Advice on Film Output Printer

[Im-Magic]

Epson 1400 with Powerip was the best investment I ever made.

[alan802]

Got the printers in today, we went with the 1400 and the 1100.  We just printed a test film on the 1400 and compared it under a loupe to film we've printed with the 4800.  This isn't just hyperbole, the 1400 film is better.  Our 5% halftones are actually round and fairly crisp where the 4800 looked like little oblong meatballs.  I don't have a tool to measure density, but holding it up to the light, they are both equal in density with the human eye.  I am really impressed with this cheap ass printer.  $220 after rebate from Staples, delivered for free the next day.  I will update after we've printed more film through it but right now I am a believer in the 1400.  Thanks everyone for the great advice. 

[jsheridan]

My r1800 with Accurip has been a dream so far.

The best part is this film I've been using. Doing some searching to match my dye ink to film and  found 13 x 100 roll for $43 bucks.. had a bunch of test printing and films to make and didn't want to do it on expensive film, plus the 1800 handles roll media. It's not waterproof, is very clear and crisp. No fog or haze and prints amazing! No finger stick  and after 1/2 roll, I bought a 2nd. Accurip on 2 drop and 1440x1440 setting makes perfect 1/2 tones.

For the price you can't beat it, check it out!

http://www.stuff4print.com/catalog/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=43_28

[ebscreen]

Damn, that's a great deal on non-waterproof film. I just ordered Silkjet SC-4 (my old standby before Fixxons, better
durability with dye-based inks) from these guys:

http://bestscreenprintingsupply.com


That happen to be a 2 day ship and carry a lot of my favorite products.
I will be checking out the Stuff4Printers film though.

[Evo]

I'm using a 17" roll of Fixxons with my free 9600. I have Accurip XL installed on my old Athlon 64 machine which I formatted clean and installed Win XP to run it. It's literally the only extra software installed on there aside from the Windows updates and the printer drivers.


I tried to find workable 9600 drivers for Win 7 64 bit, impossible. Epson has really dropped the ball with legacy driver support. Spotty at best, some models are straight up unsupported past Win XP.

I picked up the copy of Accurip used, so all in all I have about $450 invested in this. I can print up to 44" wide films. 

[mk162]

I agree, they don't offer the same drivers for the 3000. 

[ZooCity]

Gutenprint is amazingly functional.  I had it cranking out films on our 3000 right from a mac that were as dark as using the Win Epson drivers.  It just takes a ton of fine-tuning but it can be done. 

[TheInkjetDoctor]

Valley Litho Supply is very cheap for film also Do a google search for them i think its www.valleylitho.com

Paul

[jsheridan]

Valley Litho Supply is very cheap for film also Do a google search for them i think its www.valleylitho.com

Paul

Pretty much same price with non-waterproof as stuff4print, nice find.

[blue moon]

Got the printers in today, we went with the 1400 and the 1100.  We just printed a test film on the 1400 and compared it under a loupe to film we've printed with the 4800.  This isn't just hyperbole, the 1400 film is better.  Our 5% halftones are actually round and fairly crisp where the 4800 looked like little oblong meatballs.  I don't have a tool to measure density, but holding it up to the light, they are both equal in density with the human eye.  I am really impressed with this cheap ass printer.  $220 after rebate from Staples, delivered for free the next day.  I will update after we've printed more film through it but right now I am a believer in the 1400.  Thanks everyone for the great advice.

how's the 1400 holding up? After some use is the dot quality as good as it was when started?
I just found a good deal on the 4800 and am trying to talk myself out of it, but at $350 it is hard to say no.
How much faster is the 4800? Is there another reason why I should not pass on it?

pierre

[tonypep]

Pierre thats a good deql on that 4800. We have one here and I also had one on ST Thomas and it performed well. That said after about 3.5 ys of hard use we brought in an Epson tech and had it serviced/refurbished for around $900.

[blue moon]

Pierre thats a good deql on that 4800. We have one here and I also had one on ST Thomas and it performed well. That said after about 3.5 ys of hard use we brought in an Epson tech and had it serviced/refurbished for around $900.

I have seen new 4880's for just over $1k. At the $350 though, it is tempting. It will introduce some new issues though. Currently I am spending next to nothing on the ink so the cost will go up. I might be able to save a little on the film by nesting on the rolls, but it is so easy to use up the whole sheet that 'not sure that it will really be beneficial. 

So it should be faster than the 3000, should produce a better dot, film is cheaper (as I seem to have some issues with cheaper films and am assured by the manufacturer that it will go away if I use their ink/film combo. It is also supposed to boost my Dmax to 3.5 from 3.05 I am getting now), ink is more expensive, rolls are easier to load then sheets and possibly cheaper. FilmMaker should give me better control over dots as long as it can actually print better than the 1400 (which is now in question). If the print quality is no better, I think it might not really that beneficial to go with 4800 over a 3000.

Any thoughts? I think at that price I should just get it and give it a try . . .


pierre

[alan802]

The 4800 at 350 is great, I'd not pass up that deal if I were you.

The 1400 is holding up great.  Quality is still the same, the only complaint I would have is speed.  The density is the best we've ever had over the five years we've been doing this.  I haven't really talked to my artist about why, but the 1400 was outputting film that was more dense than the 4800, I'm sure all the RIP settings and ink made the difference.  The only bad thing about the 1400 versus the 4800 for us is speed.  The 4800 is fast, very fast compared and there are times when we miss that speed, but there hasn't been any bottleneck issues because of the 1400's speed.

[inkbrigade]

Pierre thats a good deql on that 4800. We have one here and I also had one on ST Thomas and it performed well. That said after about 3.5 ys of hard use we brought in an Epson tech and had it serviced/refurbished for around $900.

I have seen new 4880's for just over $1k. At the $350 though, it is tempting. It will introduce some new issues though. Currently I am spending next to nothing on the ink so the cost will go up. I might be able to save a little on the film by nesting on the rolls, but it is so easy to use up the whole sheet that 'not sure that it will really be beneficial. 

So it should be faster than the 3000, should produce a better dot, film is cheaper (as I seem to have some issues with cheaper films and am assured by the manufacturer that it will go away if I use their ink/film combo. It is also supposed to boost my Dmax to 3.5 from 3.05 I am getting now), ink is more expensive, rolls are easier to load then sheets and possibly cheaper. FilmMaker should give me better control over dots as long as it can actually print better than the 1400 (which is now in question). If the print quality is no better, I think it might not really that beneficial to go with 4800 over a 3000.

Any thoughts? I think at that price I should just get it and give it a try . . .


pierre

pierre if your using a epson 3000 now and thinking about getting a 4800 or 4880 do it. Even if it was $1000. We had a 3000 and it was fine. I wanted to print rolls though.. Found a 4800 on craigslist for like $500. It was one of the best upgrades we did last year. So super happy about it.

[islandtees]

How are you using the 3000 on windows 7? I dont see any drivers for it.