Mlink in the building.

[jvanick]

that is awesome... the fades and blends look amazing.

[IntegrityShirts]

Can you print the exact same on the Brother now?

[bulldog]

Are you still printing everything on G2000 or have you tried ring spun yet?

[Printficient]

These look good.  I think you are miscalculating the Brother ink cost.  $6-$7 per print?  I don't think that can be correct.  I know the Brother ink is expensive but that much?  One reason some buy Kornit is the cost of consumables.

[GraphicDisorder]

These look good.  I think you are miscalculating the Brother ink cost.  $6-$7 per print?  I don't think that can be correct.  I know the Brother ink is expensive but that much?  One reason some buy Kornit is the cost of consumables.

It's not $6-7 per print, but some prints have been that high. The kindig it print was $6-7 bucks id have to double check the notes for exact number.  That print was $.89 on the M&R if memory serves me. We have done so many now I can't exactly remember but I believe I posted it before on this thread take a look if you like.  We've printed with the machine in all the quality options available and did math each way. Its higher ink cost and higher ink usage. 

I intend to feel out both for a period to see how I feel over time.

[GraphicDisorder]

Are you still printing everything on G2000 or have you tried ring spun yet?

Mostly Gildans, but we have printed some Hanes, some Next Level, I think a couple anvils as well.  I am not sure what models as Shelly bought a case of random shirts to try.

[GraphicDisorder]

Can you print the exact same on the Brother now?

Haven't used the Brother today, but yes I will be sure we do that, remind me if I haven't in a couple days. SO much going on.

[GraphicDisorder]

The Flame shirt off the Mlink BTW, $1.49 in ink, that's a 13.5 wide print.  When we do it on the brother ill get data on that. 

[Gilligan]

I wonder how much ink consumption would change as you get them closer to 1:1.

That print between the two the Brother erred on the side of too much ink being put down and the M&R was the opposite (or at least in the lighter colors laid down).  So I wonder if the numbers aren't skewed in some bit by that.  I mean, if I want 100% opacity of white on a black shirt there will be a point of diminishing returns and just wasted ink.  BUT, until that point every drop of ink will need to be there.  What does it take to make the M&R print that way vs the Brother is the $20,000 question.

I mean, if we end up with a $2/shirt ink cost difference that is large... but that's not $20,000 large.  You'd have to print 10,000 shirts to make the cost savings justified, then you also run into "discounted value" as that 20k today is not worth the same as it will be invested somewhere else 5 years from now.  What could you do with $20,000 today that will net you more money than $2/shirt over the next 10,000 shirts?

Now, if we continue to see $6/shirt difference then that skews things in their favor a bit more.  Still need 3,333 shirts to catch up... but that's a different ROI at that point and the discounted value is less as the time span is less.

[GraphicDisorder]

I wonder how much ink consumption would change as you get them closer to 1:1.

That print between the two the Brother erred on the side of too much ink being put down and the M&R was the opposite (or at least in the lighter colors laid down).  So I wonder if the numbers aren't skewed in some bit by that.  I mean, if I want 100% opacity of white on a black shirt there will be a point of diminishing returns and just wasted ink.  BUT, until that point every drop of ink will need to be there.  What does it take to make the M&R print that way vs the Brother is the $20,000 question.

I assume your saying this in the context of the black shirt from both printers.  I agree in that context. Remember the M&R also looked closer to the actual artwork.  Neither were correct though. Other prints have not been like that.  That black/white/grey scale image is the only one we have seen like that so far as far as being way off the on screen artwork...well other than the first couple prints off either when the print heads were still clearing themselves up. In fact we had huge color shift issue on the M&R for the first few shirts. Once both machines have got moving we are seeing pretty similar prints in most cases, I would give the M&R the nod on quality but we are not talking night at day SO FAR.

I mean, if we end up with a $2/shirt ink cost difference that is large... but that's not $20,000 large.  You'd have to print 10,000 shirts to make the cost savings justified, then you also run into "discounted value" as that 20k today is not worth the same as it will be invested somewhere else 5 years from now.  What could you do with $20,000 today that will net you more money than $2/shirt over the next 10,000 shirts?

Now, if we continue to see $6/shirt difference then that skews things in their favor a bit more.  Still need 3,333 shirts to catch up... but that's a different ROI at that point and the discounted value is less as the time span is less.

Correct, but keep in mind its not just the ink costs, speed too. The M&R is faster, so time is a factor on that ROI. 

[GraphicDisorder]

Also if some missed it.  The Brother machine has basically RED ink in the magenta.... Were the M&R has Magenta. This is bound to cause some printing differences with that alone. I am sure they attempt to make this up in the rip/software/etc. 

[GraphicDisorder]

Ink Costs

Top image $.29
Bottom Image $.21

These are about 13 wide.

[Gilligan]

Well, I'd say they both looked equally off but maybe one way was more aesthetically pleasing than the other... To me in the sense of a laboratory examination, wrong is wrong. Now when it comes down to having to hand over the product to a customer, you would rather hand them the one that is wrong the most aesthetically pleasing way.  So for this experiment, I'd say they were both off by a relatively similar margin... neither of them made me cringe in the end.

I'm still curious as to which one is putting down the closer to right amount of ink to get the job done.  In the end I think we would all rather put down 110% of the ink needed vs 90% of the ink needed to get the job done.  Sure one saved you money, but that one also is only 90% of what the customer asked for, the other is 100% what they asked for, just 10% more ink than you NEEDED to put down to hit that goal.


What are the speed differences for your average size print?

[Printficient]

Correct, but keep in mind its not just the ink costs, speed too. The M&R is faster, so time is a factor on that ROI.

What is the heat press time?  That is the true time.  If DTG 1 can do 2 shirts a minute and DTG 2 can do 1 shirt a minute and you have to Heat press the shirt for let's say 90 seconds than you would have two shirts on DTG 1 waiting to cure and 1.5 shirts on DTG 2.  The point is print speed is a factor if cure speed is as fast or faster.  You can only do as many shirts in a given time as you can press.  What are the press times?

[GraphicDisorder]

Well, I'd say they both looked equally off but maybe one way was more aesthetically pleasing than the other... To me in the sense of a laboratory examination, wrong is wrong. Now when it comes down to having to hand over the product to a customer, you would rather hand them the one that is wrong the most aesthetically pleasing way.  So for this experiment, I'd say they were both off by a relatively similar margin... neither of them made me cringe in the end.

I'm still curious as to which one is putting down the closer to right amount of ink to get the job done.  In the end I think we would all rather put down 110% of the ink needed vs 90% of the ink needed to get the job done.  Sure one saved you money, but that one also is only 90% of what the customer asked for, the other is 100% what they asked for, just 10% more ink than you NEEDED to put down to hit that goal.


What are the speed differences for your average size print?

Having screen printed the shirt, the M&R was closer to the actual printed shirt we made and it was closer to the actual artwork on screen.  BOTH I agree where wrong, no debate there. I called that out as well. I posted that scenario to illustrate that. That scenario as an extreme is what we are seeing but I figured why not show the worst we've seen with both. Of both machines that print was worst for each. Pretty much both are printing very similar to screen in most cases all cases. They are printing similar in quality/detail as well. M&R with the edge but again not night and day.

Ill look at that closer in coming days of what amount of ink one is printing vs the other. We do know the M&R ink to be nearly 1/3rd the cost just straight up. So even if they are using same exact ink amounts, print cost will be around 1/3rd less.

Haven't timed the printing but Mlink is faster. Ill time a print at some point same art on each.

Holiday is coming and we are so behind having 2 machines installed in less than a weeks time. More to come soon as we get under control.