i-Image in the house!

[Dottonedan]

 

Actually, there is a misconception that the DTS produces better screens than film. In general that is not the case. Both ink and wax are printed from far away, compared to the film, and have splatter reduce the quality of the dot. This not to say it's bad, just that imagesetter produces cleaner, more accurate dot 

Pierre

Actually, it's not a misconception at all. For me, it's a proven fact. DTS (DOES) indeed produce better results on screen (than film does).


What Pierre is more so, referring to in his statement above, is the actual dot (shape). He's all about the dot...and so am I, or should I say, I'm more about the dot (tone).


Are the dots different than film dots? yes. Each devices (dot shape) will be slightly different from another device. Every one of them. If not, then it is only by coincidence they may be identical from one device to another. They will be different in dot size/tone, and different in shape/quality. Does dot shape alone, make any significant difference? No, not significantly. On this topic, we are splitting hairs here, (and literally). Here's why.


The close proximity of the DTS print head to the emulsion surface is indeed farther away when compared to film printers). How much specifically, I've not checked, but can safely assume that they are closer. Therefore, some slight spray scatter known as satellite dots can be presents (and more prevalent in wet ink systems). How much difference does that make?  Not much. Any one of your epson printers or the like, also print out non round, non perfect (dot shapes). With proper calibration and printer settings, most of you using epson printers can tighten that scatter a bit more, thus improving your dot shape. Still tho, (it's not a perfectly round dot). Does it matter? No. For those who are (shape cautious) and have a desire to produce exceptional or (on the garment, image accurate) halftone printing, What you all should be looking at, is not (the shape) of your dot, but The accuracy of the dot gain calibration (to accurately represent a specific target). To make sure that the 5% prints on the tee at 5% and the 50 is 50 on the tee and the 90 is 90 on the tee.


Think of the beautiful paintings done by Georges Seurat, He used a pointillism technique to create paintings. If you look closely, each dot is (not perfectly round), yet when you step back and look at the painting, you don't care if it's smoothly rounded, square or looks like jagged edged rocks, the image comes together. For him, he made sure that that color tone of the dot was correct for each space. For you, you should consider if the dots (size) is correct and not focus on the shape it's self.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Sunday_Afternoon_on_the_Island_of_La_Grande_Jatte


I used to think  we needed a crisp clean round dot to make a perfect printed halftone. I thought I needed my dots to be perfectly round in order to produce the most accurate image. Think of making a vector circle, it's perfectly round and clean. That was my ideal dot shape. I could get that with a true wet film photo image-setter at 2400, but not with any (ANY) digital printer or DTS. Note that a 2400 dpi resolution wet film photo image-setter (is not the same quality as) a 2400 dpi digital film printer. The wet film imager is photo clean, as in (100% tight dots) like a vector circle. The Digital printer has satellite dots. Oh, so ugly. Who can use that? (/Sarcasm).


So in the past, I thought that all digital printers were inferior to the wet film photo image-setters and at that time, (they were). A wet film photo DPI at 2400 was the low end, while the at that time, the best digital film printers had an average high of 600 dpi and on the high end machines of 2400 dpi and a high price. As time passes, digital printers are getting better, smaller in pico-liter and faster and spitting them out and prices are coming down as technology becomes more commonplace.
The statement above said (better screens). When comparing screen results, or lets call it transferable image to garment) a DTS system is going to be better every time. Why?


1, You are eliminating that thickness of film and any other variable that comes with film). With traditional light sources for exposure, you have that length of space between the light source (that forms somewhat of a cone shape out). The best option outside of LED's are the DIRECT LIGHT SOURCE units. Yet even these, still have light scatter, just less of it than other options. LED's have a fraction of light scatter compared to a DIRECT light source...because it's even closer. Far closer, creating far less scatter. Added to this issue of light scatter is the light hitting the actual contact point or target (being a dot) or line art, then, the (distance of space) from the surface of the dot on film, past the dot- (through the film to the emulsion). The thicker the film, the more you increase your chances of adding overexposure. This can for example, cause a 5% dot to be more like a 3-4% dot, making it even more difficult for you to hold fine detail. DTS and LED eliminated those two specific variables.


Other variables are, (but not limited to) thermal films. The Calcomp, Eco-Pro films for example, are thermal films (or was, to my knowledge). Thermal (film) is not that much of an issue for the average shop, but take a large shop with repeat orders of retail designs and it becomes a problem. Extensive numbers of exposures can decrease the clarity of the film (turning them darker) over time. (60-110 exposure times) repeated every week all year long are an example.


2, With a light source combined on most of the M&R DTS products, such as a ST(E) for Exposure, or any other LED exposure system, the exposure is more accurate, more direct, than any other light source. The most accurate, with the least amount of light scatter, would be the ST(E) or ST(E)2. These LED units, have the least or almost no light scatter (as compared to other light source options). All light sources have (some) light scatter to some degree. With a LED unit, you have the least. So small, that most people overlook the fact that there is some at all (when compared to other light sources). Then, you have the strength of the LED light and also the placement. Not all LED lights have the same strength. This is why one brand of LED may be a better or worse LED than another, yet ALL LED's to me are better than, more cost efficient than the traditional light sources.


Lets look at just DTS dots versus Epson or even any other method of digital dots (outside of wet ink DTS). The DTS wet ink that M&R uses is thinner, more liquefied but contains a great amount of UV blocking agents, and therefore, able to take advantage of putting out finer dots than a wax printer for example. Some have said they like the (shape) of the WAX dots. This is because they are often more rounded, or more specifically, has less of the satellite dots that can surround a single % dot. It's wax is of a thicker consistency and therefore, melts/grabs onto/into the next surrounding pico-liter dot (whatever size pico-liter) dot that might be for a wax device. This sort of coagulates, forming a more clustered single dot. This, from a distance and on the surface seems like a "better" dot, much like Pierre is talking about with his Epson digital dots but with his, (they are a result of printing closer to the surface) since his also uses a wet ink system (without the UV blocking agent). His, and all digital imaging devices still also, has satellite dots, and the quality of dots or the (amount of satellite sprays) are based on the calibration and settings of choice to decrease those satellite dots...but because it's being printed closer to the film, produce a tighter form.


With any DTS, you are printing to screen and not film. Screens are thicker than film obviously and surrounded by metal and mesh. The heads must travel over the metal and mesh with the emulsion on the surface. You have a specific amount of space for the screen to fit and travel safely under the heads. This distance will be greater than printing from the film printers.


The M&R DTS wet ink system uses fine pico-liter sprays to form these dots or (%'s) in a line screen than most DTS systems but larger than most digital film printers. For this reason, our production can be substantially (like maybe twice or three times) faster than the speed of the best and fastest digital film printer.


Like Pierre has done on his digital film printer, He's calibrated for dot gain and he's also evaluated print settings for the best quality dot. Depending on the (type of printing) our customer does we also have various options to set the machine at to achieve specific types of printing that the customer needs. For example, if a customer prints 95% bold athletic prints, we have the standard setting that is best for the fastest production, with a heavier lay down of ink to provide faster, easier exposures. On this setting, if the customer were to switch to a job that is now using 55lpi halftone, that job will indeed work and print well (also) at the standard setting, on that same setting as the bold athletic prints. If you were to look at it under a magnifying glass, you may see some degree of small, (pico-liter) satellite dots surrounding any of the dots. Think of these as about half the size of the pico-liter dots) that spray out on a Direct to Garment print. Look at a single white spray of DTG ink on a black tee...and ours will be smaller than that. Add to this, the fact that our exposure times are geared to holding the main dot, (the one that is a 5% tone in a 55lpi halftone screen, (the one that might be 100 times larger) than that pico-liter spray, then you realize that those outer satellite dots are really non-consequential.


One may then say, (I don't like the fact that the dots are not perfectly round (as I used to say) before working with Epson digital films) and now, before working with DTS imaging devices...and before working with post script language shapes...and replace custom dots for traditional round dots.  SHAPE of dots (as it pertains to image quality) is non consequential. As an example, you can print award winning SIM PROCESS and CMYK on 65 line screen using (custom dot shapes) to produce your CMYK prints. It's a proven fact. We have Mezzo tint, Stochastic (square dots), ellipse shaped dots, round dots and CUSTOM as options.


As an extreme example, It's been proven that you can take a solid image (vector image) like a logo, using a few letters like DTD and create a custom shape dot. That is obviously NOT a round shape. Add to that, using higher code, you can have each DTD to be sized equal to represent the (tone) of a space. 1% will be the smallest and 49% will be the largest and transition/crossing over into negative space for your shadow tones. Therefore, this illustrated that the (shape) of the dot is not as important as (the size that it is intended to represent).  So, satellite dots or not, if you use the settings desired for your type of customer jobs, you will be able to produce quality prints. Yes, even award winning quality prints (as has been done already).

[Evo]

Professionally, this thread leaves me thoroughly and completely depressed.

 

[Dottonedan]

Professionally, this thread leaves me thoroughly and completely depressed.

 

Why so?

[3Deep]

Dan I couldn't read your whole post LOL to much info, but IMHO a DTS produce the same ink splatter as any other inkjet printer right, now maybe the splatter produce direct to a screen could be of a better quality than a ink splatter produce to a pc of inkjet film.  Now this I can see happen more than anything.

darryl

[mk162]

the reason being with film you are making a copy of a copy, which anybody that has seen multiplicity will know it's never as sharp as the original

[GraphicDisorder]

the reason being with film you are making a copy of a copy, which anybody that has seen multiplicity will know it's never as sharp as the original

 

[alan802]

Alan, you guys are still using your registration system? I remember a while back you saying that your printer refuses to use it LOL

He's refused to use it when a specific guy put the film on the screen.

[ebscreen]

I'd argue that wet imagesetter film will be sharper than directly printing to a screen. We use to run one, that thing was sharp.

[mk162]

it might be...imagesetter dots are as close to perfect as you can get...inkjets will probably never reach that point(i say probably because you never know what's coming down the pike)

[jvanick]

this is one reason why I've always thought that a scanning UV laser would be cool for making screens...

you set the beam width and the focal point of the laser to be the surface of the screen...

scan across and pulse the laser on and off...

plenty of optical power to expose even the toughest emulsion with ease...  no need to worry about over exposing if the been is tight enough and there's low enough scatter.

I'm 100% positive tho that as soon as we get our iimage up and running, we will be making higher quality screens than we do now on our epson 1430... and faster too.

[Gilligan]

Jason, they have a really cool auto exposure system out there that works similar.  Someone else can probably link it easier than I can.

Pretty awesome!

[jvanick]

That's the german (i believe?) one.. I think Volker posted about it... that one uses a DLP light source to do the exposure

seems to me it was like 150k or so.

[Dottonedan]

I'd argue that wet imagesetter film will be sharper than directly printing to a screen. We use to run one, that thing was sharp.

I love a wet imagesetters. Nothing on film can compare.  But this subject came about as it relates to dot shape. The image setter is going to give THE best shape.

It does not help any at all, with it being (on film). The DTS provided a better image replication. (It's on the emulsion), not on the film. For that reason, DTS wins.

Now, if we could get perfect dots on DTS then it would win in both a areas but even that (dot shape) is actually superficial.

[ebscreen]

Got ya on the film/emulsion surface, makes perfect sense.

Do you have any closeup (microscope?) pics of a halftone imaged screen?
It seems like with an inkjet and a variable like a coated screen, you can only get so close
before you risk a head strike, and I'd wager those ain't pretty.

[Orion]

That's the german (i believe?) one.. I think Volker posted about it... that one uses a DLP light source to do the exposure

seems to me it was like 150k or so.

http://www.kiwo.com/Product%20pages/ScreenSetter%20main.html