CTS vs Exposure Unit times

[3Deep]

Not to derail Bimms thread below I like to ask this question, for you that have CTS machines now and had a very nice exposure unit what would be your real time saved let's say you burn 60 screens per day what would be your time saved using the CTS vs the old way, then use that for a 5 day week still burning those same 60 screens per day.

[Dottonedan]

First we need to differentiate.  There are CTS that has nothing to do with exposure times, (they just print direct onto the screen) and then, there is the CTS with exposure built in. So, when you ask about the CTS exposure times, I would have to assume you are referring to the M&R I-Image STE, since I don't believe there to be any other that can expose (on the CTS machine).

There is a long list of areas or categories where CTS leaps over the FILM process for people to review and compare ROI.  Exposure time is just one of them. In this one category of exposure times, it can be vastly improved for the vast majority of shops, or in a limited number of scenarios, it can be a wash...such as with the right strength of light source and number of screens ganged up at one time during the exposure process. For example, if exposing on a wall mount where you can gang 4-6 screen up at one exposure, your comparison begins to diminish its exposure time value since you are exposing 4-6 screens versus printing and exposing one screen at a time. While the DTS exposure is super fast, it may not beat someone being able to expose 6 screens in one shot unless that exposure time is a super long exposure. In these rare cases, you would then move to (how does it compare or save in other areas). A few other areas (off the top of my head) to look at would be listed below.

Film output time,
Film handling/labor at the art department level
Film handling labor in the screen room level
Film material cost,
Improved registration
Image quality,
Improved re-order/repeat ability
overall process improvement/ease of mind
to name a few.

[3Deep]

Dan thanks see your point I was totally thinking the wrong way

[screenprintguy]

Darryl, I use an I-Image ST, just the CTS, and expose with a Tri-light 3k unit that I rigged to hold 2 23/31 frames at a time, with out the glass and the draw down time of the vacuum pump. Exposure wise, the Trilight uses a light integrator so you can't see minutes seconds ect, but some rough times. Exposing on that unit with a pure photo polymer emulsion, film, glass, then your draw down time on say a 160 died mesh would have probably eaten up a good 1.5 to 2 mins total from when you actually pushed start. Using a CTS , no film obviously, no glass, and no time of draw down, that same exposure is probably 20 seconds roughly. Diggler told me with the right emulsion using a CTS's screen and his Starlight and it's power, he can expose a PPP emulsion in about 1.5 seconds. So depending on how many you shoot a week, it adds up quick. Since I'm shooting two up at a time, cut that 20 seconds in half. Put it this way, it's very fast, very very fast. When I get a startlight in here. I'd probably start imaging screens, let  them pile up a bit, then since they expose literally in a second or two, just go at the pile as the ST is imaging a screen. Using a water tank to soak screens, depending on how big the tank is, you can dunk say 4 to 5 screens at a time, mine I can put about 8 newmans in it to soak, so when I'm on my game I can rock out some pre registered screens really fast. Bottom line man, you can't go wrong going with a CTS, ask anyone with one, you will take your shop to another level. The digital service department and team that M&R has built is far more superior to other companies who have been in cts longer. I talk to shop owners all the time with other brands that have to wait days sometimes weeks for service, and these guys will go above and beyond to make sure you don't skip a beat. You can literally start adding up hours of saved time. I'm just a little shop and it helped me go to the next level man for real. Time is money, wasted time is money lost. The time you lose printing and cutting, lining up films and registering jobs in a year or two could have bought a cts for you.

[LuckyFlyinROUSH]

I printed, exposed, and manually rinsed out 55 screens in an hour and 20 minutes...by myself. Screens ranged from 86 mesh to 305 mesh. Mostly lower mesh counts. 1 Screen every 1 minute and 50 seconds ish. I bust ass though, employees don't have that kind of motivation.

I-Image ST, 3 print head, 12Pass mode, (slower mode), Starlight at 3.7 secs. Dunk Tank, Power wash rinse.

Would of taken us all day before. Best part is they are all perfectly tri-locked....almost every time.

[GraphicDisorder]

When we do screens our guys team up, one is outputting/burning screen the other is taking the screen off the exposure unit and rinsing it out. Its a constant cycle as long as we have the artwork ready they could do 100's of screens a day. We are now guilty of just outputting the days screens each morning as we can do it that fast.

[BorisB]

I would have to assume you are referring to the M&R I-Image STE, since I don't believe there to be any other that can expose (on the CTS machine).

All DLE Units expose screen on unit itself. Signtronic, CST GmbH, Lüscher, Mclantisgroup....

[Dottonedan]

I would have to assume you are referring to the M&R I-Image STE, since I don't believe there to be any other that can expose (on the CTS machine).

All DLE Units expose screen on unit itself. Signtronic, CST GmbH, Lüscher, Mclantisgroup....

Those would have to be outside the US. Then there could be a difference of the type of exposure on those machines.
M&R's version here in the US patent pending still I believe.

EDIT update.
Those others do expose on the machine, but use very different exposure processes such as Signtronic using lasers. It provides great image definition, but takes a long time. I always assume when people are discussing exposing comparisons to film these days, we are talking about exposing on the machine using LED.

[jvanick]

the signtronic ones actually work by scanning a laser or led source of some sort across the screen with a DLP mirror.

very cool idea and concept... and I've often wondered why there aren't more machines like that...

especially as a scanning version of that with a 5watt UV laser diode might actually be less expensive to create than a modified ink jet printer.  just think... no cost for ink or wax, instantly ready screens, and no under cutting since it's a point source that stays columnar.

-J

[Dottonedan]

the signtronic ones actually work by scanning a laser or led source of some sort across the screen with a DLP mirror.

very cool idea and concept... and I've often wondered why there aren't more machines like that...

especially as a scanning version of that with a 5watt UV laser diode might actually be less expensive to create than a modified ink jet printer.  just think... no cost for ink or wax, instantly ready screens, and no under cutting since it's a point source that stays columnar.

-J

Not 100% sure, but I think I read something about the time it takes a longer than others. That might be in conjunction with the imaging resolution as well.  More resolution = more time. So I think it comes down to overall speed comparisons and cost. (Guessing).

[3Deep]

Getting off my own subject, I've wonder about screen's, what if all your screen aren't square, one a little bigger etc would that mess up the registration putting it through a cts?

[jvanick]

as long as your registration points between press and cts are exactly the same (pinlocks or trilock), it wouldn't matter, as the art would be the same 'distance' from the reference points.

[screenprintguy]

Jason is dead on with that D. I was worried a few years back when I started with CTS because we use a combo of mzx, m3, m3UL, and solid frames, but the solid are from 4 different suppliers so they are all a little different, but like J, said, if you are using tri lock, and all 3 points are touching, it will still render a pre registered screen for you. I know a few of my newmans for what ever reason give me a problem when stretching, they are older m3's but they will be dead nuts on press. You just have to make sure you are locked in and touching all three points every time you load a screen in the ST, then on press. make sure your tri lock pallet is locked in very tight, don't bump it, free wheel your press from another pallet arm, and "GENTLY" pull your three points into place on the trilock pallet and you are good. It's easy to be in a hurry and bang your screens into place on your tri lock pallet and I almost guarantee you that you are moving out of place enough to be a pain in the arse and need micros. I barely ever touch a micro now even on my old DB. Set ups are super fast. I spend more time making sure someone pulled the right inks and have clean squeegee floods than I do actually registering the job.

[Alex M]

the signtronic ones actually work by scanning a laser or led source of some sort across the screen with a DLP mirror.

very cool idea and concept... and I've often wondered why there aren't more machines like that...

especially as a scanning version of that with a 5watt UV laser diode might actually be less expensive to create than a modified ink jet printer.  just think... no cost for ink or wax, instantly ready screens, and no under cutting since it's a point source that stays columnar.

-J

I have spoken in depth with the different companies using this technology. Signtronic uses a high power LED with a DLP mirror and a very high quality lens. They are capable of 2400+DPI.
This technology as said before exposes the reverse(negative) of the image which also adds to the time it takes to image.
I have seen one running on a 1mx1m screen and it took over 30 minutes...  this was also holding 50 micron stencil lines for electronics printing.
Really really cool technology, very unnecessary in textile in my opinion.

[BorisB]

the signtronic ones actually work by scanning a laser or led source of some sort across the screen with a DLP mirror.

very cool idea and concept... and I've often wondered why there aren't more machines like that...

especially as a scanning version of that with a 5watt UV laser diode might actually be less expensive to create than a modified ink jet printer.  just think... no cost for ink or wax, instantly ready screens, and no under cutting since it's a point source that stays columnar.

-J

I have spoken in depth with the different companies using this technology. Signtronic uses a high power LED with a DLP mirror and a very high quality lens. They are capable of 2400+DPI.
This technology as said before exposes the reverse(negative) of the image which also adds to the time it takes to image.
I have seen one running on a 1mx1m screen and it took over 30 minutes...  this was also holding 50 micron stencil lines for electronics printing.
Really really cool technology, very unnecessary in textile in my opinion.

So true for most of.  Technically transfer printing is printing on paper. High end transfer printers print 85 lpi halftones.... For those products difference between DLP 2400 dpi units and our regular inkjet/waxjet units is visible. If you compare 85 lpi from both technologies units you will see a difference.


Expensive to run it too.  You need to replace light source often. It costs several thousand euro.