares out of the 600dpi grid system. So, to form a better, more controllable, reproducible dot, you make it larger. For example, you can produce a 45lpi much better. Looks pretty good and can hold a true 5% dot in a 45lpi. It's literally the same issues for digital film printers as well. Blow that 1% dot up under a 500 power magnifier and see that it's junky. If you jump to a 55lpi, the 5% dot is less smoothly formed. Go to a 65 and the 5% is not very producible. Well, it is, but it would truly come out to similar in (size) but not shape... to a dot that is produced by a 3400dpi true wet process camera imagesetter (for example). A 1% cannot be held in the mesh. That's why more refer to holding a 3% rather than shooting for a 1%. A 5% dot at (65lpi) wet ink digital speckle of spray cannot be held in the mesh well so it is enlarged to what can be held well.
Same issues with wax. People have said (wax is superior) to wet ink...while wax machines cannot reproduce (as minutely) as wet ink machines. Now, before you chop my head off and tell me about your beautiful, well rounded 65lpi dots, hear me out.
The wax machine has a print head that has to print out larger spurts of wax. It's denser, it's thicker. Therefore, it must spit out a 14-16 Picoliter spray of wax (maybe more), I don't specifically remember... in order to flow and produce multiple spits of wax onto a dot shape.
Consider the square pixels shaped specs that are formed in the wet ink machine. Wax machine users believe their dots to be "better" because their 5% dot in a 65lpi is fully formed. Rounded even. To the naked eye, it's pretty round or nice looking. Holds well when exposing. That's only cuz it's FATTER. This fatter dot (works). It's not a prefect dot, but it works...and THAT is what makes people think it's superior. It's fatter ugly, meteorite looking, inconsistent blob that's crapped out like a warm turd onto the colder screen and hardens...with that waffle look laying over top the surface forming this added height to the dot (semi rounded mound) protruding off of the screens surface. This waffle look is due to the building process (stacking) of the 6 "passes" of wax to form the image.
Under a magnifying glass, this dot is more of a meteorite looking turd. Not a perfectly rounded dot. What's my point? The point is, the wax cannot "duplicate" the 3 squares of pixels...put into the tif file, to represent a specific lower % like a 2, 5, or 7% dot in a 65lpi for example. It's only capable of putting down a blob. A blob that cannot duplicate itself in the same way...in the next dot over at the same %. It's another uniquely formed/misshapen dot. You might say
SO WHAT? my prints looks great! I'd agree. So what? There is no real benefit or non benefit to the miss shape. It's just a shape and as long as you can manipulate that shape to get what you need from it, then it works great.
So why all of this mumbo jumbo? Waste of time here. Sure is, but I got nothing to sep tonight so....The fact is, Wet ink CAN reproduce that same exact shape of 3 pixels that is in the tif file. It's ugly, It's not a perfectly rounded dot...but neither is the wax dot. The Wet ink print heads (because it's a thinner liquid) can put out a spray of ink at 3 Picoliter. That's nearly 5x smaller than wax. If I'm not mistaken, I think they run the wet ink machines at 7 Picoliter for faster production. At 7 Picoliter, it's print head can be ran at 6pass (uni or bi), 12 pass (uni or bi), 18 pass (uni or bi), and so on up to 24 passes for a more versatile output.
Wax machines run best at 6 pass...uni directional (slower). Now, in recent years, there is a newer wax head that runs at (bi) directional, providing a faster production. Yet that faster production at wax...does not produce halftones as well as the uni directional. It fills in more in the shadow tones. For this reason, people who do have the newer heads will switch to uni when printing finer halftones.
Now, let me say, (I like a true dot) just as much as anyone. In truth, I've not had a true dot since I've worked at Disney using true wet processing/camera imagesetter film. Under a 500 power magnifying glass, The edges are formed more like vector in Adobe Illustrator. THAT, is the benchmark of a true dot shape.
Since then, I've worked with Thermal film (not fond of at all) and mostly digital wet film at 600dpi output from various printers and M&R's wet ink CTS and then onto Wax (Douthit) at 600dpi output and then Saati Laser at 1200dpi and output. Out of all of those, I've never had a customer send a job back because the dot was not the right size. For me, This is not because they don't know about dots, but that they do know about color tones and what looks like it should (or as close to what it should on a tee shirt). Therefore, I can say, It's all about how you prepare the separations.
It's similar to what I've said about the competitions and using wax, wet ink or laser. There are plenty of people who have won awards (prints look great) that have done so with both wet ink and wax machines and now lasers. Just as much, there are also award winners that have dots that are not true in size. Some may be, and some may not be, but only the actual printer will know (maybe).
Take a Mark Gervie (spelling?) for example. That guy does 65lpi, 75lpi on a 156 mesh and 230's. Why? How? Because he doesn't use 5% dots. maybe not even 20% dots. He uses the smallest dots (that holds) in that 65lpi on a 156 mesh....lets say that is a 25% dot in a 65lpi...and that becomes his 3% dot location. and he manipulates the mid tones to the shadows. Gets coverage...and tonality. Thats where it's at. "Tonality". He may use 3-4 greys + a black, + a white + a top white to get a greyscale. It's a horse (print) of a different color...and it's all in the seps.
Now, I (like Pierre) have also seen people have 10% as their 2%, but that (could be) for several reasons.
1, They don't know any better and have just tossed in a number that works and off they ran with it. Commonly the case.
2, A Tech that also doesn't know any better put in one of the 10 saved settings options they have now...and dropped one in there and that's what they are running with.
CTS (and now laser) manufacturers rely on the fact that the user should calibrate the machines to their shops unique and specific needs. Epson printers don't come calibrated for your shop. Wax machines don't come calibrated for your shop. Lasers don't come calibrated for your shop. You do that or so they want you to believe. But many who pay out 30k, 60k, 80k, 120k for a printer...want it calibrated to work right (as they should) IMO. Now, I know that the each have a "standard" or default calibration, but I can tell you from experience from many machines, that the defaults are not what you are looking for.
Regarding Laser.
You have the calibration issue thing going (takes days to achieve per mesh, per auto coating thickness variables, per LPI calibration via remote process) unless the Tech is now attending installs...and with Saati. People are catching on now and complaining about getting theirs installed and can't do sim process with small dots in the 3-15 and even 20% Dots depending on mesh. Now tho, I think they have upped their game and are installed with proper calibrations. At least they should be by now.
When you think laser, you think perfection. But that's not the default. You have to pay a little more for the best resolutions...for those who think they are going to do 85lpi holding the 3% dots. Want to cut cost and use a cheaper RIP? (I don't think you can on the laser). That might just be for the Wax machines. Maybe you can use your own...or pay the additional $ for the 1200DPI Harlequin ...or, upgrade to the higher costing Harlequin that gives you the 2400 dpi and higher resolutions. To me, who really needs that on tee shirts? Overkill for 80% of the industry. Maybe a Mark Coudrey, or Andy Anderson...and those searching for award winning printing and want to do the almost perfect round and smooth-edged dot at 3% in a 65lpi.
Production speed? Keep in mind that the SAATI Laser (double imaging) that cost more, is pretty neck and neck on production per 8 hr shift with M&R's I-Image STElll (3 heads) that images one screen at a time and also exposes on the machine. So it cost more, needs to image 2 at a time...to equal the I-Image STElll.
And we say (what about the quality?) The laser quality (imaging on screen) is bar none. and I say, " Do YOU, really need that level of quality on your tee shirts to justify paying that extra money? What will be the return?
Would I get Laser? Sure, I'd love to have one, if I didn't have to pay for it, I'd use it. What would I pay for? I'd get a Douthit wax machine and external exposure... or a I-ImageSTE single head. I can always upgrade to more heads later as the need arises. If I were just starting out getting my first CTS, doing 70 screens a day, I'd go I-ImageS for 30k.
Lastly, people say....What about the "no consumables benefit"?
Well, look deeper into the life of the lasers...(roughly 10,000 hours) and the cost to replace them...and then consider that by the time the lasers go bad (5-6 years), you will have paid up to 30-35k on replacements and labor. If it's been 6 years, you may want to replace all of them and keep going without any hiccups. This to me, is negating any "no consumables benefit" as the consumables for wax and wet ink (Heads, Inks, parts), over 5-6 years is actually slightly less than what you're going to pay for new lasers in 5-6 years. Then consider (after 5 years), there may be newer laser technology...and you want to sell your existing laser...and upgrade. So, what is the resale value on a laser that needs 30-35k of investment to get it good to go for resale? You either dump 30k into it jsut to sell it off, or you sell it as is. What's that worth?
That's my thoughts on Laser.
-
What would you do in my specific position Dan? Money isn't a issue, but if I was going to do laser I want it to be a better image and faster than what we have now.
-
Probably about 5-10% better but probably not faster. About 90 secs for two screens currently (yes as technology improves that may change)
Its not a must have at all. Just works for us. As for dots, there would never be a need for anything finer; resolution or shape because we are printing fabric! Our purchase included instal, calibration, and training for both the auto coat and LTS (2 days). Then set and forget.
-
Probably about 5-10% better but probably not faster. About 90 secs for two screens currently (yes as technology improves that may change)
Its not a must have at all. Just works for us. As for dots, there would never be a need for anything finer; resolution or shape because we are printing fabric! Our purchase included instal, calibration, and training for both the auto coat and LTS (2 days). Then set and forget.
We have a single head i-Image, it will be faster than that. I am told 20+ screens a hour on it with our emulsion.
-
I would stick with what you have but you probably already figured that!
-
I would stick with what you have but you probably already figured that!
I figure my current i-image is getting long in the tooth, it turns 10 any day now. Original head too. So I feel like spending money on it is that the move, really? Or should I try something new. What is a 3 head i-image going for these days?
-
I would stick with what you have but you probably already figured that!
I figure my current i-image is getting long in the tooth, it turns 10 any day now. Original head too. So I feel like spending money on it is that the move, really? Or should I try something new. What is a 3 head i-image going for these days?
what is your pain point? Why replace the unit that seems to be working well (you mentioned being on original head)
pj
-
So just did the math. Theoretically, if you ran it throughout the day continuously (we do not), 50 screens per hour is achievable. So okay faster perhaps....
-
I would stick with what you have but you probably already figured that!
I figure my current i-image is getting long in the tooth, it turns 10 any day now. Original head too. So I feel like spending money on it is that the move, really? Or should I try something new. What is a 3 head i-image going for these days?
what is your pain point? Why replace the unit that seems to be working well (you mentioned being on original head)
pj
We are at the point screens are generally slower than we'd like. So we either need to add heads to our unit, add a unit or replace the unit. IMO id pick the last in that scenario on a 10 year old machine. Just my thoughts on that. So I want to go faster for sure and if we can also improve the image quality or flow in some way as well id be on board there as well. Loading 2 screens 1 time into a Laser to be imaged entirely rather than loading 2 screens into a i-image and then into a starlight seems faster. I am not at all worried about 100k price point, but if thats not the best move then im open to hear what is.
-
If laser comes down to I Image range of pricing I would consider it here. We are 6 years into our STE and did replace the head once but over all love the machine and what it produces. But to have a machine that uses no wet inks and the constant up keep would be a major consideration on our end. Idiot proofing everything as much as possible is also always a bonus. I couldnt care less if my low end dots looked like a meteorite or a perfect circle (Maynard reference).
-
So, for (improved image quality), the laser would be best but only in the area specifically where needed most in the highlight ranges that would help assure your small dots are very small and accurate. At the same time, comes the necessity to assure that the laser is calibrated to hold those small dots for sure. For example, I've been involved with two different shops now that had their LASER machines installed (at default installation) as they call it and yet could not hold below 20% halftone in 65lpi for sim process. Those two shops printed mostly sim process so having it be able, was critical.
We were able to get that corrected, but we had to request calibration for that and that took over a week. At the time, the Tech that could calibrate had to log in remotely, make adjustments, test screens, then print...and mail the results back to the tech...so he could measure results with e densitometer. Time consuming. I believe now, they had to have added a few more people that are able to do that. This one guy was backed up with doing just that. The small dots on the laser... will be best. Cleaner, more accurately formed dots. Lets say from 15% dot and below (compared to the results we get from other CTS machines either wax or wet ink. Under a magnifying glass, prints would be better. From the 20% on up into the 80% ranged, there is not much benefit agasint the wax or wet ink as those dots are well formed...and can be adjusted to match an accurate % tone (e.g. 50% being 50% on press). In comparison, if you separate for your machines ability, your customer will not notice any improvements.
A judge using a magnifying glass at a competition may find the differences.
To me, since you expose using an outside the machine source, you would save on that re-loading time if getting a laser, but...you could also get an M&R STElll and expose on the machine. About the same production on the 3 head...and you also expose on the machine. Don't bother getting a 1 head or two head. May as well get the three if you decide to go M&R at all.
I've heard/read some post that SAATI has come down in price from the 120's to near 90 or 100k to be more cost competitive with the M&R STElll but I don't know that for sure. And I've also heard the same about the M&R STElll coming down in price also. It used to be in the mid 90's but I think they are closer to the 80's now. The STElll will be much faster than your current machine both due to 3 heads printing and exposure on the machine. This production time is running neck and neck with the double exposure Laser.
To answer your questions (what would I do if I were in your shoes). Being already comfortable with the I-Image, I'd do M&R. It's cheaper, about the same (higher production than what you have) either way toy go, and a little less in cost...+ I don't like the idea of the way the resale value of the laser looks in 5-6 years in the end of the lasers lives. As far as overall quality improvements, for tee shirt printing, I don't see me choosing to go Laser for the limited quality benefits. (Only really in the lower end of the small dots of sim process).
-
So, for (improved image quality), the laser would be best but only in the area specifically where needed most in the highlight ranges that would help assure your small dots are very small and accurate. At the same time, comes the necessity to assure that the laser is calibrated to hold those small dots for sure. For example, I've been involved with two different shops now that had their LASER machines installed (at default installation) as they call it and yet could not hold below 20% halftone in 65lpi for sim process. Those two shops printed mostly sim process so having it be able, was critical.
We were able to get that corrected, but we had to request calibration for that and that took over a week. At the time, the Tech that could calibrate had to log in remotely, make adjustments, test screens, then print...and mail the results back to the tech...so he could measure results with e densitometer. Time consuming. I believe now, they had to have added a few more people that are able to do that. This one guy was backed up with doing just that. The small dots on the laser... will be best. Cleaner, more accurately formed dots. Lets say from 15% dot and below (compared to the results we get from other CTS machines either wax or wet ink. Under a magnifying glass, prints would be better. From the 20% on up into the 80% ranged, there is not much benefit agasint the wax or wet ink as those dots are well formed...and can be adjusted to match an accurate % tone (e.g. 50% being 50% on press). In comparison, if you separate for your machines ability, your customer will not notice any improvements.
A judge using a magnifying glass at a competition may find the differences.
To me, since you expose using an outside the machine source, you would save on that re-loading time if getting a laser, but...you could also get an M&R STElll and expose on the machine. About the same production on the 3 head...and you also expose on the machine. Don't bother getting a 1 head or two head. May as well get the three if you decide to go M&R at all.
I've heard/read some post that SAATI has come down in price from the 120's to near 90 or 100k to be more cost competitive with the M&R STElll but I don't know that for sure. And I've also heard the same about the M&R STElll coming down in price also. It used to be in the mid 90's but I think they are closer to the 80's now. The STElll will be much faster than your current machine both due to 3 heads printing and exposure on the machine. This production time is running neck and neck with the double exposure Laser.
To answer your questions (what would I do if I were in your shoes). Being already comfortable with the I-Image, I'd do M&R. It's cheaper, about the same (higher production than what you have) either way toy go, and a little less in cost...+ I don't like the idea of the way the resale value of the laser looks in 5-6 years in the end of the lasers lives. As far as overall quality improvements, for tee shirt printing, I don't see me choosing to go Laser for the limited quality benefits. (Only really in the lower end of the small dots of sim process).
All fair points. I don't think I would do a STE, in my mind a screen could be burning while a screen is imaging, while that over lap is much smaller on a 3 head im sure, it is some amount. So id probably keep my starlight and keep exposing that way if I stuck with M&R.
All things being equal, if the laser was set up correctly which it would simply have to be or id punt it back out the door from go, is there a reason NOT to go that way other than money?
I don't know the current pricing of a STE or ST in 3 head flavors to be fair.
But the saati unit is just a touch over 100k installed.
-
Money isn't a issue
Look at European companies, they have ones where you can load 10 screens and walk away and come back to 10 screens ready to go.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m17Pl-mrfms (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m17Pl-mrfms)
https://signtronic.com/en/stm-tex-series.html (https://signtronic.com/en/stm-tex-series.html)
May not be "faster", but "faster" when you factor in labor.
These have been around for a long time, and more popular in Europe where labor isn't as cheap.
Why only buy European Cars when you can also buy European equipment!
-
I can't compare to other DTS machines but coming from the rocket launcher to the 3 head STE has been an insane improvement. It will crank out a screen in no time. I have used the onboard exposure for the 225's and up but for the lower count screens I've been using my tri-light. I'm really impressed with the opacity of the ink compared to what I had. I wanted a wax unit but this was so cheap I had to buy it and it had 3 new heads installed the day I picked it up. It's way more capable than what I need. I think it was advertised as being able to produce 300 + screens in an 8 hour shift "I may be wrong on that one" but I believe it could.
There is still some testing to be done on halftone screens. I'm sure I'll have to work on some curves.
-
I can't compare to other DTS machines but coming from the rocket launcher to the 3 head STE has been an insane improvement. It will crank out a screen in no time. I have used the onboard exposure for the 225's and up but for the lower count screens I've been using my tri-light. I'm really impressed with the opacity of the ink compared to what I had. I wanted a wax unit but this was so cheap I had to buy it and it had 3 new heads installed the day I picked it up. It's way more capable than what I need. I think it was advertised as being able to produce 300 + screens in an 8 hour shift "I may be wrong on that one" but I believe it could.
There is still some testing to be done on halftone screens. I'm sure I'll have to work on some curves.
I had the rocket launcher too, it was a turd. We didn't keep it long, 4 months maybe or something.
-
So, for (improved image quality), the laser would be best but only in the area specifically where needed most in the highlight ranges that would help assure your small dots are very small and accurate. At the same time, comes the necessity to assure that the laser is calibrated to hold those small dots for sure. For example, I've been involved with two different shops now that had their LASER machines installed (at default installation) as they call it and yet could not hold below 20% halftone in 65lpi for sim process. Those two shops printed mostly sim process so having it be able, was critical.
We were able to get that corrected, but we had to request calibration for that and that took over a week. At the time, the Tech that could calibrate had to log in remotely, make adjustments, test screens, then print...and mail the results back to the tech...so he could measure results with e densitometer. Time consuming. I believe now, they had to have added a few more people that are able to do that. This one guy was backed up with doing just that. The small dots on the laser... will be best. Cleaner, more accurately formed dots. Lets say from 15% dot and below (compared to the results we get from other CTS machines either wax or wet ink. Under a magnifying glass, prints would be better. From the 20% on up into the 80% ranged, there is not much benefit agasint the wax or wet ink as those dots are well formed...and can be adjusted to match an accurate % tone (e.g. 50% being 50% on press). In comparison, if you separate for your machines ability, your customer will not notice any improvements.
A judge using a magnifying glass at a competition may find the differences.
To me, since you expose using an outside the machine source, you would save on that re-loading time if getting a laser, but...you could also get an M&R STElll and expose on the machine. About the same production on the 3 head...and you also expose on the machine. Don't bother getting a 1 head or two head. May as well get the three if you decide to go M&R at all.
I've heard/read some post that SAATI has come down in price from the 120's to near 90 or 100k to be more cost competitive with the M&R STElll but I don't know that for sure. And I've also heard the same about the M&R STElll coming down in price also. It used to be in the mid 90's but I think they are closer to the 80's now. The STElll will be much faster than your current machine both due to 3 heads printing and exposure on the machine. This production time is running neck and neck with the double exposure Laser.
To answer your questions (what would I do if I were in your shoes). Being already comfortable with the I-Image, I'd do M&R. It's cheaper, about the same (higher production than what you have) either way toy go, and a little less in cost...+ I don't like the idea of the way the resale value of the laser looks in 5-6 years in the end of the lasers lives. As far as overall quality improvements, for tee shirt printing, I don't see me choosing to go Laser for the limited quality benefits. (Only really in the lower end of the small dots of sim process).
All fair points. I don't think I would do a STE, in my mind a screen could be burning while a screen is imaging, while that over lap is much smaller on a 3 head im sure, it is some amount. So id probably keep my starlight and keep exposing that way if I stuck with M&R.
All things being equal, if the laser was set up correctly which it would simply have to be or id punt it back out the door from go, is there a reason NOT to go that way other than money?
I don't know the current pricing of a STE or ST in 3 head flavors to be fair.
But the saati unit is just a touch over 100k installed.
Since you won't want to swap exposures, then there is no real benefit IMO of the M&R over the Laser or vise versa. Other than that resale value thing and what to do with a laser that needs updated so much financially that it makes it difficult to either find worthy of investing that much back into or selling off. and if you sell it off, what can you get out of a laser machine that someone much also put in another 30k? The benefits of having laser doesn't sit well with me personally. Another kink with using the laser is (when/after it's dialed in), you can't come in a year later and make your own adjustments without a lot of the same initial effort of calibrating with a densitometer. What happens if you decide to change emulsions for whatever reason a year later. It all needs re-calibrated and There is NO dot gain compensation tool within the software that one can adjust or fine tune on their own within the RIP for laser. Laser puts out, what you put in. So compensation is all done manually (for each file) in advance. TO correct for new emulsion of make a change in coating procedures, someone else from SAATI must make any adjustments needed for you. I'm a fine dot snob. I'm always trying to use what ever I can in the seps for tone to achieve adding to what is needed. In this range of 3-15%, I can obtain whaat might amount to a 5-7% improved difference in overall visual quality doing so. Is that 5%-10% improvement WORTH it? I donno. But like I mentioned, I can make that work on other machines also.
I use a lot of 3-5% tints combining 3-5 colors for a specific shade of color here I'm not using a color. With the ability to do 65lpi or even 75lpi (fully), that improves it (for me). Therefore, it's important for me to be able to hold small dots well. But I do that already using wet ink and wax. (The seps are adjusted manually to obtain that) but it's true that it would look "better" from a LASER at 75lpi in those tones. The smaller the dots that can be printed, the more overall consistent that area would look. Less noticeable dots. I'd really like LASER for that reason alone to know that what I put in there isn't going to cause anyone any issues in screen making and is (finer) than what I can get from wet ink or wax. Having said that, I can do without the laser and it's benefits. The roi for that reason alone, isn't as worth it for me. I'd choose to save 20k. But really, There is no "bad decision" between the two. It's going to work REALLY well (once dialed in) for anyone that buys one, but so would the M&RSTElll.
For you, taking out the (exposing while imaging on the machine) removes the LASER exposing faster factor and the exposing on the wet ink machine factor. That EXPOSING ON THE MACHINE factor, is what sets the production speed for both being BETTER than an ST of any number of heads. I know a 3 head alone, is not going to give you as much improvement in production speed as would a double laser or STElll. It will give you more for sure, but not as much.
Like Sanegun08 mentioned, We may be focusing in on the wrong areas. Thinking beyond a Saati, M&R or Douthit deserves a hard look.
I believe both the SAATI double exposure and the STElll are in the high 400's per 8 hr shift.
(edit) From the M7R site.
"one-printhead i-Image STE I systems can image and expose up to 150 screens per 8-hour shift; two-printhead models can image and expose up to 300 screens per shift;
and three-printhead models can image and expose up to 400 screens per shift. In fact, three-printhead models can generate and expose full-size images in less than a minute".
The above is based on a FULL sized image.
-
Figure in the cost of supply over the life of the machine. Wax and/or ink, etc and not to mention the inevitable head replacements (not if but when)
At the moment, laser looks to be about the same or cheaper over 5+ years.
-
Fair statement. And, even at JSR (all sim pro all day every day) we never viewed shirts under a magnifying glass ;)
-
So, for (improved image quality), the laser would be best but only in the area specifically where needed most in the highlight ranges that would help assure your small dots are very small and accurate. At the same time, comes the necessity to assure that the laser is calibrated to hold those small dots for sure. For example, I've been involved with two different shops now that had their LASER machines installed (at default installation) as they call it and yet could not hold below 20% halftone in 65lpi for sim process. Those two shops printed mostly sim process so having it be able, was critical.
We were able to get that corrected, but we had to request calibration for that and that took over a week. At the time, the Tech that could calibrate had to log in remotely, make adjustments, test screens, then print...and mail the results back to the tech...so he could measure results with e densitometer. Time consuming. I believe now, they had to have added a few more people that are able to do that. This one guy was backed up with doing just that. The small dots on the laser... will be best. Cleaner, more accurately formed dots. Lets say from 15% dot and below (compared to the results we get from other CTS machines either wax or wet ink. Under a magnifying glass, prints would be better. From the 20% on up into the 80% ranged, there is not much benefit agasint the wax or wet ink as those dots are well formed...and can be adjusted to match an accurate % tone (e.g. 50% being 50% on press). In comparison, if you separate for your machines ability, your customer will not notice any improvements.
A judge using a magnifying glass at a competition may find the differences.
To me, since you expose using an outside the machine source, you would save on that re-loading time if getting a laser, but...you could also get an M&R STElll and expose on the machine. About the same production on the 3 head...and you also expose on the machine. Don't bother getting a 1 head or two head. May as well get the three if you decide to go M&R at all.
I've heard/read some post that SAATI has come down in price from the 120's to near 90 or 100k to be more cost competitive with the M&R STElll but I don't know that for sure. And I've also heard the same about the M&R STElll coming down in price also. It used to be in the mid 90's but I think they are closer to the 80's now. The STElll will be much faster than your current machine both due to 3 heads printing and exposure on the machine. This production time is running neck and neck with the double exposure Laser.
To answer your questions (what would I do if I were in your shoes). Being already comfortable with the I-Image, I'd do M&R. It's cheaper, about the same (higher production than what you have) either way toy go, and a little less in cost...+ I don't like the idea of the way the resale value of the laser looks in 5-6 years in the end of the lasers lives. As far as overall quality improvements, for tee shirt printing, I don't see me choosing to go Laser for the limited quality benefits. (Only really in the lower end of the small dots of sim process).
All fair points. I don't think I would do a STE, in my mind a screen could be burning while a screen is imaging, while that over lap is much smaller on a 3 head im sure, it is some amount. So id probably keep my starlight and keep exposing that way if I stuck with M&R.
All things being equal, if the laser was set up correctly which it would simply have to be or id punt it back out the door from go, is there a reason NOT to go that way other than money?
I don't know the current pricing of a STE or ST in 3 head flavors to be fair.
But the saati unit is just a touch over 100k installed.
Since you won't want to swap exposures, then there is no real benefit IMO of the M&R over the Laser or vise versa. Other than that resale value thing and what to do with a laser that needs updated so much financially that it makes it difficult to either find worthy of investing that much back into or selling off. and if you sell it off, what can you get out of a laser machine that someone much also put in another 30k? The benefits of having laser doesn't sit well with me personally. Another kink with using the laser is (when/after it's dialed in), you can't come in a year later and make your own adjustments without a lot of the same initial effort of calibrating with a densitometer. What happens if you decide to change emulsions for whatever reason a year later. It all needs re-calibrated and There is NO dot gain compensation tool within the software that one can adjust or fine tune on their own within the RIP for laser. Laser puts out, what you put in. So compensation is all done manually (for each file) in advance. TO correct for new emulsion of make a change in coating procedures, someone else from SAATI must make any adjustments needed for you. I'm a fine dot snob. I'm always trying to use what ever I can in the seps for tone to achieve adding to what is needed. In this range of 3-15%, I can obtain whaat might amount to a 5-7% improved difference in overall visual quality doing so. Is that 5%-10% improvement WORTH it? I donno. But like I mentioned, I can make that work on other machines also.
I use a lot of 3-5% tints combining 3-5 colors for a specific shade of color here I'm not using a color. With the ability to do 65lpi or even 75lpi (fully), that improves it (for me). Therefore, it's important for me to be able to hold small dots well. But I do that already using wet ink and wax. (The seps are adjusted manually to obtain that) but it's true that it would look "better" from a LASER at 75lpi in those tones. The smaller the dots that can be printed, the more overall consistent that area would look. Less noticeable dots. I'd really like LASER for that reason alone to know that what I put in there isn't going to cause anyone any issues in screen making and is (finer) than what I can get from wet ink or wax. Having said that, I can do without the laser and it's benefits. The roi for that reason alone, isn't as worth it for me. I'd choose to save 20k. But really, There is no "bad decision" between the two. It's going to work REALLY well (once dialed in) for anyone that buys one, but so would the M&RSTElll.
For you, taking out the (exposing while imaging on the machine) removes the LASER exposing faster factor and the exposing on the wet ink machine factor. That EXPOSING ON THE MACHINE factor, is what sets the production speed for both being BETTER than an ST of any number of heads. I know a 3 head alone, is not going to give you as much improvement in production speed as would a double laser or STElll. It will give you more for sure, but not as much.
Like Sanegun08 mentioned, We may be focusing in on the wrong areas. Thinking beyond a Saati, M&R or Douthit deserves a hard look.
I believe both the SAATI double exposure and the STElll are in the high 400's per 8 hr shift.
(edit) From the M7R site.
"one-printhead i-Image STE I systems can image and expose up to 150 screens per 8-hour shift; two-printhead models can image and expose up to 300 screens per shift;
and three-printhead models can image and expose up to 400 screens per shift. In fact, three-printhead models can generate and expose full-size images in less than a minute".
The above is based on a FULL sized image.
M&R is coming tomorrow to discuss. Guess ill get their perspective and such. I am not sold on any of it yet. Ink/Wax/Laser.
-
Not sure if any of this will help, but here is my input on this:
We had a rocket launcher, without that not sure if we would have adopted CTS when we did. It was what it was. Modified Epson no one really wants to acknowledge. But it worked. From that we moved to a ST3. Three heads is FAST super nice. We did not have the "E" version so we exposed separate, which is fine. Imaging was faster than exposure. BUT it was ink. Up in the North here that sucked for a handful of reasons, but damn that sucker was fast and nice! Until the heads got out of alignment. Then pretty much everyone said not to do 3 heads again because that happens....
We switched to wax. DAMN! Overall ease, detail and quality, I was blown away. Still love how reliable and the quality that machine puts out daily.
When we went from the 3 head ST to wax I wanted to see what the time difference was to see if we would have a new bottle neck... Sent a big 19" tall image to Douthit, same image to a friend that had/has a single head I image and then I ran it on our 3 head. Asked both of them to print in in single direction(slower better detail) print so I could see where things stacked up. It has been a few years, but if memory serves me, our 3 head was like 42 sec, both the single head I-image and wax were within like 2 seconds of each other at 1:19. 1:19 didn't create any new bottle necks so we went wax and I never have regretted it.
As far as laser, I have watched the Saati one for a while, but knowing that they basically just rebrand, AND we don't need a new unit, I haven't done anything. I would also prefer a single screen unit. I still watch the development because it is interesting, but I think it will need more speed. Also, for us we have to think about exposure and emulsion. We are over 95% discharge/waterbase and there is ZERO possibility of switching emulsion, and breakdown ends up being WAY more costly than if we used plastisol so I'm super cautious.
I have had my eye on a newer company(link below) coming into the states that has a laser, got to talk with one of the people and one of the soon to be techs. Seems pretty interesting! Expensive, but none of the lasers are ink/wax price. If we were going to be upgrading I would at least consider them! Still love the damn wax though! :)
https://luescher.com/en/product-lines/screen-cube (https://luescher.com/en/product-lines/screen-cube)
-
Not sure if any of this will help, but here is my input on this:
We had a rocket launcher, without that not sure if we would have adopted CTS when we did. It was what it was. Modified Epson no one really wants to acknowledge. But it worked. From that we moved to a ST3. Three heads is FAST super nice. We did not have the "E" version so we exposed separate, which is fine. Imaging was faster than exposure. BUT it was ink. Up in the North here that sucked for a handful of reasons, but damn that sucker was fast and nice! Until the heads got out of alignment. Then pretty much everyone said not to do 3 heads again because that happens....
We switched to wax. DAMN! Overall ease, detail and quality, I was blown away. Still love how reliable and the quality that machine puts out daily.
When we went from the 3 head ST to wax I wanted to see what the time difference was to see if we would have a new bottle neck... Sent a big 19" tall image to Douthit, same image to a friend that had/has a single head I image and then I ran it on our 3 head. Asked both of them to print in in single direction(slower better detail) print so I could see where things stacked up. It has been a few years, but if memory serves me, our 3 head was like 42 sec, both the single head I-image and wax were within like 2 seconds of each other at 1:19. 1:19 didn't create any new bottle necks so we went wax and I never have regretted it.
As far as laser, I have watched the Saati one for a while, but knowing that they basically just rebrand, AND we don't need a new unit, I haven't done anything. I would also prefer a single screen unit. I still watch the development because it is interesting, but I think it will need more speed. Also, for us we have to think about exposure and emulsion. We are over 95% discharge/waterbase and there is ZERO possibility of switching emulsion, and breakdown ends up being WAY more costly than if we used plastisol so I'm super cautious.
I have had my eye on a newer company(link below) coming into the states that has a laser, got to talk with one of the people and one of the soon to be techs. Seems pretty interesting! Expensive, but none of the lasers are ink/wax price. If we were going to be upgrading I would at least consider them! Still love the damn wax though! :)
https://luescher.com/en/product-lines/screen-cube (https://luescher.com/en/product-lines/screen-cube)
If you don't mind, did anything happen to cause the misalignment on the 3 head or did it just happen? I'm hoping we don't have the same issue that doesn't seem like a DIY fix.
-
Not sure if any of this will help, but here is my input on this:
We had a rocket launcher, without that not sure if we would have adopted CTS when we did. It was what it was. Modified Epson no one really wants to acknowledge. But it worked. From that we moved to a ST3. Three heads is FAST super nice. We did not have the "E" version so we exposed separate, which is fine. Imaging was faster than exposure. BUT it was ink. Up in the North here that sucked for a handful of reasons, but damn that sucker was fast and nice! Until the heads got out of alignment. Then pretty much everyone said not to do 3 heads again because that happens....
We switched to wax. DAMN! Overall ease, detail and quality, I was blown away. Still love how reliable and the quality that machine puts out daily.
When we went from the 3 head ST to wax I wanted to see what the time difference was to see if we would have a new bottle neck... Sent a big 19" tall image to Douthit, same image to a friend that had/has a single head I image and then I ran it on our 3 head. Asked both of them to print in in single direction(slower better detail) print so I could see where things stacked up. It has been a few years, but if memory serves me, our 3 head was like 42 sec, both the single head I-image and wax were within like 2 seconds of each other at 1:19. 1:19 didn't create any new bottle necks so we went wax and I never have regretted it.
As far as laser, I have watched the Saati one for a while, but knowing that they basically just rebrand, AND we don't need a new unit, I haven't done anything. I would also prefer a single screen unit. I still watch the development because it is interesting, but I think it will need more speed. Also, for us we have to think about exposure and emulsion. We are over 95% discharge/waterbase and there is ZERO possibility of switching emulsion, and breakdown ends up being WAY more costly than if we used plastisol so I'm super cautious.
I have had my eye on a newer company(link below) coming into the states that has a laser, got to talk with one of the people and one of the soon to be techs. Seems pretty interesting! Expensive, but none of the lasers are ink/wax price. If we were going to be upgrading I would at least consider them! Still love the damn wax though! :)
https://luescher.com/en/product-lines/screen-cube (https://luescher.com/en/product-lines/screen-cube)
If you don't mind, did anything happen to cause the misalignment on the 3 head or did it just happen? I'm hoping we don't have the same issue that doesn't seem like a DIY fix.
It's not a DIY fix. The fix is basically replacing the 3 heads with 1 head. Then it could probably be DIY. It was just time from what I understood from the techs. Machine didn't move in the years it was there, always capped it properly and filled with cleaning solution. I really liked it so I took care of it!
-
M&R came today, we are discussing options.
Also talked to Mark from Douthitt, good conversation as well.
-
Figure in the cost of supply over the life of the machine. Wax and/or ink, etc and not to mention the inevitable head replacements (not if but when)
At the moment, laser looks to be about the same or cheaper over 5+ years.
I've done the comparisons and Wax/Wet ink consumables average out to about 3-5k less (over a 5 year span) compared to the cost of labor and parts of replacing lasers at end of life.
-
Not sure if any of this will help, but here is my input on this:
We had a rocket launcher, without that not sure if we would have adopted CTS when we did. It was what it was. Modified Epson no one really wants to acknowledge. But it worked. From that we moved to a ST3. Three heads is FAST super nice. We did not have the "E" version so we exposed separate, which is fine. Imaging was faster than exposure. BUT it was ink. Up in the North here that sucked for a handful of reasons, but damn that sucker was fast and nice! Until the heads got out of alignment. Then pretty much everyone said not to do 3 heads again because that happens....
We switched to wax. DAMN! Overall ease, detail and quality, I was blown away. Still love how reliable and the quality that machine puts out daily.
When we went from the 3 head ST to wax I wanted to see what the time difference was to see if we would have a new bottle neck... Sent a big 19" tall image to Douthit, same image to a friend that had/has a single head I image and then I ran it on our 3 head. Asked both of them to print in in single direction(slower better detail) print so I could see where things stacked up. It has been a few years, but if memory serves me, our 3 head was like 42 sec, both the single head I-image and wax were within like 2 seconds of each other at 1:19. 1:19 didn't create any new bottle necks so we went wax and I never have regretted it.
As far as laser, I have watched the Saati one for a while, but knowing that they basically just rebrand, AND we don't need a new unit, I haven't done anything. I would also prefer a single screen unit. I still watch the development because it is interesting, but I think it will need more speed. Also, for us we have to think about exposure and emulsion. We are over 95% discharge/waterbase and there is ZERO possibility of switching emulsion, and breakdown ends up being WAY more costly than if we used plastisol so I'm super cautious.
I have had my eye on a newer company(link below) coming into the states that has a laser, got to talk with one of the people and one of the soon to be techs. Seems pretty interesting! Expensive, but none of the lasers are ink/wax price. If we were going to be upgrading I would at least consider them! Still love the damn wax though! :)
https://luescher.com/en/product-lines/screen-cube (https://luescher.com/en/product-lines/screen-cube)
If you don't mind, did anything happen to cause the misalignment on the 3 head or did it just happen? I'm hoping we don't have the same issue that doesn't seem like a DIY fix.
It's not a DIY fix. The fix is basically replacing the 3 heads with 1 head. Then it could probably be DIY. It was just time from what I understood from the techs. Machine didn't move in the years it was there, always capped it properly and filled with cleaning solution. I really liked it so I took care of it!
Hopefully with my light usage I have some time before that happens.
-
Not sure if any of this will help, but here is my input on this:
We had a rocket launcher, without that not sure if we would have adopted CTS when we did. It was what it was. Modified Epson no one really wants to acknowledge. But it worked. From that we moved to a ST3. Three heads is FAST super nice. We did not have the "E" version so we exposed separate, which is fine. Imaging was faster than exposure. BUT it was ink. Up in the North here that sucked for a handful of reasons, but damn that sucker was fast and nice! Until the heads got out of alignment. Then pretty much everyone said not to do 3 heads again because that happens....
We switched to wax. DAMN! Overall ease, detail and quality, I was blown away. Still love how reliable and the quality that machine puts out daily.
When we went from the 3 head ST to wax I wanted to see what the time difference was to see if we would have a new bottle neck... Sent a big 19" tall image to Douthit, same image to a friend that had/has a single head I image and then I ran it on our 3 head. Asked both of them to print in in single direction(slower better detail) print so I could see where things stacked up. It has been a few years, but if memory serves me, our 3 head was like 42 sec, both the single head I-image and wax were within like 2 seconds of each other at 1:19. 1:19 didn't create any new bottle necks so we went wax and I never have regretted it.
As far as laser, I have watched the Saati one for a while, but knowing that they basically just rebrand, AND we don't need a new unit, I haven't done anything. I would also prefer a single screen unit. I still watch the development because it is interesting, but I think it will need more speed. Also, for us we have to think about exposure and emulsion. We are over 95% discharge/waterbase and there is ZERO possibility of switching emulsion, and breakdown ends up being WAY more costly than if we used plastisol so I'm super cautious.
I have had my eye on a newer company(link below) coming into the states that has a laser, got to talk with one of the people and one of the soon to be techs. Seems pretty interesting! Expensive, but none of the lasers are ink/wax price. If we were going to be upgrading I would at least consider them! Still love the damn wax though! :)
https://luescher.com/en/product-lines/screen-cube (https://luescher.com/en/product-lines/screen-cube)
If you don't mind, did anything happen to cause the misalignment on the 3 head or did it just happen? I'm hoping we don't have the same issue that doesn't seem like a DIY fix.
It's not a DIY fix. The fix is basically replacing the 3 heads with 1 head. Then it could probably be DIY. It was just time from what I understood from the techs. Machine didn't move in the years it was there, always capped it properly and filled with cleaning solution. I really liked it so I took care of it!
I'll say this. I think at that time, during that situation, someone decided to take it to 1 head (intended to be a temporary fix) so you could move on with production until you get it fixed. You may have stayed at 1 head out of convenience while seeing that it ran fine for your needs at 1 head. You really should have went back to 3 heads after your issue was resolved.
Sometimes, when the powers to be at M&R don't have a solid answer, they assign one for the sake of just moving on. Like Mechanics who try to solve a problem by process of elimination. It may take 3-4 tries of replacing parts to get it right. The last resolve sometimes is to just remove the gut of the issue (head) and or main board and replace when it may have been one single thin wire that had snapped in the cable connecting the head to mainboard (for example). Odd stuff, but it's happened before.
Heads don't just "miss align out of the blue". If at all, it would be (due to 5-10 years of vibration), perhaps the screw may get loosened enough and unnoticed for many years to allow for a slight slide out of a snug place.....before one would ever see a miss alignment due to a head. And THEN, you don't replace the head. You simply lock it back down tighter..and re-calibrate. While we were taught to look at alignment and re-calibrate anytime we did something major, we all knew that every time we do, there was and would be no change from the original calibration, no miss alignment do to working on the machine (for example). The only time you would typically need to re-calibrate is if you had lost all of your saved settings for calibration, computer got zapped or after replacing Head #2 or Head #3. Head 1 is always locked in for good.
Once they are locked in (seated within a very tight slot), then with a lock/screw (front and back), then you calibrate by adjusting the jetting for alignment in the software. The head doesn't move anymore. So my point is, you can simply re-calibrate the alignment. It used to be that only Techs got in there and did that, (it's not rocket science) but there are specific steps to get it right and does take some time for those who are comfortable and experienced with it) so most times it's best for a tech to do it. I've heard that has changed and they are now walking customers through the process but the process can be a 30 min process for a Tech on site...and a 2 hrs process for a customer that is taking direction over the phone so, it's always been something to avoid doing over the phone.
With all of that described, I'm trying to say that it's highly unlikely that "Head replacements" were necessary for miss alignment issues or that you did not need to go to a single head. Yes, that's how you get by, (just change to one head) until a Tech can get there to evaluate/re-calibrate. But then you do have to get back with M&R to put in the request to schedule it.
Not really sure in the end what could have been done, but something seems odd with how you got there to that point. Unresolved.
-
MFG specs the laser life at 10k+ hrs. At current output that is btwn 10-15 years BTW.
-
That is what I was hearing too Tony. My thoughts is your buying a screen imaging system for probably 10 years of use. More is great but I think every 10 years there are going to be advancements that if you care you should be considering.
Just my thoughts.
-
MFG specs the laser life at 10k+ hrs. At current output that is btwn 10-15 years BTW.
That may be at one shops current output, but the average output (for a typical shop that can/need to buy lasers) is double that production. That boils down to 5-6 years roughly.
-
I'd like to hear from anyone who was an early adopter of the double Laser that does a lot of production like 200-400 screens a day to chime in and and give us a peak into what's life like with the laser and expected life. Has their print quality really improved? Have they replaced any lasers at or before 5 years. If so, what was the cost? Was it easy? Things like that.
-
Ditto on the last two. Print quality soared because prior to LTS we were film. And like CTS no reg marks required. Screens are of course pre reg for ROQ triloc.
-
MFG specs the laser life at 10k+ hrs. At current output that is btwn 10-15 years BTW.
That may be at one shops current output, but the average output (for a typical shop that can/need to buy lasers) is double that production. That boils down to 5-6 years roughly.
FYI Price wise, 3 head STE and a Saati laser are close in price, way closer than ive seen posted in this thread. So if you are already considering a 3 head STE, you are already in the ball park of a Laser, they are less than 10k apart.
For me right now, wax seems like the move. Just to be honest.
-
" Print quality soared because prior to LTS we were film"
I think if we are being honest, quality would soar, compared to film, using even an "entry level" CTS. How high do you want or need to soar? I'm sure my answer is different than others.
-
MFG specs the laser life at 10k+ hrs. At current output that is btwn 10-15 years BTW.
That may be at one shops current output, but the average output (for a typical shop that can/need to buy lasers) is double that production. That boils down to 5-6 years roughly.
FYI Price wise, 3 head STE and a Saati laser are close in price, way closer than ive seen posted in this thread. So if you are already considering a 3 head STE, you are already in the ball park of a Laser, they are less than 10k apart.
For me right now, wax seems like the move. Just to be honest.
I think your only reason for changing at all goes back to A, Production increase. B, Quality increase (if you can).
If I understand you correctly, you will want to stay with exposing on the current outside source (outside the machine) because you don't believe that there is much difference in time from taking a screen off, walking it over a few steps and exposing...then back to machine and printing another. Once you package everything together, THIS part is what will really make the difference over ALL LASER CTS.
Doesn't matter if you get Laser, or Wet ink or even WAX. (is there WAX that exposes on the machine?) If it can expose ON the machine, that's increases production. There's a time saving factor there.
WAX tho, or at least Douthit IS a good imager. No doubt about it and it will run just as good as your wet ink machine. You don't have a screen room environment "issue" of humidity or emulsion issues with your current machine so theres no up side there for the WAX working in most any environment.
I've worked with Mark from Douthit and assisted during an install. I was there to go through all of the setup and curves adjustments (Saved curves setup were provided by Jason Vanick and his was done using a densitometer. The only thing about using that is that each shop will be different. Using this only gets you much closer to something great and still needs dialed in for your one shop. Had we had more time to tweak the curves for the wax machine, I think it would have been lighter in the shadow tones. to help get it very dialed in at setup.
We output a sim process job while there, that I was also running production for on wet ink. THIS sim process job is a good comparison/example of the quality between the two. Granted, the print shops were different. The presses were different...but the setups (mesh, squeegee and seps) were the same. BOTH provided excellent image quality. BOTH would have been very good sim process prints and nobody would notice anything different about any areas (had there not been something to compare to).
You also have to consider that each phot was taken under different lighting from different shops.
-
MFG specs the laser life at 10k+ hrs. At current output that is btwn 10-15 years BTW.
That may be at one shops current output, but the average output (for a typical shop that can/need to buy lasers) is double that production. That boils down to 5-6 years roughly.
FYI Price wise, 3 head STE and a Saati laser are close in price, way closer than ive seen posted in this thread. So if you are already considering a 3 head STE, you are already in the ball park of a Laser, they are less than 10k apart.
For me right now, wax seems like the move. Just to be honest.
I think your only reason for changing at all goes back to A, Production increase. B, Quality increase (if you can).
If I understand you correctly, you will want to stay with exposing on the current outside source (outside the machine) because you don't believe that there is much difference in time from taking a screen off, walking it over a few steps and exposing...then back to machine and printing another. Once you package everything together, THIS part is what will really make the difference over ALL LASER CTS.
Doesn't matter if you get Laser, or Wet ink or even WAX. (is there WAX that exposes on the machine?) If it can expose ON the machine, that's increases production. There's a time saving factor there.
Yes we will still use a starlight if we went wax. For me that seems fine, load a screen into the wax machine, image it, take screen out, put new screen in start the image, put first screen on starlight, expose it. Repeat. It will be a fluid flow there I believe. It should be able to out run us by far right now even. What we may do is add a eco rise to help with developing the image to speed that up too.
-
You will love the eco rinse. Ours was 2 up.
-
I would stick with what you have but you probably already figured that!
I figure my current i-image is getting long in the tooth, it turns 10 any day now. Original head too. So I feel like spending money on it is that the move, really? Or should I try something new. What is a 3 head i-image going for these days?
what is your pain point? Why replace the unit that seems to be working well (you mentioned being on original head)
pj
We are at the point screens are generally slower than we'd like. So we either need to add heads to our unit, add a unit or replace the unit. IMO id pick the last in that scenario on a 10 year old machine. Just my thoughts on that. So I want to go faster for sure and if we can also improve the image quality or flow in some way as well id be on board there as well. Loading 2 screens 1 time into a Laser to be imaged entirely rather than loading 2 screens into a i-image and then into a starlight seems faster. I am not at all worried about 100k price point, but if thats not the best move then im open to hear what is.
that seems like a logical argument there!
pj
-
MFG specs the laser life at 10k+ hrs. At current output that is btwn 10-15 years BTW.
That may be at one shops current output, but the average output (for a typical shop that can/need to buy lasers) is double that production. That boils down to 5-6 years roughly.
FYI Price wise, 3 head STE and a Saati laser are close in price, way closer than ive seen posted in this thread. So if you are already considering a 3 head STE, you are already in the ball park of a Laser, they are less than 10k apart.
For me right now, wax seems like the move. Just to be honest.
I think your only reason for changing at all goes back to A, Production increase. B, Quality increase (if you can).
If I understand you correctly, you will want to stay with exposing on the current outside source (outside the machine) because you don't believe that there is much difference in time from taking a screen off, walking it over a few steps and exposing...then back to machine and printing another. Once you package everything together, THIS part is what will really make the difference over ALL LASER CTS.
Doesn't matter if you get Laser, or Wet ink or even WAX. (is there WAX that exposes on the machine?) If it can expose ON the machine, that's increases production. There's a time saving factor there.
Yes we will still use a starlight if we went wax. For me that seems fine, load a screen into the wax machine, image it, take screen out, put new screen in start the image, put first screen on starlight, expose it. Repeat. It will be a fluid flow there I believe. It should be able to out run us by far right now even. What we may do is add a eco rise to help with developing the image to speed that up too.
eco rinse is a great piece when you have the volume. We have one person doing everything screen related (de-ink, remove tape, reclaim, coat, image, expose and tape) and can do 100+ screens per day.
eco rinse makes a huge difference in time and quality of life. Not having to use the pressure washer makes your screen guys life soooo much better.
pj
-
MFG specs the laser life at 10k+ hrs. At current output that is btwn 10-15 years BTW.
That may be at one shops current output, but the average output (for a typical shop that can/need to buy lasers) is double that production. That boils down to 5-6 years roughly.
FYI Price wise, 3 head STE and a Saati laser are close in price, way closer than ive seen posted in this thread. So if you are already considering a 3 head STE, you are already in the ball park of a Laser, they are less than 10k apart.
For me right now, wax seems like the move. Just to be honest.
I think your only reason for changing at all goes back to A, Production increase. B, Quality increase (if you can).
If I understand you correctly, you will want to stay with exposing on the current outside source (outside the machine) because you don't believe that there is much difference in time from taking a screen off, walking it over a few steps and exposing...then back to machine and printing another. Once you package everything together, THIS part is what will really make the difference over ALL LASER CTS.
Doesn't matter if you get Laser, or Wet ink or even WAX. (is there WAX that exposes on the machine?) If it can expose ON the machine, that's increases production. There's a time saving factor there.
Yes we will still use a starlight if we went wax. For me that seems fine, load a screen into the wax machine, image it, take screen out, put new screen in start the image, put first screen on starlight, expose it. Repeat. It will be a fluid flow there I believe. It should be able to out run us by far right now even. What we may do is add a eco rise to help with developing the image to speed that up too.
eco rinse is a great piece when you have the volume. We have one person doing everything screen related (de-ink, remove tape, reclaim, coat, image, expose and tape) and can do 100+ screens per day.
eco rinse makes a huge difference in time and quality of life. Not having to use the pressure washer makes your screen guys life soooo much better.
pj
For sure. We dont use pressure washer to delevope them now though, just post expose tank and a quick hit of water.
-
MFG specs the laser life at 10k+ hrs. At current output that is btwn 10-15 years BTW.
That may be at one shops current output, but the average output (for a typical shop that can/need to buy lasers) is double that production. That boils down to 5-6 years roughly.
FYI Price wise, 3 head STE and a Saati laser are close in price, way closer than ive seen posted in this thread. So if you are already considering a 3 head STE, you are already in the ball park of a Laser, they are less than 10k apart.
For me right now, wax seems like the move. Just to be honest.
As Dot Tone Dan mentioned, humidity issues go away with a wax unit. Depending on your setup (if your CTS is in the screen room where you are drying them), being able to run a dehumidifier and not worry about dried up heads could be a big deal.
We are running the the wax unit and are pretty happy with it.
pierre
-
MFG specs the laser life at 10k+ hrs. At current output that is btwn 10-15 years BTW.
That may be at one shops current output, but the average output (for a typical shop that can/need to buy lasers) is double that production. That boils down to 5-6 years roughly.
FYI Price wise, 3 head STE and a Saati laser are close in price, way closer than ive seen posted in this thread. So if you are already considering a 3 head STE, you are already in the ball park of a Laser, they are less than 10k apart.
For me right now, wax seems like the move. Just to be honest.
I think your only reason for changing at all goes back to A, Production increase. B, Quality increase (if you can).
If I understand you correctly, you will want to stay with exposing on the current outside source (outside the machine) because you don't believe that there is much difference in time from taking a screen off, walking it over a few steps and exposing...then back to machine and printing another. Once you package everything together, THIS part is what will really make the difference over ALL LASER CTS.
Doesn't matter if you get Laser, or Wet ink or even WAX. (is there WAX that exposes on the machine?) If it can expose ON the machine, that's increases production. There's a time saving factor there.
Yes we will still use a starlight if we went wax. For me that seems fine, load a screen into the wax machine, image it, take screen out, put new screen in start the image, put first screen on starlight, expose it. Repeat. It will be a fluid flow there I believe. It should be able to out run us by far right now even. What we may do is add a eco rise to help with developing the image to speed that up too.
eco rinse is a great piece when you have the volume. We have one person doing everything screen related (de-ink, remove tape, reclaim, coat, image, expose and tape) and can do 100+ screens per day.
eco rinse makes a huge difference in time and quality of life. Not having to use the pressure washer makes your screen guys life soooo much better.
pj
For sure. We dont use pressure washer to delevope them now though, just post expose tank and a quick hit of water.
you might not see the benefits then. you still have to walk the screens to the unit, secure them, close the doors, start the process. It all takes a tiny bit of time. If your rinse is 15-20 seconds, the advantage might not be worth it. If you are spending a min or so, then yes.
pj
-
eco rinse is a great piece when you have the volume. We have one person doing everything screen related (de-ink, remove tape, reclaim, coat, image, expose and tape) and can do 100+ screens per day.
eco rinse makes a huge difference in time and quality of life. Not having to use the pressure washer makes your screen guys life soooo much better.
I still think there is a much better option
-
eco rinse is a great piece when you have the volume. We have one person doing everything screen related (de-ink, remove tape, reclaim, coat, image, expose and tape) and can do 100+ screens per day.
eco rinse makes a huge difference in time and quality of life. Not having to use the pressure washer makes your screen guys life soooo much better.
I still think there is a much better option
don't be stingy, SHARE!
pj
-
If room allows, and you do a "large" (I don't know what justifies large) the Bluewater Labs developer is nice. My screen girl pulls a screen from exposure unit and set it on the conveyor. One step away. Doesn't get touched again until person that tapes pulls it off conveyor in taping area. Dry and ready to tape.
But don't let this derail the thread. It's about LTS still
-
If room allows, and you do a "large" (I don't know what justifies large) the Bluewater Labs developer is nice. My screen girl pulls a screen from exposure unit and set it on the conveyor. One step away. Doesn't get touched again until person that tapes pulls it off conveyor in taping area. Dry and ready to tape.
that does look nice! You happy with it?
pj
-
MFG specs the laser life at 10k+ hrs. At current output that is btwn 10-15 years BTW.
That may be at one shops current output, but the average output (for a typical shop that can/need to buy lasers) is double that production. That boils down to 5-6 years roughly.
FYI Price wise, 3 head STE and a Saati laser are close in price, way closer than ive seen posted in this thread. So if you are already considering a 3 head STE, you are already in the ball park of a Laser, they are less than 10k apart.
For me right now, wax seems like the move. Just to be honest.
As Dot Tone Dan mentioned, humidity issues go away with a wax unit. Depending on your setup (if your CTS is in the screen room where you are drying them), being able to run a dehumidifier and not worry about dried up heads could be a big deal.
We are running the the wax unit and are pretty happy with it.
pierre
We don't have a screen room. Our entire screen print department other than artists are out in the warehouse, 45-115 temp all year around.
-
If room allows, and you do a "large" (I don't know what justifies large) the Bluewater Labs developer is nice. My screen girl pulls a screen from exposure unit and set it on the conveyor. One step away. Doesn't get touched again until person that tapes pulls it off conveyor in taping area. Dry and ready to tape.
But don't let this derail the thread. It's about LTS still
I thought this thread was about electric cars
-
I thought this thread was about electric cars
Sure.
How many screens per day can a Tesla develop vs a Rivian?
-
As Dot Tone Dan mentioned, humidity issues go away with a wax unit. Depending on your setup (if your CTS is in the screen room where you are drying them), being able to run a dehumidifier and not worry about dried up heads could be a big deal.We are running the the wax unit and are pretty happy with it.pierre
Let me also say, (the idea that there is a concern for heads drying up), is not currently legit. The ink "issue" was only on one type of ink that is now not used. Not used since about 3 years now. But when they were using it and people were seeing "ink" issues, It was not ALL drying issues. It was in both directions. Using the same ink, some environments were too wet/humid that allowed the screens to be too damp on the surface and the ink would not bond like it should, ...while in other shop environments were too dry (using the same ink). This made it very difficult to identify how to treat it. The window of good opportunity was very small. This also caused Debre buildup in a faster amount of time and added to clogging heads/dried junk in and around the heads that required much more cleaning maintenance. Nobody likes cleaning.
WAX, doesn't rely on water and makes this a nice benefit. However, Extreme environments of high heat may play a role in the quality of the screen stencil if kept in that environment for a long time. Extreme heat may be 100-120 degrees may soften and gravity may elongate the image to a very small degree. (and I've seen some screen rooms that were really hot near 110-120 but also very humid). As you can imagine, this may affect the wax integrity slightly while sitting on the screen, standing vertically against the wall for very long before exposure. Don't stack and let them pile up and remain in the heat for extreme amounts of time if you're in a very hot environment. Doesn't happen? Well, there are some shops that do 1000 screens a day (2 shifts) so, there's a lot of sitting around if you get too far ahead on screens. If using wax, this might get into being a problem but for 95% of wax users, not a problem.
-
As Dot Tone Dan mentioned, humidity issues go away with a wax unit. Depending on your setup (if your CTS is in the screen room where you are drying them), being able to run a dehumidifier and not worry about dried up heads could be a big deal.We are running the the wax unit and are pretty happy with it.pierre
Let me also say, (the idea that there is a concern for heads drying up), is not currently legit. The ink "issue" was only on one type of ink that is now not used. Not used since about 3 years now. But when they were using it and people were seeing "ink" issues, It was not ALL drying issues. It was in both directions. Using the same ink, some environments were too wet/humid that allowed the screens to be too damp on the surface and the ink would not bond like it should, ...while in other shop environments were too dry (using the same ink). This made it very difficult to identify how to treat it. The window of good opportunity was very small. This also caused Debre buildup in a faster amount of time and added to clogging heads/dried junk in and around the heads that required much more cleaning maintenance. Nobody likes cleaning.
WAX, doesn't rely on water and makes this a nice benefit. However, Extreme environments of high heat may play a role in the quality of the screen stencil if kept in that environment for a long time. Extreme heat may be 100-120 degrees may soften and gravity may elongate the image to a very small degree. (and I've seen some screen rooms that were really hot near 110-120 but also very humid). As you can imagine, this may affect the wax integrity slightly while sitting on the screen, standing vertically against the wall for very long before exposure. Don't stack and let them pile up and remain in the heat for extreme amounts of time if you're in a very hot environment. Doesn't happen? Well, there are some shops that do 1000 screens a day (2 shifts) so, there's a lot of sitting around if you get too far ahead on screens. If using wax, this might get into being a problem but for 95% of wax users, not a problem.
Fair points, Mark seems to think we'd be fine, we dont stack screens really either, we basicially image them right away. I haven't 1000% made up my mind but most likely going to give the Wax a go. Spoke with some laser users, its bleeding edge.
-
You will of course have to re-rip all of the saved.prt files again in the new RIP that would be re-orders from the old printer. .prt don't read as .tif's and they don't load the same way. Orientation is different.
To me, re-ripping has never been an issue. Short time. But there will be a difference in halftone output when comparing the wax with what you're accustom to in the I-Image. If I remember right, you were using some curves from DannyG that were pretty open in the shadow tones. The wax machine has a little more gain than the I-Image in the shadow tones (1 head to 1 head comparison) so be sure to look at that and adjust accordingly. It's not a problem. You just need to find the sweet spot that looks similar. Using a good curve provided by someone else or the default it comes with, won't be good to match back to what you were doing. So re-orders need some care.
-
We put a Douthitt in back in winter of '21. 95% of the stuff we print is spot color. Maybe 20 sim process jobs a year. So me going down the dot rabbit hole is not really worth the time or effort to be honest. But what we have produced blows our mind compared to film.
The only thing I can say about the wax machine is that it is as close to maintenance free as you can possibly get. Turn on, print, add wax every 100 screens or so, turn off. Rinse, repeat. A little grease every 6 months in 5 spots. We had a few vacuum issues that were user error adding wax too early and was solved very quickly. Mark and John are unbelievable. One text and you have a call back within the hour from someone.
We wanted the least amount of hassle possible when we bought our first CTS. Im sure the other brands are similar, but our unit is a workhorse. Maintenance free, easily fixed if something does go wrong and top notch customer service. If i had an unlimited budget and time to research, I think Id still end up where we are now for our shop.
-
As Dot Tone Dan mentioned, humidity issues go away with a wax unit. Depending on your setup (if your CTS is in the screen room where you are drying them), being able to run a dehumidifier and not worry about dried up heads could be a big deal.We are running the the wax unit and are pretty happy with it.pierre
Let me also say, (the idea that there is a concern for heads drying up), is not currently legit. The ink "issue" was only on one type of ink that is now not used. Not used since about 3 years now. But when they were using it and people were seeing "ink" issues, It was not ALL drying issues. It was in both directions. Using the same ink, some environments were too wet/humid that allowed the screens to be too damp on the surface and the ink would not bond like it should, ...while in other shop environments were too dry (using the same ink). This made it very difficult to identify how to treat it. The window of good opportunity was very small. This also caused Debre buildup in a faster amount of time and added to clogging heads/dried junk in and around the heads that required much more cleaning maintenance. Nobody likes cleaning.
WAX, doesn't rely on water and makes this a nice benefit. However, Extreme environments of high heat may play a role in the quality of the screen stencil if kept in that environment for a long time. Extreme heat may be 100-120 degrees may soften and gravity may elongate the image to a very small degree. (and I've seen some screen rooms that were really hot near 110-120 but also very humid). As you can imagine, this may affect the wax integrity slightly while sitting on the screen, standing vertically against the wall for very long before exposure. Don't stack and let them pile up and remain in the heat for extreme amounts of time if you're in a very hot environment. Doesn't happen? Well, there are some shops that do 1000 screens a day (2 shifts) so, there's a lot of sitting around if you get too far ahead on screens. If using wax, this might get into being a problem but for 95% of wax users, not a problem.
Fair points, Mark seems to think we'd be fine, we dont stack screens really either, we basicially image them right away. I haven't 1000% made up my mind but most likely going to give the Wax a go. Spoke with some laser users, its bleeding edge.
The wax is water soluble, I would worry more about storing printed screens in humidity than in heat. The melting point of wax is well above 200 degrees.
-
Wet ink still has environmental issues. If we do not moisten our screens before printing with the I Image the ink spreads out when being sprayed on a screen to dry. We tried setting up a humidifier several times but it never worked so we wipe the screen with a lightly damp rag before hitting print. Works perfectly. I think our issue is because our screen room is AC and that really drys the air up.
-
I assume on wax, developing the screen doesn't require hot water right?
-
I assume on wax, developing the screen doesn't require hot water right?
Correct
-
I assume on wax, developing the screen doesn't require hot water right?
we are in cleveland, ohio. the water coming out of our pipes in the winter is just above freezing and works just fine!! haha
-
As Dot Tone Dan mentioned, humidity issues go away with a wax unit. Depending on your setup (if your CTS is in the screen room where you are drying them), being able to run a dehumidifier and not worry about dried up heads could be a big deal.We are running the the wax unit and are pretty happy with it.pierre
Let me also say, (the idea that there is a concern for heads drying up), is not currently legit. The ink "issue" was only on one type of ink that is now not used. Not used since about 3 years now. But when they were using it and people were seeing "ink" issues, It was not ALL drying issues. It was in both directions. Using the same ink, some environments were too wet/humid that allowed the screens to be too damp on the surface and the ink would not bond like it should, ...while in other shop environments were too dry (using the same ink). This made it very difficult to identify how to treat it. The window of good opportunity was very small. This also caused Debre buildup in a faster amount of time and added to clogging heads/dried junk in and around the heads that required much more cleaning maintenance. Nobody likes cleaning.
WAX, doesn't rely on water and makes this a nice benefit. However, Extreme environments of high heat may play a role in the quality of the screen stencil if kept in that environment for a long time. Extreme heat may be 100-120 degrees may soften and gravity may elongate the image to a very small degree. (and I've seen some screen rooms that were really hot near 110-120 but also very humid). As you can imagine, this may affect the wax integrity slightly while sitting on the screen, standing vertically against the wall for very long before exposure. Don't stack and let them pile up and remain in the heat for extreme amounts of time if you're in a very hot environment. Doesn't happen? Well, there are some shops that do 1000 screens a day (2 shifts) so, there's a lot of sitting around if you get too far ahead on screens. If using wax, this might get into being a problem but for 95% of wax users, not a problem.
Fair points, Mark seems to think we'd be fine, we dont stack screens really either, we basicially image them right away. I haven't 1000% made up my mind but most likely going to give the Wax a go. Spoke with some laser users, its bleeding edge.
The wax is water soluble, I would worry more about storing printed screens in humidity than in heat. The melting point of wax is well above 200 degrees.
Are you sure about the melting temp of the wax? I'd imagine that 200 degrees would be pretty hard on print heads. Is that in literature somewhere? Wax generally liquifies right above 150. 120 may soften and distort the dots hanging in gravity (if left to gravity for a period of time) standing up against a wall for example. But I'm not here to prove any of that. Just making a comment that it's possible. Like I mentioned, It's not even an issue for most all shops. We use screens much faster (most often).
-
120 may soften and distort the dots
How many shops are over 120 degrees? I have heard 115 but I bet that is very rare, I doubt anyone would even work in a 120 degree environment. So I think the point is irrelevant
-
We put a Douthitt in back in winter of '21. 95% of the stuff we print is spot color. Maybe 20 sim process jobs a year. So me going down the dot rabbit hole is not really worth the time or effort to be honest. But what we have produced blows our mind compared to film.
The only thing I can say about the wax machine is that it is as close to maintenance free as you can possibly get. Turn on, print, add wax every 100 screens or so, turn off. Rinse, repeat. A little grease every 6 months in 5 spots. We had a few vacuum issues that were user error adding wax too early and was solved very quickly. Mark and John are unbelievable. One text and you have a call back within the hour from someone.
We wanted the least amount of hassle possible when we bought our first CTS. Im sure the other brands are similar, but our unit is a workhorse. Maintenance free, easily fixed if something does go wrong and top notch customer service. If i had an unlimited budget and time to research, I think Id still end up where we are now for our shop.
All good feeback. The customer that bought the Douthit that I was there for install, still loves his and has reported to have yet to have anything go wrong with it.
-
120 may soften and distort the dots
How many shops are over 120 degrees? I have heard 115 but I bet that is very rare, I doubt anyone would even work in a 120 degree environment. So I think the point is irrelevant
Well, if you go back and read the details, as I mentioned, it's a very rare case as I stated. But they are out there. Even 100 is ridiculous in a screen room. I've been in them, and suggested they make accommodations to get it cooler in there using the machine as an excuse to help the people get some air. But if I've been in them, and I've only worked with a small hand full out of all print shops that ore out there, you can bet there are many more out there like them. I'm not pulling this stuff out of thin air. I've been in it, seen it. There are some shops with very extreme/poor conditions IMO that people work in every day. If they want to work in there, and put a CTS in an environment like this, It's none of my business. Shops reach various temperatures throughout the day. I've been at 115-120 in my own shops I've worked at that even had air conditioning and a vent over the press operator. Have that go down one day and you'l know. You can't imagine? Think of closed off rooms with no air in the summer with a dryer or multiple dryers out in production with a screen room next to production with no air conditioning? Just fans blowing hot air around. Never happens?
-
Are you sure about the melting temp of the wax? I'd imagine that 200 degrees would be pretty hard on print heads. Is that in literature somewhere? Wax generally liquifies right above 150. 120 may soften and distort the dots hanging in gravity (if left to gravity for a period of time) standing up against a wall for example. But I'm not here to prove any of that. Just making a comment that it's possible. Like I mentioned, It's not even an issue for most all shops. We use screens much faster (most often).
I have run IJet II and XTS the printhead temp is 110c which is 230f.
-
Are you sure about the melting temp of the wax? I'd imagine that 200 degrees would be pretty hard on print heads. Is that in literature somewhere? Wax generally liquifies right above 150. 120 may soften and distort the dots hanging in gravity (if left to gravity for a period of time) standing up against a wall for example. But I'm not here to prove any of that. Just making a comment that it's possible. Like I mentioned, It's not even an issue for most all shops. We use screens much faster (most often).
I have run IJet II and XTS the printhead temp is 110c which is 230f.
Interesting. Kept much higher than other wax imaging devises outside of screen printing, commonly at 70C. (150f).
-
Pretty sure normal operating temp for our douthitt is somewhere around 105C. We picked up ours used a few years ago from someone who bought a laser. It had a vacuum leak, but like any air leak you just chase it down. Mark was very patient with us as he talked us through the troubleshooting remotely. We also had an issue recently when our anti static mat came loose from the receptacle. But again easy fix, and Mark is basically available whenever you need him. There's a lot to be said when you can pick up the phone and you've always got a guy on the other end.
If laser came down in price and our wax unit went out, then id give it a look. But I don't see the extra upfront cost as worth it (yet). Maybe if it was paired with an inline washout like the signtronic.
Wax is not cheap however. On the high end we run maybe 7-10 blocks a month when we're busy. When were not busy maybe 4-5 / month. Our price from Saati right now is $370 / 10 blocks. So prob around 3100 / yr on consumables. Assume a new printhead @5K every 5 years and you've got an annual cost to operate @ $4100ish / year or 41k over 10 years. We bought our unit used for 32K. Still a bit of a savings vs a laser with no consumables. To me the consumables aren't necessarily that bad, considering that you don't pay the extra cost on the front end as you would with a laser unit. If you finance, you're also paying interest on that front end expense. We pay cash for quality used equipment and it's served us well, just gotta turn a wrench sometimes and use your big brain.
-
Pretty sure normal operating temp for our douthitt is somewhere around 105C. We picked up ours used a few years ago from someone who bought a laser. It had a vacuum leak, but like any air leak you just chase it down. Mark was very patient with us as he talked us through the troubleshooting remotely. We also had an issue recently when our anti static mat came loose from the receptacle. But again easy fix, and Mark is basically available whenever you need him. There's a lot to be said when you can pick up the phone and you've always got a guy on the other end.
If laser came down in price and our wax unit went out, then id give it a look. But I don't see the extra upfront cost as worth it (yet). Maybe if it was paired with an inline washout like the signtronic.
Wax is not cheap however. On the high end we run maybe 7-10 blocks a month when we're busy. When were not busy maybe 4-5 / month. Our price from Saati right now is $370 / 10 blocks. So prob around 3100 / yr on consumables. Assume a new printhead @5K every 5 years and you've got an annual cost to operate @ $4100ish / year or 41k over 10 years. We bought our unit used for 32K. Still a bit of a savings vs a laser with no consumables. To me the consumables aren't necessarily that bad, considering that you don't pay the extra cost on the front end as you would with a laser unit. If you finance, you're also paying interest on that front end expense. We pay cash for quality used equipment and it's served us well, just gotta turn a wrench sometimes and use your big brain.
All good points and a similar scenario here. About $3500 (ish) per year in wax plus another $5k - $6k for a head replacement. Was a new machine, so at approx 6 years about $80k (ish) all in.
I am wondering if:
A) the "10,000 hours" figure I see listed for laser life is *true*, and if so is it 5-6 years before they need to be changed out? (if they don't fail sporadically before that).
and
B) What's the $ damage on replacing a bank of lasers? Similar to a ink or wax print head? Less? More?
-
120 may soften and distort the dots
How many shops are over 120 degrees? I have heard 115 but I bet that is very rare, I doubt anyone would even work in a 120 degree environment. So I think the point is irrelevant
Well, if you go back and read the details, as I mentioned, it's a very rare case as I stated. But they are out there. Even 100 is ridiculous in a screen room. I've been in them, and suggested they make accommodations to get it cooler in there using the machine as an excuse to help the people get some air. But if I've been in them, and I've only worked with a small hand full out of all print shops that ore out there, you can bet there are many more out there like them. I'm not pulling this stuff out of thin air. I've been in it, seen it. There are some shops with very extreme/poor conditions IMO that people work in every day. If they want to work in there, and put a CTS in an environment like this, It's none of my business. Shops reach various temperatures throughout the day. I've been at 115-120 in my own shops I've worked at that even had air conditioning and a vent over the press operator. Have that go down one day and you'l know. You can't imagine? Think of closed off rooms with no air in the summer with a dryer or multiple dryers out in production with a screen room next to production with no air conditioning? Just fans blowing hot air around. Never happens?
At anything above 86F the Exile Spyder might start experiencing problems. Ours just did this summer. The low vac. will drop to levels where you have ink leaking from the printhead to a point where the tank might run empty and the print head will fail. Keeping your darkroom at temperatures below 86F is well recommended.
-
I am wondering if:
A) the "10,000 hours" figure I see listed for laser life is *true*, and if so is it 5-6 years before they need to be changed out? (if they don't fail sporadically before that).
and
B) What's the $ damage on replacing a bank of lasers? Similar to an ink or wax print head? Less? More?
The info I received on this was from a saati sales rep. This was about 3 years ago so some numbers could have changed.
Saati will tell you that the 10k hrs comes out to more like 8-10 years. But it’s all based on how many s teens you do a day. The size of art doesn’t matter. A left chest takes just as long as a 18” tall print as the laser travels the whole screen. The timing is not based on (on and off firing of the laser) but rather the duration of time that it is on. So whatever a normal completion time is. I think that is under 2 min. Like 1 min and 50 seconds or close. X 100 screens per day, or 200 screens? The more screens per day, the more your laser life clock runs down. So for a shop that doesn’t do a lot of screens (50-70) a day, your laser life will be longer.
I am told they don’t all go out at once. I’m told that a laser can go out for any odd reason like anything else does. So you replace that one. It takes roughly 30 min to replace one (complexity). There is a process. One part of that process is to literally plug it in, and that is what they will market. But there’s more so doing that. In all, it may be 20-30 min. Per laser. As you reach near 5-6 years (average) you might consider replacing all at one time. You won’t really want to because of the price. In total, the cost of all lasers will be well over 30k. Add in that labor time and micl for each and you are up near 35k.
When I added up an average of wet ink cost and average consumption + 2 head replacement and micl parts and labor, over 5 years, both wax and wet ink would fall at or less than, being closer to 28-30k than the 35k for laser (using 5 years) as the time frame. Somewhere very close to those numbers.
-
Are you sure about the melting temp of the wax? I'd imagine that 200 degrees would be pretty hard on print heads. Is that in literature somewhere? Wax generally liquifies right above 150. 120 may soften and distort the dots hanging in gravity (if left to gravity for a period of time) standing up against a wall for example. But I'm not here to prove any of that. Just making a comment that it's possible. Like I mentioned, It's not even an issue for most all shops. We use screens much faster (most often).
From a very reliable source.....
Wax feed melts wax at 106 C or 224 F. Wax is "Phase change technology" so from liquid it changes to solid on screen. Screens can EASILY sit hours and even days with no effect. (I've had screens sit over the weekend before developing) Print heads are industrial.
-
I was surprised to see that a Douthit head temp requires so much heat to liquify. A lot of “phase changing” wax liquifies at lower temps. But that’s about all that comes from these few replies. You’ve proven that your head temps are higher than I had imagined. Ok. You’ve all proven that it’s high than I thought. I never said “can’t be true”. So we are all friends there right? Cool.
But that doesn’t speak to wether or not the wax (softens) at all, in high room temps….and if it softens /changes when set against gravity, does that soft wax change shape at all. For example. Barth, said “can keep them for days “EASILY”. I would hope and expect so, under regular or normal conditions.
It would really be saying something enlightening if he or anyone is saying they can keep them for days stacked vertical against the wall, in room temps of 110-115 degrees? But I’m sure at these conditions, the place would cool down at night when crap down. So that’s not a constant 100-120 degree temps.
Barth, Where does your screen room environment temp average out to, typically?
-
Sometimes when someone (me for example) poses a question that more likely does not pertain to your specific situation or experience, but is more outside the norm, (like my stacking imaged screens against the wall instead of laying in a rack flat, and kept in a room that happens to be very hot (anywhere near 100 or more degree example), it seems most take that and reply to that from your own every day good environment experiences.
I guess I’m at looking at the worst case scenario and asking (what would happen to the wax) in a worst case scenario? This subject really doesn’t even matter “what the actual head temps of wax printers need to be”. But those were interesting as well. It’s more about (at what point does wax get affected if at all? Are there any extreme examples of room temps (100-120 for storage room.
One thing I overlooked in my example is (most if not everyone) will not stack a lot of (unwashed) imaged screens for days in a normal working conduction. Even if you did 1000 screens per day, you would normally get backed up on wash out, but not more than let’s say 20-50 screens setting to be washed (the next day. And they typically would sit overnight…and washed the next day. If overnight, the temps would drop. They may stack them washed for days, (stored) but not “needing washed” for multiple days. . So that makes more sense to not ever be a factor.
-
Maybe this thread should be re-labled as What CTS or LTS is Best For ME.
Dan, I have a pretty well controlled screen room. At the moment it is 75 degrees and 40% RH. Acceptable I'd say. And I keep it near that using a combination of air conditioning, heat, humidifier and dehumidifier depending on the season. Our weather outside can be anywhere from touching 100 degrees to minus 20 (real temps) with humidity of 10 to 90%. We love living in the Midwest! But you're right. I control my environment. The point I would like to make is, if I was looking at spending 100K on a machine, or hell even half that, I'd want to make sure the area it will be in is climate controlled as necessary. I'm not going to buy a Wagyu steak and think I can cook it over my old Zippo lighter. I'm going to make sure the equipment I'm buying has an acceptable environment to work in. This shop is my livelihood, as I'm sure it is for most reading this thread. I'm going to do what's best for my shop and it's ability to support me and my staff. So if I really think I need to go direct to screen, and realize my work area for that machine is NOT good, I'm going to address that need for improvement first. A few thousand to enclose, ventilate, control temp and humidity to house a unit that costs 50 to 100 thousand dollars might be wise rather than dropping in equipment in an inadequate environment.
Maybe I should knock off the title of Joe Clarke's book Control Without Confusion and call it Confusion Without Control and keep going here?
-
We simply have no logical place in the building for a "screen room". So we don't have one and we wont have one until we expand our building. We've run our i-image for 10 years right out in our warehouse, feet from our press probably. 15ft from our Sprint 3000 roughly even. It is what it is right now.
-
So I'd bet my bottom dollar a wax machine would be fine there. You already know that. I can't speak to the LTS though. Minimal knowledge
-
Our LTS needs to stay no hotter than 90 degrees. Back to back with the auto coat in climate control enviro. Has to be. Also, since all prepress is upstairs, floors had to be reinforced and giant drip pan under auto reclaim. Reinforced floors due to the fact that the Saati is HEAVY. Has to be weighted down at the bottom to prevent shaking. Those lasers travel fast!
-
Maybe this thread should be re-labled as What CTS or LTS is Best For ME.
Dan, I have a pretty well controlled screen room. At the moment it is 75 degrees and 40% RH. Acceptable I'd say. And I keep it near that using a combination of air conditioning, heat, humidifier and dehumidifier depending on the season. Our weather outside can be anywhere from touching 100 degrees to minus 20 (real temps) with humidity of 10 to 90%. We love living in the Midwest! But you're right. I control my environment. The point I would like to make is, if I was looking at spending 100K on a machine, or hell even half that, I'd want to make sure the area it will be in is climate controlled as necessary. I'm not going to buy a Wagyu steak and think I can cook it over my old Zippo lighter. I'm going to make sure the equipment I'm buying has an acceptable environment to work in. This shop is my livelihood, as I'm sure it is for most reading this thread. I'm going to do what's best for my shop and it's ability to support me and my staff. So if I really think I need to go direct to screen, and realize my work area for that machine is NOT good, I'm going to address that need for improvement first. A few thousand to enclose, ventilate, control temp and humidity to house a unit that costs 50 to 100 thousand dollars might be wise rather than dropping in equipment in an inadequate environment.
Maybe I should knock off the title of Joe Clarke's book Control Without Confusion and call it Confusion Without Control and keep going here?
Love this post! If there were a LIKE button, it wouldn’t be enough.
-
“Those lasers travel fast”.
That reminds me of something I had been thinking just last night. Ever watch one in motion?
Travels super fast. There is a lot of weight to that and moves and stops and moves back VERY fast. Even tho they are well built and designed for this, you would have to imagine that there would be some ware and tear coming after so many years of using it. I wonder how much you get out of those parts. What’s the life of the ware and tear? Again, looking at the worst case scenario.
-
I don't know what this convo is really about anymore. I get the over all vibe from you Dan that you want to find some way to put a flaw on wax but it is just not panning out. You keep bringing up 120 degrees which I think is ridiculous. Maybe 115 in some extreme cases but 120? Even then it is already been said at extreme temps no one has had an issue with their wax except for the Spyder but honestly we are all talking about the Douthit here. I do love the I Image we have and will continue to use it till end of life. But the next machine with out even thinking about it will be a wax. Laser would be awesome but not at the current pricing.
-
I don't know what this convo is really about anymore. I get the over all vibe from you Dan that you want to find some way to put a flaw on wax but it is just not panning out. You keep bringing up 120 degrees which I think is ridiculous. Maybe 115 in some extreme cases but 120? Even then it is already been said at extreme temps no one has had an issue with their wax except for the Spyder but honestly we are all talking about the Douthit here. I do love the I Image we have and will continue to use it till end of life. But the next machine with out even thinking about it will be a wax. Laser would be awesome but not at the current pricing.
I can't pin Dan down at all really. He's beating up on Laser and Wax.
Dan are you telling us to buy i-images again?
-
I believe it was about LTS but that was a long time ago! And since I appear to be the only one on this forum who has real time hands on experience with LTS here are some comments to bring back full circle. After 8 months absolutely zero issues. At current cost it will not make sense for most who post here. I believe all screen departments should always be climate controlled from the Sahara (drying room) to the Rainforest (washout/reclaim), to the Temperate zone (Imaging/Coated storage etc) so not an issue for me, athough could be for others. Cons? Price of course. Is it overkill for my shop? Yes but we love it anyway, and it was part of a much larger pkg purchase and we did get a deal on it. It is comforting to know that Saati is only 40 min away but we have not needed any assistance so far. I think as far as parts, maintenance and bulbs etc. this is all conjecture. Fact is no one really knows! Not enough units in the field to have accurate numbers.
Mike officially dropped
-
I don't know what this convo is really about anymore. I get the over all vibe from you Dan that you want to find some way to put a flaw on wax but it is just not panning out. You keep bringing up 120 degrees which I think is ridiculous. Maybe 115 in some extreme cases but 120? Even then it is already been said at extreme temps no one has had an issue with their wax except for the Spyder but honestly we are all talking about the Douthit here. I do love the I Image we have and will continue to use it till end of life. But the next machine with out even thinking about it will be a wax. Laser would be awesome but not at the current pricing.
Maybe open your heart and mind a little wider to receive that I am asking about areas of the equipment (any equipment) that hasn’t been asked yet. If any of it. Like the cost of replacing lasers. (That has nothing to do with wax and Douthit). It’s been many years since I’ve worked at M&R and have no loyalty there other than I know them to be a good Co and good equipment. Outside of that, I question areas. That’s about it. So…
-
I don't know what this convo is really about anymore. I get the over all vibe from you Dan that you want to find some way to put a flaw on wax but it is just not panning out. You keep bringing up 120 degrees which I think is ridiculous. Maybe 115 in some extreme cases but 120? Even then it is already been said at extreme temps no one has had an issue with their wax except for the Spyder but honestly we are all talking about the Douthit here. I do love the I Image we have and will continue to use it till end of life. But the next machine with out even thinking about it will be a wax. Laser would be awesome but not at the current pricing.
I can't pin Dan down at all really. He's beating up on Laser and Wax.
Dan are you telling us to buy i-images again?
Editing in the phone (this should be broken off from the quoting but it’s not taking.
Lol. Not at all. Many would think that I’m all I-Image. Actually, if I were buying (and did 100 screens a day) then I’d be torn between Douthit and I-IangeSTE 1 head. (M&R is what I know about already) And Douthit would just be interestingly different. The wax is as good and different. So I could go there for sure.
I would really base my purchase on (production need and cost) for that. Quality is not an issue for me (between any of them). Laser, wax or wet ink.
Like I mentioned earlier. If I were only doing 50-75 screens a day, I’d go I-Image-S. It’s 30k. Why pay double that if I don’t need it? Now once I’m doing 100-200 a day, I’d have to balance out (Douthit single head and I-Image STE single head. But if going I-Image, I’d really choose the one that also exposes on it. I believe in that savings even if it’s not important to you. It would be to me.
I’d only not choose Laser because I just don’t believe that I need that added quality (if any). It would not show up enough in print on a tee to justify paying the extra that is needed to do so. And I’d get one machine that does the same production using 3 print heads again, only if I needed 300-400 screens a day. I just wouldn’t need to go laser. My personal feeling is that I just don’t need it. But many are buying it right now and don’t need it at all. That’s odd. They like the color of the glowing lasers. “New technology”. Ooooh! But I’m also now reminded that not only do I not think I’d need it, but I’m also really afraid of what will happen later on that resale value or cost of laser replacements. That’s the major deterrent for me now that I’m thinking about it again.
One more.
I’d also have no issues going with wax (because I know I’d never have an environment that was 90-100-120 degrees ever, and I’d never let my imaged wax screens stand against the wall for 5 days. Lol. Like all of you of course. I’m just asking questions and digging. No harm in digging to see what we find right?
-
I believe it was about LTS but that was a long time ago! And since I appear to be the only one on this forum who has real time hands on experience with LTS here are some comments to bring back full circle. After 8 months absolutely zero issues. At current cost it will not make sense for most who post here. I believe all screen departments should always be climate controlled from the Sahara (drying room) to the Rainforest (washout/reclaim), to the Temperate zone (Imaging/Coated storage etc) so not an issue for me, athough could be for others. Cons? Price of course. Is it overkill for my shop? Yes but we love it anyway, and it was part of a much larger pkg purchase and we did get a deal on it. It is comforting to know that Saati is only 40 min away but we have not needed any assistance so far. I think as far as parts, maintenance and bulbs etc. this is all conjecture. Fact is no one really knows! Not enough units in the field to have accurate numbers.
Mike officially dropped
Good post.
-
I don't know what this convo is really about anymore. I get the over all vibe from you Dan that you want to find some way to put a flaw on wax but it is just not panning out. You keep bringing up 120 degrees which I think is ridiculous. Maybe 115 in some extreme cases but 120? Even then it is already been said at extreme temps no one has had an issue with their wax except for the Spyder but honestly we are all talking about the Douthit here. I do love the I Image we have and will continue to use it till end of life. But the next machine with out even thinking about it will be a wax. Laser would be awesome but not at the current pricing.
I can't pin Dan down at all really. He's beating up on Laser and Wax.
Dan are you telling us to buy i-images again?
Another note on this. I mentioned above that (I, don't need the Laser to obtain any better quality). I know it's not needed to make a perfectly shaped dot at 3% in a 65lpi (on a tee shirts). With my sep skills, I'm able to obtain any quality in the seps that I need. I adjust, I make it work. Knowing your sep gal, I can't see you needing to pay for that either. My opinion. She does great using her own skills to get out of the prints what she needs in there. It's more about the separations and how you prepare them than what machine you are using (as it pertains to image quality). Same for wax or wet ink. It's never mattered. But many people had used (dot shape) as a method or an argument to justify their wax purchase over wet ink in the past...by comparing dot shape quality. Remember those old post? Me, I say, enjoy what you've decided to get. It doesn't really matter what machine you get. They all will be a good purchase.
I've never believed that the shape of your dot at 3-5-10% really make a big difference in the end result. That's also where my past example of (the award winning prints using FILM with wet ink, CTS with wet ink and also wax) came to be. They ALL work...and nobody every complained in a contest about the shape of the small dots. I've been able to show that in my prints, so I'm good with whatever I use.
Now back to Mr Tony Pep's original reason for posting.
If my shop I worked at got a Laser, I'd be stoked too! Nothing wrong with them if someone had bought it for you to use in your shop. It's not what I would "choose" to buy, but it's not my business is it. LOL. It's going to work great and (has been) and ain't nothing wrong with that at all! Heck, I'd love one for free it it were me and my GOSH it's 100 times better than where you were I take it. Good on ya.
-
I don't know what this convo is really about anymore. I get the over all vibe from you Dan that you want to find some way to put a flaw on wax but it is just not panning out. You keep bringing up 120 degrees which I think is ridiculous. Maybe 115 in some extreme cases but 120? Even then it is already been said at extreme temps no one has had an issue with their wax except for the Spyder but honestly we are all talking about the Douthit here. I do love the I Image we have and will continue to use it till end of life. But the next machine with out even thinking about it will be a wax. Laser would be awesome but not at the current pricing.
I can't pin Dan down at all really. He's beating up on Laser and Wax.
Dan are you telling us to buy i-images again?
Another note on this. I mentioned above that (I, don't need the Laser to obtain any better quality). I know it's not needed to make a perfectly shaped dot at 3% in a 65lpi (on a tee shirts). With my sep skills, I'm able to obtain any quality in the seps that I need. I adjust, I make it work. Knowing your sep gal, I can't see you needing to pay for that either. My opinion. She does great using her own skills to get out of the prints what she needs in there. It's more about the separations and how you prepare them than what machine you are using (as it pertains to image quality). Same for wax or wet ink. It's never mattered. But many people had used (dot shape) as a method or an argument to justify their wax purchase over wet ink in the past...by comparing dot shape quality. Remember those old post? Me, I say, enjoy what you've decided to get. It doesn't really matter what machine you get. They all will be a good purchase.
I've never believed that the shape of your dot at 3-5-10% really make a big difference in the end result. That's also where my past example of (the award winning prints using FILM with wet ink, CTS with wet ink and also wax) came to be. They ALL work...and nobody every complained in a contest about the shape of the small dots. I've been able to show that in my prints, so I'm good with whatever I use.
Now back to Mr Tony Pep's original reason for posting.
If my shop I worked at got a Laser, I'd be stoked too! Nothing wrong with them if someone had bought it for you to use in your shop. It's not what I would "choose" to buy, but it's not my business is it. LOL. It's going to work great and (has been) and ain't nothing wrong with that at all! Heck, I'd love one for free it it were me and my GOSH it's 100 times better than where you were I take it. Good on ya.
I am certain any of them would be fine for us, we make it work regardless as I believe we are a team of people who will simply figure it out. It's not a money thing for me. I just want either a better flow, better quality, or better speed or all 3 if can be. The wax to me makes the MOST sense for me not having a dedicated room. I think ill end up with that. Probably pretty fast too.
Ill tell you the number one thing that has me on the wax train, we are having more issues lately with registration than we should be, why? Our girl running the i-image is small, shes not always hitting the stop blocks as she should, its not a machine flaw as much as it is just her size. The Wax unit locks in screens with air, thats gotta be better than human I suspect. Talking with others I think its the ticket.
-
I think the draw to the laser system is to be free of any wet system. Many of us been through the DTG then Epson film printers to know the aggravation of cleaning heads, chasing clogged nozzles, dealing with waste inks and caps etc etc. The thought of a machine that has ZERO of any of those issues is super attractive. But the price is way out there for most of us.
-
I think the draw to the laser system is to be free of any wet system. Many of us been through the DTG then Epson film printers to know the aggravation of cleaning heads, chasing clogged nozzles, dealing with waste inks and caps etc etc. The thought of a machine that has ZERO of any of those issues is super attractive. But the price is way out there for most of us.
1000000% the case for me.
The cost of it though is really right with a STE 3 Head though. VERY close.
-
I don't know what this convo is really about anymore. I get the over all vibe from you Dan that you want to find some way to put a flaw on wax but it is just not panning out. You keep bringing up 120 degrees which I think is ridiculous. Maybe 115 in some extreme cases but 120? Even then it is already been said at extreme temps no one has had an issue with their wax except for the Spyder but honestly we are all talking about the Douthit here. I do love the I Image we have and will continue to use it till end of life. But the next machine with out even thinking about it will be a wax. Laser would be awesome but not at the current pricing.
I can't pin Dan down at all really. He's beating up on Laser and Wax.
Dan are you telling us to buy i-images again?
Another note on this. I mentioned above that (I, don't need the Laser to obtain any better quality). I know it's not needed to make a perfectly shaped dot at 3% in a 65lpi (on a tee shirts). With my sep skills, I'm able to obtain any quality in the seps that I need. I adjust, I make it work. Knowing your sep gal, I can't see you needing to pay for that either. My opinion. She does great using her own skills to get out of the prints what she needs in there. It's more about the separations and how you prepare them than what machine you are using (as it pertains to image quality). Same for wax or wet ink. It's never mattered. But many people had used (dot shape) as a method or an argument to justify their wax purchase over wet ink in the past...by comparing dot shape quality. Remember those old post? Me, I say, enjoy what you've decided to get. It doesn't really matter what machine you get. They all will be a good purchase.
I've never believed that the shape of your dot at 3-5-10% really make a big difference in the end result. That's also where my past example of (the award winning prints using FILM with wet ink, CTS with wet ink and also wax) came to be. They ALL work...and nobody every complained in a contest about the shape of the small dots. I've been able to show that in my prints, so I'm good with whatever I use.
Now back to Mr Tony Pep's original reason for posting.
If my shop I worked at got a Laser, I'd be stoked too! Nothing wrong with them if someone had bought it for you to use in your shop. It's not what I would "choose" to buy, but it's not my business is it. LOL. It's going to work great and (has been) and ain't nothing wrong with that at all! Heck, I'd love one for free it it were me and my GOSH it's 100 times better than where you were I take it. Good on ya.
I am certain any of them would be fine for us, we make it work regardless as I believe we are a team of people who will simply figure it out. It's not a money thing for me. I just want either a better flow, better quality, or better speed or all 3 if can be. The wax to me makes the MOST sense for me not having a dedicated room. I think ill end up with that. Probably pretty fast too.
Ill tell you the number one thing that has me on the wax train, we are having more issues lately with registration than we should be, why? Our girl running the i-image is small, shes not always hitting the stop blocks as she should, its not a machine flaw as much as it is just her size. The Wax unit locks in screens with air, thats gotta be better than human I suspect. Talking with others I think its the ticket.
Does your machine have the green light to indicate full 3 point contact?
-
I think the draw to the laser system is to be free of any wet system. Many of us been through the DTG then Epson film printers to know the aggravation of cleaning heads, chasing clogged nozzles, dealing with waste inks and caps etc etc. The thought of a machine that has ZERO of any of those issues is super attractive. But the price is way out there for most of us.
1000000% the case for me.
The cost of it though is really right with a STE 3 Head though. VERY close.
I should qualify way out there for most of us means most of us that are in the single head I image needs. A 3 head would be no benefit for us hence no benefit for a laser system.
-
I don't know what this convo is really about anymore. I get the over all vibe from you Dan that you want to find some way to put a flaw on wax but it is just not panning out. You keep bringing up 120 degrees which I think is ridiculous. Maybe 115 in some extreme cases but 120? Even then it is already been said at extreme temps no one has had an issue with their wax except for the Spyder but honestly we are all talking about the Douthit here. I do love the I Image we have and will continue to use it till end of life. But the next machine with out even thinking about it will be a wax. Laser would be awesome but not at the current pricing.
I can't pin Dan down at all really. He's beating up on Laser and Wax.
Dan are you telling us to buy i-images again?
Another note on this. I mentioned above that (I, don't need the Laser to obtain any better quality). I know it's not needed to make a perfectly shaped dot at 3% in a 65lpi (on a tee shirts). With my sep skills, I'm able to obtain any quality in the seps that I need. I adjust, I make it work. Knowing your sep gal, I can't see you needing to pay for that either. My opinion. She does great using her own skills to get out of the prints what she needs in there. It's more about the separations and how you prepare them than what machine you are using (as it pertains to image quality). Same for wax or wet ink. It's never mattered. But many people had used (dot shape) as a method or an argument to justify their wax purchase over wet ink in the past...by comparing dot shape quality. Remember those old post? Me, I say, enjoy what you've decided to get. It doesn't really matter what machine you get. They all will be a good purchase.
I've never believed that the shape of your dot at 3-5-10% really make a big difference in the end result. That's also where my past example of (the award winning prints using FILM with wet ink, CTS with wet ink and also wax) came to be. They ALL work...and nobody every complained in a contest about the shape of the small dots. I've been able to show that in my prints, so I'm good with whatever I use.
Now back to Mr Tony Pep's original reason for posting.
If my shop I worked at got a Laser, I'd be stoked too! Nothing wrong with them if someone had bought it for you to use in your shop. It's not what I would "choose" to buy, but it's not my business is it. LOL. It's going to work great and (has been) and ain't nothing wrong with that at all! Heck, I'd love one for free it it were me and my GOSH it's 100 times better than where you were I take it. Good on ya.
I am certain any of them would be fine for us, we make it work regardless as I believe we are a team of people who will simply figure it out. It's not a money thing for me. I just want either a better flow, better quality, or better speed or all 3 if can be. The wax to me makes the MOST sense for me not having a dedicated room. I think ill end up with that. Probably pretty fast too.
Ill tell you the number one thing that has me on the wax train, we are having more issues lately with registration than we should be, why? Our girl running the i-image is small, shes not always hitting the stop blocks as she should, its not a machine flaw as much as it is just her size. The Wax unit locks in screens with air, thats gotta be better than human I suspect. Talking with others I think its the ticket.
Does your machine have the green light to indicate full 3 point contact?
No, its one of the first i-Images before that was added believe.
-
The Wax unit locks in screens with air, thats gotta be better than human I suspect. Talking with others I think its the ticket.
The clamping bar is air actuated - it does not force the screen against the blocks, it's just a clamp. Like tri-loc operation on press, the contact with the stop blocks is all human and then a switch closes the clamp while the screen is held in place. Like any system it's potentially prone to human error.
-
The good part about newer equipment is that it takes a while to catch on, and during that time you can strike some try before you buy deals, so why don't you just get them to put a laser in so you can try it before you commit.
Also talk to bluewater as maybe there are some opportunities there.
Since you are a plastisol shop, laser will work great for you, I think some of the people that it doesn't work with are for places that do more aggressive inks, and so it's not getting a super solid exposure for that.
Wax will work great, but it can't really do anything better than the i-image, and for process work you'll want to print uni-directional anyhow so it will be slower than advertised bi-directional speeds, as well as you do large prints so it will be slower for that as well.
If I were in your position, I'd send Douthitt / Spyder an image, and have them do a video of printing it so you can see how long it actually takes, and have them send you a screen, and do the same for the laser and M&R 3 Head, then you can compare screen quality, and see actual time for a real image. Or just strike a try before you buy with the laser.
Still think you are sleeping on the Bugatti of screen making though https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m17Pl-mrfms (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m17Pl-mrfms) https://signtronic.com/en/stm-tex-series.html (https://signtronic.com/en/stm-tex-series.html) you said money was no issue 8)
-
The Wax unit locks in screens with air, thats gotta be better than human I suspect. Talking with others I think its the ticket.
The clamping bar is air actuated - it does not force the screen against the blocks, it's just a clamp. Like tri-loc operation on press, the contact with the stop blocks is all human and then a switch closes the clamp while the screen is held in place. Like any system it's potentially prone to human error.
Yes I get that, but in theory a screen locked by air is definitely not moving.... vs one not. We agree?
-
The good part about newer equipment is that it takes a while to catch on, and during that time you can strike some try before you buy deals, so why don't you just get them to put a laser in so you can try it before you commit.
Also talk to bluewater as maybe there are some opportunities there.
Since you are a plastisol shop, laser will work great for you, I think some of the people that it doesn't work with are for places that do more aggressive inks, and so it's not getting a super solid exposure for that.
Wax will work great, but it can't really do anything better than the i-image, and for process work you'll want to print uni-directional anyhow so it will be slower than advertised bi-directional speeds, as well as you do large prints so it will be slower for that as well.
If I were in your position, I'd send Douthitt / Spyder an image, and have them do a video of printing it so you can see how long it actually takes, and have them send you a screen, and do the same for the laser and M&R 3 Head, then you can compare screen quality, and see actual time for a real image. Or just strike a try before you buy with the laser.
Still think you are sleeping on the Bugatti of screen making though https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m17Pl-mrfms (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m17Pl-mrfms) https://signtronic.com/en/stm-tex-series.html (https://signtronic.com/en/stm-tex-series.html) you said money was no issue 8)
I have been offered a try before you buy laser deal, it's a bandwidth thing for me. We don't have the time right now to mess around trying something that may not be ready yet.
We have a bluewater reclaim, are you saying they are doing imagine now?
Yes we are plastisol shop but who knows that could change, I wouldn't want my CTS/LTS to dictate that really.
Mark would probably do that but he's given me some real world math based on our general image size, he thinks 200 screens a shift on his machine for the type of work we are doing. That is fine for us for now. That is similar to the numbers I was told with the Saati, only bonus there is 1 load vs 2.
Dang never seen that Signtronic, looks expensive. LOL
-
Wax Machine ordered.
-
Congrats. I know you'll be very happy
-
Congrats. They are awesome. Equally as awesome is Mark. Logged into our system on New Years day(I told him it was no rush and we would not be in, his choice) to get the computers talking to each other again after from something from our ISP changed and screwed up our network. Congrats again!
-
Wax Machine ordered.
It’s the Porsche of the DTS. Best bang for the buck if you are going to daily drive it.
pj
-
Congrats! Can't go wrong.
-
Machine came yesterday and we self installed it with Mark over the phone. Some tweaking to do this am but should be making screens today with it. Well built machine.
-
I look forward to hearing how you like it
-
LOL that the "Laser to Screen (LTS)" thread has turned into the "Excited Wax-jet Buyer" thread.
-
Such is life. Things change. Lol. But yes, to your point, I would like to continue hearing updated feedback from Tony on his progress.
It also went to eletric cars for a while. Just grew legs.
-
Brant,
There is a guy who has a saved setting for his Douthit that did his calibration with a densitomitor. It would be mouth closer to accurate, but still yours may be slightly different. Each shop would be). But, we used it at our install for starters and I doubt the shop owner ever changed it from what it was. It could help you get better halftones faster. Skip some trial and error testing.
Mark knows who I’m referring to, but his name slips my mind. Jason LaBlue maybe? Or Jason Vanick. I think he’s the one.
-
Jason Vanick, I set up my Douthitt with his settings a few years ago and am happy with the results.
Personally I would never buy a ink jet, after working for years with Epson I don't want another ink jet. Climate control etc.
I have a Douthitt and am very happy with it. I built a exposure box that stands next to it, I slide the screen in the top and have a Saati UV lamp ( the small one) on the bottom facing up.
I expose 320 for 10 sec, 110 for 22 sec using Saati PHU. I don't like very short exposure times. Because there is no glass I don't have any pinhole problems like I did with film.
I don't see exposre time as a problem, the print time either, if you have a lot of screens you expose and wash out or tape up while the CTS is printing.
I don't see much difference between the results of a well set up Wax and Laser.
The Laser costs about double the Wax and if it gives trouble you need a technician to fix it. It about 4 years I have not had a problem that Mark couldn't help me fix over the phone.
The new Laser on the market costs about $80,000 for a basic model that takes about 10 min to expose a screen, you need to add extra lazers and pay around $130,000 to get a good production speed.
It also only does one screen at a time.
I think that for most shops laser is a waste of money, if you do 100's of screens to two screen Saati should be faster. I'm very happy with my Douthitt that costs half of the laser and the service is amazing.
I can think of a lot of things to do with the $50,000 difference.
-
A little clarification regarding the laser (SAATI)....two at a time, screens xpose in app 2 minutes. So perhaps 60 secs per screen. Without the xtra 50K. Don't know where the prev post #s came from. Welcome to the age of (mis) information ;)
-
I was quoted I think it was 107k on a LTS 8012 Saati. That was all in except travel expenses. So id assume another 1-2k with hotels/air/rental. Just for reference. That was just a few weeks ago so thats pretty recent.
-
8012 would be overkill unless you need to xpose two oversize screens at a time. The 60-80 VF burns two 23/231 screens and ours was 80K with install tech/travel etc inc. Still pricey but no regrets issues so far.
-
8012 would be overkill unless you need to xpose two oversize screens at a time. The 60-80 VF burns two 23/231 screens and ours was 80K with install tech/travel etc inc. Still pricey but no regrets issues so far.
That is what they suggested I get. I didn't request one model over another.