Mlink in the building.

[IntegrityShirts]

Here's what I don't get. Cost of white ink aside, how can THIS BE ACCURATE?

Ink use:
Brother total ink used was 8.96cc (CMYK 1.75 and White 7.21)
M&R total ink used was 2.48cc (CMYK .94 and White 1.54)

Clearly the Brother print is waaaay darker than the M&R, yet it used over 3 times the VOLUME of white ink? Peter said it himself, the white inks both machines use aren't that far apart in chemical make up. So either the ink volume calculations are wrong for one or both of these machines, or the Brother unit is dumping over half its white ink into the waste container rather than printing it on the shirt (if that's even calculated into the print CC). Peter argues that white ink volume differences are a non-factor even.

Something's fishy. One of these measurements is off by a lot in my opinion.

[Mr Tees!!]

Here's what I don't get. Cost of white ink aside, how can THIS BE ACCURATE?

Ink use:
Brother total ink used was 8.96cc (CMYK 1.75 and White 7.21)
M&R total ink used was 2.48cc (CMYK .94 and White 1.54)

Clearly the Brother print is waaaay darker than the M&R, yet it used over 3 times the VOLUME of white ink? Peter said it himself, the white inks both machines use aren't that far apart in chemical make up. So either the ink volume calculations are wrong for one or both of these machines, or the Brother unit is dumping over half its white ink into the waste container rather than printing it on the shirt (if that's even calculated into the print CC). Peter argues that white ink volume differences are a non-factor even.

Something's fishy. One of these measurements is off by a lot in my opinion.

Ive been thinking this too. My film printer is never out of ink when it THINKS it is (or sometimes the opposite), it just assumes so based on some algorithm and print count. I wonder if the same thing is happening here? Maybe one of them is calculating incorrectly?

I would say weight the pretreated shirt, print it, then weigh again (before pressing). Do this for each machine, same print. You DID finally get a kickass scale, didnt you? DIDNT YOU?!     

REGARDLESS....the fact that the Brother ink is 3x more expensive, cc-cc, speaks volumes here (pun patially intended). Brother,as primarily a digital-imaging company, likely folllows the business model that all similar outfits do: sell the machine at a break-even (or even a loss), and make all then money on consumables. Remember that, in terms of volume, retail-level ink is one of the most expensive substance on earth. M&R, on the other hand, is in the business of selling machines, and not consumables; hence, the higher priced machinery!

[3Deep]

I could not agree with you two more get a cheaper machine and pay a high ink price, get a high dollar machine and pay lower for ink and use, but I think in the long run the higher price machine with the low ink cost might be a better deal, unless someone raise the ink price  .  This is a market where there might not be a top dog for some time, but tons of machines and ink sold.

[Gilligan]

This is why I'd like to see the settings tweaked till we get a nearly identical print.  That would be the better test in which one is putting out more ink.  That and coupled with a weight test as stated to see if it's wasting vs actually using that much ink.  I only really know Epson but I know that unless my machine is going through it's priming or cleaning phase it doesn't have a chance to arbitrarily dump ink.  It would have to stop over the waste section to do so.  Now that might be different on the Brother but I don't really see how.

That said, that is a TON of ink in that waste tank and as everyone has said, they are in the business of selling ink mostly so I'm sure they waste ink unnecessarily. (Dan, I forgot about that one in our discussion, it's been said a couple of times.)

[jvieira]

Perhaps the case just happens to be that the M&R is better? I would hope it is. It's kind of like comparing a Toyota to a BMW, both very fine vehicles but one should just be better.

I don't follow you on this one, Brother is a company that builds printers. Shouldn't theirs be better?

In all fairness, M&R has been in this business for a long long (looong) time. They have contacts and knowledge in the industry. Brother is pretty new in the garment decoration business and it is not their main biz.

To be more precise, it's just the opposite. Brother has been in business since 1954 producing a variety of products (as is M&R) but not as long as Brother.

As it pertains to DTG. Brother was/are a digital garment printer manufacturer since 2005 and earlier.

SOURCE: https://printaura.com/dtg-printing/
History of DTG. DTG printing is a relatively new technology (within the last 10 or so years.)  Direct to garment printing was introduced around 1996 at a trade show in Tampa, Florida.  In 1998, Brother, Intl. began to develop proprietary DTG printers, beta testing them until 2003, with a first showing at an Atlantic City, NJ trade show in 2005.

SOURCE: http://www.coldesi.com/learning-center/learn-about-t-shirt-printing/history-of-digital-garment-printing
Early 2005 brought the first large traditional printer company into the marketplace as Brother introduced thier GT-541 - a light shirt only printing solution that eventually became the Brother Graffittee DTG printer line.


They are great but is not the only thing they have been developing printers to print on...for a long long time. They are large in size and history, towering over M&R in that area of business.

About Brother
With a dedication to product quality and excellent customer service, Brother International Corporation, the US subsidiary of Japan-based Brother Industries Ltd., is committed to an At Your Side philosophy with its customers, business partners and colleagues. Established in 1954, Brother International Corporation is a premier provider of home, home office, and business products, as well as industrial solutions that revolutionize the way we live and work. Headquartered in Bridgewater, NJ, the company employs approximately 1,200 colleagues in the Americas. The globally-recognized Brother product line includes an award-winning range of printers and Multi-Function Center® all-in-ones, the CES and CHA Award-winning ScanNCut, the market-leading P-touch® electronic labeling line, OmniJoin™ web and video conferencing, document management solutions, industrial and home sewing equipment, and the number one line of facsimile machines in the United States.
 In 2014, for the sixth year in a row, consumers voted Brother Printers and All-in-Ones #1 in overall satisfaction and reliability in the PCMag.com Readers’ Choice Awards. Additionally, for the second year in a row, Brother Printers and All-in-Ones were awarded #1 honors in overall satisfaction and reliability in the 2014 PCMag.com Business Choice Awards.

Well, thanks for the education, I did not know that! They are, indeed, larger than M&R overall, just not in the industry.  I still think part of my point is valid. THIS (apparel decoration) is what M&R does. And we all agree they do it well. They make expensive but top of the line units. Of everything! M&R is not for everyone and they are priced in that way. If they are doing DTG, they have the mindset that they have to do it better than anyone. It's their reputation on the line.

Brother, on the other hand, is for the mass consumer market. They are out there with Anajet (which I own), the Epson and so many others. We all know these big companies are not in it for the machine, they're in it to sell ink. That's why they sell so many home printers so cheap (most times losing money). They just want to sell sell sell and are not too worried with quality clogs as long as they keep selling consumables.

[pwalsh]

Peter thanks for your post. I am not going to dispute your info other than to say that not only is the ink more expensive, the Brother is using and wasting more of it. This info isn't in your numbers.  I have thrown around the number 3x the cost as it seems every print costs at least 3x more. That's been my general context of that.  See my latest post with print, 6x the cost on that Brother and that was with settings near what Brother suggested for less ink use.  The white isn't bright enough, so to me it needs more white, which will just make that gap even bigger with more ink used.

Id love to discuss these machines in a production situation. Right now we can't even seem to find the time to set our site up to begin to sell anything off these machines. I hope by next weeks end we are very close to that after we have Brother and M&R both come by.

Brandt:  Just to be clear I don't in anyway doubt your report that you are using more CC's / ML's of ink for the same print on the GT-381, than you are on the M-Link. I also agree that your total ink cost per print from the GT-341 could be 3X or more than what you are experiencing from the M-Link, with the ink cost differential fueled by a combination of increased ink volume per print, and a higher cost per CC or ML.  With that said, here’s what I’m having some trouble understanding.  As I stated in my earlier posts the ink chemistry between the inks used in both DTG printers is very similar.  The difference in one DTG inkjet ink versus another is nothing like it is in screen inks, where the opacity and performance of a low cost plastisol ink weighing 9 lbs. per gallon, is way different to a high performance white ink that weighs 13 lbs. per gallon.  One of your recent posts reported ink usage on the same print of 8.96cc (CMYK 1.75 and White 7.21) for the GT-381, and 2.48cc (CMYK .94 and White 1.54).  These results report that the total ink usage on the GT-381 is 3.6X (CMYK 1.9X, and White 4.7X) that what used by the M-Link.  I can understand that the basic Print Driver on the GT-381 could be laying down a little more ink than the OEM RIP supplied by the M-Link, but 3.6X the total volume ink usage doesn't sound right to me.

Earlier this year Nazdar SourceOne engaged a DTG Industry Expert to support us in a detailed analysis of pre-treatment cost, print quality, production performance, ink cost, and overall cost per print comparison between the AEOON KYO Series DTG printer, and another high production DTG printing system.  One thing our Industry Expert insisted was that he wouldn't base his findings on the pre-treatment and ink volume usage numbers that were reported by the pre-treatment application systems, and DTG printers. Rather we went old school, and started out by weighing a number of "virgin" shirts, that were re-weighed after the pre-treatment was applied.  We recorded the weight increase in each garment to get the actual volume of wet pre-treatment on each garment. In the case of the shirts for the AEOON they were dried under a heat press, and then reweighed to establish a before printing net weight.  The garments were printed with white ink, then removed from printer to be weighed.  These garments the had to be trashed as they couldn't be reloaded.  Another set of pre-treated and weighed garments were loaded onto the DTG units and printed with White and CMYK, then weighed.  We were able to convert the data based on the weight in grams of pre-treatment, white ink and CMYK applied to the garment into a volumetric measurement in CC's or ML's. 

I realize how busy that you are right now, but when the smoke clears it might make sense to use a weighing process to validate the ink volume usage of both DTG print platforms. 

[bulldog]

Earlier this year Nazdar SourceOne engaged a DTG Industry Expert to support us in a detailed analysis of pre-treatment cost, print quality, production performance, ink cost, and overall cost per print comparison between the AEOON KYO Series DTG printer, and another high production DTG printing system.  One thing our Industry Expert insisted was that he wouldn't base his findings on the pre-treatment and ink volume usage numbers that were reported by the pre-treatment application systems, and DTG printers. Rather we went old school, and started out by weighing a number of "virgin" shirts, that were re-weighed after the pre-treatment was applied.  We recorded the weight increase in each garment to get the actual volume of wet pre-treatment on each garment. In the case of the shirts for the AEOON they were dried under a heat press, and then reweighed to establish a before printing net weight.  The garments were printed with white ink, then removed from printer to be weighed.  These garments the had to be trashed as they couldn't be reloaded.  Another set of pre-treated and weighed garments were loaded onto the DTG units and printed with White and CMYK, then weighed.  We were able to convert the data based on the weight in grams of pre-treatment, white ink and CMYK applied to the garment into a volumetric measurement in CC's or ML's. 

Wow Peter, you guys don't mess around! I'm curious, when you did this, how close were the actual results to what the rip was saying?

I will say 4.7x the white ink does seem crazy, I would think you'd have enough ink pooling on the shirt to swim in it.

[Gilligan]

Awesome stuff there Peter, I'd love to see more details.

How about waste ink?  Was that accounted for as well?

[pwalsh]

Awesome stuff there Peter, I'd love to see more details.

How about waste ink?  Was that accounted for as well?

Gilligan:  We did not include waste ink consumption in the evaluation.  Based on the good information provided by Brandt, I would say that this was an oversight that should have been reviewed.

[pwalsh]

Wow Peter, you guys don't mess around! I'm curious, when you did this, how close were the actual results to what the rip was saying?

I will say 4.7x the white ink does seem crazy, I would think you'd have enough ink pooling on the shirt to swim in it.

Bulldog:  I will have to reach out to Glenn Shull our SourceOne Equipment Product Manager for specifics on this question
 

[tonypep]

Peter.........Tell Glenn I said hello. That's a name I haven't heard in a very long while. Pls resume thread

[GraphicDisorder]

Here's what I don't get. Cost of white ink aside, how can THIS BE ACCURATE?

Ink use:
Brother total ink used was 8.96cc (CMYK 1.75 and White 7.21)
M&R total ink used was 2.48cc (CMYK .94 and White 1.54)

Clearly the Brother print is waaaay darker than the M&R, yet it used over 3 times the VOLUME of white ink? Peter said it himself, the white inks both machines use aren't that far apart in chemical make up. So either the ink volume calculations are wrong for one or both of these machines, or the Brother unit is dumping over half its white ink into the waste container rather than printing it on the shirt (if that's even calculated into the print CC). Peter argues that white ink volume differences are a non-factor even.

Something's fishy. One of these measurements is off by a lot in my opinion.

Measurements are coming directly from the Brother and M&R Software/Machines. I am only told by both that it is an accurate reading. 

[GraphicDisorder]

This is why I'd like to see the settings tweaked till we get a nearly identical print.  That would be the better test in which one is putting out more ink.  That and coupled with a weight test as stated to see if it's wasting vs actually using that much ink.  I only really know Epson but I know that unless my machine is going through it's priming or cleaning phase it doesn't have a chance to arbitrarily dump ink.  It would have to stop over the waste section to do so.  Now that might be different on the Brother but I don't really see how.

That said, that is a TON of ink in that waste tank and as everyone has said, they are in the business of selling ink mostly so I'm sure they waste ink unnecessarily. (Dan, I forgot about that one in our discussion, it's been said a couple of times.)

Been there done that. Page 8, post #106, those prints while slightly different are for all purposes very very close. $4 difference in print cost.

I don't believe the machine is wasting ink in the print cycle, I could be wrong about that but I think that is only coming from the cleaning/flushing/etc that you have to do A LOT on the Brother in contrast to the M&R.

[GraphicDisorder]

Brandt:  Just to be clear I don't in anyway doubt your report that you are using more CC's / ML's of ink for the same print on the GT-381, than you are on the M-Link. I also agree that your total ink cost per print from the GT-341 could be 3X or more than what you are experiencing from the M-Link, with the ink cost differential fueled by a combination of increased ink volume per print, and a higher cost per CC or ML.  With that said, here’s what I’m having some trouble understanding.  As I stated in my earlier posts the ink chemistry between the inks used in both DTG printers is very similar.  The difference in one DTG inkjet ink versus another is nothing like it is in screen inks, where the opacity and performance of a low cost plastisol ink weighing 9 lbs. per gallon, is way different to a high performance white ink that weighs 13 lbs. per gallon.  One of your recent posts reported ink usage on the same print of 8.96cc (CMYK 1.75 and White 7.21) for the GT-381, and 2.48cc (CMYK .94 and White 1.54).  These results report that the total ink usage on the GT-381 is 3.6X (CMYK 1.9X, and White 4.7X) that what used by the M-Link.  I can understand that the basic Print Driver on the GT-381 could be laying down a little more ink than the OEM RIP supplied by the M-Link, but 3.6X the total volume ink usage doesn't sound right to me.

You could be right but Charles your tech and Brother while at SGIA said to me that the numbers are reported correctly.  So I kinda take that for what it was, "experts" telling me that is correct. Also just to point out if it is incorrect you have 1,000's of these machines (the Brother) in the market reporting ink costs that shops are using to decide pricing. Did I stumble on another fumble by a manufacture like the large Roland cutters? If that reporting is incorrect I would suggest very seriously someone needs to come forward on that from Brother. I personal tend to agree that the numbers are way far apart on use but again when I am told they are correct I figure they must be.

Earlier this year Nazdar SourceOne engaged a DTG Industry Expert to support us in a detailed analysis of pre-treatment cost, print quality, production performance, ink cost, and overall cost per print comparison between the AEOON KYO Series DTG printer, and another high production DTG printing system.  One thing our Industry Expert insisted was that he wouldn't base his findings on the pre-treatment and ink volume usage numbers that were reported by the pre-treatment application systems, and DTG printers. Rather we went old school, and started out by weighing a number of "virgin" shirts, that were re-weighed after the pre-treatment was applied.  We recorded the weight increase in each garment to get the actual volume of wet pre-treatment on each garment. In the case of the shirts for the AEOON they were dried under a heat press, and then reweighed to establish a before printing net weight.  The garments were printed with white ink, then removed from printer to be weighed.  These garments the had to be trashed as they couldn't be reloaded.  Another set of pre-treated and weighed garments were loaded onto the DTG units and printed with White and CMYK, then weighed.  We were able to convert the data based on the weight in grams of pre-treatment, white ink and CMYK applied to the garment into a volumetric measurement in CC's or ML's. 

I realize how busy that you are right now, but when the smoke clears it might make sense to use a weighing process to validate the ink volume usage of both DTG print platforms.

So you probably used a Brother in that process yes Peter?  What were your findings of actual ink on a shirt vs what the machine is reporting? Surely you used one of the more common DTG's on the market? Id love to hear that data for sure.

As far as us running a test like that, I am not against it. That would take some time and as ive laid out at some point we have to stop playing detective and start making money on these machines or one of them at least. I have not been able to sell a single shirt so far and in fact im spending labor and money printing all these test (many not posted).

We have a busy next week, M&R/Brother will be here, the following Week our new Sprint 3000 goes in as well as new security system/cameras, but we may be able to try this test for you in there some where. 

If our new year kicks off right we will be hiring someone to replace one of our printers so one of our artist can come in and help run the DTG's and our Roland as well as help in the art department. This would allow for that test.  OR if you want and would like to see it run faster/sooner send in one of your guys and run this test on each machine and post your findings.  I am a open door.

[jvanick]

wouldn't the key to understanding the ink cost be something like:

I've printed X 'square inches' of prints on the M&R until the 'ink ran out'
-and-
I've printed Y 'square inches' of prints on the Brother until the 'ink ran out' 

this would be easier on the brother since it'll tell you when the cartridge is empty... on the M&R you'd likely have to figure out how many CC's are left in the bulk containers but still totally do-able.

this would tell you some average 'cost per square inch' numbers for each machine.

if you wanted to take it one step further, measure the amount of waste in the waste tanks as well, as then you could find out the waste cost per square inch as well...

Something else that I'm trying to understand... if the ink chemistry is truly similar... why is brandt having such issues on monday morning with the ink drying?  I can understand that the M&R machine keeps the ink moving in the tubes, but is it really keeping the ink running into the print head as well?  or does it just do a quick 'cleaning-cycle' every X hours to make sure that there's absolutely no chance of it drying?  -- if this is the case, wouldn't the M&R waste tank be filling more as well? 

We're still a decent time from needing/wanting a DTG machine, but issues like this will be something that I'll be curious to watch as time goes on...

I'm also interested in wash-tests... how are these garments holding up.. if you print one side on the brother and one side on the M&R and then throw it in your weekly wash, how do they look.