screen printing > Screen Making

M&R iImage rocket launcher

(1/7) > >>

brandon:
Just curious when they designed this unit back in the day why the slant to it? Everything is either vertical or horizontal now so did the designer really just have a thing for rocket launchers haha

No really

TCT:

--- Quote from: brandon on March 19, 2021, 07:59:44 PM ---Just curious when they designed this unit back in the day why the slant to it? Everything is either vertical or horizontal now so did the designer really just have a thing for rocket launchers haha

No really

--- End quote ---

I always thought it was to save SOME space... That and probably just tried to push the limits of what could be done, plus it just looked cooler than a ST.  We had one and then we had a ST-III. The rocket launcher took up less floor space which I really appreciated.

I don't know if that was their reasoning officially, but it is what I always figured it was.

Doug S:
I was told by a guy at M&R that the I image ST stood for I image "Second Try"

zanegun08:
I'd say it was the path of least resistance to convert an epson to work with their screen loading mechanism.  And it was a happy mistake to take up less room.  The printer itself prints more vertically, however as you can see they tipped the printer backwards to make it more horizontal.  If they tipped it any further though I bet the ink would start pouring out of the capping stations and waste ink tanks.

The reason they had to tip it though is because with inkjet ink if printing more vertically it probably just dripped down the screen.  It was probably a balancing act to find a happy medium between having the ink level enough to not drip, and also the printer level enough to not pour out of it.

The reason they probably went flat and then with exposure on imager is because the ink is so runny moving the screens around to exposure units will change the image as it's really just surface tension holding it in place.  Which is why on Wax they are mostly vertical as you don't have any of the above issues as it becomes a solid once on the screen.

It was just an interesting choice to convert that printer when they could've gotten a flat bed printer, probably so they could make that M&R Gucci markup as the Epson's were cheap to buy, and pay for those embroidered polos.

Dottonedan:
All a lot of educated guesses there. I don’t know why the slant. I never asked or thought about it. It was before my time there. I can’t even work on them as they wanted all of my training to be focused on the new models. But I can tell you it’s not because of ink running.  At any time, the chemist at the CO where they get the ink can add chemicals to make the ink run as thick as wax if they wanted, but it’s not a good idea. They then would be restricted to only running at 6 pass, only using at least 2x larger picoliter of spray and only getting so much detail out it as you do with wax.


Some of the previous brands of ink were dry at once when hitting the screen and would for sure, not run. I’m sure that is the type they would have been using at that time if they had stayed with a vertical or slant machine.  Heck, if it were about being any more vertical, and the waste tank would run out...they would just align the base of the waste tank to rest/sit horizontal.  I’ve always wondered why they had vertical or even slant machines at all for any brand. It’s working against gravity as it’s being shot out.


It will be good to get Pierre’s feedback on the actual quality of the wax versus the ink. I can have him provide the test file comparrisons that I’ve been wanting to show. ;)


I’m sure like many of you, he will make it work no matter the differences as (that is what you have) to work with. The purchase has been made so there is commitment to your decision. But hey, the real deal, is that it doesn’t matter. They are all good for us. I think he’s done testing/comparisons in the past already I’m sure, but I’m also sure, he wasn’t doing the same testing.  But there is more to the story of quality than is it rounder, or is easier to wash out the images because it’s chunkier).  In the end, like I’ve said many times, the differences and the benefit of those differences are minute and inconsequential.  I would go wax, or wet ink, or (double laser) at any given time.


Now, going 1200dpi wax is probably a discussion that is far more valuable. Do you go 1200dpi wax or do you stay with 600dpi wax? They are the same quality as their 600dpi. A blob is a blob and the wax can be jetted only so small due to its viscosity. It’s output size is finite. It requires a specific size of jet opening and picoliter size spray. [size=78%]In fact, it would be harder for wax machines to go 1200dpi than 600dpi.[/size]


There isn’t a need for much better than 600dpi on the apparel.  Now, if someone wanted to do wet ink at 1200dpi, it would benefit and make a difference (in the shadow tones and in the highlight tones. My guess as to why M&R did not/will not go 1200, is that for screen making for apparel, 600dpi works just fine without any additional financial investment.


The benefit of a laser is that it can indeed hold a more perfectly round vector looking dot (as good as your emulsion can hold) in the screen stencils thickness down to the full 1-99% and actually holding a near perfect 3%-97% (truly round) dot.  This then opens up the door for us to really hold far more accurate %’s and reproduction. You would use this and benefit from this when doing very light pastel colors of 3-7% for example in all C, Y, M,  K seps. This is the stuff that Mark Coudrey and the like, would be looking for in a CTS in comparison to the original best (photo chemical wet film processing and imagesetter dots at 3600dpi).  For both wet and wax ink, anything below 10% is not a true or accurate %. It must be adjusted to the point that it can be output via the device at 600dpi.  It’s not really “the device”, but rather they 600dpi. For example, when previewing the prt file in a wet ink file, the small dots are not formed well. The wet ink can reproduce this ill formed shape (on the stencil) more accurately than wax ink. The wax can only put out a blob...and at only so small...and therefore, cannot produce the same shape as wet ink does. the 3% in wax, will have to be more like a true 6% or more.


We thinks dots look “better” because this larger, chunkier blob of wax works for us better. We can wash it out easier and they don’t look like little crosses.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page