Once you go wax you will never go back...

[DannyGruninger]

DTD, the unit I am using is printing a true 1200 dpi. The print head technology is completely different then a normal wax dts. Print head and software algorithm allows for halftone interlace stitching which cannot be done on any other machine which allows for better dot control. I found that with ink jet vs wax theres many more variables that can effect the quality of output far beyond mesh selection and emulsion eom. A common problem with ink jet is dealing with the surface tension of the emulsion and how that effects ink coverage. See photo below which shows a weak coverage of ink jet with surface tension problems. Note the light behind the image where you can see right through it and the follow up photo(this was tested on multiple emulsions so one pic is pink emulsion and one is green) where you can see the emulsion still hanging in the mesh. This to me and from the users I talk to is a frequent problem with ink jet dts. Wax does not matter what the surface tension is, rz value, etc....It is dense and lays down much better then ink. The last photos are a 40% output of ink jet and wax - note all the satellites around the dots on ink jet but not wax. Again common issue with ink jet dts that is not common with wax. I'm on our 4th dts machine here and I will honestly say our ink jet dts were game changing and some of the best machines we have ever had but it does not hold a candle to the quality of wax. Love these discussions, I will get more shots after we finish all the testing on the unit we have here now.

[blue moon]

those are pretty rough dots Danny. Is there no way to make them cleaner? We recently bumped the resolution and ink deposit on our old school M&R CTS and are seeing much better results. The dots are cleaner and the deposit is much thicker (to the point of pooling so we had to back up).
Dan as an ex tech you would know, can the resolution be increased on the units with RICOH heads?

pierre

[mimosatexas]

Are these issues with ink jet cts related to printing directly on the emulsion vs film? That second image Danny posted is garbage and I've never seen anything even close to that with film. My halftone also look like his photo of wax and nothing like his photo of ink jet, again on film though.  Honestly those look worse than my old 1400 when I hadn't even aligned the head properly and was just printing straight up stock settings with bitmap halftones. I can't imagine people have been making the switch from film to cts and accepting such a massive downgrade in quality...

[BorisB]

Are these issues with ink jet cts related to printing directly on the emulsion vs film? That second image Danny posted is garbage and I've never seen anything even close to that with film. My halftone also look like his photo of wax and nothing like his photo of ink jet, again on film though.  Honestly those look worse than my old 1400 when I hadn't even aligned the head properly and was just printing straight up stock settings with bitmap halftones. I can't imagine people have been making the switch from film to cts and accepting such a massive downgrade in quality...

Danny didn't give away lpi for  both of 40% images. So you don't know how big are dots. And you cannot compare them to anything else, but only those two images. If they are 85lpi or 55lpi makes big difference in dot size at 40%

[Dottonedan]

 All too many people confuse the need for a crisp clean perfectly round dot. It's not needed. What is needed is an accurate representation of the percent on the T-shirt  hey.size that accurately represents the tone for that given area. The shape is of no concern unless it was to interfere with the screen mesh.

 As everybody is aware, you can print CMYK or simulated process or even a one color graydation with a square dot a round, oval, squiggly or even in the shape of TSB  as a halftone representation.  Now comes the question of, is the edge of your sharp and clean. By that I mean is it the best it can be based on the resolution of the printer?

Because a wet ink jet printer sprays  The 8 to 16 picoliter sized drops, it has more of a frayed edge similar to spatter painting with an airbrush on a canvas or a piece of paper.

This is far more accurate than wax and I'll say currently. The reason I say this, is becasue with the liquid of inkjet printing, it is possible to see the stair stepped jagged edges of the curve on a circle or the letter T...at 150-300 res raster art file. This is an example of it's accuracy. And I'm speaking in terms of mechanically during the output (and on the screen). It's image resolution....is BETTER than wax. Therefore, some people concerned about getting perfectly ROUND and SMOOTH edged shapes and halftones will see this jagged edge and see this as a negative. It's a matter of your own perceived value.

WAX, cannot yet produce this level of detail. When it produced the letter T, it does not show the jagged edged of the raster based on the resolution (squares needed to produce the shape).  The wax consistency is too thick. As a result, to us, it looks smoother.  I will provide my understanding of the machines as it pertains to the 1200 dpi printers (now coming out) below, but those looking to sell the 1200dpi printers (and those who have one now, won't like my view of it.

The downfall of wax and it's inability to output the finest detail of the 600, 700 or 1200 dpi, is a benefit to Screenprinter's. The reason the wax output downfall is a benefit to Screenprinter's is because it's inability to hold the detail actually smooths out the edges of the shape that it is creating because it cannot produce the detail that small. I'm referring to the edges of the dot. It can spit out a spec of wax, but it's kind of an ambiguous shape after a certain point. Case in point, is the fact that you can print at 65 lpi and print the 1% dot onto a piece pf photo paper. Look at it under a loop and you will see a clearly defined cross (and maybe a couple surrounding spatters of picoliter sizes specs. This cross is because the files resolution (600dpi print) at 65lpi print can't produce a completely round dot shape using the 600dpi grid. There might be 2-3 well defined squares paced side by side forming (what would be) the 1% area. So you see a cross hair as a result.  For wax, IT CAN"T produce even that. What you will see is a little effort of an undefined blob. It's not a round, it's not cross hair shaped, its not consistent. It's a blob.  and that's not a bad thing.  I'm just defining the differences. Ink Jet mechanically, it better....but wax, due to it's blobbing affect, works better for you. LOL. It looks more like a round dot than does the X shape or cross hair.

Due to the consistency of the wax, and the liquid state, it's just thicker and tends to clump together faster. The result for you is a smoother edge on the outside of a shape and you think  (Oh, look at that, the detail is fantastic).  In contrast the wet ink jet printer sprays so tiny that you start to see the edge of the stair step..as well as any "surrounding picoliter spray known as satellite dots" as an unclean dot with no defined hard edge. These satellite dots have little to no impact once exposed, but we techs tend to try and get rid of them anyways because people freak out if they see them (as if they are going to hold them) when in reality, they were not holding 5% in the past. You will not resolve a picoliter spec.  You may now, however, resolve the grouped specs forming your 2% in the 55lpi as apposed to film positives.

You see it as little speckles built up to form a dot and the edges can contain satellite dots.  I like to think that none of my machines have ever produced the quality that you see in the inkjet comparison with Danny's. But in truth it may not be the case there may be two or three out there out of my many I've worked on. Much of that might be due to the fact that the printer does nothing but big bold athletic looking solid prints. And will never see the benefits of that.

For film printer, I want 600 800 or 1200 dpi out of it (because I'm printing on a smoother surface). Set aside the ink resolution you could use, that has little to do with image quality and everything to do with Ink coverage or solidity.   The higher the ink resolution on a film Printer, the more passes it does with ink dropping over a given space...can improve the visual appearance, simply because it's starting to build up or fill in any of the small areas of negative space due to coverage.

[mimosatexas]

Good point on dot size boris.

That second image with the text though is still unlike anything I've ever seen with film and I can't imagine anyone is accepting that kind of result with cts...

[blue moon]

All too many people confuse the need for a crisp clean perfectly round dot. It's not needed. What is needed is an accurate representation of the percent on the T-shirt  hey.size that accurately represents the tone for that given area. The shape is of no concern unless it was to interfere with the screen mesh.

 As everybody is aware, you can print CMYK or simulator process or even a one color greydation with a square dot a round, oval, squiggly or even in the shape of TSB  as a halftone representation.  Now comes the question of  is the edge of your.sharp and clean. By that I mean is it the best it can be based on the resolution of the printer?

 Because a wet ink jet printer sprint sprays  The 8 to 15 pick a leader sized drops, it has more of a frayed edge similar to spatter painting with an airbrush on a canvas or a piece of paper.

 This is far more accurate than wax and I'll say currently.   And I'm speaking in terms of mechanically during the output. It's better than wax. But the downfall of wax and it's ability to output the finest detail of the 600 or 1200 or 800 dpi, is a benefit to Screenprinter's.  The reason the wax output downfall is a benefit to Screenprinter's is because it's inability to hold the detail actually smooth out the edges of the shape that is creating because it cannot produce the detail that small. I'm referring to the edges of the dot.

  Due to the consistency of the wax, and the liquid state, it's just thicker and tends to clump together faster. The result for you is a  smoother edge on the outside of a.shape.  In contrast the wet ink jet printer sprays so tiny that you start to see the edge as not a clean sharp defined hard edge. You see it as little speckles built up to form a dot and the edges can contain  satellite dots.  I like to think that none of my machines have ever produced the quality that you see in the inkjet comparison with Danny's. But in truth it may not be the case there may be two or three out there out of my two were 300 but I've worked on.
Much of that might be due to the fact that the printer does nothing but big bold athletic looking solid prints. And will never see the benefits of that.

For film printer, I want 600 800 or 1200 dpi out of it (because I'm printing on a glass surface. Set aside the ink resolution you could us, that has little to do with image quality and everything to do with Inc coverage or solidity.   The higher the ink resolution on a film Printer, can improve the visual appearance of a.simply because it's starting to kick up or fill in any of the minute small areas of negative space due to coverage.i've got more to say on this pertaining to the 1200 dpi for Direct and Screen but will have to cover that later. I'm working at my Printshop on a Saturday.

Dan this was borderline unreadable. Please check your spelling as the autocorrect and the typos are turning large parts of your argument unfollowable!

Pierre

[DannyGruninger]

I want to point out the screen pic above where the emulsion hanging in the mesh is not a problem with any particular dts but an issue with ink on emulsion. I've had lots of ink jet dts users send me similar issues but almost always can be worked out by switching emulsions or changing their environment the machine is in. My point is the wax units I have used have an advantage because the emulsion has never effected how the wax lays on it. With ink jet dts you have many more factors to make great screens. I agree that dot shape is not that critical for sim process but with the inks we are now using it does have more effect. I don't want this discussion to go further into the weeds or go the wrong way. The ink jet dts machines were amazing for me but I have seen an increase in our quality with wax. Our wax dots are better now after calibration the pics above were the first halftones we printed before calibration. The ink jet dots are prior to fine tuning but representative of splatter on certain emulsions. Ink jet can be high quality but my point is wax is much easier to control as emulsions and screens aren't as critical with it. I felt that we produced cleaner images on film vs ink jet dts but now wax has made our detailed images better then both. All shops are different so what works for me might be opposite. We all know guys out there producing amazing work on stretch and glue hand cut films with ruby, lots of great companies making great machines but in my experience I just won't leave wax. 

[Dottonedan]

Dan this was borderline unreadable. Please check your spelling as the autocorrect and the typos are turning large parts of your argument unfollowable!

Pierre

Gee willikers Mr J,   Now's not it. you will suffer till i get the time.  That was coming from audible texting. I do a lot of that now...and will often come back and correct my spelling so....get used to it.

[Maxie]

I'd like to see t shirts printed with the same graphics one wax, one inkjet CTS
and one film, would be interesting to see if there is a noticeable difference.

[Dottonedan]

Yea, that type in those pics are not a common thing with wet ink jets. Your dts machine calibration, your emulsion, your environment, or your coating technique could have been outta wack at the time for dts.  I didn't see much of that at all. Most shops (even the worst cases) didn't really have issues with this. In fact, when I did see it, it was due to extreme environment conditions and I was called in to evaluate why. People will often will assume "it's the machine" but most often, it's not. It's extreme situations mostly due to fluctuating environments or fluctuating screen room conditions.


A way to calibrate your machine or even see if it's the environment or even emulsion, it to print your halftone test (on a freshly brought in sheet of paper, preferably photo paper). If it looks great on paper...but not on your screen, It's your screen or it's your environment that your screen is sitting in.


Danny's first photo, is a tell tail sign of screen or coating issues. To have the "less than desirable" coverage (in the center) of that screen is a giveaway.  He notes that this was when he was new,or before machine calibration or maybe (when he first got it?), but getting WAX onto the screen, giving better results....does not correct the screen or coating issue. It just hides it more. Add to that, he's obviously improved his coating or screen/environment issues by the time of getting wax in...so you can't compare apples to apples there. My assumption there tho, is that yes, I would expect that WAX, due to it's thicker consistency...would benefit people with irregularities. It may not puddle, spread or satellite as easily. It dries very close to first contact with the colder surface and solidifies. Therefore, being able to withstand or hide many other "screen room" flaws.



Still tho, I do agree that there are (some things) that are better about wax, than wet ink...and there are (some things) that are better about wet ink than wax. It's a give and take and I assume it's (as with anything).  Take the discussion with Zoo, about the MH versus LED.  He feels MH is "superior in all areas except power consumption", while others would not give MH a 2nd consideration over LED. Physically, he may correct that overall, the results you can get with MH and Diazo for burning some emulsion brands that require a long time to fully cure... and the high blast of light power...exceed Zoo's expectations and needs. THAT alone, can be irrelevent to other people using diazo emulsion, making MH, not that superior. It all depends on what your needs are, what you are looking for, your pre conceived expectations etc.

[Dottonedan]

I'd like to see t shirts printed with the same graphics one wax, one inkjet CTS
and one film, would be interesting to see if there is a noticeable difference.

Good point.


Still tho, you and your device will only be (as good as you are with it).  Similar to separations and printers.


To have a fair evaluation, it would have to come from A, a non biased printer.  B, One non biased printer who has all thee.  C, One who is exceptional at all three.
Then, they would have to print the same separations, using the same screens, printing with the same press setup for each (without compensating for one or the other machine).


I say that, because there are many people who have them...that don't know how to use them well or maintain them well. So, results can be far different. Some have not even gone inside the programs to calibrate for dot gain. Two shops can have the same machine and one can have poo poo results, while another can have impeccable results.

[ZooCity]

Fwiw, we had much cleaner dots on film.  Film is made to receive ink and build dmax.  Our films looked like imagesetter film, just higher dmin.  CTS makes up for blobby dots by eliminating the light scatter from glass and film and comes out ahead in most applications for textiles. 

Control is more important than the exact shape in most cases but a quality dot shape is still desirable wherever you can get it.  If you only print on G5000 shirts you might not agree but if you print on paper you'll know what I'm talking about.  All of the CTS units are "good enough" for what we do.  You can dial any system to work well, all a matter of convenience and preference.

Ink does have the surface/substrate disadvantage as your emulsion is not made to receive ink so you need to dial that more carefully.  Wax doesn't really care, it's a phase change masking process and is probably "sticky" enough at the moment it hits the surface to print on anything without much fuss.  Someday maybe an emulsion mfg will match an emulsion up with the ink dts/led workflow.  That would change this situation.  Alternately, an additional emulsion could be face coated onto screens bound for ink CTS imaging.  A small step like that might make a world of difference in what is possible with ink.

Ink has an advantage in that you have multiple droplet sizes available, such as ricoh's 7-14-20pico liter capability.  Not sure that any of the wax heads have that.  This could be why Danny's beta unit and Kiwo's XTS are the only units I am aware of that can actually print 1200dpi.  Those machines use a Xerox head whereas the rest have Fuji heads and the options with Fuji on most units are 80pl and 30pl.   Only 80pl works in the field and this is with multiple mfg's trying to get the 30pl going.   Without variable droplet I think it's a struggle to mask a solid fill area and then mask a controlled 3% 55lpi dot in the same pass.  If you think about it, that's a serious engineering challenge right there.

In my travels on the subject, yes wax is superior.  But I don't frankly care what the masking substrate is and who makes the machine so long as it bangs out screens everyday.  Besides, we'll all be discussing the finer points of DLP in a few years anyways right?

[Dottonedan]

 Voice texting so will probably be all garbled.

You're going to get better looking dots on film then you get from any type of DTS be it wax or wet inkjet, because the head is just two times closer if not three. For the DTS, you have a screen frame that can be irregular or not square or pitched to one side higher, and then you have the frame lock down that the head must pass over, and the you need to clear and possible obstructions from tape or old, hard emulsion etc. So there must be a higher distance ...then compared to film.  Closer distance (film printers) produce the tightest output. It is, what it is.

The improvement over film using DTS comes from no film thickness and no glass typically.   But again I say the crappy jaggie edged dot is of no concern the meteorite shaped wax dot is of no concern. The concern should be does that size of that dot translate onto your shirt at the accurate size?  To obtain the accurate tone representation, you can always adjust and achieved by compensation.

[Dottonedan]

 Many don't know because it was a long time of go and I don't mention it because at the time it was of no concern. Nobody else was doing DTS other than a select few. But I started sending separations to a wax device back in 1996   And at another shop in 1997 being Russell athletics. At the time that was the Gerber DTS machine that used wax.   The technology obviously has come far. At that time you could only use 35 line screen and even that would fill-in in the shadow tones.  The wax at that time was known to glop together and still be in a liquid form when it hit the screen it would take 2 to 5 seconds for it to solidify.  During that time the inks would blob together filling in all shadow detail beyond 60%  and a 35 Lpi.

 I was able to get it to work well enough by spacing my dots farther apart. I used stochastic halftoning and different resolutions to wear my negative space (shadow tones) were farther apart or enough to not touch and fill in.
Wax today has far better control.  It solidifies as soon as it touches the screen. Much thinner than it was.

Zoo my past post above, is based on just reading your first sentence. I was not able to read the entire post. But you said the same thing basically that I was saying.