TSB
screen printing => Equipment => Topic started by: Ryan on January 21, 2016, 12:49:51 PM
-
I'm somewhat reviving an issue that has been dealt with in several different threads, but I'm trying to get a single place to see some answers. I think that just about all of us think that a reg system should be used, whether Tri-lock, pins etc. What I am trying to understand here is why some of you think 1 system works "better" than another or prefered system, especially if you have run more than one type. I have Pins for the SRoque and trying to wrap my head around why the clamp system (3 point/tri-loc type) would be better? Some here have known my lack of enthusiasm of my current system for 1 reason or another (not going to get into that), but can anyone here give some real benefits to either type of system? I use films, no DTS so keep that in mind because that obviously makes a difference in this discussion.
Thanks
-
The problem with the pin systems is they rely on the press to have the micros absolutely 0'ed out. The new Eco's are being, or going to be, made where they can zero themselves. I believe some of the MHM's do this also. With that feature I think pins are better.
Without the system you're better off with a 3 point reg system which takes the zero'ing out of the equation.
Insert arguments against carrier sheets, human error, etc.
-
did you get your system in yet?
-
What Shanarchy said. If you can true zero a head, I can't see why pin would not be superior.
I don't think it matters how a film, ink, wax, etc. positive is affixed to the screen so long as it is consistent screen to screen. CTS just knocks down the human error on this side.
-
did you get your system in yet?
I just have the reg pallet right now. I'm going to order the PRU system tomorrow. I hope it works as good as I expect it to.
-
The Newman pin reg system doesn't depend on a zeroed head. It's pin system works off the screen and 1 platen station. So the head position doesn't matter.
-
Right, talking bout presses with built in pin reg in the heads. Newman is akin to tri lock but uses pins v. 3pt
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
-
even so its part of the dilemma I see, where is it better to have an external registration system, like a tri-loc, newman etc where you are not relying solely on having a press that is totally dialed in vs relying on the press it self, being in zero, to determine registration. There are human factors to all of this, but eliminating as many as possible is the ultimate goal and the least moving parts so to speak would make sense. My issue is that having 1, pins, and debating to move over to 3 point system, am I going to see the difference registering to 1 piece of equipment, the reg pallet, vs having 12 heads that are zeroed correctly, but potentially deal with the same issues that I currently see? Something tells me reg pallet makes more sense in this scenario, but it is also more work in set-up in this case...
-
Ryan,
Why don't you wait until I get mine in and come down and check it out before you go through the whole process of swapping over. At least this way you'll know what your getting.
In theory, I'd take pins and self zero-ing heads first, traditional screen clamps and pallet jig second. But that is in theory and not from experience.
Have you talked to any other owners with the same set up as you? Or MHM owners with the models that don't self-zero? How off are you when you manually zero the heads? You should still be very close.
I'm very interested in how off are you.
-
The owner of our shop has spoken with Ryan regarding his issues and it doesn't make any sense to us. I'll let him expand on is registration issues as I didn't not speak with directly. Something is not right though.
We have the pin system with the PRU and often have to micro. With that said, we are extremely close in most cases with only VERY minor micros needed. Yesterday we had a 3 color that didn't need micros... it was spot on.
We have narrowed down issue down to the film for the most part. There is also the possibility that when taping the film on the screen we are a tad off. We don't know if it's the printer, film, RIP, user PRU error or combination. We have run lots of tests and can't seem to pin it down exactly. There are way to many variables to be perfect every time with this set up.
I think the addition of CTS system would solve it. If we went to the 3 point system I don't think we would have vastly better results. CTS is the key here IMO.
-
I think the addition of CTS system would solve it. If we went to the 3 point system I don't think we would have vastly better results. CTS is the key here IMO.
I started typing a post but never finished it. But the other side of the equation would more than likely be resolved with CTS. CTS, pins, and self zero-ing heads would have to be as near perfect as you can get as it should remove human error and only give two steps. It makes you think that could be a huge justification to the large price of CTS for a smaller shop.
-
The owner of our shop has spoken with Ryan regarding his issues and it doesn't make any sense to us. I'll let him expand on is registration issues as I didn't not speak with directly. Something is not right though.
We have the pin system with the PRU and often have to micro. With that said, we are extremely close in most cases with only VERY minor micros needed. Yesterday we had a 3 color that didn't need micros... it was spot on.
We have narrowed down issue down to the film for the most part. There is also the possibility that when taping the film on the screen we are a tad off. We don't know if it's the printer, film, RIP, user PRU error or combination. We have run lots of tests and can't seem to pin it down exactly. There are way to many variables to be perfect every time with this set up.
I think the addition of CTS system would solve it. If we went to the 3 point system I don't think we would have vastly better results. CTS is the key here IMO.
Do you think you'd have more no micro setups with self zeroing heads?
Film placement fpu style and even with carriers can be pretty darn accurate in my opinion.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
-
I don't think self zeroing heads would be necessary/needed with CTS, pins or 3 point, once everything was dialed in. I don't have any data to back that up though. Just seems to make sense that once all of your heads are dialed into the CTS you would rarely have to touch a micro.
Film placement fpu style and even with carriers can be pretty darn accurate in my opinion.
I agree with this statement 100%. That's why we feel it's a film issue. Our films are randomly different lengths (and possibility widths?). Some times as much as 1 millimeter or more. It's something you never see on the light table with carrier sheets but you see it the second you place in on the PRU. Something we are still troubleshooting.
-
1964GN, What are you using fro Pre-reg? You have a ROQ with pin heads, right? Are you using tri-loc or the ROQ PRU system?
-
Pin system and the ROQ PRU
-
Pin system and the ROQ PRU
You're using carrier sheets with that? I thought that system didn't use them.
-
No, we used carries sheets before we go the ROQ. We now use the PRU
-
No, we used carries sheets before we go the ROQ. We now use the PRU
Gotcha!
Did you notice a big difference from being able to eliminate the carrier sheets?
-
Massive
-
It doesn't make sense to me either, but unless I just suck all around and I'm in denial, something isn't right somewhere. It seems like I am the only person who never to gets to press with anything that doesn't need to be microed and even then, I need to move quite a bit. I don't have an answer and I need to make a decision to drop the pin system and go clamps or hope that a rezero of my press again will be the answer. I'm on the fence with both directions because in my head I can see the benefit of both systems, but only having used 1, I only have the experience with pins and if I switch and I'm not in a better situation than I was, then what....I'm stuck with clamps or pay more money to put the pin heads back on. I'm not into paying money to find out that it doesn't help....yeah for me (insert groan here)
Sent from my QTAQZ3 using Tapatalk
-
Did you already swap your heads to clamps?
-
No. I have to decide if that's the direction I want to go
Sent from my QTAQZ3 using Tapatalk
-
Probably more screwing around than necessary, but have them send you 2 clamp heads. It's 4 screws and maybe 10min to swap a head out... See if you like it or not.
-
but at that point, am I really going to get a feel for the whole system is going to work for me? yes maybe registering 2 colors, but I'm not sure if that would be enough to give me a definitive answer to the direction I NEED to go
-
Not sure if this makes any sense at all. Or maybe you already have tried this.
I would zero all heads
Draw a line down the center of all pallets if you haven't already
Take an uncoated screen and using the PRU tape a film to the screen
Then lock the screen in all heads and see if the center lines line up.
Draw a line across the pallets where your top two reg marks would hit and also check that
This should determine if the problem is equipment or human error.
Is it possibly the vacuum of your exposure unit is moving your film a little after you take them on.
Does ROQ have any suggestions?
-
I don't own an MHM or Sroque, a pin system or a traditional 3 point system at the moment but I have spent hundreds of hours researching, building, modifying and tweaking various 3 point and pin registration systems for our equipment (American Centurian and RPM Revolution), and it is my opinion that when it comes to the Sroque systems that the pallet/3-point reg system would be better for most shops. Meaning, if I were to buy an Sroque tomorrow I would get the reg pallet and PRU and forego the pin system. Our system is a modified Triloc that works in almost the same exact way the Sroque 3-point system does and even though ours is quite ugly and ghetto looking, it is VERY accurate and we do 15-20 setups per day and we average 2 test prints per setup to get registered. I do believe that on paper the pin system is better but in the real world I think there will be fewer problems and less micro work being done if the 3-point system was used.
I despise carrier sheets and I used many different variations of homemade 3-point systems and also used the Triloc many different ways including the traditional way and our modified version is so much more accurate and faster that I think M&R should move away from the normal Triloc system and completely revamp it to get rid of the carrier sheets and move the FPU off the expo unit and have it's own, stand-alone table to register the film. I know there are tons of shops using the Triloc as specified and get good/great results but I ran a very detailed comparison of the un-modified and modified Triloc over the course of several months and the modified version outperformed the un-modded Triloc by leaps and bounds. I understand that M&R might not care as much about the Triloc these days with the new CTS tech coming out and the success it's having, but with their resources and tools they could build a new regi system based on the modified version that many of us have been using for years by the end of the day today and it would be even better than what I use because it would be built specifically and not a hacked version that I've got in place.
-
I spent the last 3 days talking about registration, systems and devices used.
The end all is a the 3 point stop block
The Jig/frame/device/whatever has the 3 blocks becomes the registration device. In the case of Tri-loc, that is the pallet that goes onto the press. The stability of the device, the accuracy and location of clamping forces must all be in tune with each other and only then do we achieve 99.9% print accuracy.
The 3 point on M&R and ROQ have an open clamping system that allows the frame to be placed into it's registration point, the 3 point blocks, and then clamped.
The pins system of the MHM and PIN-ROQ requires you to load the screen, and then register the screen to a point on the pallet.
-
Not sure if this makes any sense at all. Or maybe you already have tried this.
I would zero all heads
Draw a line down the center of all pallets if you haven't already
Take an uncoated screen and using the PRU tape a film to the screen
Then lock the screen in all heads and see if the center lines line up.
Draw a line across the pallets where your top two reg marks would hit and also check that
This should determine if the problem is equipment or human error.
Is it possibly the vacuum of your exposure unit is moving your film a little after you take them on.
Does ROQ have any suggestions?
I've done all that. Even with human error, I would still get right more often then I currently do...Thats the issue. I don't expect to have these miraculous results with the system, either system, but I certainly expect to be way, way closer than what I currently get when I do what is required
-
Tri-Loc system getting tuned in here-
I have found some movement in the carrier sheets from time to time. But seems like mostly it is...
The clamps must be as close as possible, precisely aligned the same distance "front to back" on frame
in all heads. This as not to shift differently in all heads
-
Not trying to derail the subject, but don't forget there are other factors involved in a registration system. First, there is still the human error factor. Very few in my shop will care as much as I do about anything/everything. I have a pre press person that makes the screens. He can be off a bit for a thousand reasons (lately, just not caring). The I have a few people that do set ups. Two more humans that may have a little error here or there. Throw in screen tensions that are not uniform, a press that is not calibrated well. Any or all of these will cause registration problems. I could list more, but I think you get my line of thinking. Now, if I make the screens and set the job up, I'm pretty darn sure it will be tight.
Just a few thoughts.
-
I agree with the above points. Any reg system is only as good as the humans working it.
I use a Tri Loc much like Alan's system. No carrier sheets. We built an illuminated wall mounted system with a grid, that matches an illustrator template.
Overall the system is very accurate.... If I do it I can get within a few thousandths of an inch.
My guys.... not so much. They just don't seem to be able to get it as close. I will say that at the very worst, you are still very close. Images are straight, and an easy few turns of the micros and you are reg'ed. Id rather they use the system than nothing at all, that is for sure.
Not wanting to derail the conversation any more than it already is... I think that is the biggest benefit of a CTS. Having a 12$ an hour employee perfectly align images on the screens on the first day....
-
Alan's modified reg system gets a lot of references on TSB; is there a link where I can see it and learn more?
-
Alan's modified reg system gets a lot of references on TSB; is there a link where I can see it and learn more?
yes please!
-
everyone makes points valid to any system. I don't use carrier sheets and I AM THE HUMAN, so which means something isn't right or I should just sell my equipment and go do something else because I am obviously not very good at what I do.
On a side note, I think everyone wants to see Alan's set-up, but I'm guessing that isn't going to happen anytime soon.
-
Ryan,
How far off are you? 1/16"? 1/4", 1/2"?
If you do 4 screens are they all off just as much? Or do any actually line up?
Does certain heads seem to be off more than others? Have you tried the same screen in different heads and if so are the results the same or does it get you closer?
more importantly, what is Roq telling you?
-
on average around 1/16". but its never consistent in 1 direction. I might be a 1/16" off to the right on one head but an 1/32 off the opposite direction. for reference also its about 2mm/.079" out of register on average. yes its been less, but it has been more too. Reggie mark currently is .706mm/.028"/2 points wide, so I am getting nearly 3 times the width of a reggie mark (thickness) out of register. Yes numbers are low for what some would consider within tolerances (i'm guessing there are those that think these numbers are more than acceptable, I have no idea), For me, they are not. I didn't spend several thousands of dollars on a system that can only get me that close. Maybe I have higher expectations than most. I'm sure no one here would by a ferrari and be happy that it always turns slightly to the left. Hell if these numbers are acceptable to people here, please feel free to call me out on it, tell me to stop whining and go back to work. There is a reason I posted this up so that I can get a true feel. Last auto i worked on was an early 90s gauntlet, so maybe my experience is lacking and these numbers are right in line with the presses that have come out in the last few years. I would hope not, but I am by no means an expert in this field.
For the those that are keeping score, SRoque and I are dealing with this currently, so before you start the support issue, it is being dealt with
-
I'm not curious to where Thales tolerances sit with 1964 and anyone else using the same system.
And where it sits with tri loc users as well.
I ordered my PRU yesterday. I'll let you know when it comes in. You are more than welcome to come down and check it out so you can get a feel for what you're getting if you swap over. I'll also let you know how I find my tolerances to be.
I do agree that for all the thousands of dollars that people spend on pre-reg and the value in quick set up you would think there would be a throw it on and go option. Info throne CTS is going to help get the industry to that point.
Do you choke your artwork at all?
-
i choke underbase, but everything else is butt registered. Right now i need to make a decision to which way I want to go because the plan is the week after ISS AC to do whatever it is I decide, rezero or replace and they will be shipping heads over with the press going to AC if that is the case. Yes its frustrating on my end because I have gotten the "you are well with in tolerances" speech as well as "there is something going on with your press". So I have heard both sides to the argument and of course without anyone else doing work on my press, I really don't have a fair comparison because what I do and what someone else does is not going to be the same. I have talked to a few people with Roqs and what they seem to get is a lot better than what I've been getting, so again is it the press? the reg system? Me?
I am leaning towards clamp heads because I think it will eliminate the "zero" issue....
-
Alan's modified reg system gets a lot of references on TSB; is there a link where I can see it and learn more?
I save every pic I see of a good reg system for the day I build mine. I actually have a friend that works in a machine shop pricing me one CNC cut very similar to this, but with round stops, all aluminum.
Here's some pics I saved of Alan's.
-
Ryan, based on what you have said I would place my bets on the press being out of level/plumb. Either the heads or platens. Here's a thought. Is every bolt tight? You wouldn't believe how many presses I have seen with loose head bolts or platen bolts.
-
...inspired by alans rig a coupla years ago, I asked 244 VEEEERY nicely if he would consider building me a "reversed/mirrored" tri-loc rig, and he obliged. Basically a stock triloc frameholder which would normally go into the exposure unit, but the spring plungers and stop-blocks are on the reverse side from one another.This allows the screen to be mounted in the rig upside down, and still use the same three-point side of the screen that the regidtration pallet uses on-press....pretty much exactly how Alan's works.
... I mounted this onto a board, which is mounted to the wall. I fabbed up a backlit riser out of some square steel and plexi from Lowe's.
...the riser has a set of registration marks which I use as a template. All my films have the same template, and I line the films up to that. For me, instead of a tri-loc pallet, I simply print the registration mark template on one of my pallets, and line all the screns up to that. gets me line up perfect most of the time, with minimal adjusting needed the rest of the time. Still, I would like to get my hands on a tri-loc pallet and test how close it gets at some point. I cant imagine why it wouldnt work.
...I asked Rich/244 if it was okay to show this off after I had it made, as I figured other folks might want one. I know he said it was cool at the time, and I believe he even had a part# assigned to it. With his go-ahead, I will gladly share that info, Just PM me.
-
...last coupla pics!!
-
Anyone have a source for the spring plungers or something similar/strong enough to use in a DIY unit?
-
I believe everything is tight. That last time it was worked on, I was there the whole time and spent the 16 hours replacing most of the bolts around the head area on all heads. With the way the presses are leveled out, I think it is pretty accurate. They have created there own tools to do it which makes it fairly dummy proof. The last time it was my responsibility to sign off on each thing between heads being parallel and the zeroing of the heads after that. Since you brought it up, everything is done off of 1 arm (leveling of the heads). I know Roq prides themselves on the whole pallet being level and they don't go out, no pallet deflection etc. but its a machine and I would venture to guess that heads not being level all the way is a possibility, though for some reason I think the do something with all the pallet arms first, the do all the heads to 1 pallet. Trying to remember the procedure, so maybe the pallets are all leveled first, then the heads.
For what its worth, I've committed to bite the proverbial bullet and swap my heads to U Clamps. Not something I envisioned ever using 3 years ago, but through my experience, I think the 3 point system will help in my case. I will know for sure in 2 months if that is the case. I am certainly hoping so, because if it doesn't....I will be at a lost. Roq has worked with me on this issue like you would hope a manufacturer would and I am thankful for that, because I could be singing a more unpleasant tune...
Even though I have made a decision, I still like the opinions because I think it helps more people with issues/decisions they may have and what they need to look at. Thanks to everyone who took the time to give their opinion on the matter and in mid-march i hope to have some good news on where I stand
-
On another note, does anyone think it matters where the 3 points are located? near the corners or spaced out more evenly?
-
I used these on my DIY upside down trilock pallet. They work perfectly. http://www.mcmaster.com/#3351a17/=10uqacr (http://www.mcmaster.com/#3351a17/=10uqacr)
-
Looks excellent Mr.Tees, PM sent.
Do you find the vertical orientation an issue in aligning perfectly? I was thinking a tilt might be best to keep the film from slipping off.
For more DIY parts for pre-reg, either carrier or otherwise:
http://www.ternesburton.com/pin-bars/ (http://www.ternesburton.com/pin-bars/)
http://www.carrlane.com/catalog/index.cfm/26605071F0B021118070C1C510D020609090C0015480013180B041D1E173C1B085357 (http://www.carrlane.com/catalog/index.cfm/26605071F0B021118070C1C510D020609090C0015480013180B041D1E173C1B085357) *the spring stop plungers look like the ticket for easy loading
I imagine it wouldn't hurt to even build up a basic air cyl setup akin to a CTS unit for most accuracy in positioning the screen.
What a great thread, good discussion and possibly helping a member out with a major issue.
How about the MHM folks using either CTS or FPU? Those heads are similar to Ryan's here. If there is a similar tolerance across machine designs it may point to the pin reg/clamping concept itself as the weak link.
Has anyone mixed/matched systems? We have with the Newman and tri lock. They don't play together due to interference of the pin lock corner pieces unfortunately. So my hypothesis that it doesn't matter how you align the films and screens so long as it's done consistently is thrown out somewhat. I know Danny has mentioned the ultimate importance of having the 3 stop blocks on the FPU and on press jig be identical.
-
...inspired by alans rig a coupla years ago, I asked 244 VEEEERY nicely if he would consider building me a "reversed/mirrored" tri-loc rig, and he obliged. Basically a stock triloc frameholder which would normally go into the exposure unit, but the spring plungers and stop-blocks are on the reverse side from one another.This allows the screen to be mounted in the rig upside down, and still use the same three-point side of the screen that the regidtration pallet uses on-press....pretty much exactly how Alan's works.
... I mounted this onto a board, which is mounted to the wall. I fabbed up a backlit riser out of some square steel and plexi from Lowe's.
...the riser has a set of registration marks which I use as a template. All my films have the same template, and I line the films up to that. For me, instead of a tri-loc pallet, I simply print the registration mark template on one of my pallets, and line all the screns up to that. gets me line up perfect most of the time, with minimal adjusting needed the rest of the time. Still, I would like to get my hands on a tri-loc pallet and test how close it gets at some point. I cant imagine why it wouldnt work.
...I asked Rich/244 if it was okay to show this off after I had it made, as I figured other folks might want one. I know he said it was cool at the time, and I believe he even had a part# assigned to it. With his go-ahead, I will gladly share that info, Just PM me.
Just incredible!!! Love it. You gotta get that triloc pallet and I think you'll be very happy you did.
-
Yea the pallet will save you considerable time over lining up to the reg marks using this process.
-
Zoo, out of curiosity, which system do you find more accurate; tri-loc or Newman?
I think Newman should design a FPU like Roq and MHM to work with their pins.
-
I've been saying this for a long time, but I really want to build mine again so that it doesn't look like a cobbled up mess. The pics of mine above were supposed to be of the working prototype, or a beta unit per say but honestly we were slammed after I finished it and started testing and it was very accurate and we were loving the results. I still think about tearing it down and making it look more professional and this time of year would be the right time to do it. I really wish I had access to some serious tools to fab up a really clean looking riser to place underneath the triloc master jig and also making a nicer "alignment grid box". I show it off to anyone that comes in and I get a lot of looks that tell me that nobody is impressed and they don't think it will work but as ugly as it is it sure does work.
With all of the different versions and DIY reg systems I've put together, and even the real ones like the Vastex VRS and M&R Triloc, this thing I call a "Modified Triloc" has worked so much better than I ever hoped. Whenever this topic comes up anywhere I have to restrain myself from yelling at people who have a triloc and don't use it or even worse I get upset at the shops who use the Triloc like it's supposed to be used but don't like the results. This system has literally been the most important tool that has allowed us to do the type of volume that we do here with one auto. It literally more than doubled our production capacity. I know results may vary but they honestly shouldn't vary that much. There is so much more that goes into it, mainly from the press calibration side and human touch/attention to detail, but ANYONE on this forum could achieve similar results so in that sense I think the results shouldn't vary much.
And I also don't want anyone to think I'm taking any credit for the system we ultimately ended up with. There was a lot of inspiration and prior knowledge from others that went into our final version. I think the first wheel started to spin from a pic I saw of John52's FPU and the fact that he had been using a modified triloc for many years. And I always liked the MHM FPU and how they achieved film placement without carrier sheets and the months we spent using carrier sheets REALLY reinforced the need to build a system that didn't use them. There are many other things that played a role in the final version but I'll spare everyone any additional boring speak about it.
-
Zoo, out of curiosity, which system do you find more accurate; tri-loc or Newman?
I think Newman should design a FPU like Roq and MHM to work with their pins.
Couldn't say, we've never used the full tri-loc system, as intended, we just use a tri-loc reg platen.
The Newman system is accurate but reliant on the press and it's clamping style. On side clamps with four clamps with feet/pads (2 per side clamp) it did very well. On our series I Gauntlet, hit or miss depending on the operator, I set up quite a few with no micro. Can't say about Sportsman as ours had no mitering to allow us to use it....hence the need for a tri loc platen on that machine.
The Newman system, on the side clamping press, would typically be bang on or off just a hair left-right, a very easy adjustment if you have true linear left-right micros on the machine. Weak points are the pins not fitting perfectly into the roller frame corners (they replace the washers basically) and also the swing arms on the pin platen have some flex and also the platen design risks damage/twisting upon table down if you have a dirty or mis-aligned pin corner. But the tri loc platen is flexy too and both Newman and tri loc platens are locked in with the same platen holding system on that style of press, which is not accurate or positive locking, requiring careful checking that the platen is actually square to the print head.
If the Newman system performed across all the machines as well as it did on the side clamper I'd probably just keep it all in service. I actually like our modded carrier sheets, makes for lighting fast imaging on re-orders and you only have to carefully align the reg marks once. Additionally, you can trim off the bottom reg mark after initial alignment on the pin lock table, eliminating an area to blockout and decreasing risk of a blowout there. I like that there is no jig to place on the glass allowing larger vac frames and different frames sizes to be used as well as accurate 2up shooting.
-
For anyone using an Anatol press, over the last two weeks I have got my DIY triock up and going. So far I have registered 4 jobs with it and only had to touch one micro. It is working great and saving me a ton of time.
Bought the carrier sheets, 4 of the pin bars from Ternes burton, and then there is a local metals shop that has a water jet. I drew up three jigs in auto cad and had them cut them out of 1/16" steel. Took a spare pallet and put two stops on the end and one on the side so it works with the side clamps. The three jigs are for my three different sized frames I have. If anyone is interested in this for their anatol I can PM some pics and the cad files. I think all totaled I have about $350 in it and it works on all three sizes of frames I have.
-
... some have requested a bit more detail on my wall-mounted rig, no problem!
...I forget the size of the main board, but it just needs to be bigger than the screenholder itself. I used a piece of 3/4 MDF that I had laying around. Use the thickest board you can as you want this to remain as flat as possible over time, for obvious reasons. You will want to mount the board off the wall a bit to make room to run the power cord if you are backlighting this. I just used a big nut i had laying around, and ran the screws thru the board and the center of the nut, into the wall.
...The riser is 18" x 24". It is made of 1.25 square tube ( http://www.lowes.com/pd_103639-37672-11200_1z0xzpb__?productId=3049419&pl=1 (http://www.lowes.com/pd_103639-37672-11200_1z0xzpb__?productId=3049419&pl=1) ). I used VHB double sided tape ( http://www.lowes.com/pd_394703-98-411+MEDIUM___?productId=3690664&pl=1&Ntt=vhb (http://www.lowes.com/pd_394703-98-411+MEDIUM___?productId=3690664&pl=1&Ntt=vhb) ) to attach the square bars to the board (INITIALLY). Once you ensure you have it centered where you want it, you will DEFINITELY want to use a few small L-brackets to secure everything down tight. This is where I had trouble at first, the VHB tape by itself flexed just enough to throw everything off, and the riser actually fell off entirely one day when the room was especially hot last summer. The L-brackets made everything rock solid.
...use the VHB tape to secure the plexi ( http://www.lowes.com/pd_239981-1638-1AG2123A___?productId=3502292&pl=1&Ntt=plexiglas+sheets (http://www.lowes.com/pd_239981-1638-1AG2123A___?productId=3502292&pl=1&Ntt=plexiglas+sheets) ) to the square steel riser. The thickness of the plexi, VHB tape and the square steel together is almost exactly 1.5 inches, which is the standard tube thickness for most screen frames. this means that when you set the screen in the rig, you dont have to deflect the mesh down to make contact with the riser and attach the film.
One thing that hasnt been menitoned in this thread is that, not only does a system like this eliminate the need for carrier sheets, but you can also rotate the screen in the rig and image both ends of a screen (assuming art size allows).
-
yea, the inverted film placement idea (I copied from Alan) is awesome. No carrier sheets, no double sided tape, no shifting anywhere, etc.
-
So those of you using an FPU style setup, where are you printing reg marks? Just the top, top and bottom, etc. And what style?
-
I use a 2 pixel (file is 300dpi) "+" mark, just center top and center bottom, and the horizontal part of the "+" is wider than the height of the vertical part, maybe 1/2" vs 1/4 of an inch. The same 2 marks are on the FPU I always see people putting like 6 or 8 intricate circles with all kinds of extra crap and patterns all over them, and it is all so unnecessary. if the top and bottom marks are lined up, so will the rest of the art unless your printer is messing up your films, which is a different problem. I use a low powered loop on art that REALLY has to be dead on, but otherwise simply eyeball the placement carefully. I rarely touch a micro on my kruzer...
-
So those of you using an FPU style setup, where are you printing reg marks? Just the top, top and bottom, etc. And what style?
I use two marks, both at the top. The image I posted above shows three (two, plus one in the center)....I use that on the FPU rig only, using the center mark only to center that template to the rig. All films I print to jobs have just the left and right only.
I keep a screen burned with the three marks as well. I use that to print the marks centered and horizontally aligned to one of the pallets (However, I still only use the outer marks printed on the board itself). Dry it with the flash and it is there permanently. This pallet is now my registration board, so then I can align the two marks on each production screen to the marks now printed on the board.
This simple system is surprisingly accurate. I would like to have an actual Tri-loc pallet at some point, for instances when I need to re-set a job that has screens full of ink, and I cant see thru the marks.
-
Am I correct in thinking that most fpu systems require lining up films to marks on the fpu board individually, except tri-lock where you line up films to each other and also to the screen placement?
It seems to me that lining films to each other would be more accurate, but maybe it's a negligible difference?
-
I created + top and bottom center marks that are nearly identical to the ones on the ROQ PRU. The PRU has green laser + and are locked in so they don't move. Much more accurate that lining up films to each other.
-
I created + top and bottom center marks that are nearly identical to the ones on the ROQ PRU. The PRU has green laser + and are locked in so they don't move. Much more accurate that lining up films to each other.
What are the specs of the reg marks you made? Or does the FPU come with those specs? Mine is en route to me.
-
In regards to the number and type of regi marks we used a center top and bottom for many years, of different types like a traditional crosshair and circle, to just the + with differing widths. And we've also tried many different quantities of marks and found a noticeable improvement going from 2 to 3 (center top and bottom with one offset at the top) but no noticeable improvements from 3 to 4 or higher. It might sound ridiculous and I didn't really buy into it at first but 3 marks really did give us more accurately registered prints. There were examples where our 2 marks would be dead nuts on but we'd have to make slight adjustments but at no time and thousands of jobs have we had 3 marks dead nuts on and had to make any micro adjustments. Take it for what it's worth, and that was nothing but your time to read my post. But I think anyone currently using 2 reg marks should try 3 for a few weeks and see what you think.
Our reg marks look like a larger version of this:
+ +
+
The offset mark is 4" to the right of the top center mark but it really doesn't matter so much if you put them top or bottom but the further out you put them the more accurate your images will line up with one another. Smaller left chest logos we'll only use 2 marks. Also, our marks aren't solid lines, they are broken up like a series of dashes like this --- and that helped us line up the film to the alignment film on the FPU since you can see the FPU solid lines through the film of the job you're setting up. Hope that makes sense.
-
I also do three. The other part to that is it makes it very difficult to put your film on the screen backwards.
-
interesting points. I have been meaning to remake my fpu to allow for larger film sizes once I get my 4800 up and running, and I may try out 3 on the new master sheet. Can't really see the harm... I like the dashed line idea as well Alan.
-
interesting points. I have been meaning to remake my fpu to allow for larger film sizes once I get my 4800 up and running, and I may try out 3 on the new master sheet. Can't really see the harm... I like the dashed line idea as well Alan.
I stumbled on the dashed line because of the poor results from the LED. I wanted to make our regi marks thinner than the lines on our FPU so we could more precisely line up our film but we couldn't develop those thinner lines with the Vastex LED so we tried the dashed line and it worked perfectly and probably better than my initial idea.
-
I created + top and bottom center marks that are nearly identical to the ones on the ROQ PRU. The PRU has green laser + and are locked in so they don't move. Much more accurate that lining up films to each other.
What are the specs of the reg marks you made? Or does the FPU come with those specs? Mine is en route to me.
I'll get this for you this afternoon.
-
In regards to the number and type of regi marks we used a center top and bottom for many years, of different types like a traditional crosshair and circle, to just the + with differing widths. And we've also tried many different quantities of marks and found a noticeable improvement going from 2 to 3 (center top and bottom with one offset at the top) but no noticeable improvements from 3 to 4 or higher. It might sound ridiculous and I didn't really buy into it at first but 3 marks really did give us more accurately registered prints. There were examples where our 2 marks would be dead nuts on but we'd have to make slight adjustments but at no time and thousands of jobs have we had 3 marks dead nuts on and had to make any micro adjustments. Take it for what it's worth, and that was nothing but your time to read my post. But I think anyone currently using 2 reg marks should try 3 for a few weeks and see what you think.
Our reg marks look like a larger version of this:
+ +
+
The offset mark is 4" to the right of the top center mark but it really doesn't matter so much if you put them top or bottom but the further out you put them the more accurate your images will line up with one another. Smaller left chest logos we'll only use 2 marks. Also, our marks aren't solid lines, they are broken up like a series of dashes like this --- and that helped us line up the film to the alignment film on the FPU since you can see the FPU solid lines through the film of the job you're setting up. Hope that makes sense.
A couple of nice nuggets there. Thank you!
-
I think it was 1.20 pts but I may have made it a bit smaller. This does seem to fit best what ever it is. I export to a PSD at 300 dpi as well.
The 2 that are stacked are the minimum distance for a left chest (with a tad extra in length)
-
I'll toss in a link to my build of a FPU and matching on-press jig:
http://www.theshirtboard.com/index.php/topic,12251.0.html (http://www.theshirtboard.com/index.php/topic,12251.0.html)
Absolutely one of the best things I've added to the shop for ROI. it saves us money every day and has since I took 1 day to build it with about $100 worth of parts and materials.
And credit to those whom credit is due here at TSB for the design ideas that I obviously took inspiration from!
-
I'll toss in a link to my build of a FPU and matching on-press jig:
[url]http://www.theshirtboard.com/index.php/topic,12251.0.html[/url] ([url]http://www.theshirtboard.com/index.php/topic,12251.0.html[/url])
Absolutely one of the best things I've added to the shop for ROI. it saves us money every day and has since I took 1 day to build it with about $100 worth of parts and materials.
And credit to those whom credit is due here at TSB for the design ideas that I obviously took inspiration from!
That is so well done, a beautiful piece if you don't mind me saying.
-
I think it was 1.20 pts but I may have made it a bit smaller. This does seem to fit best what ever it is. I export to a PSD at 300 dpi as well.
The 2 that are stacked are the minimum distance for a left chest (with a tad extra in length)
Thanks!