TSB
screen printing => General Screen Printing => Topic started by: Be3305 on October 12, 2016, 07:00:43 PM
-
Looking to figure the ROI of purchasing an i-Image STE against continuing to print films on our Epson T3270. I have all of the ROI info for the process improvement, efficiency and film savings. Right now we are currently spending $400-$600 per month on average for ink with the Epson. I'm trying to project the ink cost of using an i-image to compare the two.
Any feedback would be much appreciated. Thanks!!
-
Haven't done any hard costs per screen,
But we have used 2.25 Litres since June in our machine, 30 +/- screens a day. 180$ a litre.
Obviously it will be less in for a 6 inch tall 65 DPI halftone image than a solid block 19 inches tall.
-
If you are looking at ink cost for the DTS for comparison, you are over looking the big picture.
For I-Image I think you'll be like .06 cents to .50 cents per screen, so less than films,
but you also won't have to catalog films, find them, tape them, un tape them, get better registration, less pin holes.
Ink cost is the smallest part of it, your ROI comes in saved labor, better screens, and digital file system and better repeatability.
If you are to the point of comparing numbers, just pull the trigger on DTS and never look back. It's worth it and the new i-Image S is like 30k, so has a more palatable price if the throughput is high enough for you, get a separate exposure unit LED as you can keep the unit printing while another is exposing, exposing on "press" is a gimmick unless you only run plastisol with a fast emulsion
-
For those who have the STE, 1 and 2, you can scroll (right tab) through the LCD screen and get to the area where you count your screens exposed and screens printed (per shift). Figure out how long you have had the machine, then count the bottles you've purchased. That gives to an accurate read on how many screens per day you do and what you are getting out of your ink.
Many don't even use this, but it's a good feature. It counts the total exposed and total prints (per the life of the machine) also not just per shift or day.
-
Looking to figure the ROI of purchasing an i-Image STE against continuing to print films on our Epson T3270. I have all of the ROI info for the process improvement, efficiency and film savings. Right now we are currently spending $400-$600 per month on average for ink with the Epson. I'm trying to project the ink cost of using an i-image to compare the two.
Any feedback would be much appreciated. Thanks!!
I have the t3270 and use 700ml carts i am using 2 black 3 cleaning carts 8-10 screens a day for the last 10 months, how many 700ml carts have you gone thru? all black or ???
Shane
-
Looking to figure the ROI of purchasing an i-Image STE against continuing to print films on our Epson T3270. I have all of the ROI info for the process improvement, efficiency and film savings. Right now we are currently spending $400-$600 per month on average for ink with the Epson. I'm trying to project the ink cost of using an i-image to compare the two.
Any feedback would be much appreciated. Thanks!!
roughly .03 to .07 per screen
-
Looking to figure the ROI of purchasing an i-Image STE against continuing to print films on our Epson T3270. I have all of the ROI info for the process improvement, efficiency and film savings. Right now we are currently spending $400-$600 per month on average for ink with the Epson. I'm trying to project the ink cost of using an i-image to compare the two.
Any feedback would be much appreciated. Thanks!!
roughly .03 to .07 per screen
Will that average be the same for the i-Image S? Toying with the idea of getting one next year. Would most likely order as well plenty of ink for refills if shelf life permits. What is the shelf life of the inks? Lead times on the i-Image S are fairly long I was told?!
-
Looking to figure the ROI of purchasing an i-Image STE against continuing to print films on our Epson T3270. I have all of the ROI info for the process improvement, efficiency and film savings. Right now we are currently spending $400-$600 per month on average for ink with the Epson. I'm trying to project the ink cost of using an i-image to compare the two.
Any feedback would be much appreciated. Thanks!!
roughly .03 to .07 per screen
Ink cost will be exactly the same. One liter is good for 1,600-2,000 screens and shelf life is roughly one year on the ink. Leads time are long at the moment as sales are extremely strong. Will get much worse as there are multiple shows left this year.
Will that average be the same for the i-Image S? Toying with the idea of getting one next year. Would most likely order as well plenty of ink for refills if shelf life permits. What is the shelf life of the inks? Lead times on the i-Image S are fairly long I was told?!
-
While this conversation about consumable cost per screen is informative it is totally irrelevant to the decision to implement and/or operate a CTS unit.
When talking pennies per unit the ink cost is just not a factor when compared to the saved time and improved productivity CTS provides.
My 2 cents...
-
While this conversation about consumable cost per screen is informative it is totally irrelevant to the decision to implement and/or operate a CTS unit.
When talking pennies per unit the ink cost is just not a factor when compared to the saved time and improved productivity CTS provides.
My 2 cents...
Greg is right on the money (pun intended) here...
BUT.. if you look at just the cost savings of ink + films, I believe the ROI on a 30k unit is now around 100 or so screens a week. To say nothing about the efficiency gains in the rest of your shop eliminating the handling of film, registration marks, faster exposures, far fewer if not any pinholes etc.
-
For a mom and pop like we are, there is no way we could've pulled off yesterday without dts. We printed only 1000 or so shirts but that thousand consisted of 9 orders ranging from 1 to 7 color prints. A total of 82 screens with just me setting up and tearing down. I had to micro 3 of those screens. Even if the ink cost were the same as film and ink, I would still go dts. Consumables are the least of my concern. It's the other areas that dts improves on that has made my mind up to always have dts from here on out.
-
While this conversation about consumable cost per screen is informative it is totally irrelevant to the decision to implement and/or operate a CTS unit.
When talking pennies per unit the ink cost is just not a factor when compared to the saved time and improved productivity CTS provides.
My 2 cents...
I agree but just answering the questions. Just like printing the last thing to consider is the ink cost.
-
Obviously image size makes a difference. I have been tracking this for years and I'm right at .07 a screen. This is for thousands of screens a month, sized everywhere from newborn to adult.
-
What is the general screen/week volume a shop should be doing to consider a $30K CTS such as the i-image s?
I know we will be nowhere close to that mark yet, but just curious at what point this should be considered.
-
Agree with others that your consumable costs aren't worth calculating and comparing when considering CTS. They will be lower all around unless you are running super cheap inkjet film and ink but it's not the big picture.
If you have funds available that wouldn't steal from what you see as a more critical purchase (like a first auto, etc) and would like the benefits, just get a CTS.
-
If you have funds available that wouldn't steal from what you see as a more critical purchase (like a first auto, etc) and would like the benefits, just get a CTS.
I really want to. I just don't know if I can legitimately justify it. So probably more of dreaming aloud.
Does the i-Image S have a built in Starlight?
-
While this conversation about consumable cost per screen is informative it is totally irrelevant to the decision to implement and/or operate a CTS unit.
When talking pennies per unit the ink cost is just not a factor when compared to the saved time and improved productivity CTS provides.
My 2 cents...
Dead on , Dead on, Dead on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I could care less about ink cost and it goes so far it is ridiculous. I've said it a million times, it's hard to conceive what you are missing by not going CTS, it will literally help your business flow and grow. ROI on a CTS is never going to make sense until you have it in your production flow and then it aaaalllllllllllllll makes sense!!!!
-
If you have funds available that wouldn't steal from what you see as a more critical purchase (like a first auto, etc) and would like the benefits, just get a CTS.
I really want to. I just don't know if I can legitimately justify it. So probably more of dreaming aloud.
Does the i-Image S have a built in Starlight?
I think it get's easier when the cost of a CTS isn't 60k plus.
That was a little hard for us as you can do a lot in a shop with 60k. But we were done with Epson printers, film, folders, carrier sheets, pin locks and insanely slow setups. These were holding us back as a group. Setups were identified as our #1 cash drain since it runs up payroll and runs down production. The payroll and lost production cost of slow setups for us over even a year or two will far outweigh the 60k investment. Everyone is different though, some shops kill it with setups using film imaged screens.
If you're on the fence then sit tight on it and get ready. You can net many of the benefits of a CTS workflow with film by simply gearing your workflow as you would for CTS. We did that a couple years back and it was a very easy transition into CTS from film because of it and it really tightened things up in the interim.
You're running an s.roque pru right? I've heard great things about them.
-
If you have funds available that wouldn't steal from what you see as a more critical purchase (like a first auto, etc) and would like the benefits, just get a CTS.
I really want to. I just don't know if I can legitimately justify it. So probably more of dreaming aloud.
Does the i-Image S have a built in Starlight?
no built in starlight, but quite honestly, a built-in exposure on a CTS is a waste..
pull that screen out of the CTS, put it on an exposure unit, and start imaging the next screen.
especially on the I-Image S which is slower than a 1-head I-Image ST due to either software limits to as not compete with the I-Image ST -OR- due to the gantry design... (thinking more software limited tho)... but even still, if you're 100+ screens a day on the unit, you can afford to have a 2nd one and have redundancy.
if you do your production loop correctly, you can be imaging one, while one is exposing, while one is soaking, while one is being rinsed out all with 1 person.. if you got really crazy, you get an autocoater, and have the same person coating.
-
jvanick nailed it.
We have very long expo times as we use diazo added emulsions. This talk of LED being super fast does not apply at all to our screens and an imaging + expose unit would not be fast enough for us in most situations.
The flow you can get going in your screen room with CTS is fantastic
-
I remember when I was deciding whether or not it was worth it... All of the pro's would say "If I had to go back to film,I would quit".
If anyone asks me now, I would say exactly that!
-
What is the general screen/week volume a shop should be doing to consider a $30K CTS such as the i-image s?
I know we will be nowhere close to that mark yet, but just curious at what point this should be considered.
We are doing around 70-100 screens a week and bought the old 1st gen I-screen. It's horribly slow but honestly not much slower than printing film was. But when you figure in the total handling time of film to carrier sheets, to carrying the film with the screen to expo unit, then de-taping and cataloging film afterwards, and the fact the film for us anyway, always seemed to be off as the roll got closer to the center. We had a hard time lining up screens because the film wouldn't always be perfect on multi color jobs, lots of time wasted on setups.
I think our CTS has some issues as around 1 out of 10 screens might be 1/16-1/18" off in one direction, but we have ran Many 6+ color jobs where we didn't touch a micro. When those happen, or when you do a 8 or more color job where you only have to adjust one screen, the cost no matter what it is, will feel justified. If 30k is out of your budget look around for an older I-screen or 1st gen i-image, I know of at least one person who might be interested in selling his. I absolutely loathe the idea of using film ever again, Even if i am re-running a job i have film for, I will print it on CTS instead as i know the setup time on press will be so much faster that it is still a time savings.
-
What is the general screen/week volume a shop should be doing to consider a $30K CTS such as the i-image s?
I know we will be nowhere close to that mark yet, but just curious at what point this should be considered.
We are doing around 70-100 screens a week and bought the old 1st gen I-screen. It's horribly slow but honestly not much slower than printing film was. But when you figure in the total handling time of film to carrier sheets, to carrying the film with the screen to expo unit, then de-taping and cataloging film afterwards, and the fact the film for us anyway, always seemed to be off as the roll got closer to the center. We had a hard time lining up screens because the film wouldn't always be perfect on multi color jobs, lots of time wasted on setups.
I think our CTS has some issues as around 1 out of 10 screens might be 1/16-1/18" off in one direction, but we have ran Many 6+ color jobs where we didn't touch a micro. When those happen, or when you do a 8 or more color job where you only have to adjust one screen, the cost no matter what it is, will feel justified. If 30k is out of your budget look around for an older I-screen or 1st gen i-image, I know of at least one person who might be interested in selling his. I absolutely loathe the idea of using film ever again, Even if i am re-running a job i have film for, I will print it on CTS instead as i know the setup time on press will be so much faster that it is still a time savings.
You have absolutely convinced me now that this will be a very good purchase. I did not take the de-taping into account. And you are right that`s one of the most time wasting steps. And honestly we are out of space for artwork files.
-
What is the general screen/week volume a shop should be doing to consider a $30K CTS such as the i-image s?
I know we will be nowhere close to that mark yet, but just curious at what point this should be considered.
We are doing around 70-100 screens a week and bought the old 1st gen I-screen. It's horribly slow but honestly not much slower than printing film was. But when you figure in the total handling time of film to carrier sheets, to carrying the film with the screen to expo unit, then de-taping and cataloging film afterwards, and the fact the film for us anyway, always seemed to be off as the roll got closer to the center. We had a hard time lining up screens because the film wouldn't always be perfect on multi color jobs, lots of time wasted on setups.
I think our CTS has some issues as around 1 out of 10 screens might be 1/16-1/18" off in one direction, but we have ran Many 6+ color jobs where we didn't touch a micro. When those happen, or when you do a 8 or more color job where you only have to adjust one screen, the cost no matter what it is, will feel justified. If 30k is out of your budget look around for an older I-screen or 1st gen i-image, I know of at least one person who might be interested in selling his. I absolutely loathe the idea of using film ever again, Even if i am re-running a job i have film for, I will print it on CTS instead as i know the setup time on press will be so much faster that it is still a time savings.
I don't know about I-Screens, but if using an ST or above, the 1 screen being off is not from the machine. It's from the loader.
When you find one that is off, clean the ink out of it, being it back and print the image on it again. Then you should see that it prints in a different location (the correct location) when loaded the 2nd time correctly.
-
What is the general screen/week volume a shop should be doing to consider a $30K CTS such as the i-image s?
I know we will be nowhere close to that mark yet, but just curious at what point this should be considered.
We are doing around 70-100 screens a week and bought the old 1st gen I-screen. It's horribly slow but honestly not much slower than printing film was. But when you figure in the total handling time of film to carrier sheets, to carrying the film with the screen to expo unit, then de-taping and cataloging film afterwards, and the fact the film for us anyway, always seemed to be off as the roll got closer to the center. We had a hard time lining up screens because the film wouldn't always be perfect on multi color jobs, lots of time wasted on setups.
I think our CTS has some issues as around 1 out of 10 screens might be 1/16-1/18" off in one direction, but we have ran Many 6+ color jobs where we didn't touch a micro. When those happen, or when you do a 8 or more color job where you only have to adjust one screen, the cost no matter what it is, will feel justified. If 30k is out of your budget look around for an older I-screen or 1st gen i-image, I know of at least one person who might be interested in selling his. I absolutely loathe the idea of using film ever again, Even if i am re-running a job i have film for, I will print it on CTS instead as i know the setup time on press will be so much faster that it is still a time savings.
I don't know about I-Screens, but if using an ST or above, the 1 screen being off is not from the machine. It's from the loader.
When you find one that is off, clean the ink out of it, being it back and print the image on it again. Then you should see that it prints in a different location (the correct location) when loaded the 2nd time correctly.
which is now corrected with the tri sync feature.
-
Which I hope I can retro fit to my machine. My screen guy has good days and bad days. This feature will eliminate the excuses.
-
Some of you have said there is no need (a waste) for exposing on the machine.
It may very well be correct for you, ...but the blanket statement is incorrect.
While it doesn't apply to you, it does apply to the other 70-80% of the industry that is not doing waterbase/dishcarge and lets face it, the majority of those have the idea that FASTER is better so they use the fastest emulsion (and for what they do), it's a good choice. Many are doing 12-48 shirts but 50 -100 orders of those a day.
Where it does make sense for all shops is if all shops had an exposure unit where you can expose 4 up at a time.
I've seen some shops expose 6-8 at a time.
-
What is the general screen/week volume a shop should be doing to consider a $30K CTS such as the i-image s?
I know we will be nowhere close to that mark yet, but just curious at what point this should be considered.
We are doing around 70-100 screens a week and bought the old 1st gen I-screen. It's horribly slow but honestly not much slower than printing film was. But when you figure in the total handling time of film to carrier sheets, to carrying the film with the screen to expo unit, then de-taping and cataloging film afterwards, and the fact the film for us anyway, always seemed to be off as the roll got closer to the center. We had a hard time lining up screens because the film wouldn't always be perfect on multi color jobs, lots of time wasted on setups.
I think our CTS has some issues as around 1 out of 10 screens might be 1/16-1/18" off in one direction, but we have ran Many 6+ color jobs where we didn't touch a micro. When those happen, or when you do a 8 or more color job where you only have to adjust one screen, the cost no matter what it is, will feel justified. If 30k is out of your budget look around for an older I-screen or 1st gen i-image, I know of at least one person who might be interested in selling his. I absolutely loathe the idea of using film ever again, Even if i am re-running a job i have film for, I will print it on CTS instead as i know the setup time on press will be so much faster that it is still a time savings.
I don't know about I-Screens, but if using an ST or above, the 1 screen being off is not from the machine. It's from the loader.
When you find one that is off, clean the ink out of it, being it back and print the image on it again. Then you should see that it prints in a different location (the correct location) when loaded the 2nd time correctly.
which is now corrected with the tri sync feature.
I saw this at SGIA and it's WAY cool. I am going to create my own version of this to work on our old I-Image rocket launcher.
(we have the same problem here with our screen girl not confirming the screen is fully hitting all the stops)...
-
My (very uneducated) thoughts as a very small shop trying to find a way to justify CTS.
I will probably never go through $30K in film and extra ink costs in my lifetime. Those savings are not something I will even consider trying to add up. The part that has me interested as a VERY small (2 person shop) is the much needed time savings in other spots. We are constantly multi-tasking and if the press isn't printing, we're not making money.
In the time it takes me to get the film set to print with CTS, we are now doing our current steps of printing the film, lining the film up to the screen on our pre-reg unit, and then placing the screen in the exposure unit. We do not do that many screens per day here, so I would use the built in exposure unit and waiting another minute before we can do our next screen is more convenient to me than popping it on a stand alone exposure unit.
The biggest draw to me would be if we could pop screens on press in perfect registration every time. Set up times kill us. We are embarrassingly slow.
If no scotch tape has to be used on reg marks/pin holes that would save us a lot of time in reclaim. Not sure if we should be using different tape, but it takes us forever to get it off. We even switched to removable scotch tape and it doesn't make a difference.
For me it's just a question of if we can truly justify $30K for this with the small volume of business we do. But it is at the top of the list of things that we are currently dreaming about.
-
Jason, I haven't hand coated a screen in ten years. Your comment about having a coating machine so you can image, expose, and coat at the same time is certainly true. BUT...... even if you are hand coating, would you still be able to coat and image at the same time? Just not as many screens getting coated as easily? Seems to me like you could still be saving time? I don't know.
-
Jason, I haven't hand coated a screen in ten years. Your comment about having a coating machine so you can image, expose, and coat at the same time is certainly true. BUT...... even if you are hand coating, would you still be able to coat and image at the same time? Just not as many screens getting coated as easily? Seems to me like you could still be saving time? I don't know.
Yup.. we could coat by hand and image and expose at the same time.. BUT... we couldn't rinse out all at the same time. Our 'creation' loop includes everything but reclaim.
FWIW -- we are a 2-1/2 person shop (actually 2.. because mainly I stand around and drink beer while watching people work))... we would not have been able to grow to the point we are at without the CTS... we're doing 20-25 screens per day right now with 12-15 setups. (lots of 1 color and 2 color jobs).
Between the time savings on not dealing with film, and the time savings on press setup (even the time savings of NOT climbing underneath the press to tape screens adds up to a decent amount of time), a few extra jobs a day adds up in either less time at the shop or more profit or both.
-
Jason, I haven't hand coated a screen in ten years. Your comment about having a coating machine so you can image, expose, and coat at the same time is certainly true. BUT...... even if you are hand coating, would you still be able to coat and image at the same time? Just not as many screens getting coated as easily? Seems to me like you could still be saving time? I don't know.
Im still hand coating, "hope to change that soon just don't know what to do yet", but I have times where I am imaging on the ST, coating, and setting screens on the exposure unit. When I was exposing 2 up on the tri light, I didn't have to hustle as much, but nowwwwww, with a Starlight, 1 second on 280's and 305's, 2 seconds on 230's and 225 s, and 150 s at 4 seconds, man, I can let a stack build up from the ST, and then bang out a dozen exposures in less time than the Trilight took me on 1 exposure, lol. So now I'll wait till I have at least 12 to 20 screens before shooting, so I can coat, load/unload from the ST. I hate when my coater edge gums up from sitting for a little too long with wet emulsion on it. Not sure an auto coater is going to change that, but at least, push a button and it does it's thing so I can hop onto one of the other room tasks. Getting to automation is where it is at. I can say in the subject of ink use, going from the Epson based I-Image 1.0 to the I-Image ST, the ST uses less ink. The epson burns through ink and you cant do anything about it, mainly in it's own cleaning cycles that most of the time do not work on their own, where as the ST forces a drip of ink through the print head before wiping it. Before imaging, I run a couple cleaning cycles to play it safe, do a nozzle check and rock on. We have defiantly gotten busier from when we had our Epson based unit, processing at least double the screens if not closer to triple what we did before and the ST is still using less ink. I'm not sure if a double or triple head would use more, it seems they would, but it can't be that much more considering the tiny amount that is being put on the screen. All in all, even if ink cost you 4 times more on a CTS than a film printing, you are still way ahead of the game going to CTS, that's just fact in the real production world setting. Maybe if you are only doing 5 or 10 screens a day, you won't see a gigantic difference, but still 10 or more screens a day, I'd want a CTS over film. Everything just gets better with it. People looking under loops at dot cleanliness and all that becomes ridiculous considering the award winning prints are mostly all being done on ink jet based CTS units. I understand what looking cleaner under a loop ect, but bottom line, the final product is what matters and the proof is in the awards. Everyone I know doing highend printing with CTS only got better at it and more efficient when they went CTS. It's worth the investment, just make a choice to go with a company who stands behind their machine, for us thats M&R.
-
Which I hope I can retro fit to my machine. My screen guy has good days and bad days. This feature will eliminate the excuses.
it is retrofittable
-
Who cares what it costs, If I had to go back to film, I WOULD SELL MY SH!T AND CLOSE THE SHOP! That's the difference!
-
Rich let us know more info about retro fitting! I would love to install it on our ST
Thanks!
-
Who cares what it costs, If I had to go back to film, I WOULD SELL MY SH!T AND CLOSE THE SHOP! That's the difference!
I would echo the same. Makes for less mistakes, easier to fix the mistakes that are made, easier for employees to use, faster all the way around, more accurate, and so on.
Quality of life folks. How more people don't factor this into expansion or equipment that just generally makes life better blows me away.
-
Which I hope I can retro fit to my machine. My screen guy has good days and bad days. This feature will eliminate the excuses.
it is retrofittable
I haven't even seen this new tri-sync? Any where I can see it?
-
youtube video of the new S model. Watched last night.
Shane
-
Rich let us know more info about retro fitting! I would love to install it on our ST
Thanks!
we are not at the point of quoting the retro yet but it's very doable. Stay tuned.
-
Rich let us know more info about retro fitting! I would love to install it on our ST
Thanks!
we are not at the point of quoting the retro yet but it's very doable. Stay tuned.
Ohhhhhyeeeaaahhh
-
Which I hope I can retro fit to my machine. My screen guy has good days and bad days. This feature will eliminate the excuses.
it is retrofittable
I haven't even seen this new tri-sync? Any where I can see it?
I've got it on the 500th machine.. it was added last minute to go along with the new led tri loc pallet.. it's a wicked feature for sure. Will not print until all 3 corners are in contact. I've got all brand new screens, but I can see issues with a shop who has beat up frames and not getting one of the corners to hit and if it won't.. the option to turn the feature off is behind a password.
-
Which I hope I can retro fit to my machine. My screen guy has good days and bad days. This feature will eliminate the excuses.
it is retrofittable
I haven't even seen this new tri-sync? Any where I can see it?
I've got it on the 500th machine.. it was added last minute to go along with the new led tri loc pallet.. it's a wicked feature for sure. Will not print until all 3 corners are in contact. I've got all brand new screens, but I can see issues with a shop who has beat up frames and not getting one of the corners to hit and if it won't.. the option to turn the feature off is behind a password.
But that is a good thing since it helps you locate and get rid of your beat up screens. ;)
-
Which I hope I can retro fit to my machine. My screen guy has good days and bad days. This feature will eliminate the excuses.
it is retrofittable
I haven't even seen this new tri-sync? Any where I can see it?
I demoed it, pretty cool I must say!
-
ROI will be different for every shop and there really is no magic answer. We waited till we had four presses to move to cts. It has changed our workflow tremendously. We used to spend so much time printing films and now that time is spent on on other parts of the process. But at this point we could never go back. It's almost like comparing hand cut and made screens to the computer age. There is a day that it is right for your shop based on the work you are doing and what best fits your shop today.
Talk to as many shops that are similar to your business. You will know when it is the right time.
-
jsheridan what is the new led tri loc pallet, how does it compare to tri loc?
Haven't heard of it yet. Yet being the word.
Thanks,
Shane
-
the new on-press pallet has some LEDs that when all three corners create contact,.the led comes on. its now a visual cue that the frame is in the right place.
-
I like that, is that on the new tri loc system?
Thanks,
Shane
-
I like that, is that on the new tri loc system?
Thanks,
Shane
1 min spent on Google:
http://www.mrprint.com/blog/11782-three-practical-tips-for-improving-your-screen-printing-shop-s-efficiency-productivity (http://www.mrprint.com/blog/11782-three-practical-tips-for-improving-your-screen-printing-shop-s-efficiency-productivity)
-
new trilock pallet basically senses conductivity between the 3 stops. The 'base' of the pallet is some kind of plastic. My gut says that there's a battery that makes the 'far' stop block negative, the 2 corner blocks have LED's in them. if both leds are off either you're not making contact with anything, or not making contact with the back block. Near/corner blocks indicate which block you're not making contact with. Quite easy system actually.
you wouldn't be able to retrofit the old platen with this design.. you just have to replace it.
not sure how they're doing it on the STE and S units as I didn't get a good enough look where the screen mounts.
I'm thinking of rigging the same LED/conductive concept.. should be able to do it by using some very thin plastic to make there not be any conductive surfaces that the screens touch.
-
Looking at this makes me realize that the MHM pin system is great. Much more logical that the tri loc pallet.
Is there anybody who has used both and would like to comment?
One other thing, about exposure wh using a CTS. If you look at Greg Kitson video
http://youtu.be/XZP7kjjTcjU (http://youtu.be/XZP7kjjTcjU)
You'll see that you can just hang the screen on the wall and expose it using whatever light source you want. You don't need a table with glass and a vacuum, I'm sure M&R or somebody else will come up with a exposure system that is upright without a vacuum and glass soon, you can just slide the screens in.
Less room and a lot cheaper. Glass just collects dust that make pinholes.
-
I'm sure M&R or somebody else will come up with a exposure system that is upright without a vacuum and glass soon, you can just slide the screens in.
Less room and a lot cheaper. Glass just collects dust that make pinholes.
M&R already has it... called the Starlight Gemini
http://www.mrprint.com/equipment/starlight-gemini-uv-led-screen-exposure-system (http://www.mrprint.com/equipment/starlight-gemini-uv-led-screen-exposure-system)
added bonus is that for post exposure, it hits the screen with light from both sides at the same time.
also, removing the glass makes the exposure times faster. (around 30-40%)
-
Looking at this makes me realize that the MHM pin system is great. Much more logical that the tri loc pallet.
Is there anybody who has used both and would like to comment?
One other thing, about exposure wh using a CTS. If you look at Greg Kitson video
[url]http://youtu.be/XZP7kjjTcjU[/url] ([url]http://youtu.be/XZP7kjjTcjU[/url])
You'll see that you can just hang the screen on the wall and expose it using whatever light source you want. You don't need a table with glass and a vacuum, I'm sure M&R or somebody else will come up with a exposure system that is upright without a vacuum and glass soon, you can just slide the screens in.
Less room and a lot cheaper. Glass just collects dust that make pinholes.
you really can't compare unless you have tried both. Both work but differently. Probably biased but I believe the Tri Loc is butter
-
Looking at this makes me realize that the MHM pin system is great. Much more logical that the tri loc pallet.
Is there anybody who has used both and would like to comment?
that would be me..
I've used both systems extensively and MHM is now on the backside of the registration technology wave that passed them by years ago.
It's a great machine, has great features and that sound when you drop a head down is music to my ears. They will load up a belt like all the others and produce amazing crisp prints. It's the registration system that no longer meets the demands for TODAY'S printing. We have to face the reality that automation is coming and i have a strong feeling that in my 80's.. i'll be running a robotic floor. if you're not thinking about tomorrow, you're late for today.
The way that the machine holds the screens creates TWO separate registration points. The CTS or FPU is the first. the press is the second.
The CTS/FPU holds the screen by the pins in its X position. The press then holds the screen in its X position that may or may not be in the same location as the CTS/FPU X location. This was fine when all you needed to have your image generally in the same place on the screen and you actually had 5 to 8 minutes to setup a screen. I need more today and I'm still getting into the machine to twist knobs to line a screen up to a location ON the pallet.
I've used CTS systems with both machines and i've modified the MHM pins in them to create a better pre-reg to get those points to line up as humanly possible as I could. It didn't matter how accurate that was, because as soon as you move that big knurled silver reg knob on press.. the next screen DOES NOT register in the same place. You again have to move the head to a location ON the pallet. So in-between the heads you go twisting knobs that are in the absolute worst place for wrist movement. If you have the electronic 'home' feature you're better off but it was so expensive that only a small % of shops actually got it and even then it has its issues. If they fix it today.. will it be able to fit all the past machines for less than the cost of a single tri loc pallet..
With Tri Loc the registration device IS THE PALLET that you place onto the press. The Iimage CTS is just an extension of the Tri-loc. No jigs, no buttons, no pins to put on your frames as the tri-loc pallet holds the screen in the same place every time against a 3 point contact system that has been and is still used by the paper and flat stock printers. When the point of contact is not the heads, the position of head registration location does not matter as the next screen will locate TO the pallet verses a location ON the pallet. Once the screen is located, you then lock the head onto to screen and make registration adjustments from behind the head with very easy to turn X Y Z knobs that do nor require you to get inside a machine.
another option with Tri-loc.. it's backwards compatible all the way back to 80's challengers, if you got a set of bitchen tools and the desire to get metal hot and actually own one.. but the point being tri loc will fit on every machine they have made in the last 20 years with a pallet and removal of material from the screen holder frame if needed. nothing has to be added to get the benefit of screen in, lock it, print it and oh look.. it's in perfect registration.
Tri-Loc is king of the mtn right now and you better bring your A game if you want to compete.. the patent lives on for 20 more years.
need more coffee..
got it and made some edits
-
John thanks for your reply, I'm not going to argue with a guru. You are right, with the MHM you have to keep to heads zeroed, if you don't the next set up will the out of register.
With the CTS the tri lock is great, I think the MHM system of positioning the film on the cener line is better than taping it onto a film.
By the way I built my own registration system for the MHM and put three sets of pins instead of one like they had. I have one set 4" from the center line on both sides so I can set up pocket sized prints on left and right. I mentioned it to MHM and they are now also putting 3 sets of pins on the new registration units.
I have never used the M&R system, I've just seen it on YouTube.
I'm hoping to come to Long Beach, I'll have a better look. Hopefully you will be there and you can explain what you did to improve the MHM registraion.