Laser to Screen (LTS)

[Doug S]

Not sure if any of this will help, but here is my input on this:

We had a rocket launcher, without that not sure if we would have adopted CTS when we did. It was what it was. Modified Epson no one really wants to acknowledge. But it worked. From that we moved to a ST3. Three heads is FAST super nice. We did not have the "E" version so we exposed separate, which is fine. Imaging was faster than exposure. BUT it was ink. Up in the North here that sucked for a handful of reasons, but damn that sucker was fast and nice! Until the heads got out of alignment. Then pretty much everyone said not to do 3 heads again because that happens....

We switched to wax. DAMN! Overall ease, detail and quality, I was blown away. Still love how reliable and the quality that machine puts out daily.

When we went from the 3 head ST to wax I wanted to see what the time difference was to see if we would have a new bottle neck... Sent a big 19" tall image to Douthit, same image to a friend that had/has a single head I image and then I ran it on our 3 head. Asked both of them to print in in single direction(slower better detail) print so I could see where things stacked up. It has been a few years, but if memory serves me, our 3 head was like 42 sec, both the single head I-image and wax were within like 2 seconds of each other at 1:19.  1:19 didn't create any new bottle necks so we went wax and I never have regretted it. 

As far as laser, I have watched the Saati one for a while, but knowing that they basically just rebrand, AND we don't need a new unit, I haven't done anything. I would also prefer a single screen unit. I still watch the development because it is interesting, but I think it will need more speed. Also, for us we have to think about exposure and emulsion. We are over 95% discharge/waterbase and there is ZERO possibility of switching emulsion, and breakdown ends up being WAY more costly than if we used plastisol so I'm super cautious.

I have had my eye on a newer company(link below) coming into the states that has a laser, got to talk with one of the people and one of the soon to be techs. Seems pretty interesting! Expensive, but none of the lasers are ink/wax price. If we were going to be upgrading I would at least consider them! Still love the damn wax though!

https://luescher.com/en/product-lines/screen-cube

If you don't mind, did anything happen to cause the misalignment on the 3 head or did it just happen?  I'm hoping we don't have the same issue that doesn't seem like a DIY fix.

It's not a DIY fix. The fix is basically replacing the 3 heads with 1 head. Then it could probably be DIY. It was just time from what I understood from the techs. Machine didn't move in the years it was there, always capped it properly and filled with cleaning solution. I really liked it so I took care of it!

Hopefully with my  light usage I have some time before that happens. 

[Dottonedan]

Not sure if any of this will help, but here is my input on this:

We had a rocket launcher, without that not sure if we would have adopted CTS when we did. It was what it was. Modified Epson no one really wants to acknowledge. But it worked. From that we moved to a ST3. Three heads is FAST super nice. We did not have the "E" version so we exposed separate, which is fine. Imaging was faster than exposure. BUT it was ink. Up in the North here that sucked for a handful of reasons, but damn that sucker was fast and nice! Until the heads got out of alignment. Then pretty much everyone said not to do 3 heads again because that happens....

We switched to wax. DAMN! Overall ease, detail and quality, I was blown away. Still love how reliable and the quality that machine puts out daily.

When we went from the 3 head ST to wax I wanted to see what the time difference was to see if we would have a new bottle neck... Sent a big 19" tall image to Douthit, same image to a friend that had/has a single head I image and then I ran it on our 3 head. Asked both of them to print in in single direction(slower better detail) print so I could see where things stacked up. It has been a few years, but if memory serves me, our 3 head was like 42 sec, both the single head I-image and wax were within like 2 seconds of each other at 1:19.  1:19 didn't create any new bottle necks so we went wax and I never have regretted it. 

As far as laser, I have watched the Saati one for a while, but knowing that they basically just rebrand, AND we don't need a new unit, I haven't done anything. I would also prefer a single screen unit. I still watch the development because it is interesting, but I think it will need more speed. Also, for us we have to think about exposure and emulsion. We are over 95% discharge/waterbase and there is ZERO possibility of switching emulsion, and breakdown ends up being WAY more costly than if we used plastisol so I'm super cautious.

I have had my eye on a newer company(link below) coming into the states that has a laser, got to talk with one of the people and one of the soon to be techs. Seems pretty interesting! Expensive, but none of the lasers are ink/wax price. If we were going to be upgrading I would at least consider them! Still love the damn wax though!

https://luescher.com/en/product-lines/screen-cube

If you don't mind, did anything happen to cause the misalignment on the 3 head or did it just happen?  I'm hoping we don't have the same issue that doesn't seem like a DIY fix.

It's not a DIY fix. The fix is basically replacing the 3 heads with 1 head. Then it could probably be DIY. It was just time from what I understood from the techs. Machine didn't move in the years it was there, always capped it properly and filled with cleaning solution. I really liked it so I took care of it!

I'll say this.  I think at that time, during that situation, someone decided to take it to 1 head (intended to be a temporary fix) so you could move on with production until you get it fixed.  You may have stayed at 1 head out of convenience while seeing that it ran fine for your needs at 1 head. You really should have went back to 3 heads after your issue was resolved.


Sometimes, when the powers to be at M&R don't have a solid answer, they assign one for the sake of just moving on. Like Mechanics who try to solve a problem by process of elimination. It may take 3-4 tries of replacing parts to get it right. The last resolve sometimes is to just remove the gut of the issue (head) and or main board and replace when it may have been one single thin wire that had snapped in the cable connecting the head to mainboard (for example).  Odd stuff, but it's happened before.

Heads don't just "miss align out of the blue". If at all, it would be (due to 5-10 years of vibration), perhaps the screw may get loosened enough and unnoticed for many years to allow for a slight slide out of a snug place.....before one would ever see a miss alignment due to a head. And THEN, you don't replace the head. You simply lock it back down tighter..and re-calibrate. While we were taught to look at alignment and re-calibrate anytime we did something major, we all knew that every time we do, there was and would be no change from the original calibration, no miss alignment do to working on the machine (for example). The only time you would typically need to re-calibrate is if you had lost all of your saved settings for calibration, computer got zapped or after replacing Head #2 or Head #3.  Head 1 is always locked in for good.


Once they are locked in (seated within a very tight slot), then with a lock/screw (front and back), then you calibrate by adjusting the jetting for alignment in the software. The head doesn't move anymore. So my point is, you can simply re-calibrate the alignment.  It used to be that only Techs got in there and did that, (it's not rocket science) but there are specific steps to get it right and does take some time for those who are comfortable and experienced with it) so most times it's best for a tech to do it. I've heard that has changed and they are now walking customers through the process but the process can be a 30 min process for a Tech on site...and a 2 hrs process for a customer that is taking direction over the phone so, it's always been something to avoid doing over the phone.
With all of that described, I'm trying to say that it's highly unlikely that "Head replacements" were necessary for miss alignment issues or that you did not need to go to a single head.  Yes, that's how you get by, (just change to one head) until a Tech can get there to evaluate/re-calibrate. But then you do have to get back with M&R to put in the request to schedule it.


Not really sure in the end what could have been done, but something seems odd with how you got there to that point. Unresolved.

[tonypep]

MFG specs the laser life at 10k+ hrs. At current output that is btwn 10-15 years BTW.

[GraphicDisorder]

That is what I was hearing too Tony. My thoughts is your buying a screen imaging system for probably 10 years of use. More is great but I think every 10 years there are going to be advancements that if you care you should be considering.

Just my thoughts.

[Dottonedan]

MFG specs the laser life at 10k+ hrs. At current output that is btwn 10-15 years BTW.

That may be at one shops current output, but the average output (for a typical shop that can/need to buy lasers)  is double that production.  That boils down to 5-6 years roughly.

[Dottonedan]

I'd like to hear from anyone who was an early adopter of the double Laser that does a lot of production like 200-400 screens a day to chime in and and give us a peak into what's life like with the laser and expected life.  Has their print quality really improved? Have they replaced any lasers at or before 5 years.  If so, what was the cost? Was it easy?  Things like that.

[tonypep]

Ditto on the last two. Print quality soared because prior to LTS we were film. And like CTS no reg marks required. Screens are of course pre reg for ROQ triloc.

[GraphicDisorder]

MFG specs the laser life at 10k+ hrs. At current output that is btwn 10-15 years BTW.

That may be at one shops current output, but the average output (for a typical shop that can/need to buy lasers)  is double that production.  That boils down to 5-6 years roughly.

FYI Price wise, 3 head STE and a Saati laser are close in price, way closer than ive seen posted in this thread. So if you are already considering a 3 head STE, you are already in the ball park of a Laser, they are less than 10k apart.

For me right now, wax seems like the move. Just to be honest.

[bimmridder]

" Print quality soared because prior to LTS we were film"

I think if we are being honest, quality would soar, compared to film, using even an "entry level" CTS. How high do you want or need to soar? I'm sure my answer is different than others.

[Dottonedan]

MFG specs the laser life at 10k+ hrs. At current output that is btwn 10-15 years BTW.

That may be at one shops current output, but the average output (for a typical shop that can/need to buy lasers)  is double that production.  That boils down to 5-6 years roughly.

FYI Price wise, 3 head STE and a Saati laser are close in price, way closer than ive seen posted in this thread. So if you are already considering a 3 head STE, you are already in the ball park of a Laser, they are less than 10k apart.

For me right now, wax seems like the move. Just to be honest.

I think your only reason for changing at all goes back to A, Production increase.  B, Quality increase (if you can).

If I understand you correctly, you will want to stay with exposing on the current outside source (outside the machine) because you don't believe that there is much difference in time from taking a screen off, walking it over a few steps and exposing...then back to machine and printing another.  Once you package everything together, THIS part is what will really make the difference over ALL LASER CTS.
Doesn't matter if you get Laser, or Wet ink  or even WAX. (is there WAX that exposes on the machine?) If it can expose ON the machine, that's increases production. There's a time saving factor there.

WAX tho, or at least Douthit IS a good imager. No doubt about it and it will run just as good as your wet ink machine.  You don't have a screen room environment "issue" of humidity or emulsion issues with your current machine so theres no up side there for the WAX working in most any environment.

I've worked with Mark from Douthit and assisted during an install. I was there to go through all of the setup and curves adjustments (Saved curves setup were provided by Jason Vanick and his was done using a densitometer. The only thing about using that is that each shop will be different. Using this only gets you much closer to something great and still needs dialed in for your one shop. Had we had more time to tweak the curves for the wax machine, I think it would have been lighter in the shadow tones. to help get it very dialed in at setup.

We output a sim process job while there, that I was also running production for on wet ink. THIS sim process job is a good comparison/example of the quality between the two.  Granted, the print shops were different. The presses were different...but the setups (mesh, squeegee and seps) were the same. BOTH provided excellent image quality. BOTH would have been very good sim process prints and nobody would notice anything different about any areas (had there not been something to compare to).

You also have to consider that each phot was taken under different lighting from different shops.

[GraphicDisorder]

MFG specs the laser life at 10k+ hrs. At current output that is btwn 10-15 years BTW.

That may be at one shops current output, but the average output (for a typical shop that can/need to buy lasers)  is double that production.  That boils down to 5-6 years roughly.

FYI Price wise, 3 head STE and a Saati laser are close in price, way closer than ive seen posted in this thread. So if you are already considering a 3 head STE, you are already in the ball park of a Laser, they are less than 10k apart.

For me right now, wax seems like the move. Just to be honest.

I think your only reason for changing at all goes back to A, Production increase.  B, Quality increase (if you can).

If I understand you correctly, you will want to stay with exposing on the current outside source (outside the machine) because you don't believe that there is much difference in time from taking a screen off, walking it over a few steps and exposing...then back to machine and printing another.  Once you package everything together, THIS part is what will really make the difference over ALL LASER CTS.
Doesn't matter if you get Laser, or Wet ink  or even WAX. (is there WAX that exposes on the machine?) If it can expose ON the machine, that's increases production. There's a time saving factor there.

Yes we will still use a starlight if we went wax. For me that seems fine, load a screen into the wax machine, image it, take screen out, put new screen in start the image, put first screen on starlight, expose it. Repeat. It will be a fluid flow there I believe. It should be able to out run us by far right now even. What we may do is add a eco rise to help with developing the image to speed that up too.

[tonypep]

You will love the eco rinse. Ours was 2 up.

[blue moon]

I would stick with what you have but you probably already figured that!

I figure my current i-image is getting long in the tooth, it turns 10 any day now. Original head too. So I feel like spending money on it is that the move, really? Or should I try something new. What is a 3 head i-image going for these days?

what is your pain point? Why replace the unit that seems to be working well (you mentioned being on original head)

pj

We are at the point screens are generally slower than we'd like. So we either need to add heads to our unit, add a unit or replace the unit. IMO id pick the last in that scenario on a 10 year old machine. Just my thoughts on that.  So I want to go faster for sure and if we can also improve the image quality or flow in some way as well id be on board there as well. Loading 2 screens 1 time into a Laser to be imaged entirely rather than loading 2 screens into a i-image and then into a starlight seems faster. I am not at all worried about 100k price point, but if thats not the best move then im open to hear what is.

that seems like a logical argument there!

pj

[blue moon]

MFG specs the laser life at 10k+ hrs. At current output that is btwn 10-15 years BTW.

That may be at one shops current output, but the average output (for a typical shop that can/need to buy lasers)  is double that production.  That boils down to 5-6 years roughly.

FYI Price wise, 3 head STE and a Saati laser are close in price, way closer than ive seen posted in this thread. So if you are already considering a 3 head STE, you are already in the ball park of a Laser, they are less than 10k apart.

For me right now, wax seems like the move. Just to be honest.

I think your only reason for changing at all goes back to A, Production increase.  B, Quality increase (if you can).

If I understand you correctly, you will want to stay with exposing on the current outside source (outside the machine) because you don't believe that there is much difference in time from taking a screen off, walking it over a few steps and exposing...then back to machine and printing another.  Once you package everything together, THIS part is what will really make the difference over ALL LASER CTS.
Doesn't matter if you get Laser, or Wet ink  or even WAX. (is there WAX that exposes on the machine?) If it can expose ON the machine, that's increases production. There's a time saving factor there.

Yes we will still use a starlight if we went wax. For me that seems fine, load a screen into the wax machine, image it, take screen out, put new screen in start the image, put first screen on starlight, expose it. Repeat. It will be a fluid flow there I believe. It should be able to out run us by far right now even. What we may do is add a eco rise to help with developing the image to speed that up too.

eco rinse is a great piece when you have the volume. We have one person doing everything screen related (de-ink, remove tape, reclaim, coat, image, expose and tape) and can do 100+ screens per day.
eco rinse makes a huge difference in time and quality of life. Not having to use the pressure washer makes your screen guys life soooo much better.

pj

[GraphicDisorder]

MFG specs the laser life at 10k+ hrs. At current output that is btwn 10-15 years BTW.

That may be at one shops current output, but the average output (for a typical shop that can/need to buy lasers)  is double that production.  That boils down to 5-6 years roughly.

FYI Price wise, 3 head STE and a Saati laser are close in price, way closer than ive seen posted in this thread. So if you are already considering a 3 head STE, you are already in the ball park of a Laser, they are less than 10k apart.

For me right now, wax seems like the move. Just to be honest.

I think your only reason for changing at all goes back to A, Production increase.  B, Quality increase (if you can).

If I understand you correctly, you will want to stay with exposing on the current outside source (outside the machine) because you don't believe that there is much difference in time from taking a screen off, walking it over a few steps and exposing...then back to machine and printing another.  Once you package everything together, THIS part is what will really make the difference over ALL LASER CTS.
Doesn't matter if you get Laser, or Wet ink  or even WAX. (is there WAX that exposes on the machine?) If it can expose ON the machine, that's increases production. There's a time saving factor there.

Yes we will still use a starlight if we went wax. For me that seems fine, load a screen into the wax machine, image it, take screen out, put new screen in start the image, put first screen on starlight, expose it. Repeat. It will be a fluid flow there I believe. It should be able to out run us by far right now even. What we may do is add a eco rise to help with developing the image to speed that up too.

eco rinse is a great piece when you have the volume. We have one person doing everything screen related (de-ink, remove tape, reclaim, coat, image, expose and tape) and can do 100+ screens per day.
eco rinse makes a huge difference in time and quality of life. Not having to use the pressure washer makes your screen guys life soooo much better.

pj

For sure. We dont use pressure washer to delevope them now though, just post expose tank and a quick hit of water.