TSB
screen printing => Equipment => Topic started by: Mark @ Hurricane Printing on December 06, 2011, 04:26:00 PM
-
I made an ealier post about my epson 3000 im working on getting back up and running....but I wanted to make another post asking, whats the latest and greatest ink jet printer a screen printer should have for printing out films? 6 years ago when I got into it, it was the Epson 3000, so I picked one up and also bought FastRip. The 3000 was considered the industry standard and was the workhorse of screen printers.
But that was 6 years ago..technology changes at a rapid pace and I literally have been out the loop for 6 years.....so has a printer replaced the 3000 as the industry standard? If so which one is it? or which ONES are they?
I'm afraid my epson 3000 been sitting for 6 yrs collecting dust and it might not function properly for all I know.....so incase it doesnt and I have to replace it I want to know what I should be looking at.
-
a lot of people still run the 3000. It's a good printer. The 1400 is good as well. I don't see myself switching from the 3000. it's a workhorse.
-
a lot of people still run the 3000. It's a good printer. The 1400 is good as well. I don't see myself switching from the 3000. it's a workhorse.
all i recall about my epson was i had to baby it for sure....for a workhorse it sure was sensitive.
-
i have no complaints from my hp9800
-
We've used an R1800, 1400 and 4800 for film output and really the most bang for the buck is the 1400 I think. The 4800 is much faster and I'd recommend it if you are going to be churning out 20 screens a day, but if it's a couple pieces of film a day then the 1400 will suit you fine. It's so damn cheap, with rebates I think we got ours for $220. We also used to use the fastrip and it was probably the version from 6 years ago and there are better RIPs out there for sure now days. We abandoned our fastrip when my artist tried accurip for the first time. I don't know if this is true but he just told me those older versions of fastrip didn't allow much if any manipulation to the resolution or droplet weight so our film was not as good as it is now.
-
3000 it is a workhorse!!!
-
I use a bulk ink system with mine, and I get a lot of bang for the buck. It's about due for a rebuild. It's been around 6 years since my last one.
They just wear out after a while. If you get the heads unclogged, you'll be fine for a while with it.
-
Epson 3000, GD tank!
Speaking of which and not to hijack the thread, but is anyone running an Epson 3000 on Windows 7?
-
I may or may not be. What's your question?
-
I pulled the pizza cutters out of my 1400 and tossed them now it smears the last 2 inches of the film... I have to cut out a 13 x 20 sheet if I want to print out 13x18. If you get one leave them in, theres a purpose for them!
-
funny, I removed them and mine has printed great. I did however roll mine up in a little baggie and tuck them in the cartridge housing just in case. If they fit, I can mail them up to you.
-
funny, I removed them and mine has printed great. I did however roll mine up in a little baggie and tuck them in the cartridge housing just in case. If they fit, I can mail them up to you.
If you got a 1400 it should? I was just thinking about getting another... :-\
-
I have a 3000. Let me know, you might be able to cross reference the part numbers.
-
if money was not the issue i would go for a epson 4880 and wastach rip...i have a epson r1800 with screeners choice rip that i picked up used as a package for 300 bucks delivered. it gets me thru..
-
I just recently switched to a 4800 from a 3000. I will say that the 4800 with the right ink has superior dMax and slightly better dot. If the money is tight, I'd stick with the 3000 for a while. And "for a while" can easily be years if you desire so. On the other hand, I have to say, I could not be happier with the 4800. On top of the films being twice as dark (dMax of 5.5 vs 3.05), it is also so much easier to print from a roll (no paper handling to start with and then nesting reduces the number prints). The time spent handling the printer is about a quarter what it used to be. As busy as I am being able to save 10-15 min each day is huge!
pierre
-
+1 on the 4800/4880/whatever the hell the newest one is that's roll-feed in this category.
Used to have the 3k and it was a lot of tinkering and fussing with it, with settings, with the rips...
...the 4800 is quite robust for an inkjet printer which I typically find to be built like cracker jack prizes. Everything Pierre says is spot-on.
In fact, I was just praising ours because it does give you back a lot of time. Use the roll and get a decent rip. You can set your output and walk way as it prints, cuts, stacks your film up and come back and get it later.
I'll add that repairs are surprisingly do-able on these machines. I successfully installed new heads and some other parts whose names I do not recall. It's still an Epson, still an inkjet (I had to jb-weld some parts back together that snapped when re-installing) but, again, impressed with the way it's built. The 4800series on up are the professional units and it does show.
The 1400 is in an entirely different category but I picked one up for backup and was highly impressed with the films it printed just with the Epson black that came with it. Absolutely the best bang for the buck and readily available just about everywhere so you can get a damage/replacement plan on it and just return it if it's down for a fresh one.
One thing, that anyone who uses Epson's knows about, is that the roll feed loves, I mean absolutely rejoices in wasting as much media as it can. Accurip keeps it under control but when resetting or switching films it just pumps it out for no goddamn reason. This makes having two rolls on-hand - a 14" and 17" let's say - in an effort to swap and conserve film kinda pointless. I can't imagine what photographers using very spendy roll media think about this lovely habit but I can barely tolerate it wasting my $0.70/foot fixxons film. This is probably a flaw of all epson's, maybe they think you're always using epson media and though it a clever way to increase sales of consumables for the machines, I dunno.
-
Canon is really trying to get into this market. I priced out a Canon comparable to an Epson 7880 and it was a lot less money.
-
One thing, that anyone who uses Epson's knows about, is that the roll feed loves, I mean absolutely rejoices in wasting as much media as it can. Accurip keeps it under control but when resetting or switching films it just pumps it out for no goddamn reason. This makes having two rolls on-hand - a 14" and 17" let's say - in an effort to swap and conserve film kinda pointless. I can't imagine what photographers using very spendy roll media think about this lovely habit but I can barely tolerate it wasting my $0.70/foot fixxons film. This is probably a flaw of all epson's, maybe they think you're always using epson media and though it a clever way to increase sales of consumables for the machines, I dunno.
Film Maker does not seem to have that issue. I did struggle with similar problems before switching. . .
We do have a copy of Film Maker coming up as a prize so might want to keep some good prints to yourself for the next few weeks (should be Jan or Feb). I attached an image of the interface for the roll film. The images on the right are the two films it is printing on 17" wide roll. I will probably switch to the 13" as that is the width of most things I print and it should save a little bit of film. Images can be auto nested or placed by hand. I find that I can do better than the auto feature, but it is not bad on its own.
Also agree on the 1400. For the Golden Image competition, we used the 1400 as the dot quality is much better.
pierre
-
Hey Pierre, it's a habit I noticed of the 4800, not the rip. Accurip does a good job of taming it but when you do roll changes or a reset it likes to waste the media.
FilmMaker looks pretty slick. Making me consider running a vm to run it.
-
Hey Pierre, it's a habit I noticed of the 4800, not the rip. Accurip does a good job of taming it but when you do roll changes or a reset it likes to waste the media.
FilmMaker looks pretty slick. Making me consider running a vm to run it.
actually, you could buy a $99 winblows system and set it up as a print server. Play with it until you have it set up right and than just make it print without any input on your end. Sort of like AR. Nice thing is, you have the option of playing with it if you need to.
pierre