I-Image vs Douthitt CTS

[Dottonedan]

From the testing that I have done wax is superior when it comes to edge definition as well as the shape of halftone along with density.

I've done a lot of testing also. Superior is not a word I myself would use. Different yes, but not superior.

"shape" of a dot (be it ugly or pretty) is irrelevant as it pertains to image accuracy. It's not the shape of the dot that makes a dot. It's the size of the area that it is to represent that matters. Is that area representing the tone needed... is what should be asked. For example, There are other methods of creating tone that don't make use of or require a perfectly round dot. We have pixel image dots (indexing and stochastic squares), mezzo tint patterns, oval, line patterns, spiral etc.

You can illustrate this by imagining dots being replaced with a vector logo. While the logo may not be reproducible at lower percentages and will look more like a blob, as it gets bigger, into the 40% range, it's more visible or recognizable... but we can take the unique and irregular shape of a logo as representing (size of color location) or % area...and still produce full color photo) with color accuracy. So "shape" or a perfect circle or oval is not what is needed to produce color or images well.

The DTS machines overall, will produce images on screens using a 600dpi imaging process. This is/has been found to be the most effective output resolution for DTS  that can handle this chemistry in a fast pace method jetting out of the heads to produce the image well enough for apparel needs.

Most (ink) based machines will produce a bitmapped dot at 600 or 720 dpi that looks (for the lack of a better word), rough. It's % dot is represented by (made up by) the bitmap resolution.  It's the same thing that happens when you create halftones in photoshop and convert to bitmap mode and those dots are made up of the squares of the size based on the resolution. So if doing 600 bitmap resolution, you will and you enlarge the preview of that image, you will find that your 1% dots are made up of 1-3 squares trying to form that round shape. At this %, the overall look of that dot is not a dot. It's 2-3 squares but up to each other.  Is this rough or jagged?  No. It's clean hard edged squares (in the rip) image intended for output. When trying to output this image onto a screen using a dye based inkjet method, we may use( lets use 300-500 sprays of 12-15 picoliter ) sprays. I say that since I don't know for sure how many spits of ink are used... but it takes alott of little jets of ink  to form that dot. This should signify at this point how amazing and accurate this process of imaging is considering that all of this being applied to form those 1% dots actually do still look very similar to the 2-3 squares. I think that is amazing. http://www.tuhh.de/rzt/tuinfo/periph/drucker/Color_Reproduktion/halftone_cell.gif

Now, lets take that same info above and apply it to wax.  You can't achieve that image detail via WAX. It's too viscous to be able to form that precise shape. It can't. So what happens (to the benefit of the visual appearance of the wax dot) is that it forms a clump of wax (that is intended to represent those 2-3 bitmap squares. It's not that it does it accurately, but rather that it does it with inaccuracy...but the result happens to help form a more round shape. The 2-3 squares are unidentifiable due to the thickness of the wax. This then, to us, looks more like a dot than does ink since our ink represent that 600-720 dpi output more accurately.  So yes, when you look at a 1% dot with ink it looks rough. It looks like a couple bitmap squares sitting next to each other and the WAX dot looks closer to a round dot.  To be more precise, that wax dot actually looks more like a small metier or asteroid. https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRYq3pPDF2c8Ctx1pHIhosVA0cBBs6BGHMLzTaqIMEvs2Ejy5qe1gRWvw


Of course it's possible to use a digital printer that can output at 1200 or more dpi but it would not be able to be done fast, nor opaque enough for our needs. Therefore, you get the following result of each:

INK, is much less viscous than WAX. INK lays more flat to the emulsion surface than does wax. It's more fluid even though the dye based ink must be very concentrated or opaque as is. when compounded or layered, though the number of passes as well as # of heads, uni or bi, high speed or low speed, you get more versatility or more control options to get the machine to print as you want it to based on your environment and art needs.

WAX, when melted, still is more viscous than ink, it's got more volume. When you look at a wax dot under a loop, you will see that it has mass or height like a dot of glue. It's raised up above the surface. You can measure it's height in microns.

With that difference, I can state that WAX however small the chance may be, stands more of a chance of producing some form of cast shadow. (Think of exposing a rock). It will have some area of shadow due to it's dimensional form. This may then require you to give more consideration to your light source for exposure. Most people are working with knowledge that we desire a more direct light source for this very reason. For WAX I suspect it's more beneficial than is an ink base. Those that do not have a more direct light source can be susceptible to some form of cast shadows, thus interfering with image accuracy. Think of line work. Cast shadows fattening the line up a little more.

RIP software - this is probably one of my biggest gripes about the I Image and the rip that it uses. The program is based on an old color sep program for the graphics industry, costs very little, and imo is much behind the actual technology of the machines. Even when you preview dots in the rip software you will see the satellites all around the odd shaped dots.

I appreciate, value and respect your contribution on this subject. I'd have to say that this is not an accurate statement. You may be confusing color fragmentation in the art with satellite dots.

In the RIP program, it can only represent what it is given. For example, if you are previewing any satellite dots, that would have to be coming from the art it is provided. A few examples might be left over separation pull fragments, possibly from pulling background color out of a flattened art file or left over from a scanned image on the outside of the art...or if it's on the edges of actual art, then you are looking at color separation pulled from using the color picker for example. That is not to claim that any of these examples are your cause, but it's been found before. The device, the RIP program can't "create" what is not in the art.

Satellite dots (are formed in print on the emulsion) by way of a few other variables. That might typically be from head projection voltage being a little too high as well as/or possibly negative pressure or head temperature. Any of these can be adjusted to fine tune but slight changes in humidity can also play a role. To compare or test this, when you rip a vector logo that was "created" in the vector program, I'm sure you do not see "satellite dots" hanging around areas where there should not be any image. It will be very clean. In vector, the only way that would happen, is if you were to receive customer art that was originally a scan, then not cleaned up...and then converted to vector using some form of auto trace as often seen from overseas jpg to vector conversion houses.

(i image does not print a true clean round dot) and I believe this is due to the rip.

  It's really due to the resolution of the printer and the need for that resolution to produce images onto screen fast and efficiently.

I feel if m&r introduced a much better rip the issues I see with dot/edge quality would possibly go away.

It would not, but I also would like to see more features or options.

Halftones - from my testing the douthitt wax machine produces a much much cleaner truer halftone.

  It produces a more rounded blob that resembles a dot more so than ink does. Therefore, yes. It looks better (to us artist and printers who are accustom to our old film printers at 1200-2400dpi...hen looking at the printed dot on a screen especially under a loop. As you print both of them, (wax and ink dots) onto the shirt, without a loop, the difference is moot, however, if you were trying to reproduce a full color photo to match perfectly, THEN, you would need to use a densitomitor to determine IF your dots are actually printing at the size intended to represent an area of tone. To do that, you would simply calibrate/adjust your curves to reflect what you are reading on the shirt.

The wax has the upper hand on tonal transitions as well as fine halftones compared to the ink

Tonal transitions are all about curve adjustment and calibration. The INK or WAX topic is not the issue. It's in the compensation. Now, one thing I myself would like to see in our rip is the ability to add in the curves window, .5 increments and a much larger preview to make those adjustments. It can still be done, but only in the code. Since your printing is excellent, I don't see a need to make 100% more than 100%.

[GKitson]

GREAT TOPIC & Conversation.

Keep it up.

[Lizard]

Very good post Dan.

[BorisB]

I know Kiwo Ijet XTS is not being discussed this thread.

Has anyone seen it, owns it, has seen it printing?  Is head price same as Fuji head in Douthitt unit?

[alan802]

Another question that might help put the puzzle together:  Do you do a lot of large runs (1,000+ pieces per job)or smaller jobs (144 and under)?

I may only be speaking with the assumption of our I-Image being in the running. Perhaps you are counting all CTS options and that may make a difference for some. For an I-Image, 144 or 1000 is of no consern. In fact 50,000 is of no concern. I don't even relate to how the quantity in the run would make a dif.  Even at large numbers, you could post expose and add hardener.

Has nothing to do with the durability of the stencil.  I'm not saying it's a huge part of the equation by any means, but in my opinion the way the CTS machine will be used is very important.  If someone needed to air up a football or basketball for their kids a few times a year it wouldn't make AS MUCH sense for them to go out and buy an air compressor and they'd be better off buying a hand pump for $10.  I personally think that a shop like the one I run that does 15-30 setups per day might want to invest a little more money on a CTS than a shop that is doing 1-3 setups per day per press and doing large runs.  Obviously, the shop doing fewer setups shouldn't concern themselves with gaining a few minutes per setup versus a shop that spends more time setting jobs up than it does actually printing them.  A shop like the OP that is doing VERY large runs of the same print could actually save a crap load of money and not buy the high end CTS because quite frankly, they don't need it. 

[DannyGruninger]

From the testing that I have done wax is superior when it comes to edge definition as well as the shape of halftone along with density.

I've done a lot of testing also. Superior is not a word I myself would use. Different yes, but not superior.

"shape" of a dot (be it ugly or pretty) is irrelevant as it pertains to image accuracy.

Dan, thanks for the book reply. I have a good amount of production to get out today so I don't have time to respond in depth right now but I'll start with the above. I have to say I disagree with this statement considering a job like 4cp relies on the shape of the dot to produce the color. If the dot cannot be reproduced then results will vary as well as become marginal. I know we even have a member on the forum here who has a wax machine AND i image who has said on the forum he prints 4cp on his wax machine due to the dots being more repeatable. We all know there's multiple shops out there running wax vs ink jet side by side(I've also spent days in shops running them side by side) and I have not seen one shop that does not agree with the statement wax produces a better cleaner dot. If I had my choice, I would prefer a rip software that does not manipulate my dots that each dot looks as close to image setter technology as possible. Take a look at the photos below from the color print rip and look at how inconsistent the dots are. I can promise you our artwork is not telling the rip to create some dots that have more ragged edges then others, the rip simply cannot produce a repeatable dot pattern. But my main point is, I feel the machine itself is extremely solid that the rip is behind it is lacking in both features and quality. It's common knowledge that we know what the rip is based on and imo the software is holding the machine back. Can you explain in these pics why the rip is not producing consistent shaped dots? Some dots have more ragged edges then others yet when you preview other rips you will find perfectly clean looking dots before the printer outputs. It kind of goes back to the age old saying junk in junk out. If the rip is producing a better dot then so will the printer right?

[Printficient]

Another question that might help put the puzzle together:  Do you do a lot of large runs (1,000+ pieces per job)or smaller jobs (144 and under)?

I may only be speaking with the assumption of our I-Image being in the running. Perhaps you are counting all CTS options and that may make a difference for some. For an I-Image, 144 or 1000 is of no consern. In fact 50,000 is of no concern. I don't even relate to how the quantity in the run would make a dif.  Even at large numbers, you could post expose and add hardener.

Has nothing to do with the durability of the stencil.  I'm not saying it's a huge part of the equation by any means, but in my opinion the way the CTS machine will be used is very important.  If someone needed to air up a football or basketball for their kids a few times a year it wouldn't make AS MUCH sense for them to go out and buy an air compressor and they'd be better off buying a hand pump for $10.  I personally think that a shop like the one I run that does 15-30 setups per day might want to invest a little more money on a CTS than a shop that is doing 1-3 setups per day per press and doing large runs.  Obviously, the shop doing fewer setups shouldn't concern themselves with gaining a few minutes per setup versus a shop that spends more time setting jobs up than it does actually printing them.  A shop like the OP that is doing VERY large runs of the same print could actually save a crap load of money and not buy the high end CTS because quite frankly, they don't need it.

I will say that the stencil durability issue would lie on the fact that CTS does not have to "shoot" through a sheet of glass and a piece of film.  This allows for a "truer" exposure and a better stencil as it eliminates 2 variables that can contribute to stencil quality.

[alan802]

Another question that might help put the puzzle together:  Do you do a lot of large runs (1,000+ pieces per job)or smaller jobs (144 and under)?

I may only be speaking with the assumption of our I-Image being in the running. Perhaps you are counting all CTS options and that may make a difference for some. For an I-Image, 144 or 1000 is of no consern. In fact 50,000 is of no concern. I don't even relate to how the quantity in the run would make a dif.  Even at large numbers, you could post expose and add hardener.

Has nothing to do with the durability of the stencil.  I'm not saying it's a huge part of the equation by any means, but in my opinion the way the CTS machine will be used is very important.  If someone needed to air up a football or basketball for their kids a few times a year it wouldn't make AS MUCH sense for them to go out and buy an air compressor and they'd be better off buying a hand pump for $10.  I personally think that a shop like the one I run that does 15-30 setups per day might want to invest a little more money on a CTS than a shop that is doing 1-3 setups per day per press and doing large runs.  Obviously, the shop doing fewer setups shouldn't concern themselves with gaining a few minutes per setup versus a shop that spends more time setting jobs up than it does actually printing them.  A shop like the OP that is doing VERY large runs of the same print could actually save a crap load of money and not buy the high end CTS because quite frankly, they don't need it.

I will say that the stencil durability issue would lie on the fact that CTS does not have to "shoot" through a sheet of glass and a piece of film.  This allows for a "truer" exposure and a better stencil as it eliminates 2 variables that can contribute to stencil quality.

My question didn't have anything to do with the stencil durability though, I'm not arguing that.  It's pretty common knowledge that a stencil that was directly hit with UV will be better than one that had glass between it and the light source.  I guess I should have prefaced my post with that info but I don't believe it's necessary.  And this shop knows ALL about stencil durability and how it affects production.  Since buying the Vastex LED we've had numerous stencil failures but for many years prior we never had the problem when using metal halide expo units.  But I digress.

[DaveZ]

I like the i-Image (duh), but don't just take our word for it, take SGIA's:

https://www.sgia.org/expo/printing-%26-imaging/news/m%26rs-i-image-ste-ii-chosen-pre-press-product-year-2014-sgia-expo

And then its cousin won the award again in 2015:

https://www.sgia.org/garment/printing-%26-imaging/news/m%26r-companies-win-four-product-year-awards-2015-sgia-expo

There's also a substantial difference in overall cost of maintenance between the i-Image and the popular wax-based systems.  Ask those who've owned both about that...

[Sbrem]

From the testing that I have done wax is superior when it comes to edge definition as well as the shape of halftone along with density.

I've done a lot of testing also. Superior is not a word I myself would use. Different yes, but not superior.

"shape" of a dot (be it ugly or pretty) is irrelevant as it pertains to image accuracy. It's not the shape of the dot that makes a dot. It's the size of the area that it is to represent that matters. Is that area representing the tone needed... is what should be asked. For example, There are other methods of creating tone that don't make use of or require a perfectly round dot. We have pixel image dots (indexing and stochastic squares), mezzo tint patterns, oval, line patterns, spiral etc.

You can illustrate this by imagining dots being replaced with a vector logo. While the logo may not be reproducible at lower percentages and will look more like a blob, as it gets bigger, into the 40% range, it's more visible or recognizable... but we can take the unique and irregular shape of a logo as representing (size of color location) or % area...and still produce full color photo) with color accuracy. So "shape" or a perfect circle or oval is not what is needed to produce color or images well.

The DTS machines overall, will produce images on screens using a 600dpi imaging process. This is/has been found to be the most effective output resolution for DTS  that can handle this chemistry in a fast pace method jetting out of the heads to produce the image well enough for apparel needs.

Most (ink) based machines will produce a bitmapped dot at 600 or 720 dpi that looks (for the lack of a better word), rough. It's % dot is represented by (made up by) the bitmap resolution.  It's the same thing that happens when you create halftones in photoshop and convert to bitmap mode and those dots are made up of the squares of the size based on the resolution. So if doing 600 bitmap resolution, you will and you enlarge the preview of that image, you will find that your 1% dots are made up of 1-3 squares trying to form that round shape. At this %, the overall look of that dot is not a dot. It's 2-3 squares but up to each other.  Is this rough or jagged?  No. It's clean hard edged squares (in the rip) image intended for output. When trying to output this image onto a screen using a dye based inkjet method, we may use( lets use 300-500 sprays of 12-15 picoliter ) sprays. I say that since I don't know for sure how many spits of ink are used... but it takes alott of little jets of ink  to form that dot. This should signify at this point how amazing and accurate this process of imaging is considering that all of this being applied to form those 1% dots actually do still look very similar to the 2-3 squares. I think that is amazing. http://www.tuhh.de/rzt/tuinfo/periph/drucker/Color_Reproduktion/halftone_cell.gif

Now, lets take that same info above and apply it to wax.  You can't achieve that image detail via WAX. It's too viscous to be able to form that precise shape. It can't. So what happens (to the benefit of the visual appearance of the wax dot) is that it forms a clump of wax (that is intended to represent those 2-3 bitmap squares. It's not that it does it accurately, but rather that it does it with inaccuracy...but the result happens to help form a more round shape. The 2-3 squares are unidentifiable due to the thickness of the wax. This then, to us, looks more like a dot than does ink since our ink represent that 600-720 dpi output more accurately.  So yes, when you look at a 1% dot with ink it looks rough. It looks like a couple bitmap squares sitting next to each other and the WAX dot looks closer to a round dot.  To be more precise, that wax dot actually looks more like a small metier or asteroid. https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRYq3pPDF2c8Ctx1pHIhosVA0cBBs6BGHMLzTaqIMEvs2Ejy5qe1gRWvw


Of course it's possible to use a digital printer that can output at 1200 or more dpi but it would not be able to be done fast, nor opaque enough for our needs. Therefore, you get the following result of each:

INK, is much less viscous than WAX. INK lays more flat to the emulsion surface than does wax. It's more fluid even though the dye based ink must be very concentrated or opaque as is. when compounded or layered, though the number of passes as well as # of heads, uni or bi, high speed or low speed, you get more versatility or more control options to get the machine to print as you want it to based on your environment and art needs.

WAX, when melted, still is more viscous than ink, it's got more volume. When you look at a wax dot under a loop, you will see that it has mass or height like a dot of glue. It's raised up above the surface. You can measure it's height in microns.

With that difference, I can state that WAX however small the chance may be, stands more of a chance of producing some form of cast shadow. (Think of exposing a rock). It will have some area of shadow due to it's dimensional form. This may then require you to give more consideration to your light source for exposure. Most people are working with knowledge that we desire a more direct light source for this very reason. For WAX I suspect it's more beneficial than is an ink base. Those that do not have a more direct light source can be susceptible to some form of cast shadows, thus interfering with image accuracy. Think of line work. Cast shadows fattening the line up a little more.

RIP software - this is probably one of my biggest gripes about the I Image and the rip that it uses. The program is based on an old color sep program for the graphics industry, costs very little, and imo is much behind the actual technology of the machines. Even when you preview dots in the rip software you will see the satellites all around the odd shaped dots.

I appreciate, value and respect your contribution on this subject. I'd have to say that this is not an accurate statement. You may be confusing color fragmentation in the art with satellite dots.

In the RIP program, it can only represent what it is given. For example, if you are previewing any satellite dots, that would have to be coming from the art it is provided. A few examples might be left over separation pull fragments, possibly from pulling background color out of a flattened art file or left over from a scanned image on the outside of the art...or if it's on the edges of actual art, then you are looking at color separation pulled from using the color picker for example. That is not to claim that any of these examples are your cause, but it's been found before. The device, the RIP program can't "create" what is not in the art.

Satellite dots (are formed in print on the emulsion) by way of a few other variables. That might typically be from head projection voltage being a little too high as well as/or possibly negative pressure or head temperature. Any of these can be adjusted to fine tune but slight changes in humidity can also play a role. To compare or test this, when you rip a vector logo that was "created" in the vector program, I'm sure you do not see "satellite dots" hanging around areas where there should not be any image. It will be very clean. In vector, the only way that would happen, is if you were to receive customer art that was originally a scan, then not cleaned up...and then converted to vector using some form of auto trace as often seen from overseas jpg to vector conversion houses.

(i image does not print a true clean round dot) and I believe this is due to the rip.

  It's really due to the resolution of the printer and the need for that resolution to produce images onto screen fast and efficiently.

I feel if m&r introduced a much better rip the issues I see with dot/edge quality would possibly go away.

It would not, but I also would like to see more features or options.

Halftones - from my testing the douthitt wax machine produces a much much cleaner truer halftone.

  It produces a more rounded blob that resembles a dot more so than ink does. Therefore, yes. It looks better (to us artist and printers who are accustom to our old film printers at 1200-2400dpi...hen looking at the printed dot on a screen especially under a loop. As you print both of them, (wax and ink dots) onto the shirt, without a loop, the difference is moot, however, if you were trying to reproduce a full color photo to match perfectly, THEN, you would need to use a densitomitor to determine IF your dots are actually printing at the size intended to represent an area of tone. To do that, you would simply calibrate/adjust your curves to reflect what you are reading on the shirt.

The wax has the upper hand on tonal transitions as well as fine halftones compared to the ink

Tonal transitions are all about curve adjustment and calibration. The INK or WAX topic is not the issue. It's in the compensation. Now, one thing I myself would like to see in our rip is the ability to add in the curves window, .5 increments and a much larger preview to make those adjustments. It can still be done, but only in the code. Since your printing is excellent, I don't see a need to make 100% more than 100%.

It's long read, but I appreciate it Dan. About dot shape though, I learned to make halftone dots the mechanical way, with a halftone screen and process camera, and those dots were round, square, or elliptical. That being said though, if the resolution of the printer (CTS or inkjet to film) is high enough, it would become a moot point...

Steve

[Dottonedan]

Danny,

I will save us length and not quote it. LOL.

First off, we all know it's obvious you and your staff do not do junk art, seps or printing.

1,The points you mentioned all corospond to my previous post.
Take that image below, that you posted and open back in Photoshop. Go to just that area and blow it up. Then adjust levels. Slide them back and fourth to extremes blowing it out and filling it in. I ecpect you will start to see some small area there that has broken up aread of grayscale in some areas where you think it's clear or empty.

2, I can't say that I disagree with you on having a better rip. This one, is proprietary as it pertaines to DTS. That's probably why we stay with it but it also does the job. Many people have a Harlequin or one of the others. Could it be better and have more features?  Obviously. Could it be more precise?  Not really, it does only put out what is in the file. Maybe other rips are designed for higher resolution output. Not sure.
Do a vector gradation and I'm sure you will not see those broken up areas.

3, yes, you can print CMYK with the I-Image and that rip very well. Well enough to win awards.  I will stand on that claim. The "shape" is not (as important) as the area (tone) it is to represent. Another example of how little the perfectly round or oval shape makes difference in CMYK is that you can print CMYK using little squares with no line screen angle (Stochastic) and you can still satisfy the customer with no question and even win judges over in the contest. Use a mezzo tint with squiggly work like shapes. Even in your own image below, that can be printed in CMYK with no questions from the customer or the SGIA judges when viewing the shirt.

I think it's all perception. I used to only love wet film processors and I used to ask the film house to up the output to 3600dpi. I still would prefer those over any digital "if it made a cost sense". If I had an option, I'd prefer my dot to be vector clean (as in perfectly smooth). We can't thow. Not with inkjet printers where they are, even on film. 600 is 600dpi, no matter what rip you use. That's why I day you will not be getting a better for with ink (unless you were to put down 24 passes and using a print resolution that would be able to blob the ink down to the point that it runs over and form less of its original shape (like wax does). Now, that might be somewhat possible. I would not bother tho. Wether your STAR shaped small ink dot or your same size round blob of wax, both should hold. Obviously, if it's a 1% -5% in a 55lpi, the ink will have that square pixel look while your wax (in that same area) will have some form of a round dot, more so than ink will. The wax can't form that exact detail...so it looks more accurate.


Can another RIP produce what looks like a more smoother Photoshop gradation? Probably so...and I'd ask you to agree that it's also probable that the better RIPs you indicate may just not see that information to that degree or may group or average that area into one larger dot. This then, might help one to assume the other rips do better at this. In guessing there but it's a good guess.

Now, I'd agree that if you had true satellite dots, then that affects your image quality and tonal representations but that, you would only see on the emulsion. That comes from the heads and not the rip. You should though, not have those in your emulsion. If you do, then it can be cleaned up with adjustments so give the digital dept. a call to see how you can tweak it.  What you see in the Print Production preview, are not satillite dots. I suspect something in the art files. Small and low areas of grayscale tone up next to darker areas. That could force the rip to decide what to do with that area so it might just kick out a few pixels.

[zanegun08]

Speed - m&r is faster by a noticeable amount. If your doing under 150 screens a shift though either machine is easily capable of keeping up but with the ste on the m&r handling the screen only 1 time creates a good amount of less work.

RIP software - this is probably one of my biggest gripes about the I Image and the rip that it uses. The program is based on an old color sep program for the graphics industry, costs very little, and imo is much behind the actual technology of the machines. Even when you preview dots in the rip software you will see the satellites all around the odd shaped dots(i image does not print a true clean round dot) and I believe this is due to the rip. I feel if m&r introduced a much better rip the issues I see with dot/edge quality would possibly go away

I'll chime in that we love our Spyder, I've had experience with both, and Exile has great service as well, in addition has bi-directional printing which I believe makes it pretty fast, not 3 head I-Image fast, but at 20k cheaper, I can stand to wait 30 seconds longer, and easy workflow from art to screen.

I agree with Danny on the software side, and that is where Spyder has a great RIP, as well as operating software with touch screen, which I at first thought was gimmicky, but with the shitty little keyboard stands the units have, it actually is pretty handy to just drag and drop, hit print, ect.

But the biggest take away of all, is that computer to screen is life changing, so no matter what you get, it will improve your workflow.

[DannyGruninger]

Dan, thanks for the reply...... I'm still missing this though -


In photoshop we design art in which photoshop sees percentages(not dots)...... then the rip takes control and produces the dots....... When you look at the pics I posted you will clearly see some dots are more rough then others. My point is if the rip is doing it's job correctly the dots should appear to be the same correct? Why some dots look worse then other dots is not a product of photoshop but a direct product of the algorithm in which the rip processes the file. To me the rip should produce a perfect looking dot, now whether the output device(dts in this case) can produce that perfect dot is a whole separate discussion but the rip should process the file in a manner that it prepares dots that are consistent. Hopefully what I'm asking is easy to follow LOL

[Dottonedan]

I do follow you.  I think maybe part of the confusion is the assumption that all other devices don't do this.

The fact is, the Print Prod. Preview shows you that bit mapped image. The pixelated image blown up and you can really see the 600dpi jagged dots well.  Maybe (if others have previews of the dots) they are not true representations of the actual DPI. I have seen some that are not. They are more looking for previews but not actual previews.

When you blow up on it, in ours, it's not that pretty. You can see the jagged edges (and you always will). That's the image at its best. It reads a % and fills in the squares to represent that area. So if you have a 1/16" area that was 40% tone but just to the outside of that, you had a 1/128" area that contained 1% that you would get a lot of nicely shaped 40% dots and one or two little pixels next to it. (This doesn't look clean to you), but it's trying to represent that area in its tone. The result is a couple (what seems to be stray) pixels.  If the printer was a 2400dpi printer, you would see a cleaner, more exact round yet very small dot there. That's all.

[GraphicDisorder]

walloftext.jpg