TSB
screen printing => Equipment => Topic started by: Colin on October 10, 2016, 01:31:13 PM
-
Whats the latest word on the DLP machines?
-
Whats the latest word on the DLP machines?
That you have to sell a Kidney to afford one, and they are slower than wax or inkjet, and when printing on garments DPI's over a certain amount are moot anyhow.
Still like to see technology, if they could make the laser the width of a textile screen, so it just has to do one scan and it's exposed, that would be legit, but currently it is slow, no consumables is nice though.
There is also that guy who talks about LED tv screen exposure, which would actually be cool if it worked, especially with like a 4K screen, but getting the right wavelength and no undercutting, would take lots of R&D for such a niche product, can't see it happening anytime soon.
-
Afraid that was gona be the case :(
Thanks for the info Zane.
You going to NBM on Friday?
-
there's a laser in the works. we are working on getting a test unit. No time frame yet, but it's worth waiting for a little bit. . .
pierre
-
How long is a little bit?
-
How long is a little bit?
prototype should be up and running, I am hoping we get a test unit within 6 months. That puts it on the market in 12-24 months (my guess). I would say, in the scheme of things, that would qualify for "a little bit".
pierre
-
Whats the latest word on the DLP machines?
That you have to sell a Kidney to afford one, and they are slower than wax or inkjet, and when printing on garments DPI's over a certain amount are moot anyhow.
Still like to see technology, if they could make the laser the width of a textile screen, so it just has to do one scan and it's exposed, that would be legit, but currently it is slow, no consumables is nice though.
There is also that guy who talks about LED tv screen exposure, which would actually be cool if it worked, especially with like a 4K screen, but getting the right wavelength and no undercutting, would take lots of R&D for such a niche product, can't see it happening anytime soon.
It already works and did when I first posted about it.
I was only posting about it because I had already proven it works.
I will be making videos soon of how to make one and expose screens with it.
It takes about 10 minutes at the most to take apart an LCD computer monitor/TV and re-arrange the parts so it lays flat on the glass and you have the power and video cables attached to the control unit.
Comparisons need to be made testing undercutting, but actually it may have less undercutting than other methods.... It might have zero undercutting since the LCD channels are forcing the light in a particular direction.
The wavelength you need is the same as your emulsion needs.
I think people are confused... I am not using the backlight from the panel or monitor itself, only the LCD panel which is already transparent. The contrast ratio may even be higher than film or other methods, it only needs higher power or longer exposure times compared to exposing the same screen without the panel there like with just film.
Basically it is like if you printed to a tinted piece of film.... the ink areas would still be "that much darker" than the clear/tinted area, so the ratio would be similar and you only need more power or longer time to get the same exposure result as you would get with your film or DTS etc.
And yes, it is super cool.
-
Whats the latest word on the DLP machines?
That you have to sell a Kidney to afford one, and they are slower than wax or inkjet, and when printing on garments DPI's over a certain amount are moot anyhow.
Still like to see technology, if they could make the laser the width of a textile screen, so it just has to do one scan and it's exposed, that would be legit, but currently it is slow, no consumables is nice though.
There is also that guy who talks about LED tv screen exposure, which would actually be cool if it worked, especially with like a 4K screen, but getting the right wavelength and no undercutting, would take lots of R&D for such a niche product, can't see it happening anytime soon.
It already works and did when I first posted about it.
I was only posting about it because I had already proven it works.
I will be making videos soon of how to make one and expose screens with it.
It takes about 10 minutes at the most to take apart an LCD computer monitor/TV and re-arrange the parts so it lays flat on the glass and you have the power and video cables attached to the control unit.
Comparisons need to be made testing undercutting, but actually it may have less undercutting than other methods.... It might have zero undercutting since the LCD channels are forcing the light in a particular direction.
The wavelength you need is the same as your emulsion needs.
I think people are confused... I am not using the backlight from the panel or monitor itself, only the LCD panel which is already transparent. The contrast ratio may even be higher than film or other methods, it only needs higher power or longer exposure times compared to exposing the same screen without the panel there like with just film.
Basically it is like if you printed to a tinted piece of film.... the ink areas would still be "that much darker" than the clear/tinted area, so the ratio would be similar and you only need more power or longer time to get the same exposure result as you would get with your film or DTS etc.
And yes, it is super cool.
something to remember here is that the polarized glass of the LCD display will stop 50% of the light from coming through. This is not visible to the naked eye, but it is how the LCD displays work. As mentioned above, it will cause the exposure times to be significantly longer. Also, I would be concerned with undercutting more than anything else. Putting vacuum on the LCD panel will distort the Liquid Cristal and make it not work. Keeping it away would allow light to spill around the mask.
pierre
pierre
-
Lots of issues with using an LCD to expose like that. Heat and UV will also hurt the LCD over time.
-
Whats the latest word on the DLP machines?
That you have to sell a Kidney to afford one, and they are slower than wax or inkjet, and when printing on garments DPI's over a certain amount are moot anyhow.
Still like to see technology, if they could make the laser the width of a textile screen, so it just has to do one scan and it's exposed, that would be legit, but currently it is slow, no consumables is nice though.
There is also that guy who talks about LED tv screen exposure, which would actually be cool if it worked, especially with like a 4K screen, but getting the right wavelength and no undercutting, would take lots of R&D for such a niche product, can't see it happening anytime soon.
It already works and did when I first posted about it.
I was only posting about it because I had already proven it works.
I will be making videos soon of how to make one and expose screens with it.
It takes about 10 minutes at the most to take apart an LCD computer monitor/TV and re-arrange the parts so it lays flat on the glass and you have the power and video cables attached to the control unit.
Comparisons need to be made testing undercutting, but actually it may have less undercutting than other methods.... It might have zero undercutting since the LCD channels are forcing the light in a particular direction.
The wavelength you need is the same as your emulsion needs.
I think people are confused... I am not using the backlight from the panel or monitor itself, only the LCD panel which is already transparent. The contrast ratio may even be higher than film or other methods, it only needs higher power or longer exposure times compared to exposing the same screen without the panel there like with just film.
Basically it is like if you printed to a tinted piece of film.... the ink areas would still be "that much darker" than the clear/tinted area, so the ratio would be similar and you only need more power or longer time to get the same exposure result as you would get with your film or DTS etc.
And yes, it is super cool.
something to remember here is that the polarized glass of the LCD display will stop 50% of the light from coming through. This is not visible to the naked eye, but it is how the LCD displays work. As mentioned above, it will cause the exposure times to be significantly longer. Also, I would be concerned with undercutting more than anything else. Putting vacuum on the LCD panel will distort the Liquid Cristal and make it not work. Keeping it away would allow light to spill around the mask.
pierre
pierre
LOL.
You guys really never fail to amuse me on this board. Anything new and you attack it without even trying it.
Higher power light and you get the exposure time back down to a shorter time if you want it. Yes if you read my post you would see, it is blocking the light, but the ratio might be the same or even better than other methods, so more power or closer lights (like LED) can eliminate that supposed "issue".
Yes, I know how LCD's work.
"Also, I would be concerned with undercutting more than anything else." Have you tested it? Do you know it causes any undercutting at all?
"Putting vacuum on the LCD panel will distort the Liquid Cristal and make it not work." Oh really? What kind of vacuum pressures are you getting per square inch?? Do you know this distorts the LCDs or that it is even enough pressure to have any effect (the emulsion and mesh are there before the blanket pushes against the panel... or are you once again just saying things with a negative assumption about how it "may or may not work" without doing any testing yourself?
"Keeping it away would allow light to spill around the mask." Keeping what away? Do you even know how this is set up?? It sounds like you don't even know how it is arranged. Light----> Glass----> LCD Panel---->Screen mesh ----> something to hold it down, could be a heavy flat piece of something or vacuum blanket....
This is so funny, but to be expected as usual.
Besides even if all of the non-issues you mentioned were actually issues, I would still take a $200 exposure system over a $50,000 exposure system any day. There are a lot of considerations for various users, but I am only talking about getting a basic exposure with usable screens, the resolutions aren't high enough to compare to film or DTS anyway so it is apples to oranges... but as mentioned for most printers the resolutions may be just fine when printing on t-shirts.
Typical responses from the shirt board naysayers. Sorry I'll be busy exposing digital LCD screens while you're thinking of ways it won't work, LOL.
-
Anything new and you attack it without even trying it.
yea, umm. no.
I think there is plenty of enlightened criticism when it comes to ideas like this though, considering the issues with it are obvious... your "proof of concept" was comparable to people exposing screens using projectors, aka unusable...
Want a much higher quality $200 exposure setup? By an inkjet printer. Done.
-
Lots of issues with using an LCD to expose like that. Heat and UV will also hurt the LCD over time.
Yes, lots of non-issues that you haven't tested, but assume will be a problem.
Heat and UV will hurt this precious $10 monitor I bought, or a $100 one, or even a $500 4k monitor panel at a large size like 27".... Do you not realize the difference between such a system which has no consumables and no moving parts and the only critical part can be replaced easily and cheaply?
Oh wait... did you test how much heat is arriving at the panel and if it is any different than the normal amount of heat it works in? Did you test whether the UV is "hurting" the LCDs and over how much time it "hurts" them and whether this has an effect on the final result?
It is apples to oranges... I could build 100 of these units for the price of 1 single DTS unit. In a few short years we will have 8k resolutions (already made but the prices will have to come down and consumer products available). It will soon approach apples to apples and then what kind of complaints will you have? Or.... you could just spend a few bucks and a few minutes and build one yourself and see if you have a use for it.... the problem is that every single day there is someone out there looking to get into screenprinting, and this LCD exposure is the absolute simplest, easiest to use method of getting your image to your screens that I have found, that is "good enough" for the majority of printers to utilize, and save on film and RIP and all the headaches I see constantly people having over the archaic and out-dated process of using film or ink or wax etc. And the DLP systems are incredible resolutions with insane prices so that is apples to oranges comparison.
I could care less if anyone else tries it. But the naysayers are simply hunting for reasons to dismiss it as somehow not a viable option for exposing screens to use for printing... when it already works for this purpose.
Carry on with the attacks of a physical system which has physical properties that can be tested scientifically and prove or disprove whatever it is you think you know about how it works.
Science... or wait, sorry... its science schmience cuz there is no math or science being used in any of your shops or equipment or businesses etc etc. Or is is only when convenient that science matters in screenprinting??
Too funny, but typical.
-
Anything new and you attack it without even trying it.
yea, umm. no.
I think there is plenty of enlightened criticism when it comes to ideas like this though, considering the issues with it are obvious... your "proof of concept" was comparable to people exposing screens using projectors, aka unusable...
Want a much higher quality $200 exposure setup? By an inkjet printer. Done.
LOL. Sorry my monitor was $10. Bulb for maybe $30. Ballast etc... You are saying an inkjet printer has the exposure table and light built into the cost??
Have you seen full screens exposed and printed with this? The original proof-of-concept was not for a full screen exposure, just to show it can actually expose and leave other parts un-exposed where you want them and wash out and have a screen you can print with. It wasn't with the higher power exposure and setup I'm using now. But oh well, keep proving my point.
-
my statements are factual and are not saying anything about the technology not being possible, just that it ha some hurdles to overcome. You seem to be reacting and freaking out any time somebody points out things you don't agree with or have not thought of. You might want to consider sleeping on it before you post any answers in the future.
pierre
-
Now this sounds like fun! I want in,
Full Spectrum, not only do I believe in your concept, but support your reasearch 100%. Do you have a video or samples of the the screens created?
-
Anything new and you attack it without even trying it.
yea, umm. no.
I think there is plenty of enlightened criticism when it comes to ideas like this though, considering the issues with it are obvious... your "proof of concept" was comparable to people exposing screens using projectors, aka unusable...
Want a much higher quality $200 exposure setup? By an inkjet printer. Done.
LOL. Sorry my monitor was $10. Bulb for maybe $30. Ballast etc... You are saying an inkjet printer has the exposure table and light built into the cost??
Have you seen full screens exposed and printed with this? The original proof-of-concept was not for a full screen exposure, just to show it can actually expose and leave other parts un-exposed where you want them and wash out and have a screen you can print with. It wasn't with the higher power exposure and setup I'm using now. But oh well, keep proving my point.
I'm pretty sure your point is almost always to stroke your own ego...
I've used LCD monitors in two projects and know a lot about their issues when it comes to an application like this. They block significantly more light than film and have much less contrast than you would get with even the crappiest inks.
I'm not sure why you are bringing up your cheap light source as some benefit of using an LCD instead of film. Cheap lights make pretty shitty screens regardless. My first setup was a printer/scanner I picked up in an alley in college and a 100w daylight bulb setup above my toilet. I think the total cost was maybe $3, but I would be confident in saying it would burn a better screen than using an LCD from a $10 monitor.
-
Besides even if all of the non-issues you mentioned were actually issues, I would still take a $200 exposure system over a $50,000 exposure system any day.
Dude, make a video of it working and I will cancel the order I put in for a new exposure unit today and buy whatever you are talking about. I don't have time to argue theory behind it, if it works and you make a video, you have your first buyer here.
-
my statements are factual and are not saying anything about the technology not being possible, just that it ha some hurdles to overcome. You seem to be reacting and freaking out any time somebody points out things you don't agree with or have not thought of. You might want to consider sleeping on it before you post any answers in the future.
pierre
LOL!!!! Now you're taking it to personal attacks. Again, typical. This is why I don't bother with this board. Your statements are not factual, they are unqualified statements that are assumptions about the physical aspects, not facts.
You said: "something to remember here is that the polarized glass of the LCD display will stop 50% of the light from coming through" Which LCD panel are you talking about? Which polarizing film? Do you think 50% is a factual number associated with the amount of light passing through the LCD, the amount of actual UV, etc etc.... maybe its 25% maybe its 75%, maybe its 50%, but you clearly just threw that number out there without doing research or 'qualifying' the statement so it could be considered factual. Again, it isn't really a hurdle to overcome any more than typical hurdles in exposure based on the tolerances and variables required. Yes, there is a piece of polarizing film before the LCD and after the LCD, it is how it works, but simply saying it "will stop 50% of the light" is not a factual statement, it is a generalization that could be way off when you actually qualify it.
So do you mean 50% of the UV light at the 405nm wavelength will be stopped through a "brand/manufacturer specific" panel, which needs to be specified which one to be qualified, and of this light at a given moment in time from what is reaching the panel to what it coming through the panel, do you know the ratio of how much light is coming through the "blocked" areas of the stencil, and do you know the comparison to this vs. the amount of light going through a piece of film and what makes it through the blocked areas? For your statements to be factual you would need to qualify it with all of those actual physical system connections. Otherwise it is as I stated before, just an assumption you are making.
Do you understand the ratio between how much UV is passing and how much is being blocked? The contrast ratio for the LCD might actually be greater than that of "specific film" with "specific ink/rip/density" or compared to DTS with the wax/ink, or with DLP. DLP probably has the highest contrast ratio, since there is no "blocking" stencil, it is only exposing direct UV Laser or LED light onto the emulsion. LCD might have the second highest contrast ratio because the "dark" areas might be blocking more light compared to what is passing, comparing with what film or DTS is blocking and allowing to pass.
You might want to qualify your assumptions before you post them and claim they are factual statements. :P
-
I'd be more worried about the intense UV light breaking down the compounds that make up the crystals in the panel.
of course, you won't know until you build it and put it through it's paces for a while.
-
Besides even if all of the non-issues you mentioned were actually issues, I would still take a $200 exposure system over a $50,000 exposure system any day.
Dude, make a video of it working and I will cancel the order I put in for a new exposure unit today and buy whatever you are talking about. I don't have time to argue theory behind it, if it works and you make a video, you have your first buyer here.
I just coated a set of screens, I will try some tests later tonight and make videos...
But you gotta understand I'm not selling anything. The video will show how easy it is to make.... I have ideas on how to make a really robust system that would be professional and protect the LCD panel and include an attached computer and separation and RIP system all in one... that would be my ideal stencil-maker for the 21st century.... but I'm nowhere near that and not sure I really want to do more than just build my own things for my own shop and share in videos etc... It would be a definite value-added system I think to have the separation and RIP and computer generating the images all built into the exposure unit, but building all of this physically requires more resources than writing software for example which is mostly just time. Physical prototyping is expensive. I'm just a designer, separator, printer, and have my separation software, but getting into selling physical equipment is another step beyond that, although for example if I eventually get there, I would rather lump the cost of a computer and the software all into the exposure unit system. The software could be $1500 by itself, but I would definitely sell more $1500 exposure tables that have a high-end computer workstation and the software all included in that same price. But of course, really as I am saying you don't need the software to actually generate separations and halftones to be viewed on your existing computer, could purchase one of these monitors and panels and make a unit, and then have control over all the parts and be able to build to suit.
I suppose after showing more progress in videos and how you could decide various things, what size you want, what resolution will be ok, and the screens produced are of the quality that matches or beats what you currently work with, then if someone insisted on having me build a custom unit for them it would just be parts and some sort of labor, delivery, support costs. I am approaching this at the moment from more of a sharing, open-source perspective and I like doing the 'macgyver' style DIY stuff for now. It would be really cool if myself or someone ends up taking this to a more robust and heavy-duty level..... but a few things... you would want the screen to slide into the unit so you dont' have access to laying the screen onto the glass, it should slide in and raise up into place.... the chance of damaging the LCD panel by having a screen-edge hit it is more likely than the vacuum pressure affecting it.... so it would be nice to have the LCD panel where the screenmaker cannot touch it. A drawer would slide the screen in and raise up or lower the panel to contact the screen. If you know how people are with making screens on glass, then you know the chance of a metal or wooden frame hitting the glass, scratching it etc, happens alot... but more the problem is the edge or corner of a screen denting the LCD panel itself and crushing a bunch of pixels. To avoid that I've already considered it should be an internal system. On the outside you would have a computer workstation attached with its own full-color monitor, mouse and keyboard, perhaps even touch-screen for the monitor, and perhaps also have a scanner and memory card and wifi capabilities so you can just scan or load any image into the computer.... the separation software loaded would then allow anyone to set up the separation to be exposed, and the halftone RIP then takes place as a direct digital process just displaying to both screens. You want to have the monitor panel inside the unit be set so it always displays the separation at the exact real-scale dimensions you want.... (you don't want to have to zoom and scale and move the image every time so its right when viewing.... essentially you are just viewing your halftones/separation in black and white and at-size and displaying to 2 monitors - one is full color you're looking at normally, the other is the LCD exposure panel.). The power of the exposure can be dialed in so that you still get times in a few minutes that will work for the emulsion and mesh count etc just as it would for your existing method. You obviously want to produce screens with the same quality results as other methods, or whats the point? A "usable" screen needs to be qualified as it would with any other method... some ways of coating and exposing screens they won't hold up to 10,000 prints anyway, regardless of it being LCD or not... so it is a factor to consider and only needs to be tuned for the LCD method to match what you get from others. The resolutions currently would be lower than film, but could be fine for spot colors and most halftone work, but I'm sure it will need at least a 4k resolution monitor to not have a "noticeable" pixelation effect. I don't think it will be an idea that is ready for the "big time" until 8k monitors come around everywhere and are low in price.... but even then if someone wants to do a 48" x 48" there isn't even an LCD monitor of that size at least not consumer-level and it wouldn't have the high resolutions.... actual resolution is a factor of the pixel dimensions divided by the actual size... ... for example your smart phone screen is much higher resolution than your computer monitor, even if they are the same "high def 1080p"... the phone is smaller so it has a higher actual PPI - pixels per inch, compared to the larger sized monitor. When you go larger and larger even at 4k and 8k it will start to come down in resolution. So yes, all of that stuff needs to be considered if we are talking about this idea going to a "big time" level, but I was only just trying to mention again that there are other methods which work for basic screenmaking which can be very inexpensive to try out and simple to make DIY, and then see if it is something useful or not for a particular user or purpose.
One other use for the LCD exposure system I will show is for UV inks... such as the Lumi or Solar type of inks... Where you have a shirt you print a large area of the UV ink over, and then can expose the image negative, and then wash out the shirt leaving your image... that cuts out having to print films to make those kind of prints. People already use this LCD method for 3d printing. I am just showing it can be used for screenprinting exposures as well. It isn't a debate or argument about the plausibility or capability of making a screen with this method because that is proven, and it isn't about the possibility of this being an instant-hit with big-time print shops that require very high quality tolerances such as resolutions, stencil strength with very thick stencils etc... That is all stuff that of course would need to be accounted for in building a unit to suit a particular need, and based on current technology (like the mentioned resolutions), it would never match existing high resolutions like 1200ppi, or the DLP system which makes 2400ppi or even higher... but again for some printers it may be overkill to purchase a $500,000.00 DLP unit that does 4800 dpi laser exposures, and if they get screens with 300 dpi that give details and halftones which are not noticeably different when printed on a shirt from what they currently work with, and it is with a unit they built or bought that was only a max of maybe $500 for the table, light, lcd panel (4k), then maybe that is more viable for that particular user. I think it is just kind of obvious that the "majority" of screenprinters out there will always be the solo startup in the basement or garage, it is just the nature of the print medium, and this digital LCD thing would be possibly the lowest-price entry with great ease-of-use and possibly even easy to build themselves. It could be said that all the hassles people deal with in the inkjet and film (not to mention costs in RIP softwares, printers, film, inks etc)... could be more difficult in the long run than simply taking apart an LCD panel and putting it on a piece of glass with a high power uv light under it. It would be awesome if someone built a monitor and just put a UV backlight and make the polarizing filters so they are UV passable filters (which they make, but they dont put them on LCD panels for monitors).... if you understand manufacturing it is actually really hard to change the way large consumer products are made and try to get a "custom" monitor made like that. So it is just a bit easier for me to show taking apart existing panels and re-purposing. Macgyver still got the job done even when all he had to work with was a 10-speed bicycle and some chewing gum and a toothpick, a 9v battery and a wrist-watch. Remember that episode? lol
-
Toothpicks, pine apples and Dixie cups are imperative to all conecptual design elements, so is fear to the unknown. (Noise is noise let it go)
People far more important than your critics are always listening, let see what you got!
-
my statements are factual and are not saying anything about the technology not being possible, just that it ha some hurdles to overcome. You seem to be reacting and freaking out any time somebody points out things you don't agree with or have not thought of. You might want to consider sleeping on it before you post any answers in the future.
pierre
LOL!!!! Now you're taking it to personal attacks. Again, typical. This is why I don't bother with this board. Your statements are not factual, they are unqualified statements that are assumptions about the physical aspects, not facts.
You said: "something to remember here is that the polarized glass of the LCD display will stop 50% of the light from coming through" Which LCD panel are you talking about? Which polarizing film? Do you think 50% is a factual number associated with the amount of light passing through the LCD, the amount of actual UV, etc etc.... maybe its 25% maybe its 75%, maybe its 50%, but you clearly just threw that number out there without doing research or 'qualifying' the statement so it could be considered factual. Again, it isn't really a hurdle to overcome any more than typical hurdles in exposure based on the tolerances and variables required. Yes, there is a piece of polarizing film before the LCD and after the LCD, it is how it works, but simply saying it "will stop 50% of the light" is not a factual statement, it is a generalization that could be way off when you actually qualify it.
So do you mean 50% of the UV light at the 405nm wavelength will be stopped through a "brand/manufacturer specific" panel, which needs to be specified which one to be qualified, and of this light at a given moment in time from what is reaching the panel to what it coming through the panel, do you know the ratio of how much light is coming through the "blocked" areas of the stencil, and do you know the comparison to this vs. the amount of light going through a piece of film and what makes it through the blocked areas? For your statements to be factual you would need to qualify it with all of those actual physical system connections. Otherwise it is as I stated before, just an assumption you are making.
Do you understand the ratio between how much UV is passing and how much is being blocked? The contrast ratio for the LCD might actually be greater than that of "specific film" with "specific ink/rip/density" or compared to DTS with the wax/ink, or with DLP. DLP probably has the highest contrast ratio, since there is no "blocking" stencil, it is only exposing direct UV Laser or LED light onto the emulsion. LCD might have the second highest contrast ratio because the "dark" areas might be blocking more light compared to what is passing, comparing with what film or DTS is blocking and allowing to pass.
You might want to qualify your assumptions before you post them and claim they are factual statements. :P
just because you are writing long paragraphs, it does not mean you actually understand what you are talking about. LCD blocks 100% of the light. It uses two polarized filters at 90 degree angles. LC bends or leaves the light as is to let it go through or block it. In order to work (depending on the design) you will need at least one polarizing filter and since they block 50% of the light, that would mean only half of the UV would pass thorough. Additionally, some screens might have a UV protective coating that could block almost all of the light.
Again, all said and done, there is no doubt in my mind that this can be done, but how well or is it worth it are the questions. Printing a piece of inkjet film is going to be significantly simpler for most ppl.
pierre
-
and I did not bother reading your long posts as they are just drivel as usual . . .
pierre
-
and I did not bother reading your long posts as they are just drivel as usual . . .
pierre
Hahahahahahahahahahahahqhhhahaahahahahah awesome
-
Toothpicks, pine apples and Dixie cups are imperative to all conecptual design elements, so is fear to the unknown. (Noise is noise let it go)
People far more important than your critics are always listening, let see what you got!
AMEN!!
-
I'm curious about what the DLP unit is? I did a quick search and no obvious hits...
-
I'm curious about what the DLP unit is? I did a quick search and no obvious hits...
do a search for 'signtronic'
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnXv7SmkDL8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnXv7SmkDL8)
-
my statements are factual and are not saying anything about the technology not being possible, just that it ha some hurdles to overcome. You seem to be reacting and freaking out any time somebody points out things you don't agree with or have not thought of. You might want to consider sleeping on it before you post any answers in the future.
pierre
LOL!!!! Now you're taking it to personal attacks. Again, typical. This is why I don't bother with this board. Your statements are not factual, they are unqualified statements that are assumptions about the physical aspects, not facts.
You said: "something to remember here is that the polarized glass of the LCD display will stop 50% of the light from coming through" Which LCD panel are you talking about? Which polarizing film? Do you think 50% is a factual number associated with the amount of light passing through the LCD, the amount of actual UV, etc etc.... maybe its 25% maybe its 75%, maybe its 50%, but you clearly just threw that number out there without doing research or 'qualifying' the statement so it could be considered factual. Again, it isn't really a hurdle to overcome any more than typical hurdles in exposure based on the tolerances and variables required. Yes, there is a piece of polarizing film before the LCD and after the LCD, it is how it works, but simply saying it "will stop 50% of the light" is not a factual statement, it is a generalization that could be way off when you actually qualify it.
So do you mean 50% of the UV light at the 405nm wavelength will be stopped through a "brand/manufacturer specific" panel, which needs to be specified which one to be qualified, and of this light at a given moment in time from what is reaching the panel to what it coming through the panel, do you know the ratio of how much light is coming through the "blocked" areas of the stencil, and do you know the comparison to this vs. the amount of light going through a piece of film and what makes it through the blocked areas? For your statements to be factual you would need to qualify it with all of those actual physical system connections. Otherwise it is as I stated before, just an assumption you are making.
Do you understand the ratio between how much UV is passing and how much is being blocked? The contrast ratio for the LCD might actually be greater than that of "specific film" with "specific ink/rip/density" or compared to DTS with the wax/ink, or with DLP. DLP probably has the highest contrast ratio, since there is no "blocking" stencil, it is only exposing direct UV Laser or LED light onto the emulsion. LCD might have the second highest contrast ratio because the "dark" areas might be blocking more light compared to what is passing, comparing with what film or DTS is blocking and allowing to pass.
You might want to qualify your assumptions before you post them and claim they are factual statements. :P
just because you are writing long paragraphs, it does not mean you actually understand what you are talking about. LCD blocks 100% of the light. It uses two polarized filters at 90 degree angles. LC bends or leaves the light as is to let it go through or block it. In order to work (depending on the design) you will need at least one polarizing filter and since they block 50% of the light, that would mean only half of the UV would pass thorough. Additionally, some screens might have a UV protective coating that could block almost all of the light.
Again, all said and done, there is no doubt in my mind that this can be done, but how well or is it worth it are the questions. Printing a piece of inkjet film is going to be significantly simpler for most ppl.
pierre
I really can't bother with responding to you anymore Pierre. It is more than obvious that you don't know how this works, or how easy it is to do.
First... your statement that LCD blocks 100% of the light is false. The liquid crystals are arranged so that they PASS THE LIGHT in the OFF STATE. Therefore without even having the panel on, I can see light passing through, it is TRANSPARENT. Yes the polarizing filters block some of the light passing, you overcome this with HIGH POWER like any "professional grade" exposure unit does. I even get it to cure with cheap lights and low power and just really long times but I'm not saying that is useful or professional grade. What happens is the charge sent to the crystals jumbles them up so they don't turn the light back 90 degrees and it doesn't pass - that is the ON state which actually makes the pixel block the light. The amount of power sent is how they get a variation in how much light is blocked (percentage of the crystals jumbled up vs. arranged to pass the light)
The polarizing filters are already UV blocking but not 100%, so it works. You don't need another polarizing filter.
It doesn't matter one bit to me if you have doubts in your mind that it will work, because it already does, LOL!
HILARIOUS!! And then people laughing about you not even reading my post... but you respond??? Do as you say, not as you do? Why should I bother reading your posts anymore then?
Just like with the color separation stuff, you think you know what you're talking about but you fail to comprehend the most basic and fundamental aspects of how it all works in the real world.
Your "awards" are for the art, not for the reproduction or printing. The industry doesn't even know how to standardize simulated process, but I've finally done that myself. It is amazing to see how it actually SHOULD work and that nobody has bothered to do any R&D to discover that... it proves exactly why separators do what they do and why the printers do what they do with the seps, but again it is a mathematical process and doesn't require some artistic human hand to make it work, only a decision on what mode you want to print,(stochastic, interlock, dot-on-dot, flamenco, overprint, or simulated process or a mix of them or hybrid depending on various factors that make each method have some pro's and con's) and it proves again how ignorant it all is when the blind lead the blind in a whole industry.
But please, keep bragging about your awards that are judged on the art and not the printing. Did they have the same printers print the same design and yours was the most accurate to the design you intended (oh yeah, not the original art, but the one you changed to have more "punch" lol.).... So did they measure your version with the "punch" compared to the print and did they give you a % differential? You could compare different art from different printers if you know how to measure the art-to-print differences. But here is most likely what happens... "judges" take a "look" at the "prints" and they vote which one they think is "the best print". LOL. The very definition of arbitrary.
-
Just for the record, I bet that Full Spectrum has tons to offer, but I avoid these really lengthy tomes on forums. I leave those for blogs (which I rarely read either, LOL!), or mostly the old school hard copy book, magazine, paper, or letter.
-
man you're hopeless...
Can you sort of get a screen using an LCD from a standard desktop monitor? Sure.
Is it at all easier to do or in any way superior to even the cheapest and most basic inkjet setup? Not even close...
Is the resulting screen actually usable for anything beyond the most basic production? Nope.
If you really want to make an LCD unit that would even come close to comparing to a basic film setup, please start researching LCD 3D printers and how that industry has dealt with the pitfalls and issues of this technology. It should become obvious to you pretty quick with even a few minutes of research that the desktop monitor setup you're describing just isn't going to work very well for our industry.
-
Here is another "proof of concept" test result from the LCD exposure method.
Please keep in mind this is not a "professional quality" test.
If you understand the physics of how this works, then you will know the difference you'll get with improving the basic elements used.
LCD Monitor panel: $10 used 1280 x 1024, 11" x 14" AOC monitor... the actual resolution ends up very low, about 90 Pixels per inch.
Light: Lithonia 100 watt metal halide flood light.... $100 but this is because of purchasing retail and with the fixture and bulb in one. You could probably get a bulb and ballast with the same wattage and cheaper... but you want much higher power for a professional-grade system.
Emulsion: Speedball diazo
No vacuum, just placed a book over it to hold pressure to the panel.
Even the glass I'm using that was laying around might be a UV blocking glass, so that might be affecting my exposure time - it was taking minutes for regular screens to expose when I know this metal halide can do it faster perhaps without that glass there. But after a few tests I simply let it expose for a long time to be sure it wouldnt wash out and I could just make a test print with it.
You have to realize I don't have $$ laying around to go buy a 4k monitor or a high power 1,500 watt bulb... but I will get to that point and do those tests, or even someone with an existing high-power table can easily see what I'm doing and go buy a 4k panel and test it out themselves with their existing high-power and vacuum exposure tables.
The attached image is simply showing that I printed ink through a screen and the parts that 'exposed' blocked the ink. There are still under-exposed parts, but the time it was taking is just not worth it with this amount of power , and besides the resolution is far too low to be useful for normal printing, maybe large text and shapes, but still this is not an example of a 'professional stencil', it is showing that you can cure and expose and wash out and print with a screen using this method, and you only need to overcome some very simple variables to bring the exposure time down and make the cure stronger, and to get higher resolutions.
Exposure time was almost 1.5 HOURS. Now even I will laugh when I see people showing the flood bulbs or halogen bulbs and they expose screens for 45 minutes or an hour etc.... but they are basically doing the same thing as this ultra-cheap LCD method, compensating for their low-power UV light by having it expose for longer times. I wouldn't bother with this LCD method for a professional quality screen using the setup I am showing here, it is only a proof-of-concept setup.
What I would like to test next is: 1080p panel and then a 4k panel; 500 watt, 1,000 watt, 1,500 watt, 2,000 watts, whatever power or trying UV LED panels or point-source UV LED, distances and times... whatever it takes to get the time down to a few minutes (Which I have proven before it possibly using UV LED flashlights) --- also I need to be sure the glass I am using doesn't block a lot of UV in the first place. If you understand all of this then you know it is just a matter of these variables and you can get close to a 300 pixels-per-inch resolution with a 4k monitor and expose within a couple minutes.
Please think of it this way... I'm 35 years old, only been in graphic design for screenprinting specifically for about 12 years, only did full-time screenprinting manual at a few shops over the last 2 years (although I had experience before, but mostly art department and seps), have a proven track record for R&D that turns into real products within the separation software realm, (corel, photoshop) - but I only got into that in 2011, so 5 years in color separation software and programming... and in October of 2016 is when I basically am back to full-time working from my shop/studio, actually building my screenprint shop now... so I am just starting my screenprinting adventure, and this is my first exposure table. Cut me some slack.
-
Why should anyone cut you slack? Your first reaction to anything that does not agree with you is to get patronizing and belligerent. You have no humble in you at all. All your threads end up confrontational because that is the direction you lead every single one. If anything you created had merit (which I am not saying is the case) then the merit should stand on its own without having you disrespect anyone and everyone that has doubts. For 35 years old as you stated you have a lack of social skills when dealing with people of the same intelligence level as you. And trust me there is many here that is far more intelligent than you are and you should respect that and listen to what some of them have to say. My own opinion is you are more of a theoretical person than an experimental. Your ideas would probably go much further if you talked with people good at engineering things from ideas someone like may have.
-
my statements are factual and are not saying anything about the technology not being possible, just that it ha some hurdles to overcome. You seem to be reacting and freaking out any time somebody points out things you don't agree with or have not thought of. You might want to consider sleeping on it before you post any answers in the future.
pierre
LOL!!!! Now you're taking it to personal attacks. Again, typical. This is why I don't bother with this board. Your statements are not factual, they are unqualified statements that are assumptions about the physical aspects, not facts.
You said: "something to remember here is that the polarized glass of the LCD display will stop 50% of the light from coming through" Which LCD panel are you talking about? Which polarizing film? Do you think 50% is a factual number associated with the amount of light passing through the LCD, the amount of actual UV, etc etc.... maybe its 25% maybe its 75%, maybe its 50%, but you clearly just threw that number out there without doing research or 'qualifying' the statement so it could be considered factual. Again, it isn't really a hurdle to overcome any more than typical hurdles in exposure based on the tolerances and variables required. Yes, there is a piece of polarizing film before the LCD and after the LCD, it is how it works, but simply saying it "will stop 50% of the light" is not a factual statement, it is a generalization that could be way off when you actually qualify it.
So do you mean 50% of the UV light at the 405nm wavelength will be stopped through a "brand/manufacturer specific" panel, which needs to be specified which one to be qualified, and of this light at a given moment in time from what is reaching the panel to what it coming through the panel, do you know the ratio of how much light is coming through the "blocked" areas of the stencil, and do you know the comparison to this vs. the amount of light going through a piece of film and what makes it through the blocked areas? For your statements to be factual you would need to qualify it with all of those actual physical system connections. Otherwise it is as I stated before, just an assumption you are making.
Do you understand the ratio between how much UV is passing and how much is being blocked? The contrast ratio for the LCD might actually be greater than that of "specific film" with "specific ink/rip/density" or compared to DTS with the wax/ink, or with DLP. DLP probably has the highest contrast ratio, since there is no "blocking" stencil, it is only exposing direct UV Laser or LED light onto the emulsion. LCD might have the second highest contrast ratio because the "dark" areas might be blocking more light compared to what is passing, comparing with what film or DTS is blocking and allowing to pass.
You might want to qualify your assumptions before you post them and claim they are factual statements. :P
just because you are writing long paragraphs, it does not mean you actually understand what you are talking about. LCD blocks 100% of the light. It uses two polarized filters at 90 degree angles. LC bends or leaves the light as is to let it go through or block it. In order to work (depending on the design) you will need at least one polarizing filter and since they block 50% of the light, that would mean only half of the UV would pass thorough. Additionally, some screens might have a UV protective coating that could block almost all of the light.
Again, all said and done, there is no doubt in my mind that this can be done, but how well or is it worth it are the questions. Printing a piece of inkjet film is going to be significantly simpler for most ppl.
pierre
I really can't bother with responding to you anymore Pierre. It is more than obvious that you don't know how this works, or how easy it is to do.
First... your statement that LCD blocks 100% of the light is false. The liquid crystals are arranged so that they PASS THE LIGHT in the OFF STATE. Therefore without even having the panel on, I can see light passing through, it is TRANSPARENT. Yes the polarizing filters block some of the light passing, you overcome this with HIGH POWER like any "professional grade" exposure unit does. I even get it to cure with cheap lights and low power and just really long times but I'm not saying that is useful or professional grade. What happens is the charge sent to the crystals jumbles them up so they don't turn the light back 90 degrees and it doesn't pass - that is the ON state which actually makes the pixel block the light. The amount of power sent is how they get a variation in how much light is blocked (percentage of the crystals jumbled up vs. arranged to pass the light)
The polarizing filters are already UV blocking but not 100%, so it works. You don't need another polarizing filter.
It doesn't matter one bit to me if you have doubts in your mind that it will work, because it already does, LOL!
HILARIOUS!! And then people laughing about you not even reading my post... but you respond??? Do as you say, not as you do? Why should I bother reading your posts anymore then?
Just like with the color separation stuff, you think you know what you're talking about but you fail to comprehend the most basic and fundamental aspects of how it all works in the real world.
Your "awards" are for the art, not for the reproduction or printing. The industry doesn't even know how to standardize simulated process, but I've finally done that myself. It is amazing to see how it actually SHOULD work and that nobody has bothered to do any R&D to discover that... it proves exactly why separators do what they do and why the printers do what they do with the seps, but again it is a mathematical process and doesn't require some artistic human hand to make it work, only a decision on what mode you want to print,(stochastic, interlock, dot-on-dot, flamenco, overprint, or simulated process or a mix of them or hybrid depending on various factors that make each method have some pro's and con's) and it proves again how ignorant it all is when the blind lead the blind in a whole industry.
But please, keep bragging about your awards that are judged on the art and not the printing. Did they have the same printers print the same design and yours was the most accurate to the design you intended (oh yeah, not the original art, but the one you changed to have more "punch" lol.).... So did they measure your version with the "punch" compared to the print and did they give you a % differential? You could compare different art from different printers if you know how to measure the art-to-print differences. But here is most likely what happens... "judges" take a "look" at the "prints" and they vote which one they think is "the best print". LOL. The very definition of arbitrary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid-crystal_display
"Each pixel of an LCD typically consists of a layer of molecules aligned between two transparent electrodes, and two polarizing filters (parallel and perpendicular), the axes of transmission of which are (in most of the cases) perpendicular to each other. Without the liquid crystal between the polarizing filters, light passing through the first filter would be blocked by the second (crossed) polarizer."
I am only writing this so others would not be fooled by your incorrect statements. Above quote is from Wikipedia. . .
pierre
-
inkman pretty much hit the nail on the head: You always come out of the gate frothing and name calling when anyone doesn't agree with you and stroke your ego instead of actually listening to opposing points of view and discussing the merits of those points of view versus your own. I don't know why you always assume everyone you're talking to has literally zero knowledge about a subject they have decided to discuss on this forum, when the opposite is almost universally true.
If anything the image you posted and your admissions that things "may" work if you spend a bunch more money and time to make a better unit only prove my point. You have not come close to fully developing the idea to a point where it would even come close to competing with a cheap inkjet film setup. Doing so would require a high resolution monochromatic LCD modified to increase UV pass through and with excessive cooling to prevent issues related to how heat effects the LCD, and in doing so you would spend a ton of time and money to maybe get a comparable setup to a $50 dollar desktop printer with stock inks. The LCD would also degrade as it is used due to the effects of the UV and heat, and would be much more easily damaged (and expensive to replace) than a piece of film.
I wholly agree it is a cool idea, but it isn't a practical one when you consider the costs, time, and cons of the technology when compared to inkjet and film.
-
Why should anyone cut you slack? Your first reaction to anything that does not agree with you is to get patronizing and belligerent. You have no humble in you at all. All your threads end up confrontational because that is the direction you lead every single one. If anything you created had merit (which I am not saying is the case) then the merit should stand on its own without having you disrespect anyone and everyone that has doubts. For 35 years old as you stated you have a lack of social skills when dealing with people of the same intelligence level as you. And trust me there is many here that is far more intelligent than you are and you should respect that and listen to what some of them have to say. My own opinion is you are more of a theoretical person than an experimental. Your ideas would probably go much further if you talked with people good at engineering things from ideas someone like may have.
I'm too busy working with engineers and scientists for things that are in NDA and patents to bother with your faulty assumptions. If the critics could actually write coherent statements and back them up with facts instead of getting personal, I wouldn't get personal or get frustrated at the level of ignorance displayed. Sorry you don't like my prose, but I'm not writing poetry here.
-
lol
-
this is very interesting stuff, the DLP not the arguing
-
my statements are factual and are not saying anything about the technology not being possible, just that it ha some hurdles to overcome. You seem to be reacting and freaking out any time somebody points out things you don't agree with or have not thought of. You might want to consider sleeping on it before you post any answers in the future.
pierre
LOL!!!! Now you're taking it to personal attacks. Again, typical. This is why I don't bother with this board. Your statements are not factual, they are unqualified statements that are assumptions about the physical aspects, not facts.
You said: "something to remember here is that the polarized glass of the LCD display will stop 50% of the light from coming through" Which LCD panel are you talking about? Which polarizing film? Do you think 50% is a factual number associated with the amount of light passing through the LCD, the amount of actual UV, etc etc.... maybe its 25% maybe its 75%, maybe its 50%, but you clearly just threw that number out there without doing research or 'qualifying' the statement so it could be considered factual. Again, it isn't really a hurdle to overcome any more than typical hurdles in exposure based on the tolerances and variables required. Yes, there is a piece of polarizing film before the LCD and after the LCD, it is how it works, but simply saying it "will stop 50% of the light" is not a factual statement, it is a generalization that could be way off when you actually qualify it.
So do you mean 50% of the UV light at the 405nm wavelength will be stopped through a "brand/manufacturer specific" panel, which needs to be specified which one to be qualified, and of this light at a given moment in time from what is reaching the panel to what it coming through the panel, do you know the ratio of how much light is coming through the "blocked" areas of the stencil, and do you know the comparison to this vs. the amount of light going through a piece of film and what makes it through the blocked areas? For your statements to be factual you would need to qualify it with all of those actual physical system connections. Otherwise it is as I stated before, just an assumption you are making.
Do you understand the ratio between how much UV is passing and how much is being blocked? The contrast ratio for the LCD might actually be greater than that of "specific film" with "specific ink/rip/density" or compared to DTS with the wax/ink, or with DLP. DLP probably has the highest contrast ratio, since there is no "blocking" stencil, it is only exposing direct UV Laser or LED light onto the emulsion. LCD might have the second highest contrast ratio because the "dark" areas might be blocking more light compared to what is passing, comparing with what film or DTS is blocking and allowing to pass.
You might want to qualify your assumptions before you post them and claim they are factual statements. :P
just because you are writing long paragraphs, it does not mean you actually understand what you are talking about. LCD blocks 100% of the light. It uses two polarized filters at 90 degree angles. LC bends or leaves the light as is to let it go through or block it. In order to work (depending on the design) you will need at least one polarizing filter and since they block 50% of the light, that would mean only half of the UV would pass thorough. Additionally, some screens might have a UV protective coating that could block almost all of the light.
Again, all said and done, there is no doubt in my mind that this can be done, but how well or is it worth it are the questions. Printing a piece of inkjet film is going to be significantly simpler for most ppl.
pierre
I really can't bother with responding to you anymore Pierre. It is more than obvious that you don't know how this works, or how easy it is to do.
First... your statement that LCD blocks 100% of the light is false. The liquid crystals are arranged so that they PASS THE LIGHT in the OFF STATE. Therefore without even having the panel on, I can see light passing through, it is TRANSPARENT. Yes the polarizing filters block some of the light passing, you overcome this with HIGH POWER like any "professional grade" exposure unit does. I even get it to cure with cheap lights and low power and just really long times but I'm not saying that is useful or professional grade. What happens is the charge sent to the crystals jumbles them up so they don't turn the light back 90 degrees and it doesn't pass - that is the ON state which actually makes the pixel block the light. The amount of power sent is how they get a variation in how much light is blocked (percentage of the crystals jumbled up vs. arranged to pass the light)
The polarizing filters are already UV blocking but not 100%, so it works. You don't need another polarizing filter.
It doesn't matter one bit to me if you have doubts in your mind that it will work, because it already does, LOL!
HILARIOUS!! And then people laughing about you not even reading my post... but you respond??? Do as you say, not as you do? Why should I bother reading your posts anymore then?
Just like with the color separation stuff, you think you know what you're talking about but you fail to comprehend the most basic and fundamental aspects of how it all works in the real world.
Your "awards" are for the art, not for the reproduction or printing. The industry doesn't even know how to standardize simulated process, but I've finally done that myself. It is amazing to see how it actually SHOULD work and that nobody has bothered to do any R&D to discover that... it proves exactly why separators do what they do and why the printers do what they do with the seps, but again it is a mathematical process and doesn't require some artistic human hand to make it work, only a decision on what mode you want to print,(stochastic, interlock, dot-on-dot, flamenco, overprint, or simulated process or a mix of them or hybrid depending on various factors that make each method have some pro's and con's) and it proves again how ignorant it all is when the blind lead the blind in a whole industry.
But please, keep bragging about your awards that are judged on the art and not the printing. Did they have the same printers print the same design and yours was the most accurate to the design you intended (oh yeah, not the original art, but the one you changed to have more "punch" lol.).... So did they measure your version with the "punch" compared to the print and did they give you a % differential? You could compare different art from different printers if you know how to measure the art-to-print differences. But here is most likely what happens... "judges" take a "look" at the "prints" and they vote which one they think is "the best print". LOL. The very definition of arbitrary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid-crystal_display
"Each pixel of an LCD typically consists of a layer of molecules aligned between two transparent electrodes, and two polarizing filters (parallel and perpendicular), the axes of transmission of which are (in most of the cases) perpendicular to each other. Without the liquid crystal between the polarizing filters, light passing through the first filter would be blocked by the second (crossed) polarizer."
I am only writing this so others would not be fooled by your incorrect statements. Above quote is from Wikipedia. . .
pierre
So you clearly can't read or comprehend what this is saying?
"Without the liquid crystal between the polarizing filters, light passing through the first filter would be blocked by the second (crossed) polarizer."
Therefore.... WITH the Liquid Crystal between the polarizing filters, light passing through the first filter will be re-oriented so it PASSES the second filter.
Read it, comprehend it. Admit you're wrong and let's move on.
-
Please read this fullspectrum: http://www.buildyourownsla.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=84 (http://www.buildyourownsla.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=84)
Again, this technology has been discussed at length in the 3D printing industry and the pitfalls that apply to using it in ours are obvious.
-
Wow just wow. That only personal insults in this entire thread are from your posts Full Spectrum. But you just tried to convince me of the opposite. Listen when every single person that responds to you agrees you are the abrasion here at what point to you cede to that reality? It is going to be far harder to convince anyone of your ideas if your posts are littered with so much vitriol. You are talking to very intelligent successful people like they are ten year olds. All I see you have to show at 35 is you know how to push a squeegee for another printer.
As for 4k or even 8k monitors I would not be very happy when a pixel shits the bed then what? Replace an expensive monitor or have a permanent spot that can never expose?
-
inkman pretty much hit the nail on the head: You always come out of the gate frothing and name calling when anyone doesn't agree with you and stroke your ego instead of actually listening to opposing points of view and discussing the merits of those points of view versus your own. I don't know why you always assume everyone you're talking to has literally zero knowledge about a subject they have decided to discuss on this forum, when the opposite is almost universally true.
If anything the image you posted and your admissions that things "may" work if you spend a bunch more money and time to make a better unit only prove my point. You have not come close to fully developing the idea to a point where it would even come close to competing with a cheap inkjet film setup. Doing so would require a high resolution monochromatic LCD modified to increase UV pass through and with excessive cooling to prevent issues related to how heat effects the LCD, and in doing so you would spend a ton of time and money to maybe get a comparable setup to a $50 dollar desktop printer with stock inks. The LCD would also degrade as it is used due to the effects of the UV and heat, and would be much more easily damaged (and expensive to replace) than a piece of film.
I wholly agree it is a cool idea, but it isn't a practical one when you consider the costs, time, and cons of the technology when compared to inkjet and film.
Time: It takes like 10 to 20 minutes to take apart the LCD panel and place it on the glass and arrange the control unit and have the data cable attached.
Money: I might have to spend $400 for a 4k monitor. Another few hundred for the higher power lights. WOW. SO much time and money its useless to try!
"Doing so would require a high resolution monochromatic LCD modified to increase UV pass through and with excessive cooling to prevent issues related to how heat effects the LCD, and in doing so you would spend a ton of time and money to maybe get a comparable setup to a $50 dollar desktop printer with stock inks."
1080p or 4k = higher resolution, done.
Monochromatic LCD??? NO, you don't need that at all...already done the research and they don't make them in large sizes which would work for screens anyway, are too expensive, the consumer level LCD full-color panels work great. The people doing 3d are already using it for their own DIY units. 3d at the professional level requires WAY HIGHER resolution than screenprinting.... apples to oranges again. What don't you get about how this works?
$50 desktop printer with stock inks... .then $20, $20, $20, $20, $20, $20 -- keep buying that ink and film.... sure... the costs will always be cheaper than filmless inkless LCD right?? LOL.
"The LCD would also degrade as it is used due to the effects of the UV and heat, and would be much more easily damaged (and expensive to replace) than a piece of film."
What heat? I had the thing sitting there for an hour and a half, it was warm, ... gee I just put my hand on the same monitor that is my 2nd monitor with normal backlight and it feels WARMER. So the operating times may make it last longer than the original specs. LOL, tell me how the heat is going to degrade it more when it is getting less heat than normal operation?
Oh, and UV... right.... I'm sure you've researched and tested how it affects these LCD panels with this method. I'll let you know when the LCD panel "burns out" or something from too much UV. Let's just put one on full-time and see how long it takes to degrade it. But damn, if we can only get 5,000 exposures out of it before the panel is ruined and needs to be replaced then its a totally useless idea and the amount of film/ink costs for those 5,000 exposures done with traditional analog methods would surely be less than a new LCD panel.... oh wait... $1 a film x $5,000 = $5,000. Hmmm... that is like 10 replacement panels.... which would mean you could get 50,000 exposures (all hypothetical depending on the actual numbers we can actually measure if you just do some homework)... so for the same $ you can have a system that gives you 5,000 exposures or 50,000. You're essentially replacing ink and film every time you do traditional screenmaking, sure it is easier but how much time loading the film and ink and taping it to the screen even... time = money, labor, etc... you're saying it would not be worth it to replace the LCD panel even if it could be shown to always cost less in time and money compared to film and inkjet?
If people would think things through before attacking with faulty logic and premises and assumptions that are incorrect, I wouldn't get so upset at the ignorance masquerading as intelligence and we could have a logical discussion that progresses through the merits, pro's and con's etc. It isn't my fault that there is math and science and that there are rules to how they work as a language, and when you don't follow those rules it isn't math or science anymore.
-
I'm starting to think you just like hearing/seeing yourself talk. Quit with the holier-than-thou bullshit.
-
my statements are factual and are not saying anything about the technology not being possible, just that it ha some hurdles to overcome. You seem to be reacting and freaking out any time somebody points out things you don't agree with or have not thought of. You might want to consider sleeping on it before you post any answers in the future.
pierre
LOL!!!! Now you're taking it to personal attacks. Again, typical. This is why I don't bother with this board. Your statements are not factual, they are unqualified statements that are assumptions about the physical aspects, not facts.
You said: "something to remember here is that the polarized glass of the LCD display will stop 50% of the light from coming through" Which LCD panel are you talking about? Which polarizing film? Do you think 50% is a factual number associated with the amount of light passing through the LCD, the amount of actual UV, etc etc.... maybe its 25% maybe its 75%, maybe its 50%, but you clearly just threw that number out there without doing research or 'qualifying' the statement so it could be considered factual. Again, it isn't really a hurdle to overcome any more than typical hurdles in exposure based on the tolerances and variables required. Yes, there is a piece of polarizing film before the LCD and after the LCD, it is how it works, but simply saying it "will stop 50% of the light" is not a factual statement, it is a generalization that could be way off when you actually qualify it.
So do you mean 50% of the UV light at the 405nm wavelength will be stopped through a "brand/manufacturer specific" panel, which needs to be specified which one to be qualified, and of this light at a given moment in time from what is reaching the panel to what it coming through the panel, do you know the ratio of how much light is coming through the "blocked" areas of the stencil, and do you know the comparison to this vs. the amount of light going through a piece of film and what makes it through the blocked areas? For your statements to be factual you would need to qualify it with all of those actual physical system connections. Otherwise it is as I stated before, just an assumption you are making.
Do you understand the ratio between how much UV is passing and how much is being blocked? The contrast ratio for the LCD might actually be greater than that of "specific film" with "specific ink/rip/density" or compared to DTS with the wax/ink, or with DLP. DLP probably has the highest contrast ratio, since there is no "blocking" stencil, it is only exposing direct UV Laser or LED light onto the emulsion. LCD might have the second highest contrast ratio because the "dark" areas might be blocking more light compared to what is passing, comparing with what film or DTS is blocking and allowing to pass.
You might want to qualify your assumptions before you post them and claim they are factual statements. :P
just because you are writing long paragraphs, it does not mean you actually understand what you are talking about. LCD blocks 100% of the light. It uses two polarized filters at 90 degree angles. LC bends or leaves the light as is to let it go through or block it. In order to work (depending on the design) you will need at least one polarizing filter and since they block 50% of the light, that would mean only half of the UV would pass thorough. Additionally, some screens might have a UV protective coating that could block almost all of the light.
Again, all said and done, there is no doubt in my mind that this can be done, but how well or is it worth it are the questions. Printing a piece of inkjet film is going to be significantly simpler for most ppl.
pierre
I really can't bother with responding to you anymore Pierre. It is more than obvious that you don't know how this works, or how easy it is to do.
First... your statement that LCD blocks 100% of the light is false. The liquid crystals are arranged so that they PASS THE LIGHT in the OFF STATE. Therefore without even having the panel on, I can see light passing through, it is TRANSPARENT. Yes the polarizing filters block some of the light passing, you overcome this with HIGH POWER like any "professional grade" exposure unit does. I even get it to cure with cheap lights and low power and just really long times but I'm not saying that is useful or professional grade. What happens is the charge sent to the crystals jumbles them up so they don't turn the light back 90 degrees and it doesn't pass - that is the ON state which actually makes the pixel block the light. The amount of power sent is how they get a variation in how much light is blocked (percentage of the crystals jumbled up vs. arranged to pass the light)
The polarizing filters are already UV blocking but not 100%, so it works. You don't need another polarizing filter.
It doesn't matter one bit to me if you have doubts in your mind that it will work, because it already does, LOL!
HILARIOUS!! And then people laughing about you not even reading my post... but you respond??? Do as you say, not as you do? Why should I bother reading your posts anymore then?
Just like with the color separation stuff, you think you know what you're talking about but you fail to comprehend the most basic and fundamental aspects of how it all works in the real world.
Your "awards" are for the art, not for the reproduction or printing. The industry doesn't even know how to standardize simulated process, but I've finally done that myself. It is amazing to see how it actually SHOULD work and that nobody has bothered to do any R&D to discover that... it proves exactly why separators do what they do and why the printers do what they do with the seps, but again it is a mathematical process and doesn't require some artistic human hand to make it work, only a decision on what mode you want to print,(stochastic, interlock, dot-on-dot, flamenco, overprint, or simulated process or a mix of them or hybrid depending on various factors that make each method have some pro's and con's) and it proves again how ignorant it all is when the blind lead the blind in a whole industry.
But please, keep bragging about your awards that are judged on the art and not the printing. Did they have the same printers print the same design and yours was the most accurate to the design you intended (oh yeah, not the original art, but the one you changed to have more "punch" lol.).... So did they measure your version with the "punch" compared to the print and did they give you a % differential? You could compare different art from different printers if you know how to measure the art-to-print differences. But here is most likely what happens... "judges" take a "look" at the "prints" and they vote which one they think is "the best print". LOL. The very definition of arbitrary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid-crystal_display (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid-crystal_display)
"Each pixel of an LCD typically consists of a layer of molecules aligned between two transparent electrodes, and two polarizing filters (parallel and perpendicular), the axes of transmission of which are (in most of the cases) perpendicular to each other. Without the liquid crystal between the polarizing filters, light passing through the first filter would be blocked by the second (crossed) polarizer."
I am only writing this so others would not be fooled by your incorrect statements. Above quote is from Wikipedia. . .
pierre
So you clearly can't read or comprehend what this is saying?
"Without the liquid crystal between the polarizing filters, light passing through the first filter would be blocked by the second (crossed) polarizer."
Therefore.... WITH the Liquid Crystal between the polarizing filters, light passing through the first filter will be re-oriented so it PASSES the second filter.
Read it, comprehend it. Admit you're wrong and let's move on.
just for you and your engineers, I'll spell this out again (try reading slowly, maybe you'll get it this time!).
Before the light hits the Liquid Crystal part, it has to go through a polarizing filter. Polarizing filters by nature eliminate all the light in one direction (out of two, so 50% of the light). Thus, light has been reduced by 50% before it ever enters the LCD part.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dc/LCD_layers.svg/800px-LCD_layers.svg.png)
1 Polarizing filter film with a vertical axis to polarize light as it enters.
2 Glass substrate with ITO electrodes. The shapes of these electrodes will determine the shapes that will appear when the LCD is switched ON. Vertical ridges etched on the surface are smooth.
3 Twisted nematic liquid crystal.
4 Glass substrate with common electrode film (ITO) with horizontal ridges to line up with the horizontal filter.
5 Polarizing filter film with a horizontal axis to block/pass light.
6 Reflective surface to send light back to viewer. (In a backlit LCD, this layer is replaced with a light source.)
Image from the wikipedia lcd page
pierre
-
Please read this fullspectrum: [url]http://www.buildyourownsla.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=84[/url] ([url]http://www.buildyourownsla.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=84[/url])
Again, this technology has been discussed at length in the 3D printing industry and the pitfalls that apply to using it in ours are obvious.
Already read that and much more, years ago, long before I started making some prototypes. Was considering SLA back in 2010 for just making entire screens, but that is a long way out.
Did you see what I said about resolutions required for 3d printing compared to screenprinting? apples to oranges
-
my statements are factual and are not saying anything about the technology not being possible, just that it ha some hurdles to overcome. You seem to be reacting and freaking out any time somebody points out things you don't agree with or have not thought of. You might want to consider sleeping on it before you post any answers in the future.
pierre
LOL!!!! Now you're taking it to personal attacks. Again, typical. This is why I don't bother with this board. Your statements are not factual, they are unqualified statements that are assumptions about the physical aspects, not facts.
You said: "something to remember here is that the polarized glass of the LCD display will stop 50% of the light from coming through" Which LCD panel are you talking about? Which polarizing film? Do you think 50% is a factual number associated with the amount of light passing through the LCD, the amount of actual UV, etc etc.... maybe its 25% maybe its 75%, maybe its 50%, but you clearly just threw that number out there without doing research or 'qualifying' the statement so it could be considered factual. Again, it isn't really a hurdle to overcome any more than typical hurdles in exposure based on the tolerances and variables required. Yes, there is a piece of polarizing film before the LCD and after the LCD, it is how it works, but simply saying it "will stop 50% of the light" is not a factual statement, it is a generalization that could be way off when you actually qualify it.
So do you mean 50% of the UV light at the 405nm wavelength will be stopped through a "brand/manufacturer specific" panel, which needs to be specified which one to be qualified, and of this light at a given moment in time from what is reaching the panel to what it coming through the panel, do you know the ratio of how much light is coming through the "blocked" areas of the stencil, and do you know the comparison to this vs. the amount of light going through a piece of film and what makes it through the blocked areas? For your statements to be factual you would need to qualify it with all of those actual physical system connections. Otherwise it is as I stated before, just an assumption you are making.
Do you understand the ratio between how much UV is passing and how much is being blocked? The contrast ratio for the LCD might actually be greater than that of "specific film" with "specific ink/rip/density" or compared to DTS with the wax/ink, or with DLP. DLP probably has the highest contrast ratio, since there is no "blocking" stencil, it is only exposing direct UV Laser or LED light onto the emulsion. LCD might have the second highest contrast ratio because the "dark" areas might be blocking more light compared to what is passing, comparing with what film or DTS is blocking and allowing to pass.
You might want to qualify your assumptions before you post them and claim they are factual statements. :P
just because you are writing long paragraphs, it does not mean you actually understand what you are talking about. LCD blocks 100% of the light. It uses two polarized filters at 90 degree angles. LC bends or leaves the light as is to let it go through or block it. In order to work (depending on the design) you will need at least one polarizing filter and since they block 50% of the light, that would mean only half of the UV would pass thorough. Additionally, some screens might have a UV protective coating that could block almost all of the light.
Again, all said and done, there is no doubt in my mind that this can be done, but how well or is it worth it are the questions. Printing a piece of inkjet film is going to be significantly simpler for most ppl.
pierre
I really can't bother with responding to you anymore Pierre. It is more than obvious that you don't know how this works, or how easy it is to do.
First... your statement that LCD blocks 100% of the light is false. The liquid crystals are arranged so that they PASS THE LIGHT in the OFF STATE. Therefore without even having the panel on, I can see light passing through, it is TRANSPARENT. Yes the polarizing filters block some of the light passing, you overcome this with HIGH POWER like any "professional grade" exposure unit does. I even get it to cure with cheap lights and low power and just really long times but I'm not saying that is useful or professional grade. What happens is the charge sent to the crystals jumbles them up so they don't turn the light back 90 degrees and it doesn't pass - that is the ON state which actually makes the pixel block the light. The amount of power sent is how they get a variation in how much light is blocked (percentage of the crystals jumbled up vs. arranged to pass the light)
The polarizing filters are already UV blocking but not 100%, so it works. You don't need another polarizing filter.
It doesn't matter one bit to me if you have doubts in your mind that it will work, because it already does, LOL!
HILARIOUS!! And then people laughing about you not even reading my post... but you respond??? Do as you say, not as you do? Why should I bother reading your posts anymore then?
Just like with the color separation stuff, you think you know what you're talking about but you fail to comprehend the most basic and fundamental aspects of how it all works in the real world.
Your "awards" are for the art, not for the reproduction or printing. The industry doesn't even know how to standardize simulated process, but I've finally done that myself. It is amazing to see how it actually SHOULD work and that nobody has bothered to do any R&D to discover that... it proves exactly why separators do what they do and why the printers do what they do with the seps, but again it is a mathematical process and doesn't require some artistic human hand to make it work, only a decision on what mode you want to print,(stochastic, interlock, dot-on-dot, flamenco, overprint, or simulated process or a mix of them or hybrid depending on various factors that make each method have some pro's and con's) and it proves again how ignorant it all is when the blind lead the blind in a whole industry.
But please, keep bragging about your awards that are judged on the art and not the printing. Did they have the same printers print the same design and yours was the most accurate to the design you intended (oh yeah, not the original art, but the one you changed to have more "punch" lol.).... So did they measure your version with the "punch" compared to the print and did they give you a % differential? You could compare different art from different printers if you know how to measure the art-to-print differences. But here is most likely what happens... "judges" take a "look" at the "prints" and they vote which one they think is "the best print". LOL. The very definition of arbitrary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid-crystal_display (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid-crystal_display)
"Each pixel of an LCD typically consists of a layer of molecules aligned between two transparent electrodes, and two polarizing filters (parallel and perpendicular), the axes of transmission of which are (in most of the cases) perpendicular to each other. Without the liquid crystal between the polarizing filters, light passing through the first filter would be blocked by the second (crossed) polarizer."
I am only writing this so others would not be fooled by your incorrect statements. Above quote is from Wikipedia. . .
pierre
So you clearly can't read or comprehend what this is saying?
"Without the liquid crystal between the polarizing filters, light passing through the first filter would be blocked by the second (crossed) polarizer."
Therefore.... WITH the Liquid Crystal between the polarizing filters, light passing through the first filter will be re-oriented so it PASSES the second filter.
Read it, comprehend it. Admit you're wrong and let's move on.
just for you and your engineers, I'll spell this out again (try reading slowly, maybe you'll get it this time!).
Before the light hits the Liquid Crystal part, it has to go through a polarizing filter. Polarizing filters by nature eliminate all the light in one direction (out of two, so 50% of the light). Thus, light has been reduced by 50% before it ever enters the LCD part.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dc/LCD_layers.svg/800px-LCD_layers.svg.png)
pierre
Pierre.... really.... are you that incapable of comprehending how it works?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarizing_filter_(photography)
It does not "cut out 50% of the incoming light".
It does not "eliminate all the light in one direction".... do you understand quantum physics and particle physics enough to know that polarization is not the "direction" of the light, but the "geometrical orientation of the waves"... entirely different phenomena... please study physics before you claim to know how a polarizing filter or LCDs work.
Also... it is not the same for UV as for visible light through the filters on the panels... but please try to realize how this works...
Light--------> 90 degree POLARIZING FILTER (causes a 90-degree geometrical orientation of the waves of the light, or only lets the light at 90 degrees to pass through, which can be much more than 50% of the light already passing, or if you already oriented it the other 90 degrees and have no bleeding degree of light still passing then all the light would be stopped if there is no bleed on the new filter) ------> Liquid Crystals pre-arranged to re-orient the light waves 90 degrees again and this is in the OFF state-----> another 90 degree polarizing filter at the perpendicular direction to the first one... which then allows the light that was re-oriented by the crystals to pass through the second filter and out - to your eyes or the emulsion/mesh.
How much actual % of the original UV and visible light (or lets say just the region you want to expose screens with so maybe 405nm range) is being cut out from the first filter, the crystals even at the passing state, and the second filter? It is not just these numbers you keep throwing out there like 50% or 100% etc.... maybe its actually only cutting out 25% of the original light even in the on-state. But if it were cutting out so much light through the polarizing filters, how does it work as a bright LCD monitor you're looking at?? LOL. Shouldn't your monitor be really dark like 50% darker if your statements are correct? How do they possibly get it to look like such a bright white. Sure it isn't at bright as looking at the backlight without the panel on it... but is it 50% darker??
And regardless of how much % of light is cut out... you realize you can just use more light right?? Whether it is power or time or distance or both. No one is stopping you from using more light. Maybe I will test one in direct sunlight and see how long it takes, LOL.
But seriously, stop trying to make your false statements seem true. It can't be done.
This is also not the project I'm working with programmers, engineers, scientists and chemists on, your assumption is incorrect, this is obviously just open-source sharing a DIY "DLP Alternative".
-
you are referencing a photography CIRCULAR filter which different.
Polarizing filter in the LCD display eliminates half of the light rather than reorienting. Photography polarizing filter has a different purpose.
so it cuts out 50% of the light. Yes, you can increase the light to make up for it, that was never in dispute. The issue was your misunderstanding of how the lCD works and the polarizing filters that remove half the light (which is a wave and a particle and pulses in all directions).
Here's another wikipedia image that shows what's going on:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/41/Rising_circular.gif)
light has a vertical and horizontal component to the wave. Individual filters remove one of the components depending on which way they are oriented. yes, I have taken my physics classes and done the experiments with these. I also use them in photography (used to use the linear and now use circular polarizers).
and I am done defending this as I would imagine most other ppl will not be as dense and will get it by now. . .
pierre
pierre
-
Wow just wow. That only personal insults in this entire thread are from your posts Full Spectrum. But you just tried to convince me of the opposite. Listen when every single person that responds to you agrees you are the abrasion here at what point to you cede to that reality? It is going to be far harder to convince anyone of your ideas if your posts are littered with so much vitriol. You are talking to very intelligent successful people like they are ten year olds. All I see you have to show at 35 is you know how to push a squeegee for another printer.
As for 4k or even 8k monitors I would not be very happy when a pixel shits the bed then what? Replace an expensive monitor or have a permanent spot that can never expose?
"All I see you have to show at 35 is you know how to push a squeegee for another printer."
I guess SimpleSeps Raster for Corel Draw, The Full-Spectrum toolkit for Photoshop, Multi-color halftone interlocking, Standardized Simulated Process and other methods of color separation automation and standardization... the HWB color wheel, HWB-TSG-M color model and swatch system, and Alvy Ray Smith's encouragement to keep going with all of it.... those are just nothing right?? Everybody in the industry has done that right?
I can do a pull stroke too, does that count? :P
-
I must have missed that in your numerous word vomits, sorry.
In response to your assertions that Pierre doesn't know the percentages of UV the LCD blocks (specifically in the range needed to expose the emulsions we use): apparently you don't either. Fortunately that is discussed at length on the forum you have apparently already read (and forgotten). Hint: it's significantly more than 50%. In fact, they even have the decency to link to a handful of articles and studies (like where people used science and stuff!) that specifically address that topic. They even discuss related issues like the fact that increasing the intensity of the light source inversely affects the contrast ratio of the LCD! (uh oh) Food for thought as you continue to test with brighter lights or the sun...
Like I said, that thread discusses many of the issues that make this a waste of time for our industry.
Your math above is also irrelevant when discussing what it would take to get even a comparable setup using this technology vs a cheapo inkjet and film setup. You will literally not get a screen with the same quality for the same price, and even when you factor in consumables it would take a long time and a lot of headaches. The upfront cost would also make it prohibitive for your proclaimed target demographic to begin with, and at a certain point it would simply make more sense to upgrade to other proven technologies. You are also completely ignoring the issues of a printer being plug and play vs having to build this thing (easy for some, but probably not most people), the fragility of the LCD vs film/ink, and numerous other considerations...
-
Quantum physics now? Quantum Physics deals at the atomic level, not sure how quantum physics has anything to do with Strong Nuclear forces and gluons but ok.
Your macros and scripts in Corel and Photoshop(which I think no one can actually use if I recall) is something a hundred people have done before you and will continue to do so. Still pushing/pulling a squeegee, does that impress your engineers and scientists when you pitch your arguments to them? I digress that is pretty petty of me, Einstein failed school and filed patent claims and he turned out to be the smartest physicist ever.
-
you are referencing a photography CIRCULAR filter which different.
Polarizing filter in the LCD display eliminates half of the light rather than reorienting. Photography polarizing filter has a different purpose.
so it cuts out 50% of the light. Yes, you can increase the light to make up for it, that was never in dispute. The issue was your misunderstanding of how the lCD works and the polarizing filters that remove half the light (which is a wave and a particle and pulses in all directions).
Here's another wikipedia image that shows what's going on:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/41/Rising_circular.gif)
light has a vertical and horizontal component to the wave. Individual filters remove one of the components depending on which way they are oriented. yes, I have taken my physics classes and done the experiments with these. I also use them in photography (used to use the linear and now use circular polarizers).
and I am done defending this as I would imagine most other ppl will not be as dense and will get it by now. . .
pierre
pierre
Wrong, sorry you just can't make up how you think it works. LOL...polarizing filters block half the light? LOL!!!
"Polarizing filter in the LCD display eliminates half of the light rather than reorienting." --- -Dude you are so wrong it just isn't funny anymore. How does it eliminate half the light then???
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarizer
-
Seriously why not ban this guy, is there even one person that would like him to stay?
-
I must have missed that in your numerous word vomits, sorry.
In response to your assertions that Pierre doesn't know the percentages of UV the LCD blocks (specifically in the range needed to expose the emulsions we use): apparently you don't either. Fortunately that is discussed at length on the forum you have apparently already read (and forgotten). Hint: it's significantly more than 50%. In fact, they even have the decency to link to a handful of articles and studies (like where people used science and stuff!) that specifically address that topic. They even discuss related issues like the fact that increasing the intensity of the light source inversely affects the contrast ration of the LCD! (uh oh) Food for thought as you continue to test with brighter lights or the sun...
Like I said, that thread discusses many of the issues that make this a waste of time for our industry.
Your math above is also irrelevant when discussing what it would take to get even a comparable setup using this technology vs a cheapo inkjet and film setup. You will literally not get a screen with the same quality for the same price, and even when you factor in consumables it would take a long time and a lot of headaches. The upfront cost would also make it prohibitive for your proclaimed target demographic to begin with, and at a certain point it would simply make more sense to upgrade to other proven technologies. You are also completely ignoring the issues of a printer being plug and play vs having to build this thing (easy for some, but probably not most people), the fragility of the LCD vs film/ink, and numerous other considerations...
Look... I'm only using it for myself, DIY, and will try to just get something that works for me for certain purposes. I was only sharing a DLP alternative, then people have to for some reason denounce it as not being an alternative. If I can make screens with it and print them, then it is an alternative for me at least.
I'm not even trying to make a product to sell to other printers, because of the very reasons you mentioned. After dealing with the industry for a while with the color separation software stuff... I know the pitfalls of assuming too much about the demographic and its capabilities.
-
Quantum physics now? Quantum Physics deals at the atomic level, not sure how quantum physics has anything to do with Strong Nuclear forces and gluons but ok.
Your macros and scripts in Corel and Photoshop(which I think no one can actually use if I recall) is something a hundred people have done before you and will continue to do so. Still pushing/pulling a squeegee, does that impress your engineers and scientists when you pitch your arguments to them? I digress that is pretty petty of me, Einstein failed school and filed patent claims and he turned out to be the smartest physicist ever.
Newtonian Physics deals at the atomic level.
Quantum Physics overlaps to the sub-atomic level.
What are photons, atoms or subatomic particles?? Clue: They aren't atoms.
Oh by the way I'm not pulling a squeegee for anyone anymore, just bumming it doing some design and seps and working on building my shop and more videos and software - and the NDA projects. Writing more patents and coding my own halftone algorithms.
Tell me how quantum physics and light waves/particles have nothing to do with each other, please.
Do you even science bro? :P
-
Seriously why not ban this guy, is there even one person that would like him to stay?
good point, any other takers?
pierre
-
You literally said " this LCD exposure is the absolute simplest, easiest to use method of getting your image to your screens" on the first page of this thread...
People here tend to respond with measured criticism to that kind of hyperbole. The rest of your replies have been discounting those criticisms without anything but your own opinions and numerous complaints of victimization. Not sure what else there is to say...
edit: not sure he has really done anything that requires a ban honestly. Ignoring him would be relatively easy at this point, and it is an interesting subject generally speaking. He just seriously needs to learn how not to vomit on his keyboard and stop acting like a 14 year old who just found the internet.
-
Your macros and scripts in Corel and Photoshop(which I think no one can actually use if I recall) is something a hundred people have done before you and will continue to do so.
LMAO!!!
Mark Coudray told me that halftone interlocking is one of the most valuable things I've done in the industry, and he doesn't even know about the actual algorithms I've been writing, only about the basic cookie-cutter style of interlocking that is in the existing programs. But hey, it is something a hundred people have done before and will continue to do so... Mark must not be aware of all the others.
Oh that's right... there is that other simulated process color separation app for Corel.... what is it... umm... pixel splitter? No wait, that doesnt do HWB sim process.... Umm... wait whats the other corel app like SimpleSeps Raster? Oh, its apples to apples when comparing the other photoshop plugins to the one I created also right? They're all the same, sure, been done before.... I guess I didnt' do enough research as a high-end sim process artist and color separator trying to work with all the existing software and manual techniques over the years... I guess I did all this work making my own methods into standardized processes for no reason because I could have just bought an existing program for corel or photoshop that does the same stuff right??
GTFO with that non-sense. Pretty petty of me I know. No wait... Now you guys want to ban me?? HAHA. Typical, expected. I'll save you the trouble.
I've asked before the moderators to delete my account and got no response, I would love it if you would ban me, delete my account, and REMOVE ALL THE POSTS I'VE WRITTEN. But you won't do that will you?
You'd prefer to keep the posts I've written as public and on your servers and board, your property and information, but kill the messenger now so he stops providing more information.
What will it be? Please delete my account and remove all my posts.... that is what I request. What are you willing to do?
If you ban me while keeping all of my posts, what does that say about this board?
-
you realize you could delete the content yourself, right? lol...
I mean, you barely have 100 posts so it would take you like 10 minutes.
-
user banned as per his request. Posts are kept as they are part of the threads that would not work without them.
pierre
-
You are acting more and more like a child as this continues.
Do I science? Do I understand Atomic and sub atomic, yes I actually do quite well in fact, I am not an articulate person in any way but Physics especially quantum physics quantum theory is my favorite subject and has been for a very long time. I can sit for hours upon hours listening to Richard Feynam (sp)? Lawrence Krauss Kip Thorne and many many others lectures and I have. I have soaked up every single article and lecture there is concerning CERN and the LHC. I know just enough to know trying to expose a screen and envoking quantum physics is silly and just another way for you to try and make yourself seem smarter than the others here that are obviously smarter than you.
-
Wow, long thread. I wouldn't want him banned, though I admit I probably wouldn't invite him to my home for a party either. But he's pretty bright, and has some good things to say intertwined in there. But yes, he has a disregard for others that I'm not sure he is completely aware of, or if he is, should really cut it the hell out. Insulting people who have already done some very fine work indeed is not a way to win friends and influence people. Sharing knowledge is one thing, trying to use it as a bludgeon is another. Good luck to you, I hope all goes well for you and yours.
Steve
-
I agree I wouldn't have banned either, but if he asked for it to be so then whatever
-
What a jackass...
-
I think he provides a different way of looking at things. I do think you guys are splitting hairs over this 50% thing. I mean, polarizing glasses for example only block out "100%" of the light coming from PERCICELY the right direction... off that axis by a few degrees and it's coming through, just not as strong. So 50% might be too definite. Just like my 100% above is probably not correct either.
-
I am bummed there was all sort of cool science stuff stuck in the middle of relatively entertaining insults! It was the science equivalent of the rumble in the jungle! We had wiki references and at least 5 different links to fun cool applications, with a little capulet vs montague sizzle!! I guess it probably got a little out of hand, but each time all parties involved got smarter and backed there research with videos, interactive diagrams and life experiences! I guess I will go back to re runs of mash
-
I want to know when we can have quantum screens. Change the state of the emulsion so it's open or closed in each "cell".
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk
-
Pierre why ban.
Just stop answering.
-
I want to know when we can have quantum screens. Change the state of the emulsion so it's open or closed in each "cell".
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk
Problem is any entangled cell would have to be in reverse :)
-
Pierre why ban.
Just stop answering.
Same advice you gave me and another user when we couldn't seem to stop bickering. ;)
-
I want to know when we can have quantum screens. Change the state of the emulsion so it's open or closed in each "cell".
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk
Problem is any entangled cell would have to be in reverse :)
wouldn't that just mean 2 screens? 1 screen on press, one screen 'somewhere' that's got all the other halfs of the entangled particles on them?
that's some hard-scifi stuff there... I believe for the entanglement to work, you still need a 'carrier beam'... so you'd end up with 2 screens, connected with fiber optic cable.
-
Pierre why ban.
Just stop answering.
Same advice you gave me and another user when we couldn't seem to stop bickering. ;)
not the same, there was misinformation being spread that could hurt ppl not understanding what is going on.
pierre
-
He asked to be ban. Somthing tells me this wasn't the first time he's had this kind of interaction and complete breakdown in people skills.
It's never fair when the hole world is against you and they're all too stupid to understand you.
Good luck with life.
Murphy
-
I want to know when we can have quantum screens. Change the state of the emulsion so it's open or closed in each "cell".
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk
Problem is any entangled cell would have to be in reverse :)
wouldn't that just mean 2 screens? 1 screen on press, one screen 'somewhere' that's got all the other halfs of the entangled particles on them?
that's some hard-scifi stuff there... I believe for the entanglement to work, you still need a 'carrier beam'... so you'd end up with 2 screens, connected with fiber optic cable.
The big brains still cannot predict or influence which state a particle is once observed, it can be up or down east west etc. The other particle would be opposite, till they have a break through quantum entanglement is still just a novelty. But imagine if they can influence a particle in one spot, the partner could be on the other side of the universe and we could pass information at iunstant speeds, spooky $crap as Einstein said.
-
i enjoyed a good catfight.
i'm sad that his instinctual response was so acerbic. because, seconding others, looking past that, he was certainly bringing something to the table.
the concept is intriguing. i'm glad he's pursuing it. yeah, maybe it won't work. but the proof is in the testing, not the guessing from afar.
-
Just think how this would have gone if he approached it like any other thread on a DIY project, all of which are civil and constructive.