"He who marches out of step hears another drum." ~ Ken Kesey
Quote from: blue moon on October 11, 2016, 11:23:02 PMQuote from: Full-SpectrumSeparator on October 11, 2016, 07:45:00 PMQuote from: blue moon on October 11, 2016, 07:01:32 PMmy 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.pierreLOL!!!! Now you're taking it to personal attacks. Again, typical. This is why I don't bother with this board. Your statements are not factual, they are unqualified statements that are assumptions about the physical aspects, not facts. You said: "something to remember here is that the polarized glass of the LCD display will stop 50% of the light from coming through" Which LCD panel are you talking about? Which polarizing film? Do you think 50% is a factual number associated with the amount of light passing through the LCD, the amount of actual UV, etc etc.... maybe its 25% maybe its 75%, maybe its 50%, but you clearly just threw that number out there without doing research or 'qualifying' the statement so it could be considered factual. Again, it isn't really a hurdle to overcome any more than typical hurdles in exposure based on the tolerances and variables required. Yes, there is a piece of polarizing film before the LCD and after the LCD, it is how it works, but simply saying it "will stop 50% of the light" is not a factual statement, it is a generalization that could be way off when you actually qualify it. So do you mean 50% of the UV light at the 405nm wavelength will be stopped through a "brand/manufacturer specific" panel, which needs to be specified which one to be qualified, and of this light at a given moment in time from what is reaching the panel to what it coming through the panel, do you know the ratio of how much light is coming through the "blocked" areas of the stencil, and do you know the comparison to this vs. the amount of light going through a piece of film and what makes it through the blocked areas? For your statements to be factual you would need to qualify it with all of those actual physical system connections. Otherwise it is as I stated before, just an assumption you are making. Do you understand the ratio between how much UV is passing and how much is being blocked? The contrast ratio for the LCD might actually be greater than that of "specific film" with "specific ink/rip/density" or compared to DTS with the wax/ink, or with DLP. DLP probably has the highest contrast ratio, since there is no "blocking" stencil, it is only exposing direct UV Laser or LED light onto the emulsion. LCD might have the second highest contrast ratio because the "dark" areas might be blocking more light compared to what is passing, comparing with what film or DTS is blocking and allowing to pass. You might want to qualify your assumptions before you post them and claim they are factual statements. just because you are writing long paragraphs, it does not mean you actually understand what you are talking about. LCD blocks 100% of the light. It uses two polarized filters at 90 degree angles. LC bends or leaves the light as is to let it go through or block it. In order to work (depending on the design) you will need at least one polarizing filter and since they block 50% of the light, that would mean only half of the UV would pass thorough. Additionally, some screens might have a UV protective coating that could block almost all of the light. Again, all said and done, there is no doubt in my mind that this can be done, but how well or is it worth it are the questions. Printing a piece of inkjet film is going to be significantly simpler for most ppl.pierreI really can't bother with responding to you anymore Pierre. It is more than obvious that you don't know how this works, or how easy it is to do. First... your statement that LCD blocks 100% of the light is false. The liquid crystals are arranged so that they PASS THE LIGHT in the OFF STATE. Therefore without even having the panel on, I can see light passing through, it is TRANSPARENT. Yes the polarizing filters block some of the light passing, you overcome this with HIGH POWER like any "professional grade" exposure unit does. I even get it to cure with cheap lights and low power and just really long times but I'm not saying that is useful or professional grade. What happens is the charge sent to the crystals jumbles them up so they don't turn the light back 90 degrees and it doesn't pass - that is the ON state which actually makes the pixel block the light. The amount of power sent is how they get a variation in how much light is blocked (percentage of the crystals jumbled up vs. arranged to pass the light)The polarizing filters are already UV blocking but not 100%, so it works. You don't need another polarizing filter. It doesn't matter one bit to me if you have doubts in your mind that it will work, because it already does, LOL! HILARIOUS!! And then people laughing about you not even reading my post... but you respond??? Do as you say, not as you do? Why should I bother reading your posts anymore then? Just like with the color separation stuff, you think you know what you're talking about but you fail to comprehend the most basic and fundamental aspects of how it all works in the real world. Your "awards" are for the art, not for the reproduction or printing. The industry doesn't even know how to standardize simulated process, but I've finally done that myself. It is amazing to see how it actually SHOULD work and that nobody has bothered to do any R&D to discover that... it proves exactly why separators do what they do and why the printers do what they do with the seps, but again it is a mathematical process and doesn't require some artistic human hand to make it work, only a decision on what mode you want to print,(stochastic, interlock, dot-on-dot, flamenco, overprint, or simulated process or a mix of them or hybrid depending on various factors that make each method have some pro's and con's) and it proves again how ignorant it all is when the blind lead the blind in a whole industry. But please, keep bragging about your awards that are judged on the art and not the printing. Did they have the same printers print the same design and yours was the most accurate to the design you intended (oh yeah, not the original art, but the one you changed to have more "punch" lol.).... So did they measure your version with the "punch" compared to the print and did they give you a % differential? You could compare different art from different printers if you know how to measure the art-to-print differences. But here is most likely what happens... "judges" take a "look" at the "prints" and they vote which one they think is "the best print". LOL. The very definition of arbitrary.
Quote from: Full-SpectrumSeparator on October 11, 2016, 07:45:00 PMQuote from: blue moon on October 11, 2016, 07:01:32 PMmy 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.pierreLOL!!!! Now you're taking it to personal attacks. Again, typical. This is why I don't bother with this board. Your statements are not factual, they are unqualified statements that are assumptions about the physical aspects, not facts. You said: "something to remember here is that the polarized glass of the LCD display will stop 50% of the light from coming through" Which LCD panel are you talking about? Which polarizing film? Do you think 50% is a factual number associated with the amount of light passing through the LCD, the amount of actual UV, etc etc.... maybe its 25% maybe its 75%, maybe its 50%, but you clearly just threw that number out there without doing research or 'qualifying' the statement so it could be considered factual. Again, it isn't really a hurdle to overcome any more than typical hurdles in exposure based on the tolerances and variables required. Yes, there is a piece of polarizing film before the LCD and after the LCD, it is how it works, but simply saying it "will stop 50% of the light" is not a factual statement, it is a generalization that could be way off when you actually qualify it. So do you mean 50% of the UV light at the 405nm wavelength will be stopped through a "brand/manufacturer specific" panel, which needs to be specified which one to be qualified, and of this light at a given moment in time from what is reaching the panel to what it coming through the panel, do you know the ratio of how much light is coming through the "blocked" areas of the stencil, and do you know the comparison to this vs. the amount of light going through a piece of film and what makes it through the blocked areas? For your statements to be factual you would need to qualify it with all of those actual physical system connections. Otherwise it is as I stated before, just an assumption you are making. Do you understand the ratio between how much UV is passing and how much is being blocked? The contrast ratio for the LCD might actually be greater than that of "specific film" with "specific ink/rip/density" or compared to DTS with the wax/ink, or with DLP. DLP probably has the highest contrast ratio, since there is no "blocking" stencil, it is only exposing direct UV Laser or LED light onto the emulsion. LCD might have the second highest contrast ratio because the "dark" areas might be blocking more light compared to what is passing, comparing with what film or DTS is blocking and allowing to pass. You might want to qualify your assumptions before you post them and claim they are factual statements. just because you are writing long paragraphs, it does not mean you actually understand what you are talking about. LCD blocks 100% of the light. It uses two polarized filters at 90 degree angles. LC bends or leaves the light as is to let it go through or block it. In order to work (depending on the design) you will need at least one polarizing filter and since they block 50% of the light, that would mean only half of the UV would pass thorough. Additionally, some screens might have a UV protective coating that could block almost all of the light. Again, all said and done, there is no doubt in my mind that this can be done, but how well or is it worth it are the questions. Printing a piece of inkjet film is going to be significantly simpler for most ppl.pierre
Quote from: blue moon on October 11, 2016, 07:01:32 PMmy 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.pierreLOL!!!! Now you're taking it to personal attacks. Again, typical. This is why I don't bother with this board. Your statements are not factual, they are unqualified statements that are assumptions about the physical aspects, not facts. You said: "something to remember here is that the polarized glass of the LCD display will stop 50% of the light from coming through" Which LCD panel are you talking about? Which polarizing film? Do you think 50% is a factual number associated with the amount of light passing through the LCD, the amount of actual UV, etc etc.... maybe its 25% maybe its 75%, maybe its 50%, but you clearly just threw that number out there without doing research or 'qualifying' the statement so it could be considered factual. Again, it isn't really a hurdle to overcome any more than typical hurdles in exposure based on the tolerances and variables required. Yes, there is a piece of polarizing film before the LCD and after the LCD, it is how it works, but simply saying it "will stop 50% of the light" is not a factual statement, it is a generalization that could be way off when you actually qualify it. So do you mean 50% of the UV light at the 405nm wavelength will be stopped through a "brand/manufacturer specific" panel, which needs to be specified which one to be qualified, and of this light at a given moment in time from what is reaching the panel to what it coming through the panel, do you know the ratio of how much light is coming through the "blocked" areas of the stencil, and do you know the comparison to this vs. the amount of light going through a piece of film and what makes it through the blocked areas? For your statements to be factual you would need to qualify it with all of those actual physical system connections. Otherwise it is as I stated before, just an assumption you are making. Do you understand the ratio between how much UV is passing and how much is being blocked? The contrast ratio for the LCD might actually be greater than that of "specific film" with "specific ink/rip/density" or compared to DTS with the wax/ink, or with DLP. DLP probably has the highest contrast ratio, since there is no "blocking" stencil, it is only exposing direct UV Laser or LED light onto the emulsion. LCD might have the second highest contrast ratio because the "dark" areas might be blocking more light compared to what is passing, comparing with what film or DTS is blocking and allowing to pass. You might want to qualify your assumptions before you post them and claim they are factual statements.
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
Why should anyone cut you slack? Your first reaction to anything that does not agree with you is to get patronizing and belligerent. You have no humble in you at all. All your threads end up confrontational because that is the direction you lead every single one. If anything you created had merit (which I am not saying is the case) then the merit should stand on its own without having you disrespect anyone and everyone that has doubts. For 35 years old as you stated you have a lack of social skills when dealing with people of the same intelligence level as you. And trust me there is many here that is far more intelligent than you are and you should respect that and listen to what some of them have to say. My own opinion is you are more of a theoretical person than an experimental. Your ideas would probably go much further if you talked with people good at engineering things from ideas someone like may have.
Quote from: Full-SpectrumSeparator on October 12, 2016, 02:03:14 PMQuote from: blue moon on October 11, 2016, 11:23:02 PMQuote from: Full-SpectrumSeparator on October 11, 2016, 07:45:00 PMQuote from: blue moon on October 11, 2016, 07:01:32 PMmy 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.pierreLOL!!!! Now you're taking it to personal attacks. Again, typical. This is why I don't bother with this board. Your statements are not factual, they are unqualified statements that are assumptions about the physical aspects, not facts. You said: "something to remember here is that the polarized glass of the LCD display will stop 50% of the light from coming through" Which LCD panel are you talking about? Which polarizing film? Do you think 50% is a factual number associated with the amount of light passing through the LCD, the amount of actual UV, etc etc.... maybe its 25% maybe its 75%, maybe its 50%, but you clearly just threw that number out there without doing research or 'qualifying' the statement so it could be considered factual. Again, it isn't really a hurdle to overcome any more than typical hurdles in exposure based on the tolerances and variables required. Yes, there is a piece of polarizing film before the LCD and after the LCD, it is how it works, but simply saying it "will stop 50% of the light" is not a factual statement, it is a generalization that could be way off when you actually qualify it. So do you mean 50% of the UV light at the 405nm wavelength will be stopped through a "brand/manufacturer specific" panel, which needs to be specified which one to be qualified, and of this light at a given moment in time from what is reaching the panel to what it coming through the panel, do you know the ratio of how much light is coming through the "blocked" areas of the stencil, and do you know the comparison to this vs. the amount of light going through a piece of film and what makes it through the blocked areas? For your statements to be factual you would need to qualify it with all of those actual physical system connections. Otherwise it is as I stated before, just an assumption you are making. Do you understand the ratio between how much UV is passing and how much is being blocked? The contrast ratio for the LCD might actually be greater than that of "specific film" with "specific ink/rip/density" or compared to DTS with the wax/ink, or with DLP. DLP probably has the highest contrast ratio, since there is no "blocking" stencil, it is only exposing direct UV Laser or LED light onto the emulsion. LCD might have the second highest contrast ratio because the "dark" areas might be blocking more light compared to what is passing, comparing with what film or DTS is blocking and allowing to pass. You might want to qualify your assumptions before you post them and claim they are factual statements. just because you are writing long paragraphs, it does not mean you actually understand what you are talking about. LCD blocks 100% of the light. It uses two polarized filters at 90 degree angles. LC bends or leaves the light as is to let it go through or block it. In order to work (depending on the design) you will need at least one polarizing filter and since they block 50% of the light, that would mean only half of the UV would pass thorough. Additionally, some screens might have a UV protective coating that could block almost all of the light. Again, all said and done, there is no doubt in my mind that this can be done, but how well or is it worth it are the questions. Printing a piece of inkjet film is going to be significantly simpler for most ppl.pierreI really can't bother with responding to you anymore Pierre. It is more than obvious that you don't know how this works, or how easy it is to do. First... your statement that LCD blocks 100% of the light is false. The liquid crystals are arranged so that they PASS THE LIGHT in the OFF STATE. Therefore without even having the panel on, I can see light passing through, it is TRANSPARENT. Yes the polarizing filters block some of the light passing, you overcome this with HIGH POWER like any "professional grade" exposure unit does. I even get it to cure with cheap lights and low power and just really long times but I'm not saying that is useful or professional grade. What happens is the charge sent to the crystals jumbles them up so they don't turn the light back 90 degrees and it doesn't pass - that is the ON state which actually makes the pixel block the light. The amount of power sent is how they get a variation in how much light is blocked (percentage of the crystals jumbled up vs. arranged to pass the light)The polarizing filters are already UV blocking but not 100%, so it works. You don't need another polarizing filter. It doesn't matter one bit to me if you have doubts in your mind that it will work, because it already does, LOL! HILARIOUS!! And then people laughing about you not even reading my post... but you respond??? Do as you say, not as you do? Why should I bother reading your posts anymore then? Just like with the color separation stuff, you think you know what you're talking about but you fail to comprehend the most basic and fundamental aspects of how it all works in the real world. Your "awards" are for the art, not for the reproduction or printing. The industry doesn't even know how to standardize simulated process, but I've finally done that myself. It is amazing to see how it actually SHOULD work and that nobody has bothered to do any R&D to discover that... it proves exactly why separators do what they do and why the printers do what they do with the seps, but again it is a mathematical process and doesn't require some artistic human hand to make it work, only a decision on what mode you want to print,(stochastic, interlock, dot-on-dot, flamenco, overprint, or simulated process or a mix of them or hybrid depending on various factors that make each method have some pro's and con's) and it proves again how ignorant it all is when the blind lead the blind in a whole industry. But please, keep bragging about your awards that are judged on the art and not the printing. Did they have the same printers print the same design and yours was the most accurate to the design you intended (oh yeah, not the original art, but the one you changed to have more "punch" lol.).... So did they measure your version with the "punch" compared to the print and did they give you a % differential? You could compare different art from different printers if you know how to measure the art-to-print differences. But here is most likely what happens... "judges" take a "look" at the "prints" and they vote which one they think is "the best print". LOL. The very definition of arbitrary. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid-crystal_display"Each pixel of an LCD typically consists of a layer of molecules aligned between two transparent electrodes, and two polarizing filters (parallel and perpendicular), the axes of transmission of which are (in most of the cases) perpendicular to each other. Without the liquid crystal between the polarizing filters, light passing through the first filter would be blocked by the second (crossed) polarizer."I am only writing this so others would not be fooled by your incorrect statements. Above quote is from Wikipedia. . .pierre
inkman pretty much hit the nail on the head: You always come out of the gate frothing and name calling when anyone doesn't agree with you and stroke your ego instead of actually listening to opposing points of view and discussing the merits of those points of view versus your own. I don't know why you always assume everyone you're talking to has literally zero knowledge about a subject they have decided to discuss on this forum, when the opposite is almost universally true.If anything the image you posted and your admissions that things "may" work if you spend a bunch more money and time to make a better unit only prove my point. You have not come close to fully developing the idea to a point where it would even come close to competing with a cheap inkjet film setup. Doing so would require a high resolution monochromatic LCD modified to increase UV pass through and with excessive cooling to prevent issues related to how heat effects the LCD, and in doing so you would spend a ton of time and money to maybe get a comparable setup to a $50 dollar desktop printer with stock inks. The LCD would also degrade as it is used due to the effects of the UV and heat, and would be much more easily damaged (and expensive to replace) than a piece of film.I wholly agree it is a cool idea, but it isn't a practical one when you consider the costs, time, and cons of the technology when compared to inkjet and film.
Quote from: blue moon on October 12, 2016, 03:06:17 PMQuote from: Full-SpectrumSeparator on October 12, 2016, 02:03:14 PMQuote from: blue moon on October 11, 2016, 11:23:02 PMQuote from: Full-SpectrumSeparator on October 11, 2016, 07:45:00 PMQuote from: blue moon on October 11, 2016, 07:01:32 PMmy 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.pierreLOL!!!! Now you're taking it to personal attacks. Again, typical. This is why I don't bother with this board. Your statements are not factual, they are unqualified statements that are assumptions about the physical aspects, not facts. You said: "something to remember here is that the polarized glass of the LCD display will stop 50% of the light from coming through" Which LCD panel are you talking about? Which polarizing film? Do you think 50% is a factual number associated with the amount of light passing through the LCD, the amount of actual UV, etc etc.... maybe its 25% maybe its 75%, maybe its 50%, but you clearly just threw that number out there without doing research or 'qualifying' the statement so it could be considered factual. Again, it isn't really a hurdle to overcome any more than typical hurdles in exposure based on the tolerances and variables required. Yes, there is a piece of polarizing film before the LCD and after the LCD, it is how it works, but simply saying it "will stop 50% of the light" is not a factual statement, it is a generalization that could be way off when you actually qualify it. So do you mean 50% of the UV light at the 405nm wavelength will be stopped through a "brand/manufacturer specific" panel, which needs to be specified which one to be qualified, and of this light at a given moment in time from what is reaching the panel to what it coming through the panel, do you know the ratio of how much light is coming through the "blocked" areas of the stencil, and do you know the comparison to this vs. the amount of light going through a piece of film and what makes it through the blocked areas? For your statements to be factual you would need to qualify it with all of those actual physical system connections. Otherwise it is as I stated before, just an assumption you are making. Do you understand the ratio between how much UV is passing and how much is being blocked? The contrast ratio for the LCD might actually be greater than that of "specific film" with "specific ink/rip/density" or compared to DTS with the wax/ink, or with DLP. DLP probably has the highest contrast ratio, since there is no "blocking" stencil, it is only exposing direct UV Laser or LED light onto the emulsion. LCD might have the second highest contrast ratio because the "dark" areas might be blocking more light compared to what is passing, comparing with what film or DTS is blocking and allowing to pass. You might want to qualify your assumptions before you post them and claim they are factual statements. just because you are writing long paragraphs, it does not mean you actually understand what you are talking about. LCD blocks 100% of the light. It uses two polarized filters at 90 degree angles. LC bends or leaves the light as is to let it go through or block it. In order to work (depending on the design) you will need at least one polarizing filter and since they block 50% of the light, that would mean only half of the UV would pass thorough. Additionally, some screens might have a UV protective coating that could block almost all of the light. Again, all said and done, there is no doubt in my mind that this can be done, but how well or is it worth it are the questions. Printing a piece of inkjet film is going to be significantly simpler for most ppl.pierreI really can't bother with responding to you anymore Pierre. It is more than obvious that you don't know how this works, or how easy it is to do. First... your statement that LCD blocks 100% of the light is false. The liquid crystals are arranged so that they PASS THE LIGHT in the OFF STATE. Therefore without even having the panel on, I can see light passing through, it is TRANSPARENT. Yes the polarizing filters block some of the light passing, you overcome this with HIGH POWER like any "professional grade" exposure unit does. I even get it to cure with cheap lights and low power and just really long times but I'm not saying that is useful or professional grade. What happens is the charge sent to the crystals jumbles them up so they don't turn the light back 90 degrees and it doesn't pass - that is the ON state which actually makes the pixel block the light. The amount of power sent is how they get a variation in how much light is blocked (percentage of the crystals jumbled up vs. arranged to pass the light)The polarizing filters are already UV blocking but not 100%, so it works. You don't need another polarizing filter. It doesn't matter one bit to me if you have doubts in your mind that it will work, because it already does, LOL! HILARIOUS!! And then people laughing about you not even reading my post... but you respond??? Do as you say, not as you do? Why should I bother reading your posts anymore then? Just like with the color separation stuff, you think you know what you're talking about but you fail to comprehend the most basic and fundamental aspects of how it all works in the real world. Your "awards" are for the art, not for the reproduction or printing. The industry doesn't even know how to standardize simulated process, but I've finally done that myself. It is amazing to see how it actually SHOULD work and that nobody has bothered to do any R&D to discover that... it proves exactly why separators do what they do and why the printers do what they do with the seps, but again it is a mathematical process and doesn't require some artistic human hand to make it work, only a decision on what mode you want to print,(stochastic, interlock, dot-on-dot, flamenco, overprint, or simulated process or a mix of them or hybrid depending on various factors that make each method have some pro's and con's) and it proves again how ignorant it all is when the blind lead the blind in a whole industry. But please, keep bragging about your awards that are judged on the art and not the printing. Did they have the same printers print the same design and yours was the most accurate to the design you intended (oh yeah, not the original art, but the one you changed to have more "punch" lol.).... So did they measure your version with the "punch" compared to the print and did they give you a % differential? You could compare different art from different printers if you know how to measure the art-to-print differences. But here is most likely what happens... "judges" take a "look" at the "prints" and they vote which one they think is "the best print". LOL. The very definition of arbitrary. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid-crystal_display"Each pixel of an LCD typically consists of a layer of molecules aligned between two transparent electrodes, and two polarizing filters (parallel and perpendicular), the axes of transmission of which are (in most of the cases) perpendicular to each other. Without the liquid crystal between the polarizing filters, light passing through the first filter would be blocked by the second (crossed) polarizer."I am only writing this so others would not be fooled by your incorrect statements. Above quote is from Wikipedia. . .pierreSo you clearly can't read or comprehend what this is saying?"Without the liquid crystal between the polarizing filters, light passing through the first filter would be blocked by the second (crossed) polarizer."Therefore.... WITH the Liquid Crystal between the polarizing filters, light passing through the first filter will be re-oriented so it PASSES the second filter.Read it, comprehend it. Admit you're wrong and let's move on.
Please read this fullspectrum: http://www.buildyourownsla.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=84Again, this technology has been discussed at length in the 3D printing industry and the pitfalls that apply to using it in ours are obvious.
Author
Topic: DTS alternatives and status (Read 12475 times)
