Registration Systems

[mimosatexas]

I used these on my DIY upside down trilock pallet.  They work perfectly.  http://www.mcmaster.com/#3351a17/=10uqacr

[ZooCity]

Looks excellent Mr.Tees, PM sent.

Do you find the vertical orientation an issue in aligning perfectly?  I was thinking a tilt might be best to keep the film from slipping off.

For more DIY parts for pre-reg, either carrier or otherwise:

http://www.ternesburton.com/pin-bars/
http://www.carrlane.com/catalog/index.cfm/26605071F0B021118070C1C510D020609090C0015480013180B041D1E173C1B085357 *the spring stop plungers look like the ticket for easy loading

I imagine it wouldn't hurt to even build up a basic air cyl setup akin to a CTS unit for most accuracy in positioning the screen.

What a great thread, good discussion and possibly helping a member out with a major issue. 

How about the MHM folks using either CTS or FPU?  Those heads are similar to Ryan's here.  If there is a similar tolerance across machine designs it may point to the pin reg/clamping concept itself as the weak link. 

Has anyone mixed/matched systems?  We have with the Newman and tri lock.  They don't play together due to interference of the pin lock corner pieces unfortunately.  So my hypothesis that it doesn't matter how you align the films and screens so long as it's done consistently is thrown out somewhat.  I know Danny has mentioned the ultimate importance of having the 3 stop blocks on the FPU and on press jig be identical. 

[alan802]

...inspired by alans rig a coupla years ago, I asked 244 VEEEERY nicely if he would consider building me a "reversed/mirrored" tri-loc rig, and he obliged. Basically a stock triloc frameholder which would normally go into the exposure unit, but the spring plungers and stop-blocks are on the reverse side from one another.This allows the screen to be mounted in the rig upside down, and still use the same three-point side of the screen that the regidtration pallet uses on-press....pretty much exactly how Alan's works.
... I mounted this onto a board, which is mounted to the wall. I fabbed up a backlit riser out of some square steel and plexi from Lowe's.

...the riser has a set of registration marks which I use as a template. All my films have the same template, and I line the films up to that. For me, instead of a tri-loc pallet, I simply print the registration mark template on one of my pallets, and line all the screns up to that. gets me line up perfect most of the time, with minimal adjusting needed the rest of the time. Still, I would like to get my hands on a tri-loc pallet and test how close it gets at some point. I cant imagine why it wouldnt work.

...I asked Rich/244 if it was okay to show this off after I had it made, as I figured other folks might want one. I know he said it was cool at the time, and I believe he even had a part# assigned to it. With his go-ahead, I will gladly share that info, Just PM me.

Just incredible!!!  Love it.  You gotta get that triloc pallet and I think you'll be very happy you did.

[mimosatexas]

Yea the pallet will save you considerable time over lining up to the reg marks using this process.

[Shanarchy]

Zoo, out of curiosity, which system do you find more accurate; tri-loc or Newman?

I think Newman should design a FPU like Roq and MHM to work with their pins.

[alan802]

I've been saying this for a long time, but I really want to build mine again so that it doesn't look like a cobbled up mess.  The pics of mine above were supposed to be of the working prototype, or a beta unit per say but honestly we were slammed after I finished it and started testing and it was very accurate and we were loving the results. I still think about tearing it down and making it look more professional and this time of year would be the right time to do it.  I really wish I had access to some serious tools to fab up a really clean looking riser to place underneath the triloc master jig and also making a nicer "alignment grid box".  I show it off to anyone that comes in and I get a lot of looks that tell me that nobody is impressed and they don't think it will work but as ugly as it is it sure does work. 

With all of the different versions and DIY reg systems I've put together, and even the real ones like the Vastex VRS and M&R Triloc, this thing I call a "Modified Triloc" has worked so much better than I ever hoped.  Whenever this topic comes up anywhere I have to restrain myself from yelling at people who have a triloc and don't use it or even worse I get upset at the shops who use the Triloc like it's supposed to be used but don't like the results.  This system has literally been the most important tool that has allowed us to do the type of volume that we do here with one auto.  It literally more than doubled our production capacity.  I know results may vary but they honestly shouldn't vary that much.  There is so much more that goes into it, mainly from the press calibration side and human touch/attention to detail, but ANYONE on this forum could achieve similar results so in that sense I think the results shouldn't vary much. 

And I also don't want anyone to think I'm taking any credit for the system we ultimately ended up with.  There was a lot of inspiration and prior knowledge from others that went into our final version.  I think the first wheel started to spin from a pic I saw of John52's FPU and the fact that he had been using a modified triloc for many years.  And I always liked the MHM FPU and how they achieved film placement without carrier sheets and the months we spent using carrier sheets REALLY reinforced the need to build a system that didn't use them.  There are many other things that played a role in the final version but I'll spare everyone any additional boring speak about it.

[ZooCity]

Zoo, out of curiosity, which system do you find more accurate; tri-loc or Newman?

I think Newman should design a FPU like Roq and MHM to work with their pins.

Couldn't say, we've never used the full tri-loc system, as intended, we just use a tri-loc reg platen. 

The Newman system is accurate but reliant on the press and it's clamping style.  On side clamps with four clamps with feet/pads (2 per side clamp) it did very well.  On our series I Gauntlet, hit or miss depending on the operator, I set up quite a few with no micro.  Can't say about Sportsman as ours had no mitering to allow us to use it....hence the need for a tri loc platen on that machine.

The Newman system, on the side clamping press, would typically be bang on or off just a hair left-right, a very easy adjustment if you have true linear left-right micros on the machine.   Weak points are the pins not fitting perfectly into the roller frame corners (they replace the washers basically) and also the swing arms on the pin platen have some flex and also the platen design risks damage/twisting upon table down if you have a dirty or mis-aligned pin corner.  But the tri loc platen is flexy too and both Newman and tri loc platens are locked in with the same platen holding system on that style of press, which is not accurate or positive locking, requiring careful checking that the platen is actually square to the print head.

If the Newman system performed across all the machines as well as it did on the side clamper I'd probably just keep it all in service.  I actually like our modded carrier sheets, makes for lighting fast imaging on re-orders and you only have to carefully align the reg marks once.  Additionally, you can trim off the bottom reg mark after initial alignment on the pin lock table, eliminating an area to blockout and decreasing risk of a blowout there.  I like that there is no jig to place on the glass allowing larger vac frames and different frames sizes to be used as well as accurate 2up shooting.

[SI]

For anyone using an Anatol press, over the last two weeks I have got my DIY triock up and going.  So far I have registered 4 jobs with it and only had to touch one micro.  It is working great and saving me a ton of time.

   Bought the carrier sheets, 4 of the pin bars from Ternes burton, and then there is a local metals shop that has a water jet.  I drew up three jigs in auto cad and had them cut them out of 1/16" steel.  Took a spare pallet and put two stops on the end and one on the side so it works with the side clamps.  The three jigs are for my three different sized frames I have.  If anyone is interested in this for their anatol I can PM some pics and the cad files.  I think all totaled I have about $350 in it and it works on all three sizes of frames I have.

[Mr Tees!!]

... some have requested a bit more detail on my wall-mounted rig, no problem!

...I forget the size of the main board, but it just needs to be bigger than the screenholder itself. I used a piece of 3/4 MDF that I had laying around. Use the thickest board you can as you want this to remain as flat as possible over time, for obvious reasons. You will want to mount the board off the wall a bit to make room to run the power cord if you are backlighting this. I just used a big nut i had laying around, and ran the screws thru the board and the center of the nut, into the wall.

...The riser is 18" x 24". It is made of 1.25 square tube ( http://www.lowes.com/pd_103639-37672-11200_1z0xzpb__?productId=3049419&pl=1 ). I used VHB double sided tape ( http://www.lowes.com/pd_394703-98-411+MEDIUM___?productId=3690664&pl=1&Ntt=vhb ) to attach the square bars to the board (INITIALLY). Once you ensure you have it centered where you want it, you will DEFINITELY want to use a few small L-brackets to secure everything down tight. This is where I had trouble at first, the VHB tape by itself flexed just enough to throw everything off, and the riser actually fell off entirely one day when the room was especially hot last summer. The L-brackets made everything rock solid.

...use the VHB tape to secure the plexi (  http://www.lowes.com/pd_239981-1638-1AG2123A___?productId=3502292&pl=1&Ntt=plexiglas+sheets ) to the square steel riser. The thickness of the plexi, VHB tape and the square steel together is almost exactly 1.5 inches, which is the standard tube thickness for most screen frames. this means that when you set the screen in the rig, you dont have to deflect the mesh down to make contact with the riser and attach the film.

One thing that hasnt been menitoned in this thread is that, not only does a system like this eliminate the need for carrier sheets, but you can also rotate the screen in the rig and image both ends of a screen (assuming art size allows).

[mimosatexas]

yea, the inverted film placement idea (I copied from Alan) is awesome.  No carrier sheets, no double sided tape, no shifting anywhere, etc.

[ZooCity]

So those of you using an FPU style setup, where are you printing reg marks?  Just the top, top and bottom, etc.  And what style?

[mimosatexas]

I use a 2 pixel (file is 300dpi) "+" mark, just center top and center bottom, and the horizontal part of the "+" is wider than the height of the vertical part, maybe 1/2" vs 1/4 of an inch.  The same 2 marks are on the FPU I always see people putting like 6 or 8 intricate circles with all kinds of extra crap and patterns all over them, and it is all so unnecessary.  if the top and bottom marks are lined up, so will the rest of the art unless your printer is messing up your films, which is a different problem.  I use a low powered loop on art that REALLY has to be dead on, but otherwise simply eyeball the placement carefully.  I rarely touch a micro on my kruzer...

[Mr Tees!!]

So those of you using an FPU style setup, where are you printing reg marks?  Just the top, top and bottom, etc.  And what style?

I use two marks, both at the top. The image I posted above shows three (two, plus one in the center)....I use that on the FPU rig only, using the center mark only to center that template to the rig. All films I print to jobs have just the left and right only.

I keep a screen burned with the three marks as well. I use that to print the marks centered and horizontally aligned to one of the pallets (However, I still only use the outer marks printed on the board itself). Dry it with the flash and it is there permanently. This pallet is now my registration board, so then I can align the two marks on each production screen to the marks now printed on the board.

This simple system is surprisingly accurate. I would like to have an actual Tri-loc pallet at some point, for instances when I need to re-set a job that has screens full of ink, and I cant see thru the marks.

[Wildcard]

Am I correct in thinking that most  fpu systems require lining up films to marks on the fpu board individually, except tri-lock where you line up films to each other and also to the screen placement?
It seems to me that lining films to each other would be more accurate, but maybe it's a negligible difference?

[1964GN]

I created +  top and bottom center marks that are nearly identical to the ones on the ROQ PRU. The PRU has green laser + and are locked in so they don't move. Much more accurate that lining up films to each other.