CTS Wax - Taking the plunge

[markdhl]

I can see why some I respected the most have left this forum.  I will state that ink jet cts is not as good as a good ink jet film device.  That is not true with our wax jet …. quality goes way up.  Registration advantages on press should be applicable to both.  Again, anyone that wants to compare we do that anytime on their screens and their artwork. YES, we video and yes that can be shared.

[Frog]

I can see why some I respected the most have left this forum.  I will state that ink jet cts is not as good as a good ink jet film device.  That is not true with our wax jet …. quality goes way up.  Registration advantages on press should be applicable to both.  Again, anyone that wants to compare we do that anytime on their screens and their artwork. YES, we video and yes that can be shared.

In the past, I have seen folks leave forums when they thought that the management discriminated against a specific manufacturer.
I've seen others leave when their feelings were hurt. I suggest that only those with somewhat thicker skin get into the "Ford vs Chevy vs MoPar type discussions.
I know of at least one who left here because I discougaged posts that got argumentative, or nasty. He liked it spicy!
I don't think that this thread has reached that level yet, but who knows? Maybe he'll return! 

[3Deep]

You guys kill me, every year something new comes out or something that's been out for years is debated on, and in most cases the tried and true method wins out.  I can see were wax would save money in the long run and inkjet printers over using film, and yes both might even do a better screen with more detail than film, but how does that relate to the customer?  better looking prints bring more profit? can you tell a big difference in prints or is it just a step that helps speed up production.  Either way this is a good thread for people looking into wax vs inkjet machines.

It is mostly for increased speed, trashing the need for films, and even better registration than just the tri loc. But the increase in halftone quality does have me taking more chances on screens than I used to and that has already proved an improvement enough in ability to land a good customer. The customer seen some work we did  and was blown away at the halftone quality and was struggling with his current printer, he started sending his work to us.

Your answer is what most people are looking for, real world and it makes a difference when you spend a good piece of change on equipment.  Like I said before good thread and info for whomever is looking into buying either machine.

[Dottonedan]

I can see why some I respected the most have left this forum.  I will state that ink jet cts is not as good as a good ink jet film device.  That is not true with our wax jet …. quality goes way up.  Registration advantages on press should be applicable to both.  Again, anyone that wants to compare we do that anytime on their screens and their artwork. YES, we video and yes that can be shared.

Some people leave for many different reasons. One big one is getting but hurt when they don't like what they read. But hey, It wasn't you. I was asked by a potential wax customer to provide some proof of my comments. My comments were not bad mouthing wax or your product. Kinda odd that you take offence. It was more to say, why I stand by my choice.  If given the opportunity, I'd run a wax machine any day. If I ahve to buy one, I'd have to really consider what the end results is going to be and how that impacts my sales or by budget for the year.

The post came out. Someone questioned my comments and suggested I prove what I say. Well, no biggie. You feel you're 100% correct, and so do I.


RE: inkjet DTS not being as good as film, Well, that's your opinion. It is mechanically as good.  There is a difference of course. Film printers are physically printing much closer to the substrate, while DTS machines ahve to accommodate for screen and emulsion thickness. Thus, a little further way fro substrate. This then, changes up the direct accuracy of the imaging. (same as wax DTS).  Your wax output is done quite differently and is clumpier for the lack of a better word. Thicker, more solid in content. So obviously, it would make sense that it is "more opaque" than wet ink. Wet ink is covered in "passes".  1 pass for example, is (lets call it paper thin). Then another layer is thicker, more opauqe, but not usable. So we have 6, 12, 14, 16, 18, and up to 24 passes with wet ink. 

How much more opaque...and how much that makes a difference is the question?  So, we all know there is a certain Dmax we need for burning good screens that is 3.0.  It's said that, 6.0 is a solid black or as black as you can get.  Wet ink, at default printing (12 pass, high speed, bi directional, puts out 4.3 - 4.8 Dmax.  Lets even say that my memopry is off and it's 3.4-3.8. This, is still of no concern. This, I know, since I've personally tested using a densitomitor with one of the industry's leading film and color separation providers in the US.  So, if 6.0 is solid black, and wet ink produces 4.3 - 4.8, then the opacity of wet ink is obviously good to go. Well above 3.0   So, it's been said that WAX is more opaque than Wet ink. It must be then, that the wax is above a even a 3.8.  That, I don't doubt it. This is where Mark is correct is saying "It's more opaque".  Ok. It's the sales statement that "wax being more opaque than wet ink, (as an important factor) to mention that gets me.  "It's in the details". Like how opaque is opaque?  It can be more opaque, but how much more higher than 3.4-or 4.3 wet ink is really needed?  It's in a list to point out as one output method over another to use as a tool for comparing...but actually means little to nothing in production (between the two).  Follow?


So again, you feel you are 100% correct, and you are.  but so am I.   If this kind of information makes you want to leave the forum, then I donno how best to provide the information that would make it more comfortable.




http://www.screenweb.com/content/densitometry-your-guide-print-quality-0#.XRqbrOhKguU
" The Dmax value represents image density. It is equal to the maximum density that a particular film positive material will provide, whether the positive is produced photographically or from a digital device such as a laser printer or thermal imagesetter. When selecting a densitometer, the higher the Dmax value the gauge is capable of measuring, the better. A value of 6.0 is ideal.
[/size][/color]For screen printing, the film's Dmax should be 3.0 or higher. As the Dmax drops below 3.0, light will be transmitted through the image areas, progressively hardening the emulsion in areas of the stencil that should remain clear, which will make it difficult to process the image accurately. After you wash out the "fogged" image area, you may end up with poorly developed fine lines or jagged stencil edges. In relation to half-tone dots, low Dmax could also contribute to moiré".[/font]

[DannyGruninger]

I feel after running 6 different "cts" machines consisting of wax, laser,  and ink systems, I've had enough real world production to see all the nuances with each. For the last several years the shop has made between 60-200 screens a day depending on what we were doing that given shift. Starting with a single head lawson cts, then upgrading to a multi head in jet model, followed by an m&r I Image multi head ste, then by a machine similar to the newest kiwo xts Xerox wax machine, and lastly what we are currently using the douthitt. We also tested the saati laser unit a couple different times for months at a time, and have recently been approached by some other manf. to test future cts machines coming out. I'll start by saying from personal experience using all of those given machines above I would have no problem endorsing any of them as from my personal experience overall with each of those machines we had greatly positive experiences. Awards and really great prints were done with all of those machines, they all had positive ROI's for us and if I had to use any of them tomorrow I could make it work for us. Now do some machines provide in my eyes provide upside to others?(depending on your shop) Absolutely and overall for the shop we currently are I couldn't see us moving away from the wax systems we've run and are running now for  a couple reasons.

1. IMO the ink jet based systems are what I consider more of a printer where the wax machine is more of a cnc style machine built for hard production. Don't get me wrong, our I image had hundreds of thousands of prints with virtually zero issues or downtime but it takes more detailed skilled trained operators to really extend the life of the ink jet machines. The same I image we had I knew of several others with issues and each time I showed up at the shop it was clear because the operators would treat the machine pretty terrible. The wax machines sitting next to the I images were running and beat to hell but still running and it was clear they were more robust and could withstand more abuse. Not to mention when we did have to work on the ink jet cts machines we had it was always intimidating dealing with the replacement of heads, boards, filters, clogged air lines, etc.

2. Climate - the wax machine doesn't give two shits what the climate really is in your shop where with the ink jet cts machines you better have your environment exactly where the manf wants it or else that will always be the first excuse if there's a potential issue. We had to replace what I would consider some regular items on the ink jet machines that before needing replaced would start to show small issues in certain prints or processing jobs and anytime we would ask for trouble shooting thats the first goto which I find a bit of a downside of ink machines. Our wax machines do not care if its 5% or 99% humidity in our shop, it images the screens the same each time which during certain days we did see differences in our ink made screens. I've seen firsthand the environment, weather, emulsion, surface tension, etc play a large role in how inkjet cts images a screen where I've never seen it make a difference for our wax machines.

I've had to replace parts including heads, mother boards, and tons of other stuff on all styles of these machines and the current wax machines are built so much more friendly to work on in the field its imo a big difference. You can replace a head assembly, calibrate and be up and running within 20 minutes on a wax machine where unless your doing it all the time with a ink jet your down for hours replacing, priming, calibrating, etc so for shops that don't have backups but have parts its a great piece of mind. Whenever our inkjet needed us to work on it I felt like we were on the phone with the techs or having to have a tech fly in where with wax machines we've never experienced that so overall I'm a big fan of cts in general but for myself and what I've experienced wax has the upper edge in my shop. Maybe not your shop but here wax is the winner winner chicken dinner. I always had great support from m&r with our machine but I've had even better support from douthitt which I felt would be hard for them to do. I could be here all night on these cts topics so I'll before it gets too late and chime back if anyone cares to ask anything specific.


Danny

[Dottonedan]

Danny,


That's a good detailed post. Thanks! Doesn't mean much to CBCB because you have to "prove it" and not just say it.  Ribb'n CBCB.


I agree with and support everything you said about the I-Image. Still, knowing all of that, (as I stated), for me and my needs and knowing what I know, I will buy the used I-image 3 hd STEll over a new I-Image or a Wax machine.  I've never said anyone should buy this or that unlike some may start to think. I've always just said I have to make that decision myself here soon, and I will be getting a used I-Image. You'd of thought I said something wrong or "bad".


I don't know about needing "skilled" operators. Great and probably better to have skilled peopl eon there, but it's that the case with anything. I know many that have brought someone in just to run the I-Image with no screen print or print production experience at all. As long as you follow direction, you're golden. The maintenance, as you know is child's play, but you just need to do it on schedule.

[Dottonedan]

P.S.

This thread may get split into two post, so as to keep the original intent on topic. I helped derail this one.  No harm, just a little too far off from the original post I think.  I'll have to go back farther and confer with Frog.

[RICK STEFANICK]

this was sent to me last night by a wax machine user.

[mk162]

Rick, any idea of the lpi on that?

[Dottonedan]

this was sent to me last night by a wax machine user.

Looks like wet ink.  You sure it's wax, edges are rough.  We';ve been reading that wax has smooth rounder edges.  I've seen some other wax dots blown up, but those where smoother edges yet meteorite shaped or irregular as apposed to round. Yet still smooth edged.


This seems to be in the area of 35lpi at 70% halftone based on the threads (unless that's like a 355 mesh lol. Looks more like wet ink with "Speckled edges on the dots".  Guessing, but if the sender says it's wax, I have no place to question that.

[CBCB]

Danny,


That's a good detailed post. Thanks! Doesn't mean much to CBCB because you have to "prove it" and not just say it.  Ribb'n CBCB.

I can take a ribbing better than most, but I really don't appreciate this. You're missing my point entirely. I really don't need you to prove it. In fact, I asked you to explain it. To articulate your idea because you said:

"And I know first hand, the issue shops had with wax (in the past). They are not the same as yesterdays Wax printers but they will and do still come with some issues that comes with using wax versus wet ink."

I asked you to explain that and some pretty easy follow up questions about which produces a better dot, which you think is easier to get that dot, but you dodged them all by saying I won't get it and it's a waste of your time to explain.

Only then did you and Mark go back/forth. You're the only one who thinks there needs to be a friggen' POV gonzo video to prove it. Not me.

I just want to know more details. I have plainly seen that wax produces a cleaner dot on the screen, but I respect your opinion that it doesn't make a difference on the tee. But is that because it's 'good enough' or because you have actually compared? And I mean compared, not just got an award using the machine. That's all I'm trying to get at, why do you think it doesn't make a difference?

I don't charge by the LPI and I've never tried to win an award. Just trying to get consistent results with less downtime.

At the end of the day it sounds like the quality difference is minor in a lot of people's eyes, and I weigh that opinion heavily. Lots of awards won with wet ink, that is widely known.

Not sure what else to say to you Dan except I still respect your work and history, just seems like some ego stuff going on here or something. I don't know. But this was weird as hell. Share your knowledge. You don't need to prove it, just share it.

If the dots are the same then there are lots of other reasons for the price gap I'm sure. I just want to discuss what those are so that a decision can be made. I'm not trying to crown a champion here, because it varies for every shop.

Maybe I'd pay an extra couple grand just for the smaller foot print. Doesn't mean you can't share the damn dimensions or that anyone made the wrong choice.

[ABuffington]

As an art professor once told me, "It's not what tools you use, it's what you create that matters".  Having used all of the CTS out there; I want true film with 28,000 dpi and halftones so crisp you can't see a bump in the edge anywhere!  However consumables would be quite expensive in the long run. No matter which CTS you use it sure beats the hell out of cutting rubylith, using contact sheets to create halftones, 3 tray development, expensive film and chems and hours upon hours in the dark room to create a 1 good sim process job that can be sepped and Ripped almost automatically today in minutes.  Kind of like your grandpa telling you he walked up hill in the snow going to school in both directions.  CTS is a dream come true in a workflow whether it is wax or ink.  The art you put into the RIP may be more important for a final product than how you image the screen.  Take a lousy sep job and it is still a muddy fuzzy print with either. Take great art and a great sep job and both create screens that print well.  It amazes me that as printers we can see minute details and crisp edges that the buyer and end user may never see or understand all the effort we put in to making it as perfect as we can.

[Dottonedan]

As an art professor once told me, "It's not what tools you use, it's what you create that matters".  Having used all of the CTS out there; I want true film with 28,000 dpi and halftones so crisp you can't see a bump in the edge anywhere!  However consumables would be quite expensive in the long run. No matter which CTS you use it sure beats the hell out of cutting rubylith, using contact sheets to create halftones, 3 tray development, expensive film and chems and hours upon hours in the dark room to create a 1 good sim process job that can be sepped and Ripped almost automatically today in minutes.  Kind of like your grandpa telling you he walked up hill in the snow going to school in both directions.  CTS is a dream come true in a workflow whether it is wax or ink.  The art you put into the RIP may be more important for a final product than how you image the screen.  Take a lousy sep job and it is still a muddy fuzzy print with either. Take great art and a great sep job and both create screens that print well.  It amazes me that as printers we can see minute details and crisp edges that the buyer and end user may never see or understand all the effort we put in to making it as perfect as we can.

Indeed on several points. "I want true film with 28,000 dpi and halftones so crisp you can't see a bump in the edge anywhere!"

and this is why I would be going with a used wet ink machine.
"It amazes me that as printers we can see minute details and crisp edges that the buyer and end user may never see or understand all the effort we put in to making it as perfect as we can."

[inkman996]

You all are like machinists. They would make a metal door stop out of metal and argue that its not parallell within .00005" each side.

[RICK STEFANICK]

this was sent to me last night by a wax machine user.

Looks like wet ink.  You sure it's wax, edges are rough.  We';ve been reading that wax has smooth rounder edges.  I've seen some other wax dots blown up, but those where smoother edges yet meteorite shaped or irregular as apposed to round. Yet still smooth edged.



This seems to be in the area of 35lpi at 70% halftone based on the threads (unless that's like a 355 mesh lol. Looks more like wet ink with "Speckled edges on the dots".  Guessing, but if the sender says it's wax, I have no place to question that.

Dan, Comments like that are why the sender of that left this forum and others. Why did you pick that apart? NO ONE is trying to fool you or anyone else. The sender is one of the most respected industry vets. THIS IS REDICULOUS