DTS alternatives and status

[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.

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.

I'm pretty sure your point is almost always to stroke your own ego...

I've used LCD monitors in two projects and know a lot about their issues when it comes to an application like this.  They block significantly more light than film and have much less contrast than you would get with even the crappiest inks.

 I'm not sure why you are bringing up your cheap light source as some benefit of using an LCD instead of film. Cheap lights make pretty shitty screens regardless. My first setup was a printer/scanner I picked up in an alley in college and a 100w daylight bulb setup above my toilet. I think the total cost was maybe $3, but I would be confident in saying it would burn a better screen than using an LCD from a $10 monitor.

[TCT]

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.

Dude, make a video of it working and I will cancel the order I put in for a new exposure unit today and buy whatever you are talking about. I don't have time to argue theory behind it, if it works and you make a video, you have your first buyer here.

[Full-SpectrumSeparator]

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

LOL!!!!   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.   

[jvanick]

I'd be more worried about the intense UV light breaking down the compounds that make up the crystals in the panel.

of course, you won't know until you build it and put it through it's paces for a while.

[Full-SpectrumSeparator]

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.

Dude, make a video of it working and I will cancel the order I put in for a new exposure unit today and buy whatever you are talking about. I don't have time to argue theory behind it, if it works and you make a video, you have your first buyer here.

I just coated a set of screens,  I will try some tests later tonight and make videos... 

But you gotta understand I'm not selling anything.   The video will show how easy it is to make....   I have ideas on how to make a really robust system that would be professional and protect the LCD panel and include an attached computer and separation and RIP system all in one... that would be my ideal stencil-maker for the 21st century.... but I'm nowhere near that and not sure I really want to do more than just build my own things for my own shop and share in videos etc...   It would be a definite value-added system I think to have the separation and RIP and computer generating the images all built into the exposure unit, but building all of this physically requires more resources than writing software for example which is mostly just time.    Physical prototyping is expensive.     I'm just a designer, separator, printer, and have my separation software, but getting into selling physical equipment is another step beyond that,  although for example if I eventually get there, I would rather lump the cost of a computer and the software all into the exposure unit system.     The software could be $1500 by itself, but I would definitely sell more $1500 exposure tables that have a high-end computer workstation and the software all included in that same price.    But of course, really as I am saying you don't need the software to actually generate separations and halftones to be viewed on your existing computer,  could purchase one of these monitors and panels and make a unit, and then have control over all the parts and be able to build to suit.   

I suppose after showing more progress in videos and how you could decide various things,  what size you want, what resolution will be ok, and the screens produced are of the quality that matches or beats what you currently work with, then if someone insisted on having me build a custom unit for them it would just be parts and some sort of labor, delivery, support costs.     I am approaching this at the moment from more of a sharing, open-source perspective and I like doing the 'macgyver' style DIY stuff for now.    It would be really cool if myself or someone ends up taking this to a more robust and heavy-duty level..... but a few things... you would want the screen to slide into the unit so you dont' have access to laying the screen onto the glass, it should slide in and raise up into place.... the chance of damaging the LCD panel by having a screen-edge hit it is more likely than the vacuum pressure affecting it.... so it would be nice to have the LCD panel where the screenmaker cannot touch it.   A drawer would slide the screen in and raise up or lower the panel to contact the screen.    If you know how people are with making screens on glass, then you know the chance of a metal or wooden frame hitting the glass, scratching it etc, happens alot... but more the problem is the edge or corner of a screen denting the LCD panel itself and crushing a bunch of pixels.    To avoid that I've already considered it should be an internal system.    On the outside you would have a computer workstation attached with its own full-color monitor, mouse and keyboard, perhaps even touch-screen for the monitor,  and perhaps also have a scanner and memory card and wifi capabilities so you can just scan or load any image into the computer.... the separation software loaded would then allow anyone to set up the separation to be exposed, and the halftone RIP then takes place as a direct digital process just displaying to both screens.    You want to have the monitor panel inside the unit be set so it always displays the separation at the exact real-scale dimensions you want.... (you don't want to have to zoom and scale and move the image every time so its right when viewing.... essentially you are just viewing your halftones/separation in black and white and at-size and displaying to 2 monitors - one is full color you're looking at normally,  the other is the LCD exposure panel.).       The power of the exposure can be dialed in so that you still get times in a few minutes that will work for the emulsion and mesh count etc just as it would for your existing method.    You obviously want to produce screens with the same quality results as other methods, or whats the point?     A "usable" screen needs to be qualified as it would with any other method... some ways of coating and exposing screens they won't hold up to 10,000 prints anyway, regardless of it being LCD or not... so it is a factor to consider and only needs to be tuned for the LCD method to match what you get from others.      The resolutions currently would be lower than film, but could be fine for spot colors and most halftone work,  but I'm sure it will need at least a 4k resolution monitor to not have a "noticeable" pixelation effect.      I don't think it will be an idea that is ready for the "big time" until 8k monitors come around everywhere and are low in price.... but even then if someone wants to do a 48" x 48" there isn't even an LCD monitor of that size at least not consumer-level and it wouldn't have the high resolutions.... actual resolution is a factor of the pixel dimensions divided by the actual size... ...  for example your smart phone screen is much higher resolution than your computer monitor, even if they are the same "high def 1080p"... the phone is smaller so it has a higher actual PPI - pixels per inch, compared to the larger sized monitor.      When you go larger and larger even at 4k and 8k it will start to come down in resolution.     So yes, all of that stuff needs to be considered if we are talking about this idea going to a "big time" level,  but I was only just trying to mention again that there are other methods which work for basic screenmaking which can be very inexpensive to try out and simple to make DIY, and then see if it is something useful or not for a particular user or purpose.         

One other use for the LCD exposure system I will show is for UV inks... such as the Lumi or Solar type of inks...  Where you have a shirt you print a large area of the UV ink over, and then can expose the image negative, and then wash out the shirt leaving your image... that cuts out having to print films to make those kind of prints.     People already use this LCD method for 3d printing.    I am just showing it can be used for screenprinting exposures as well.   It isn't a debate or argument about the plausibility or capability of making a screen with this method because that is proven, and it isn't about the possibility of this being an instant-hit with big-time print shops that require very high quality tolerances such as resolutions, stencil strength with very thick stencils etc...   That is all stuff that of course would need to be accounted for in building a unit to suit a particular need, and based on current technology (like the mentioned resolutions), it would never match existing high resolutions like 1200ppi, or the DLP system which makes 2400ppi or even higher...   but again for some printers it may be overkill to purchase a $500,000.00 DLP unit that does 4800 dpi laser exposures,  and if they get screens with 300 dpi that give details and halftones which are not noticeably different when printed on a shirt from what they currently work with,  and it is with a unit they built or bought that was only a max of maybe $500 for the table, light, lcd panel (4k),  then maybe that is more viable for that particular user.    I think it is just kind of obvious that the "majority" of screenprinters out there will always be the solo startup in the basement or garage, it is just the nature of the print medium,  and this digital LCD thing would be possibly the lowest-price entry with great ease-of-use and possibly even easy to build themselves.    It could be said that all the hassles people deal with in the inkjet and film (not to mention costs in RIP softwares, printers, film, inks etc)... could be more difficult in the long run than simply taking apart an LCD panel and putting it on a piece of glass with a high power uv light under it.        It would be awesome if someone built a monitor and just put a UV backlight and make the polarizing filters so they are UV passable filters (which they make, but they dont put them on LCD panels for monitors).... if you understand manufacturing it is actually really hard to change the way large consumer products are made and try to get a "custom" monitor made like that.    So it is just a bit easier for me to show taking apart existing panels and re-purposing.    Macgyver still got the job done even when all he had to work with was a 10-speed bicycle and some chewing gum and a toothpick, a 9v battery and a wrist-watch.   Remember that episode?   lol

[Steve Harpold]

Toothpicks, pine apples and Dixie cups are imperative to all conecptual design elements, so is fear to the unknown. (Noise is noise let it go)

People far more important than your critics are always listening, let see what you got!

[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

LOL!!!!   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

[blue moon]

and I did not bother reading your long posts as they are just drivel as usual . . .

pierre

[screenprintguy]

and I did not bother reading your long posts as they are just drivel as usual . . .

pierre

Hahahahahahahahahahahahqhhhahaahahahahah awesome

[RICK STEFANICK]

Toothpicks, pine apples and Dixie cups are imperative to all conecptual design elements, so is fear to the unknown. (Noise is noise let it go)

People far more important than your critics are always listening, let see what you got!

AMEN!!

[Wildcard]

I'm curious about what the DLP unit is? I did a quick search and no obvious hits...

[jvanick]

I'm curious about what the DLP unit is? I did a quick search and no obvious hits...

do a search for 'signtronic'

[mimosatexas]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnXv7SmkDL8

[Full-SpectrumSeparator]

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

LOL!!!!   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

I 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.     

[Frog]

Just for the record, I bet that Full Spectrum has tons to offer, but I avoid these really lengthy tomes on forums. I leave those for blogs (which I rarely read either, LOL!), or mostly the old school hard copy book, magazine, paper, or letter.