DTS alternatives and status

[Colin]

Whats the latest word on the DLP machines?

[zanegun08]

Whats the latest word on the DLP machines?

That you have to sell a Kidney to afford one, and they are slower than wax or inkjet, and when printing on garments DPI's over a certain amount are moot anyhow.

Still like to see technology, if they could make the laser the width of a textile screen, so it just has to do one scan and it's exposed, that would be legit, but currently it is slow, no consumables is nice though.

There is also that guy who talks about LED tv screen exposure, which would actually be cool if it worked, especially with like a 4K screen, but getting the right wavelength and no undercutting, would take lots of R&D for such a niche product, can't see it happening anytime soon.

[Colin]

Afraid that was gona be the case

Thanks for the info Zane.

You going to NBM on Friday?

[blue moon]

there's a laser in the works. we are working on getting a test unit. No time frame yet, but it's worth waiting for a little bit. . .

pierre

[Colin]

How long is a little bit?

[blue moon]

How long is a little bit?

prototype should be up and running, I am hoping we get a test unit within 6 months. That puts it on the market in 12-24 months (my guess). I would say, in the scheme of things, that would qualify for "a little bit".

pierre

[Full-SpectrumSeparator]

Whats the latest word on the DLP machines?

That you have to sell a Kidney to afford one, and they are slower than wax or inkjet, and when printing on garments DPI's over a certain amount are moot anyhow.

Still like to see technology, if they could make the laser the width of a textile screen, so it just has to do one scan and it's exposed, that would be legit, but currently it is slow, no consumables is nice though.

There is also that guy who talks about LED tv screen exposure, which would actually be cool if it worked, especially with like a 4K screen, but getting the right wavelength and no undercutting, would take lots of R&D for such a niche product, can't see it happening anytime soon.

It already works and did when I first posted about it.
I was only posting about it because I had already proven it works.
I will be making videos soon of how to make one and expose screens with it.     
It takes about 10 minutes at the most to take apart an LCD computer monitor/TV and re-arrange the parts so it lays flat on the glass and you have the power and video cables attached to the control unit. 

Comparisons need to be made testing undercutting, but actually it may have less undercutting than other methods.... It might have zero undercutting since the LCD channels are forcing the light in a particular direction.

The wavelength you need is the same as your emulsion needs.


I think people are confused... I am not using the backlight from the panel or monitor itself,  only the LCD panel which is already transparent.   The contrast ratio may even be higher than film or other methods, it only needs higher power or longer exposure times compared to exposing the same screen without the panel there like with just film.   

Basically it is like if you printed to a tinted piece of film.... the ink areas would still be "that much darker" than the clear/tinted area,  so the ratio would be similar and you only need more power or longer time to get the same exposure result as you would get with your film or DTS etc.   

And yes, it is super cool.

   

   

 

[blue moon]

Whats the latest word on the DLP machines?

That you have to sell a Kidney to afford one, and they are slower than wax or inkjet, and when printing on garments DPI's over a certain amount are moot anyhow.

Still like to see technology, if they could make the laser the width of a textile screen, so it just has to do one scan and it's exposed, that would be legit, but currently it is slow, no consumables is nice though.

There is also that guy who talks about LED tv screen exposure, which would actually be cool if it worked, especially with like a 4K screen, but getting the right wavelength and no undercutting, would take lots of R&D for such a niche product, can't see it happening anytime soon.

It already works and did when I first posted about it.
I was only posting about it because I had already proven it works.
I will be making videos soon of how to make one and expose screens with it.     
It takes about 10 minutes at the most to take apart an LCD computer monitor/TV and re-arrange the parts so it lays flat on the glass and you have the power and video cables attached to the control unit. 

Comparisons need to be made testing undercutting, but actually it may have less undercutting than other methods.... It might have zero undercutting since the LCD channels are forcing the light in a particular direction.

The wavelength you need is the same as your emulsion needs.


I think people are confused... I am not using the backlight from the panel or monitor itself,  only the LCD panel which is already transparent.   The contrast ratio may even be higher than film or other methods, it only needs higher power or longer exposure times compared to exposing the same screen without the panel there like with just film.   

Basically it is like if you printed to a tinted piece of film.... the ink areas would still be "that much darker" than the clear/tinted area,  so the ratio would be similar and you only need more power or longer time to get the same exposure result as you would get with your film or DTS etc.   

And yes, it is super cool.

something to remember here is that the polarized glass of the LCD display will stop 50% of the light from coming through. This is not visible to the naked eye, but it is how the LCD displays work. As mentioned above, it will cause the exposure times to be significantly longer. Also, I would be concerned with undercutting more than anything else. Putting vacuum on the LCD panel will distort the Liquid Cristal and make it not work. Keeping it away would allow light to spill around the mask.

pierre

pierre

[mimosatexas]

Lots of issues with using an LCD to expose like that.  Heat and UV will also hurt the LCD over time.

[Full-SpectrumSeparator]

Whats the latest word on the DLP machines?

That you have to sell a Kidney to afford one, and they are slower than wax or inkjet, and when printing on garments DPI's over a certain amount are moot anyhow.

Still like to see technology, if they could make the laser the width of a textile screen, so it just has to do one scan and it's exposed, that would be legit, but currently it is slow, no consumables is nice though.

There is also that guy who talks about LED tv screen exposure, which would actually be cool if it worked, especially with like a 4K screen, but getting the right wavelength and no undercutting, would take lots of R&D for such a niche product, can't see it happening anytime soon.

It already works and did when I first posted about it.
I was only posting about it because I had already proven it works.
I will be making videos soon of how to make one and expose screens with it.     
It takes about 10 minutes at the most to take apart an LCD computer monitor/TV and re-arrange the parts so it lays flat on the glass and you have the power and video cables attached to the control unit. 

Comparisons need to be made testing undercutting, but actually it may have less undercutting than other methods.... It might have zero undercutting since the LCD channels are forcing the light in a particular direction.

The wavelength you need is the same as your emulsion needs.


I think people are confused... I am not using the backlight from the panel or monitor itself,  only the LCD panel which is already transparent.   The contrast ratio may even be higher than film or other methods, it only needs higher power or longer exposure times compared to exposing the same screen without the panel there like with just film.   

Basically it is like if you printed to a tinted piece of film.... the ink areas would still be "that much darker" than the clear/tinted area,  so the ratio would be similar and you only need more power or longer time to get the same exposure result as you would get with your film or DTS etc.   

And yes, it is super cool.

something to remember here is that the polarized glass of the LCD display will stop 50% of the light from coming through. This is not visible to the naked eye, but it is how the LCD displays work. As mentioned above, it will cause the exposure times to be significantly longer. Also, I would be concerned with undercutting more than anything else. Putting vacuum on the LCD panel will distort the Liquid Cristal and make it not work. Keeping it away would allow light to spill around the mask.

pierre

pierre

LOL.

You guys really never fail to amuse me on this board.   Anything new and you attack it without even trying it.   

Higher power light and you get the exposure time back down to a shorter time if you want it.   Yes if you read my post you would see, it is blocking the light, but the ratio might be the same or even better than other methods, so more power or closer lights (like LED) can eliminate that supposed "issue".

Yes, I know how LCD's work.

"Also, I would be concerned with undercutting more than anything else."   Have you tested it?   Do you know it causes any undercutting at all?

"Putting vacuum on the LCD panel will distort the Liquid Cristal and make it not work."   Oh really?   What kind of vacuum pressures are you getting per square inch??   Do you know this distorts the LCDs or that it is even enough pressure to have any effect (the emulsion and mesh are there before the blanket pushes against the panel... or are you once again just saying things with a negative assumption about how it "may or may not work" without doing any testing yourself?

"Keeping it away would allow light to spill around the mask."   Keeping what away?   Do you even know how this is set up??   It sounds like you don't even know how it is arranged.     Light----> Glass----> LCD Panel---->Screen mesh ----> something to hold it down, could be a heavy flat piece of something or vacuum blanket.... 

This is so funny, but to be expected as usual.   

Besides even if all of the non-issues you mentioned were actually issues,  I would still take a $200 exposure system over a $50,000 exposure system any day.    There are a lot of considerations for various users, but I am only talking about getting a basic exposure with usable screens,  the resolutions aren't high enough to compare to film or DTS anyway so it is apples to oranges... but as mentioned for most printers the resolutions may be just fine when printing on t-shirts.

Typical responses from the shirt board naysayers.   Sorry I'll be busy exposing digital LCD screens while you're thinking of ways it won't work, LOL.

[mimosatexas]

Anything new and you attack it without even trying it.   

yea, umm.  no.

I think there is plenty of enlightened criticism when it comes to ideas like this though, considering the issues with it are obvious...  your "proof of concept" was comparable to people exposing screens using projectors, aka unusable...

Want a much higher quality $200 exposure setup?  By an inkjet printer. Done.

[Full-SpectrumSeparator]

Lots of issues with using an LCD to expose like that.  Heat and UV will also hurt the LCD over time.

Yes, lots of non-issues that you haven't tested, but assume will be a problem.

Heat and UV will hurt this precious $10 monitor I bought,  or a $100 one, or even a $500 4k monitor panel at a large size like 27"....   Do you not realize the difference between such a system which has no consumables and no moving parts and the only critical part can be replaced easily and cheaply?     

Oh wait... did you test how much heat is arriving at the panel and if it is any different than the normal amount of heat it works in?    Did you test whether the UV is "hurting" the LCDs and over how much time it "hurts" them and whether this has an effect on the final result?

It is apples to oranges...   I could build 100 of these units for the price of 1 single DTS unit.    In a few short years we will have 8k resolutions (already made but the prices will have to come down and consumer products available).    It will soon approach apples to apples and then what kind of complaints will you have?     Or.... you could just spend a few bucks and a few minutes and build one yourself and see if you have a use for it....   the problem is that every single day there is someone out there looking to get into screenprinting,  and this LCD exposure is the absolute simplest, easiest to use method of getting your image to your screens that I have found, that is "good enough" for the majority of printers to utilize, and save on film and RIP and all the headaches I see constantly people having over the archaic and out-dated process of using film or ink or wax etc.    And the DLP systems are incredible resolutions with insane prices so that is apples to oranges comparison.

I could care less if anyone else tries it.   But the naysayers are simply hunting for reasons to dismiss it as somehow not a viable option for exposing screens to use for printing... when it already works for this purpose.

Carry on with the attacks of a physical system which has physical properties that can be tested scientifically and prove or disprove whatever it is you think you know about how it works.   

Science... or wait, sorry... its science schmience cuz there is no math or science being used in any of your shops or equipment or businesses etc etc.   Or is is only when convenient that science matters in screenprinting??

Too funny, but typical.

[Full-SpectrumSeparator]

Anything new and you attack it without even trying it.   

yea, umm.  no.

I think there is plenty of enlightened criticism when it comes to ideas like this though, considering the issues with it are obvious...  your "proof of concept" was comparable to people exposing screens using projectors, aka unusable...

Want a much higher quality $200 exposure setup?  By an inkjet printer. Done.

LOL.    Sorry my monitor was $10.   Bulb for maybe $30.   Ballast etc...   You are saying an inkjet printer has the exposure table and light built into the cost??   

Have you seen full screens exposed and printed with this?    The original proof-of-concept was not for a full screen exposure, just to show it can actually expose and leave other parts un-exposed where you want them and wash out and have a screen you can print with.    It wasn't with the higher power exposure and setup I'm using now.     But oh well,  keep proving my point.

[blue moon]

my statements are factual and are not saying anything about the technology not being possible, just that it ha some hurdles to overcome. You seem to be reacting and freaking out any time somebody points out things you don't agree with or have not thought of. You might want to consider sleeping on it before you post any answers in the future.

pierre

[Steve Harpold]

Now this sounds like fun! I want in,

Full Spectrum, not only do I believe in your concept, but support your reasearch 100%. Do you have a video or samples of the the screens created?