TSB
screen printing => Equipment => DIY - From master engineered marvels to cobbled together jury-rigged or Jerry-built junk! => Topic started by: ScreenFoo on March 05, 2016, 01:38:32 PM
-
A very interesting thread and project, still a bit on the pricey side though.
I live in the heart of LED production in China, after reading this thread I decided to do some checking around and I am shocked at how cheap these LED's are....I can get a box of 500 for $125 Each bulb is 5watt, puts out 395nm wavelength. Makes me wonder how companies are getting off charging $5000 for these things.
See also: EE/ME, light geometry, sensitivity/absorption curves, tariffs, patents, UL/CE certs, marketing, opportunity loss
:)
-
LED technology is not so simple.
Not all LEDS are equal, the basic LEDS are very cheap but they are usually not the right wavelength.
I am using the Saai 300w which is much cheaper and gives me good results iwih SBQ emulsion.
I'm using Saati PHU
-
A very interesting thread and project, still a bit on the pricey side though.
I live in the heart of LED production in China, after reading this thread I decided to do some checking around and I am shocked at how cheap these LED's are....I can get a box of 500 for $125 Each bulb is 5watt, puts out 395nm wavelength. Makes me wonder how companies are getting off charging $5000 for these things.
You should know from your pizza operation the difference between cost of ingredients(parts) and cost of finished product
-
A very interesting thread and project, still a bit on the pricey side though.
I live in the heart of LED production in China, after reading this thread I decided to do some checking around and I am shocked at how cheap these LED's are....I can get a box of 500 for $125 Each bulb is 5watt, puts out 395nm wavelength. Makes me wonder how companies are getting off charging $5000 for these things.
think of it this way.. when you're printing a shirt, how much 'raw' material goes into the shirt itself?
15-20% of the total cost?
I think part of the deal with the cheap leds is likely quality control, that is, weeding out the ones that don't put out the same amount of light, the same spectrum, etc. if it was '1' led chip it might be a different story, but all the successful and long-running units now seem to be settling in on 'arrays' of leds.
Add in R&D, building, stocking, power supply dynamics, warranty provisions, etc, and your $300 in parts unit just got a LOT more expensive.
that being all said... if you can buy 395-405nm leds that cheaply, maybe it's a product opportunity?
-
In the same vein, is there any doubt that many products that sell for a few dollars actually only cost a few cents? Think Chinese ad specialties.
-
I think that most, if not all you operate under the assumption that ALL products made in China are "cheap" as in low quality...I can assure you that while that may be true of many products its not the rule. In my circle of foreign friends here I have several that are in the LED business. There are two Brits' that I developed a ERP platform for that manufacture industrial grade lighting. They are a multi-million dollar a year operation here with significant R&D capabilities.
Having developed their ERP network I spent a lot of time inside their facility and I am positive that in a minute they would lend their considerable capabilities to my project, should I wish to undertake such a venture. Issues of QC and control over spectrum are in fact trivial matters to deal with.
Furthermore what I was talking about is the fact that these unites sell for upwards of $5000+ , and the actual costs are in fact very low. LED drivers are NOT expensive, even the highest quality LED bulb purchased in bulk are pennies each. Compared to a standard say a metal-halide system with the electronics, capacitors, expensive bulbs and light integrator there is NO reason why these LED units should be so expensive. LED technology is simply not that complex.
Lets get real, like this thread illustrates and so many thousands before who build their own unites to expose screens with every light source under the sun...and including the sun, which works pretty kick ass btw , its a matter of there is a product for every market segment and clearly $5000 is NOT an entry level unit and based on my own considerable capabilities I am sure that a very high quality unit can be made for about $300 and burn perfect screens for the 90% of the industry that do not need a "Ferrari to get the groceries"
-
I am sure that a very high quality unit can be made for about $300 and burn perfect screens for the 90% of the industry that do not need a "Ferrari to get the groceries"
even if you were to sell such a unit for $1000, you'd make a killing.. go for it...
-
I am sure that a very high quality unit can be made for about $300
I'm more than happy to test your $300 dollar unit, but the fact is that what this is, in itself is pretty specialized, and not for an entry level shop.
The reason being that I'd say majority of CTS users have the I-Image STE or STE II, so they have no need for this, so then you only have users of Exile, Douthit, Kiwo, and then the handful of other players. The starlight, or Saati / Ryonet, or workhorse, or whatever are more expensive is that they have glass, vacuum draw down, hinges, motors, more complex controllers, ect.
It'd be great if there was a lesser cost unit on the market, as it is really a simple concept, but it is such a niche product, that if you built a unit for $300 and sold it for even $1200, I think the amount of sales you would get is so small that it would be a losing investment, especially after shipping these over from China to USA.
Like I said though, when you come out with your $300 dollar model, I'm more than happy to test it for you in a production environment, until then, I took what was available now and made it work well for our business model.
Keep in mind, this light could also replace a 5k and we could shoot screen 6 up as well, it would just need to be at a further distance from the screen, and likely increased time, but we never tested that as we didn't get it for the purpose of replacing our 5k, just in addition to.
-
even if you were to sell such a unit for $1000, you'd make a killing.. go for it...
Well, the case I was making was not one that I want to make an entry level unit, or go into mfg anything for that matter...my point was that the companies making these LED units are laughing all the way to the bank, and good for them because lets be real, thats why you have a business. But in all fairness the complexity of the LED exposure units is such that the prices should be much less...but its more I guess what the market will give and compared to a metal halide unit, it looks like a comparable deal I guess.
That said, thanks for the words of encouragement....I have already asked my friends at the LED company to do a little investigation base on some simple parameters. In a week or so maybe they will confirm my thoughts as to the real costs to make. This is a company that produces about 4-5 containers of LED lights a month for global export. That do indeed have the capacity to pump them out by the thousands per month and getting certifications is a process they deal with on every product they make for the 20+ countries the export too. Its not something I am taking very seriously, but it never hurts to ask.
-
I am sure that a very high quality unit can be made for about $300
I'm more than happy to test your $300 dollar unit, but the fact is that what this is, in itself is pretty specialized, and not for an entry level shop.
The reason being that I'd say majority of CTS users have the I-Image STE or STE II, so they have no need for this, so then you only have users of Exile, Douthit, Kiwo, and then the handful of other players. The starlight, or Saati / Ryonet, or workhorse, or whatever are more expensive is that they have glass, vacuum draw down, hinges, motors, more complex controllers, ect.
It'd be great if there was a lesser cost unit on the market, as it is really a simple concept, but it is such a niche product, that if you built a unit for $300 and sold it for even $1200, I think the amount of sales you would get is so small that it would be a losing investment, especially after shipping these over from China to USA.
Like I said though, when you come out with your $300 dollar model, I'm more than happy to test it for you in a production environment, until then, I took what was available now and made it work well for our business model.
Keep in mind, this light could also replace a 5k and we could shoot screen 6 up as well, it would just need to be at a further distance from the screen, and likely increased time, but we never tested that as we didn't get it for the purpose of replacing our 5k, just in addition to.
As mentioned, my case was for the fact that these units should not sell for over $5000 as there really in NOT any advanced or really hard to make technology inside. Of course if I were to make it, there would be beta testers and I will keep it in mind. That said, my friends LED factory actually makes 350 Watt single LED's, that are about 1.5" square...that could feasibility replace a single point traditional unit because the spectrum is nearly 100% the light you need and 350 Watts of LED is actually very freaking bright! Its just a matter of doping the LED crystals to get the spectrum you desire.
But I will respectfully disagree with the idea that this would be a niche market, in fact the entry level market has always been a hugely profitable side of the industry because the costs of entry into this business are very small compared to many. Also note that the market includes much more than just t-shirt printers.
-
The iphone shouldn't sell for over $600 but it does. We call it profit. That profit allows companies to pay employees and develop new products that they will in turn sell for a profit and start the cycle all over again.
I had a friend years ago that said it cost less than $3k to build a car that sold for $20k...same thing.
-
I had a friend years ago that said it cost less than $3k to build a car that sold for $20k...same thing.
But, not too different than a big run of multicolor screenprinted shirts, what does it take to get the first one completed?
We've all had the "sample" or "prototype" discussion with custies. (and automobiles and other machinery don't have the DTG-type alternative available)
-
Brad nailed it Profit!!!!, if I can sell a $2.00 t-shirt for $120.00ea with a funky graphic on it, I'm going to sell sell sell until the next thing comes along.
-
I would think a hinged cover would solve any light "leakage". Think piano keys cover.
-
Brad nailed it Profit!!!!, if I can sell a $2.00 t-shirt for $120.00ea with a funky graphic on it, I'm going to sell sell sell until the next thing comes along.
Like I said, I don't begrudge anyone making profit, that is the entire reason for a business to exist. I am just saying that I find it a bit excessive given the fact the true technology for such a unit is in fact very low.
My friend here already replied to my inquiry and said they can convert an existing unit they make with any LED I want. Its a ready to use plug in box, roughly 40x50 cm and it would have 336 bulbs, rated at 5w each...=1680watts of 395nm output. Sounds a bit overkill to me, but the price for each box is insanely cheap. The only thing left to do would be to put in a timer and of course some sort of either compression lid or vacuum unit to hold it down. Of course this is too small for anything bigger than a 20x24 screen, but for a proof of concept its perfect.
I am going to have him make one to play with, for shits & giggles I want to see if it can be done...maybe I will share the plans and sell DIY kits online?
This is the box, just plug it in, all self contained.
(https://imageshack.com/i/pmDpRz9Gj)
-
This looks a lot like the Saati 300w unit but who know what intensity it has, nm, etc?
The Saati unit also has two fans I the back and I can expose 2 screens with it from 36".
Like Most new things LEDS still need to be researched, you can get more technical info with incandescent lamps. Watts, Kelvin etc, I have not been able to find a LED catalogue with similar info.
I am sure that as they become more common prices will drop.
-
---Formula for the Invention: LED + LCD = CTS 2.0 see below...
This seems like a great place to share my contributions to this evolving technology.
How much do you think those panels can be made for? I want to get one right away for testing.
Also trying to get the point-source bulbs as well, for my purposes the power of 1680 watts from those 336 5-watt bulbs might work or not, if each area is only 5 watts whereas I need something like 400watts to pass the filters which I can't really work around.
I am also making the project open-source DIY, etc... and I hope that all the manufacturers would adopt the technology and push for actual changes in the panels made so that we have true UV passable filters in the right ranges, and it would even triple the resolution instead of the RGB.
However the proof of concept was tested last year and I'm just working on trying to see the low to high-end ranges of what I can get... but the timing needs to come down to minutes.... even with these high-power point-source bulbs it would change the 10-seconds to minutes I am sure. But I need to test and show it.
The great part is the cost is entry-level.... just paying for the bulb and driver, or something like that panel you've shown is perfect if it actually works in my "invention". It is not really my invention or able to be patented, but I honestly think it is just too cool to not share and show, maybe if people want a solid prototype with some of the ideas I have to make it robust and worthy of high-volume production and such... it would become a dream-machine rip-station stencil-maker... but these combinations of technology are being used in a lot of ways, as there are people using these techniques for 3D printing, etc.
I first thought of this back in 2005 when I first entered screenprinting from the digital print world and a couple years out of college, and seeing the rather archaic and analog process of vellum and toner, inkjets and film, etc... to make masks, to put on light-tables, to expose screens... compared to what I grew up with and had known in the digital copy and poster, color laser and inkjet world, etc... (imagine if I had seen Rubylith!) - well I was thinking one day, why don't they just use an LCD screen?
10 years later I finally tried it and it works.
So what I am going to make some DIY videos and start showing the testing and developments of, is a "Digital CTS LCD Stencil-Mask" technology or "hack". With current technologies, this is certainly the next step forward because of the merging of UV LED costs and high-definition LCD costs.
This is basically what you'd call the "poor man's DMD CST" machine.... you know the CST machines that use a plotting head of direct UV light passing through a DMD projector to expose only the negative areas of the design, no mask required... Well I did research those over the years and they are still outrageous in price, especially compared to this.
Now these are very crude examples I have attached, but this is what I have to work with... and only a proof-of-concept test, and with a regular 1080p LCD panel, just the block of UV flashlights you see, and well... nothing else but the emulsion, and like 30 minutes to get the light strong enough to pass through and get a cure on both sides of the screen mesh, while the stencil still blocked the uv.
All I need to test is these higher-power UV LED bulbs single-point and something like the panel in the above post. Showing the DIY way of putting the LCD on it is a piece of cake, and fun, but gotta be careful... and thats why the reason for open-source and let's build the best digital table for bringing screenprint into the true CTS arena... for example it should be inside a housing where the screens slide in and press up to meet the LCD panel, the light from above, and a computer-system attached with sep and rip capabilities to run the entire process, memory-card readers and wifi, scanner and camera, etc... a whole stencil-making system is what I envision... but I have neither the resources nor the profit-motives to keep this under wraps until I can build the perfect complete system, and even then each part would add costs to the whole unit, more for professional shops... but the everyday printers by the thousands who are just running small one-man shops etc, everyone can benefit from this new technique, at least we need to test the variables of what we can get and can't get....
However, even with a 1080p screen, and sizes you can get a square-ish basic 14" x 12" for like $40, older maybe not the same res, but a modern HD monitor is only about $150, and the 4K monitors are like coming down to the $400 range... I am getting about 100 DPI resolution exposure on the 1080 p monitor if it is a smaller size like 24" perhaps... I have to check the maths again on the diagonals to the sides and the actual resolutions, plus the RGB pixels split by the LCDs and the grids around the LCDs play a factor (hence the need for very high-power UV to blast through both the polarizing filters which cut out UV and the RGB which most UV passes the blue LCD) - however the (closed / off / no light) mode of the pixels cuts out the light so significantly that it works, or at least you can see is proven in this test to have worked with those low-power lights at a longer exposure of about 15 minutes perhaps.... with the flash-lights directly behind the LCD pixels (hence only exposed the areas where the flashlights were, just a crude test proving it works)... When going to 4K monitor panels, you get more resolution - but this depends on your actual SIZE of exposure - the monitors diagonal or height/width dimensions factored with the stated resolution 1080 or 4K or even 8K is already in manufacture, then we are talking 500DPI plus resolutions at least for 20" etc sizes...
Now if we could just get enough of a market demand for a new type of LCD panel to be manufactured with UV LCDs not RGB, and with UV backlighting and UV-passable polarizing filters, in the right ranges -- then you TRIPLE the resolution, so getting to film-capabilities and thermal and beyond if we can get there... where it is directly exposing the entire area of the screen at resolutions of perhaps 1500+ DPI, pixel-perfect and masked perfectly too.... the comparison to "film density" is just, I don't know we would have to make the comparison terms and figure the math for it.
-No RIP - except for visual graphical digital image conversion and display to an LCD.
-No Film, No Ink, No Analog Conversions besides the digital conversion to the LCDs.
-Uses existing screen emulsion, mesh, etc technologies, existing light tables can be converted if high-enough-power UV lights are added or the existing lights work within reasonable exposure times. (Metal halide maybe?)
-No waiting for printing the mask on the screen in any way.
-Directly exposes the entire area of the image negative, masks the positive digitally, and does not "plot" over the image.
-Super Low entry-level costs for spot-color down to ten or 8 point text and halftones of perhaps 30 LPI, with low-resolution older cheap monitors...
-Future evolution potentials off the charts of current screenprint technology
I will post more images of the various tests, and start making vids of how to take apart and set up the panel, if anyone wants to work together we just gotta try a high-power UV bulb.
You won't believe how easy it is to make this work. I am just not in any positions of having resources for taking the R&D on this project to the next level... but its open now and I don't think it can even be patented because there are already patents on using LCD masking for various scientific processes and even in 3d printing, but we can certainly DIY and use the fact that the LCD monitor industry is booming with cheap LCD panels... now the LED market is about to boom with cheap UV LED price-points for the bulbs and drivers. Everything else is a matter of how you want the protection of the panel and the cooling of the bulbs, the vacuum to the mask, etc... I know most of that can be figured out through some of the things mentioned.
Things are really getting fun now.... and also by the way the photoshop toolkit plugin I made is also officially open-source and free to the industry for any and all uses, no limitations, enjoy... well I need to make some videos showing how to install it properly and get it running for certain versions of photoshop... but you can download and even just run the .jsx scripts without the panel if you know how, feel free to contact me if you want me to do a 1-on-1 training or installation.
Now, any questions about the digital LCD-LED-CTS method? Let's answer them together, it's open-source DIY, it is not even that special, people have been doing this for 3d printing already, if people want to build screenprint exposure tables and put this tech in them I'm sure it will work fine, hopefully LCD and for screenprint etc they aren't violating existing patents, but if so just DIY it, because it is really a piece of cake, not really any modification to the panel just disassembly and re-mount differently.
-
That's far from a single source/point. After over 2 years of development and research it's not as simple as just using a led in the 395nm as you say your going to use. I've bought 3w/5w 100w all the way to 500w 385-405nm. Yes they will work but not as good as some of the others. If you spend the time and do some scientific research comparing the cross linking, under cutting and over all detail retention vs the other units you will find as I did it won't compare. Its why I developed my own bulb. It has taken over a year of testing and tweaking to get a product that wasn't just haphazardly thrown together like some of the current units that used their customers as test subjects and then upgrade their units based upon customer results.
Saati's exposure unit is 450nm. Its oil cooled which does cut down on the UV to the screen. Anything over 300 on a single die almost requires liquid cooling. The have a lower wattage bulb. I personally think there a few major mistakes on these units. I was able to use one for some testing at a friends shop. It's better then the Vastex unit as it was when released which is likely the results one would get with a panel like posted.
-
That's far from a single source/point. After over 2 years of development and research it's not as simple as just using a led in the 395nm as you say your going to use. I've bought 3w/5w 100w all the way to 500w 385-405nm. Yes they will work but not as good as some of the others. If you spend the time and do some scientific research comparing the cross linking, under cutting and over all detail retention vs the other units you will find as I did it won't compare. Its why I developed my own bulb. It has taken over a year of testing and tweaking to get a product that wasn't just haphazardly thrown together like some of the current units that used their customers as test subjects and then upgrade their units based upon customer results.
Saati's exposure unit is 450nm. Its oil cooled which does cut down on the UV to the screen. Anything over 300 on a single die almost requires liquid cooling. The have a lower wattage bulb. I personally think there a few major mistakes on these units. I was able to use one for some testing at a friends shop. It's better then the Vastex unit as it was when released which is likely the results one would get with a panel like posted.
That's why I am pretty sure that method of multiple-led panel won't really work for the LCD masking Computer-to-screen technique either... unless it is really close and then all sorts of variables like undercutting etc need to be re-evaluated because of the LCD vector. Single-point from the right distance should blast enough UV through each LCD pixel while the LCD(off) state should still mask the UV appropriately, and maybe we can get it down to under a minute or so, it really all needs to be tested and I don't have a bulb to test it with, lol.
But how many of you have bulbs out there at these power-ranges of UV like 300watt, 500watt, 1000watt etc metal halide whatever... go pick up some old cheap LCD monitors or take one apart you have laying around, and put it on your light table, drive it with a computer attached and display a black and white image, start testing. The cost of testing the LCD methods are a lot less expensive than the LED testing and are literally giving you CTS capabilities, not just an LED exposure unit, you can even try the LCD masking with existing exposure tables if the wattage will pass through the significant UV-cutting of the panel itself for a long enough time to expose and cure the emulsion, and the mask should block it to get the stencil. Exciting stuff, but me no have high-power UV! :(
-
LCD = Liquid Crystal Display
LED = Light Emitting Diode
CTS/DTS = Computer-To-Screen / Direct-To-Screen
Just making sure you understand what is being discussed in my posts above is something I have never seen done anywhere in the screenprint industry, and I've shown it works, and only needs a higher power UV light to get the full area to expose. If you already have a high-power UV light table like a UV Led or mercury vapor or metal halide, its only going to cost about $40 to test and see, and you might have yourself a Computer-To-Screen digital film-less/ink-less exposure method.
How much would the entire industry save if we eliminated film, and film ink, and all analog processes of transferring the stencil to the screen and then exposing.
My or "this" method with LCD and UV exposes only the area of the screen image you want exposed, and the rest is masked out with LCD technology, so it is entirely digital except for the UV light and the screen doing the digital-to-analog conversions through the lcd panel... There would be no waiting or time/labor for printing the stencil first like most CTS/DTS systems, and there would still be a perfect registration etc. In the future you can even program in dynamic dot-gain compensation, so the image RIPPED to the display can change over time during the exposure, think about that for a minute.
Please someone tell me if you have tried this or seen anything similar, or if you're willing to help test it.
-
In the future you can even program in dynamic dot-gain compensation, so the image RIPPED to the display can change over time during the exposure
this is a super interesting idea... and would certainly help in under cutting... with some tweaking, you could end up with perfectly sharp 'channels'... hmm...
-
I've tried it and have been convinced that lcd screens will not pass UV in the spectrum or amount we need.
-
I've tried it and have been convinced that lcd screens will not pass UV in the spectrum or amount we need.
Did you see the pictures I posted of my printed samples proving it does indeed work?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_concept
(Engineering - In engineering and technology, a rough prototype of a new idea is often constructed as a "proof of concept". )
Did you try a powerful enough UV bulb and in the right spectrum?
I've gotten those little flashlights which are like 3 watts not even, to work just up against the panel and within about 12 minutes gets a positive cure through both sides of the emulsion, and the masking works fine.... I'm just trying to take it to the next level of a full-area coverage by getting more LEDs or a powerful single-point source to work from the right distance.
So I'm confused about your being "convinced"... of those two things:
1) "lcd screens will not pass UV" --- They do pass UV, it is proven and I have shown the proof.
2) " in the spectrum or amount we need." --- It is in the right spectrum, and the amount works, I just need to increase area/distance with power.
The "proof of concept" is real and works, not something we need to be "convinced of" on the actual possibility side. It's proven possible before my very eyes, and repeatable, empirically, by anyone else who wants to try it.
The testing and increasing of the variables we need is just to get higher power or more even grid of LEDs to get the whole panel to cure, not just little store-bought flashlights - that was only proof-of-concept because normal UV bulbs like fluorescents or cheaper UV strips would not get a cure ALL The way through the emulsion without taking upwards of 30+ minutes and still break down washing out. But I pushed that envelope with just testing the UV flashlights directly behind the panel right up to the emulsion. Perhaps you didn't try to push the lights closer to actually get positive UV power and spectral passage like I have shown.
But we are beyond the "proof of concept" stage already that is why I'm sharing it openly to get the testing and other more production and quality-oriented factors worked out.
There are major concerns when it comes to everyday use such as protecting the panel so you never even can touch it or put a screen near it, to not crack or damage pixels etc, and getting larger dimensions like a 27" monitor would cover the inside area of a 22" x 24" screen which is about 21" x 19" I think, inside the frame, and going with 4K monitors we will have about 300 DPI resolution -- probably not good for really high LPI work, but perfect for index and also people seem to forget that you lose grey-levels of halftone percentage when you increase LPI, you don't get more shades, you lose shades while increasing spatial resolution, but if you don't go to 600, 1200 dpi in film, and even then going to 50, 60, 80 lpi just kills the amount of actual % levels you can reproduce from the digital halftone conversion. For most of the screenprinters out there even just showing a simple DIY method of taking a high-power UV and a cheap monitor that will give you even 100DPI will hold like 30 lpi halftones and 8 point text or lower, and that will be perfect for most startups and small spot-color, simple-design type of printers.
It only takes a bit more investment in physical aspects and designs and R&D to build this to a higher-end professional level, with vacuum and even computer sep/rip-station built in to drive your "RIP" - just displaying your separations to the monitor and blast the UV when ready to expose the screen -- a housing that slides the screen into place and presses gently with protection for the panel below thick glass for backing support, and the vacuum seals the mesh to the panel against the thick glass, maybe the light from above, all housed inside so you can't mess with it and accidentally damage the pixels/panel with a screen-frame edge etc... been thinking on a lot of all that stuff over the last year, but really its time to just show we can at least get to the next step which is a full-area exposure, in lets say under 5 minutes would be a good start. Deal with seeing what kind of detail and spot/text/halftones we can get, the resolution etc, after just putting together a higher-power bulb or the grid of high-power LEDs - either placed close or far enough to still work, and the timing is good, and then try going further from there to dial in the quality desired.
I am still wondering if you merely gave up after one or two trial-and-errors on the concept, or what could have "convinced" you that something won't work which I've proven works. :/
-
Holy hell I didn't mean to open that can of worms. I'll try and find the page but I've seen it stated that
lcd screens simply can not be made to pass uv in the quantity and spectrum that we need. Yes, I obviously
see your photos. It's a looooonnngggg way from what you have to what we need.
DLP probably more viable.
-
Love this idea fullspectrum, I came up with a concept similar a couple years back when I saw that transparent LCD screens were being manufactured and a light flickered on in my head.
My idea was just like yours but utilizing an optically clear, thinnest possible LCD. Drop in replacement for all expo units and all light sources. Could also be built as standalone units optimized with other features like that very clever dynamic dot gain idea you had.
The key would be the thickness of the panel to avoid excessive light scatter and undercutting. Otherwise, while it would still be viable, it would be regaled to the simplest spot color images shot onto fast burning PP emulsion.
So when are we going to have nano bots form a stencil for us across an electrically charged, high tpi screen matrix?
Zanegun, the custom Saati setup looks super efficient next to the CTS, nice work. If that was true single point and higher wattage it would easily be the best way to go.
-
This is the light that is in the "Screen Toaster"
(http://s13.postimg.org/gsrasa493/Screen_Shot_2016_03_08_at_7_40_26_PM.png)
I don't think they have it online, but they have it in their print brochure.
-
No worries, its not a can of worms, hah.
I'm open to all exploration of the pro's and con's and physical quality limitations or pathways to all of this tech going forward.
I just know what I've seen and actually printed, and yes those are crude examples but it was only proof-of-concept.
Thanks for sharing the Saati brochure I need to buy that light ASAP and test, show you guys it is easy to get a full-screen exposure in probably under 10 or 5 minutes, with details down to 30 or 40LPI halftone dots, or essentially a 100 DPI, until I test a 4K screen - at about 300 DPI.
The LCD panel is right against the emulsion/mesh, so there for undercutting or gap, only perhaps the thickness of one layer of the polarizing film, sure that needs to be compared.... but its not relegated to spot-colors only, I have already gotten halftones at 30 lpi probably down to 10% dots, and 8 point text.
No contention or argument going on here, this is just open discussion sharing what I "think" I've done, results of tests etc, all in the spirit of progress, I understand the images of the first proof-of-concept tests and prints are very crude, and a long way away from what we need to be useful for even a 1-color spot-print at normal print dimensions and in normal exposure times.
But we'll have plenty of time to approach each factor and test it, I need to save up and buy some bulbs and test some methods, but there are some extremely high-power UV out there, some are just outrageously expensive panels, but I know through small flashlight tests it is not as impossible as it may have seemed in the past... perhaps UV LED technology has come a long way and maybe I won't get it to work from a distance, but I don't think in the past without UV LED there was a way to test lots of high-power UV bulbs up close to the LCD panel?
But I mean I could just build my own series of closer-packed UV LEDS -- I tried buying the strips but those are way too low of an output power, took like 15 minutes just to get a small dot of exposure... which is to be expected from such low-power output. Obviously the amount of UV cutting through the polarizing filters and the RGB LCD crystals is SIGNIFICANT--- I understand this, it is cutting a TON of UV when I can put UV LEDs right up to the emulsion through the panel and it takes 12 minutes to get a cure.
But I get a cure. The emulsion is cured, the stencil part that was blocked by the arrangement of the LCDs being charged cuts out so much MORE of the light that it works. The only thing to solve and I think that is why this is the right timing for this transitional tech (- the 3d-printed screens and the nano-micro-electrical-machine-controlled digital screens are of course way way off into the future, additive manufacture will eventually become material replication like star-trek, the field of printing is actually the field of reproducing anything from an original pattern, etc... we are just in primitive days but emulsion-mesh-screenprinting is like making small prototype 3d prints held by mesh, and 3d printers are using LCD PANELS WITH UV THROUGH THEM for curing layer-by-layer of emulsion into full 3d objects.... I think it works for screenprinting just fine if we just work at it) --- but the transitional nature of this tech may work because of a few factors which aren't really about the tech...
-- for example I also thought about and was going to buy the transparent-LCD types of panels.. but this is specialty and very expensive, and when opening up a normal LCD panel, it is already TRANSPARENT. the LCDs do not "light up". There is either a simple CFL or a modern LED backlight, at the sides and it passes through various diffusers to create a very bright white smooth even backlight behind all the LCDs. -- we are just taking apart everything and only using the front LCD panel itself... RGB liquid crystals sandwhiched between light polarizing films in grids with small electrodes that fire charges which cause the crystals to become jumbled up and when they are not arranged correctly the light does not turn to the correct polarizing angle and it doesnt pass the filter.,... normally the light passes through because the construction is that the polarizing filters are at right angles, and the light would NOT pass if you didn't have the RGB crystal layers where within each, like the Red crystals, are arranged to turn the light 90 degrees, and therefore allow it to get through the other filter... There is definitely a reduction in light-passage in visible and UV etc wavelengths, but it is not absolute or 100% reduced... holding up the disassembled panel you will see its like sunglasses dark, hence the normal white backlight is very bright, but thats why we will just use our own UV HIGH POWER backlights. Haven't you ever realized you gotta hit the thing with a bigger hammer if you want it to work? The right tools for the job and we'll see if taking it to production-levels is possible, I mean the first test for me in my small arena is to get a system going that I will replace the current older fluorescent-bulb vastex unit we use. Obviously that will require more of the other parts like vacuum top etc, and protecting the panel in ways so I dont damage it.... and just hooking up at computer to be the rip-station to display the "seps" on.
But anyway, the transparent LCD panels are too much of a niche and expensive, this transitional tech might work now because of the cross-over of things like higher and higher resolution LCD panels at affordable costs to both test and build our own (rather than waiting for some big company to make another high-ticket-price item... this brings digital CTS to entry-level and still has high-end potential) --- and also the LEDs at higher and higher powers and closer tightly packed configurations... of course if we just had LEDs packed as tight as 1200 dpi then thats it, right up to the emulsion for like 1 second lol, done. But that is all requiring too much advanced prototying and manufacture, I know enough about how profit-motives and business-models and manufacturing/industry works to know that screenprinting will not get these huge LCD panel manufacturers and science/engineers to create UV -liquid-crystal-displays. You can't even get monochrome LCD larger than like 10 inches. But you don't need to, the RGB LCD panels are transparent when you just use the panel, and transparent enough in the UV range with the right power to make a CURED STENCIL. Yes, the only step next to at least prove a print-job-usable stencil for a spot-color job or with halftones in a compressed range of possible levels, would be how do we expose the full-area with higher-power, either a point-source from the right distance or a lot more higher-power LEDS packed closer in a grid and from a closer distance, but too close and you get just the spot-light-areas of the exposure and wherever there is no LED light it wont cure... but these are simple steps to test next with various current LED tech.
Thank you so much for the discussions and what everyone is sharing, also the Saati brochure I gotta get that to test right away, or Sean as well I think may have some bulb/driver units ready soon. But who knows maybe I will need 2 or 3 of them arranged or closer/trying to force a higher power spot-light, the cool part is that the LCD pixels actually force the light to arrange straight forward, so you're kind of like actually exposing pixels, not having light pass through at angles that undercut... I am working on the level now of writing formulas and direct image processing code, I can write RIPs very easily, halftones etc, the fun stuff is developing cluster-detection and other post-RIP halftone dynamic % range controlling where you could then have certain ranges expand or shrink over the exposure time to have like a dot-compensation curve dialing in realtime.. .but that is the stuff thats down the line after building a true RIP-station for the industry, as other industries have like offset CMYK that I worked in, computer-to-plate has been around a lot longer than screen technology computer-to-screens, and they've had rip-stations running halftone previews etc for decades, we could just combine with separation and other features. I see the screenroom being the center of the art-to-print transitions in the future, and literally stencil-making systems that are as easy to make screens for printing as using a copy-machine for making color copies. I've worked in these various industries and it is just a matter of time, not a matter of technology capability. I mean really with just a few of these things all cobbled together you'd have a system like that... the ease of doing separations and rip/screens for any type of job or # of screens just went off the charts for me, after a few things which I'm still updating in the plugin and going to show, which is all easily accessed through photoshop's index mode, and you can trick index into halftones so easily, so combined on a computer with the setup to 2 monitors - one to the normal viewing and the other to the digital RIP LCD panel display, then you literally press a few buttons check out a few options to get the type of seps and # of screens you want to sep to/colors/halftone type etc/, then display your RIP image (its already there when you view each sep as black and white) - to the other monitor panel,, load your screen, and hit the UV expose, done, wash it out etc. Let me correct myself... I see this being done in any area you want it, but I see there being a possibility or potential that the art from any image to separation/rip/screenmaking can take place even at a single machine in the screen room. It could become machines that are pre-loaded with dried-coated screens and people go to a kinko's and put their art on the glass or plug in their cards or upload wifi images form their phones and get screens made to go print with... just as they go to get their films printed to make screens with.
The other place where this is really cool to test out is in the Lum InkoDye or other UV-curing inks and elements, it is already being used to make DIY 3d printing systems using liquid emulsions - resins, as screenprinters we have been working with UV emulsion-resin tech for a long time and making what are essentially complex 3d prototypes with each screen.
Looking at 3d printed screens it is way off because of many factors... but really it is interesting study on materials science to consider... just how strong a high-tension mesh of nylon threads stretched and that are woven together, truly is... you can stand on it, etc, and compare that to a 3d printer tying to make a mesh, lol. But its possible to still make a stencil that might let ink through, there are newer flexible and nylon materials, etc, you 3d print the layer of the design, then the mesh itself too... but it also would have to change a lot of factors... using a larger x-y bed of liquid the size of your design or screen... then it cures a thick layer once for the design, and then another thick layer for the mesh... you'd have a stencil you can print ink through... but think about that difference between nylon threads that are woven and stretched, and an emulsion just by itself or even nylon extrusion printing a simulation of woven... would it be able to get stretched after? I doubt it is anywhere near the same materials variables... So 3d stencils are a long ways off, expensive to test etc etc.
All I'm saying is... this takes $30 to test if you already have high-power UV. Maybe a few hundred to test if getting these high-power bulbs and panels. But I think some of the companies may already know all about this tech, did you guys think maybe thats why Ryonet has a table pc attached with bluetooth? One would hope they are ahead of anything us little guys think of, but who knows where their research and developments are going... I'm just saying I am not about all that business-stuff, I want to push forward in science and discovery, trial and error, and sharing openly as I go. But of course anyone in this thread could decide they are gonna go test it and then not say anything and develop their own table to sell etc, that is the purpose, anyone is free to do what they want with the information. I'm just excited to keep testing and working out the issues, see what's possible or usable for my own shop or the place I work etc, and hopefully there will be some others who are excited too and have more resources than I do to take the testing and developments further, but take it or leave it, please don't take me the wrong way, I'm not trying to open any more cans of worms anywhere, its a can of liquid crystals and light emitting diodes with ultraviolet photons cross-linking polymer chains. :P
-
It's getting pretty busy, and I can't spend as much time on this, but this is great, my head is totally swimming. The folks that have posted using the Saati light have them in enclosed systems from what I remember I've seen; has anyone tried one on a stand, to be used just like a MH facing an exposure frame, without it being enclosed?
Steve
-
It's getting pretty busy, and I can't spend as much time on this, but this is great, my head is totally swimming. The folks that have posted using the Saati light have them in enclosed systems from what I remember I've seen; has anyone tried one on a stand, to be used just like a MH facing an exposure frame, without it being enclosed?
Steve
Greg Kitson has had one in his shop for a while now.. I think it's the older 3 LED style one tho, and not the new 450w with reflector setup.
-
An exceptionally interesting concept, and accepted proof of concept. The issue will remain that most, if not all LED/LCD screens will simply NOT produce enough power (per pixel) unless specifically manufactured for this process. An expensive endevour to say the least. This would especially be true for trying to expose a thick cap film, but could have application in the printed circuit boards field?
The Saati unit is at 450nm, seems a bit high on the scale for most emulsions. As I really do not know much about the unit I would say that the spectrum is more intended for specific applications, CTS/DTS which often use very specific emulsions. From the friends LCD factory here in China they produce over a dozen chips with spectrum breaks every 5nm, so I can get anything I want from 365 and up.
I will leave on one interesting fact, and that is the UV spectrum only goes to 400. The UV region covers the wavelength range 100-400 nm and is divided into three bands: UVA (315-400 nm) UVB (280-315 nm) UVC (100-280 nm). Once you break into anything above 430 your in the realm of human visible white light.
The LED Chip below would produce a better spectrum for most "standard" emulsions on the market.
This is a single chip UV LED testing at only 20 watts, but is rated for 350 watts @ 395nm
It gets hot, but does NOT require liquid cooling only a heatsink and a fan similar to a CPU fan, but from Saati's selling point liquid cooling sounds (marketing) better and is probably more efficient? I can group 4 of these on a single plate and offer 1400 watts of single UV power.
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/924/G5qQKc.jpg)
-
The Saati unit is at 450nm, seems a bit high on the scale for most emulsions.
this is not true. Their units are 405nm. See the previous post with the lamp in it.
According to Saati's techs, they've found the best and deepest exposure to occur on their emulsions with a 405nm source due to the fact that the most sensitive area (395nm) also absorbs some of the light, and the areas around most sensitive areas allow for a slower 'cook' time.
-
The Saati unit is at 450nm, seems a bit high on the scale for most emulsions.
this is not true. Their units are 405nm. See the previous post with the lamp in it.
According to Saati's techs, they've found the best and deepest exposure to occur on their emulsions with a 405nm source due to the fact that the most sensitive area (395nm) also absorbs some of the light, and the areas around most sensitive areas allow for a slower 'cook' time.
A type error, 450 WATT, 405nm....to clarify that sounds better, but still 405 is just outside the range of true UV. But what your saying is that 395 is TOO efficient and works too quickly. BY going into the white light spectrum a bit more they have in fact given a wider latitude for exposure calculation errors, which makes sense as correct exposure times are an art & a science that most people never get right. So 405nm is more "User Friendly" but not as fast.
I will still play with my 395nm box because its what I already told my friend to make me and in the end I think will produce better results. If exposure latitude becomes an issue, there is this thing called a dimmer and the wattage can be dialed down to slow the process, kind of like a medium setting on the microwave, not everything cooks best at full power.
-
The Saati unit is at 450nm, seems a bit high on the scale for most emulsions.
this is not true. Their units are 405nm. See the previous post with the lamp in it.
According to Saati's techs, they've found the best and deepest exposure to occur on their emulsions with a 405nm source due to the fact that the most sensitive area (395nm) also absorbs some of the light, and the areas around most sensitive areas allow for a slower 'cook' time.
A type error, 450 WATT, 405nm....to clarify that sounds better, but still 405 is just outside the range of true UV. But what your saying is that 395 is TOO efficient and works too quickly. BY going into the white light spectrum a bit more they have in fact given a wider latitude for exposure calculation errors, which makes sense as correct exposure times are an art & a science that most people never get right. So 405nm is more "User Friendly" but not as fast.
I will still play with my 395nm box because its what I already told my friend to make me and in the end I think will produce better results. If exposure latitude becomes an issue, there is this thing called a dimmer and the wattage can be dialed down to slow the process, kind of like a medium setting on the microwave, not everything cooks best at full power.
the Starlight is a 395nm source...
you can also use distance... we found that even adding 1/4" of distance on the starlight slowed down the exposure time due to the inverse square law.
we expose with the starlight and then post expose with the previous generation saati 300w (the multi one that looks a LOT like the pic you posted a few days back)...
-
An exceptionally interesting concept, and accepted proof of concept. The issue will remain that most, if not all LED/LCD screens will simply NOT produce enough power (per pixel) unless specifically manufactured for this process. An expensive endevour to say the least. This would especially be true for trying to expose a thick cap film, but could have application in the printed circuit boards field?
I think there is still a bit of confusion as to what is going on.
-"The issue will remain that most, if not all LED/LCD screens"....
Hold on... LED/LCD are not interchangable terms. These are not LED screens, OLED, etc... it is a typical computer/TV monitor, which even when they say "LED" they are talking about the light source which changed over from miniature cfl tubes to LED strips along the sides or bottom of the monitor panels years ago, but the LCD - Liquid Crystal Display - panel, is still just a transparent panel of RGB - Red, Green, Blue - LCDs.
You simply take apart any regular computer monitor or LCD tv, and separate the parts, you just don't use the LED backlight strips at all or the diffuser sheets or glass....
So the other part of the sentence.. " will simply NOT produce enough power" --- The LCD panel is not producing ANY power output of light, at all. It is PASSIVE, and we are not using the backlight of the LEDs inside the monitor - we are DISASSEMBLING the monitor, and then putting a new light source behind it -- these high-power UV LED chips etc.
" (per pixel) unless specifically manufactured for this process." -- But there is no need to change the manufacturing process to UV LCD's, because for one - the BLUE LCDs allow much of the UV light to pass, but the Green and Red pixels still allow it, and the entire panel as a passive semi-transparent screen - even though there are polarizing filter-films on each side of it that also have some UV-blocking... it is not absolute... and the amount it allows through is still enough to cure the entire emulsion in about 12 minutes - this is with a small 3-watt battery-powered flashlight UV LED that is just directly behind the LCD panel... It goes (HIGH POWER UV) ---> LCDs --->Emulsion. The distance and how much affect it has shows just like anything that the power "through-put" needs to be ramped up more than when you have no LCD panel between the UV light and the emulsion. But this is not some crazy science or advanced thing you have to do... Maybe picture it this way... Put some tinting on your glass on your exposure table, or if the glass were like sunglasses. You'd have to add more UV power, maybe move the lights closer, etc... to get your screens to cure. But I bet you could get screens to cure in the sun even with tinting or a pair of sunglasses on them, and so adding more UV power to a light table to get it to cure through another layer that is absorbing a lot of the UV light, but adding a digitally-controlled masking-technique with resolutions capable of spot and halftone with details, so I'm only trying to test whether the larger industry would benefit from the trade-off. Or if the cost-effectiveness for me to even build my own DIY table for my screenmaking and printing purposes would work with these newer UV LED high power chips etc. The LCD panel is just taking the already current cost-effectiveness of older cheaper LCD monitors and Tvs and it is very easy to take apart and then you can just tape the panel to your glass, maybe I will post another picture of some earlier tests trying it right on the fluorescent-bulb light table... which was clearly not enough power. But I am saying maybe even these units like the Ryonet table you could just tape a LCD panel on and you've got digital CTS masking with no film etc, and only have to cure it longer like a minute or two probably. I tested 3 watts up close to 12 minutes, what would 450 watts from a foot or two be like? Or maybe just move it closer - get a smaller area but thats one of the things with the panels and actual-size vs. resolution etc... but still, this is not something expensive to test and get going, the manufacture of new types of LCD panels is not required at all, and might even be pointless because of how much UV is actually getting through the RGB LCD panels anyway. But I will test further once I get my hands on some of these bulbs and chips of higher power and come back with more specific data and videos etc. Exciting stuff and thanks again for what people are sharing here, this thread is getting deep... I'm all about the LED curing but I'm just throwing in a whole other variable for myself and making it harder obviously, but its only a simple thing I NEED MORE POWER, lol. :P
Ps those photos are from over a year ago, and those tests didn't expose with just the fluorescent bulbs... then I tried UV LED strips, those cured in a long time and sort of not enough the screens would fall apart washing more because curing all the way through would take too long or just the little LEDs on the strips are very low output, so when I tried the LED flashlights battery-powered and up close to the panel is when I got it down to like 12 minutes, but still just the area of the LED light behind the panel, so either I have to build lots of LEDs into a grid-panel like the other one you posted, (or purchase existing units to test), or try the point-source bulbs from various distances and maybe multiple chips in combination to put a very strong and large-area spot of UV to go through the LCD pixels... but they certainly pass the light in the UV spectrum at times and distances and powers that are easily pushed into the acceptable range by further testing with higher power. This is going to get exciting. Maybe I have to find that other example of the ways people are using it successfully in 3D printing which uses UV curable resins in the same ranges as we do.... screenprinting is just one other application... I feel it is a transitional stage between doing fully 3d-printed stencils if those are ever feasible.
http://www.lcd3dprinter.com/ (http://www.lcd3dprinter.com/)
http://3dprint.com/5429/rayee-lcd-sla-3d-printer/ (http://3dprint.com/5429/rayee-lcd-sla-3d-printer/)
http://www.buildyourownsla.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=84 (http://www.buildyourownsla.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=84)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MS1t3tHsx9k (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MS1t3tHsx9k)
-
One more note about the LCD digital masking technique...
If we are eliminating the printing of ink or wax onto film or the screen with an inkjet/plotter print head, which can take a few minutes to complete, and even the CST DLP machines plot over the screen... then we are eliminating those minutes - not just the consumables of film and its registration/placement time, or the ink/wax etc, or eliminating using a machine with moving parts... so if the exposure takes maybe 2 to 4 minutes (although I'm sure with enough power or closing the distance it will come down to under a minute and in those 30-second or less ranges) -- but even if it takes 4 minutes but you're able to load a screen and just expose, not having to wait for RIP or printing the film/ink/wax onto the screen... then you are saving a significant amount of time over even the current DTS machines, let alone the LED exposure where you still have to print a film. If the exposure is 10 seconds on a powerful UV LED table, but you still have to wait 3 or 4 minutes for a film to print, or you have to wait 30 seconds for thermal to output and then tape and place on the screens etc... it is just going to add up over screens until it is hours per day and more being saved.... but that is just one potential time/labor/materials savings with this technique.... even if the exposure is a few minutes.
-
Don't forget about the tape... THE TAPE!!!! :D
-
Don't forget about the tape... THE TAPE!!!! :D
Isn't that what they told Nixon?
-
This is a pretty similar idea to the DIY projector builds that were all the rage when I was in college (old school overhead projector for transparencies, but with a torn apart lcd monitor on them instead of the clear glass above the fresnel lense. They worked "ok".
As far as replacing film or dts, the main issue you are going to have regardless of any of these proofs of concept you've done with LED's is that the LCD is not going to block enough UV to get a quality stencil no matter what you do. You can prove this with any exposure light source, and the LED flashlight isn't going to prove this better than a MH or flo tubes, etc. You also have other issues with LCD, like the fact that lots of UV is destructive to the LCD, it will scatter light like crazy and cause undercutting (even with adjustments over time like you discussed). The LCD will act like a really faintly printed film that is not vacuumed to the emulsion and exposing through a super thick not optically clear glass and over time will fail due to the UV exposure. Neat idea, but a long, long way from realistic.
This stuff was actually being discussed at least a decade ago for etching circuit boards, but I am pretty sure it was pretty much definitively abandoned.
-
Thanks for saying succinctly what I was trying to convey. We're not the only industry that wishes this would work.
It's been tried.
Using a projector at close distances looks interesting however. I forget the three letter acronym they came up with
for that one.
-
I seem to remember emulsions or stencil films of different sensitivity to be used with a projector at the flat stock shop I worked (though they went with this around 1978 after I left) I do not know what the light source or power was.
-
This is a pretty similar idea to the DIY projector builds that were all the rage when I was in college (old school overhead projector for transparencies, but with a torn apart lcd monitor on them instead of the clear glass above the fresnel lense. They worked "ok".
As far as replacing film or dts, the main issue you are going to have regardless of any of these proofs of concept you've done with LED's is that the LCD is not going to block enough UV to get a quality stencil no matter what you do. You can prove this with any exposure light source, and the LED flashlight isn't going to prove this better than a MH or flo tubes, etc. You also have other issues with LCD, like the fact that lots of UV is destructive to the LCD, it will scatter light like crazy and cause undercutting (even with adjustments over time like you discussed). The LCD will act like a really faintly printed film that is not vacuumed to the emulsion and exposing through a super thick not optically clear glass and over time will fail due to the UV exposure. Neat idea, but a long, long way from realistic.
This stuff was actually being discussed at least a decade ago for etching circuit boards, but I am pretty sure it was pretty much definitively abandoned.
Excellent. It just makes me want to do more tests and take it further. I love the critical thinking it is important, and the feedback about previous attempts is great, don't want to repeat mistakes just take what is being done and improve it.
Did you see the 3d printer links? It is working excellent in 3d printing... same specs.
I got a cure and a printable screen, I could make it work with just a larger stack of the flashlights and a little more distance and longer exposure time.
Was there this kind of UV LED technology a decade ago??
So one thing I want to be clear on in your post was "regardless of any of these proofs of concept you've done with LED's is that the LCD is not going to block enough UV to get a quality stencil no matter what you do."....
Did you see I already got a quality stencil with my test?? Yes it was only in the areas exposed by the light and blocked by the LCD stencil being charged in those pixels to block the light.
I think it is fascinating but typical when presenting new concepts and obviously needs to be repeated and shown in a full-area screen exposure, and others will need to repeat and print with the screens... then maybe you will realize it is not some novelty useless gimmick. But all the critical thinking and attacking it from every angle is necessary to prove or disprove potential values in various segments. I already know from my tests I can get a working unit put together myself and burn screens for jobs either spot color or halftones and print with them... sooo.... what is it that I'm not getting about having a cured stencil that prints??
Yes all sorts of tests about the quality for duration, and the max "resolution LPI detail etc" - etc, but why not post-expose it in the regular high-power UV after washing if breakdown is a concern then?
I understand that adding power to the UV will increase the amount of light still getting through the LCDs that are set to black pixels which cut the light significantly... but if I am simply going for the same amount of cure I already got, within a shorter amount of time perhaps but the light power and distance factors will be checked to find the best curve.... but how is it going to be radically different than getting a cure in the areas you want and no-cure in the areas you don't want, as already shown in a low-power-long-time-close-distance scenario?
The amount of actual wattage in a given area might be similar with the 3watt flashlights up close behind the panel, compared to the 450-watts spread from a distance over a larger area... I'm not exactly sure about this... but are you getting 450 watts of UV light right at the surface of the emulsion in every area of the screen? Or is the point-source of 450 watts spreading the 450 watts of output light and with distance and the final area-coverage of the spot-light of rays actually cutting down the amount of watts per square-inch for example? Or are you getting 450 watts in every square inch or whatever dimension is measured?
It should be apparent that I am getting photons to pass through the pixels to expose the emulsion, while the LCD's that block the light are preventing enough photons from curing in that area so it works just like putting UV through a film. Also, it is not going through some thick layer of glass after the lcd panel, there is no gap any different than that of a film really... the scatter of light through the black pixels is still dark enough while having the higher power uv light through the clear pixels to prevent it from curing, and it will wash out... so you dont even care about that part, it washes out, its not going to "break down" later lol. It breaks down when you wash it out, and the cured areas don't break down, and if I want maybe its a longer cure or a post-expose at just a few seconds without the LCD panel, then you're definitely creating a "quality" screen. I think the really high-end quality will take higher-resolution LCD and more testing to achieve, and obviously the CST machines use a DLP chip focusing on a small area and plotting across so they get 2400+ dpi resolution.... but most printers honestly will be able to work with a 100 dpi exposure and even get low LPI halftones and detailed small text and lines/shapes to hold, and cured stencil screens that you can print with, post-exposed if the cured areas are not truly strong enough but they behaved as strongly in wash-out as any other screen i've done. We post-expose anyway. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate all the feedback and it is an open project or idea for anyone to test. I just think giving up without truly testing a full-area exposure would be too soon to call it "definitively abandoned", but I am not satisfied until someone shows me tests that were done and I try it myself and can't repeat what I've already done for some strange reason or another, I'd like to find out why, not just take "pretty sure" and "pretty much" as definitive scientific proofs that it is "impossible to get a quality screen" -- especially when I've already got a quality screen and only needed to put more flashlights if I wanted and a little further away for longer duration. I even tested some of that and haven't shown those pics yet because I want to video the process and the results for that step by step to make it more clear the extent at which it has already been proven to work... it is just kind of pointless to spend hundreds on a bunch of $10 flashlights when I'll get a larger panel or single-point UV bulb to test.
But I will be the first to show and accept any results I get, good or bad, as I continue with the testing and improvements, and accept defeat if it truly turns out to be a dead-end.
" The LCD will act like a really faintly printed film that is not vacuumed to the emulsion and exposing through a super thick not optically clear glass and over time will fail due to the UV exposure. Neat idea, but a long, long way from realistic."
--- The LCD acts like a sufficiently dark ink printed on sufficiently clear film. This is shown and proven in the areas the 3watt LED flashlights exposed and where the LCD pixels that were black blocked the UV light from the flashlight. Did you see the screen and the image of the printed sample? That will work for MOST printers these days, as long as it is obviously the full-area of the screen not just spot-lights where the flash-light LEDs were hitting through the LCD panel to the emulsion.
--- It can be vacuumed to the screen just fine, it sits ON TOP of the thick-optically-clear glass if you want, or no glass at all... but there is direct contact from the LCD pixels through a thin piece of polarizing film but the undercutting it not as bad as you seem to think... what is the part that will fail due to UV exposure? I understand that maybe the LCD panel will have issues where the RGB pixels perhaps break down or something due to the UV exposure?? Are you just saying this or do you know that UV light breaks down LCD panels over time?? The panels are cheap, unless talking about 4K and larger size monitors... but you realize this also will work at oversize dimensions... maybe poster printers it will save the most time and costs and labor with printing large-format films etc.... just get a 42" monitor/TV and you can do 24" x 32" screen exposures probably at smaller DPI/ larger LPI but that is normal for poster printing.
In my own test I have shown it is not "a long, long way from being realistic" -- it is realistic already, its real, a screen was exposed and printed with it, even a larger full-front design but it had some minor issues due to just using lower power lights trying for a greater distance... but on both examples you can see that it only takes another test with the full-area consistent UV light and the right distance/exposure time to get a fully exposed screen stencil of a design at normal print dimensions, and I suppose it will make more sense when I show that a full-area exposure can happen and a screen taped and printed would hold the design successfully. Maybe I have to use it on a real customer print job to show it works successfully to make a "quality" screen that can print a normal job with it. I'm just not taking any of the critical assessments as "definitive disproofs". But I appreciate all of the critical feedback we need to attack it from every angle to see if it will have any potential value for any potential market segment. Thanks again, love this type of discussion and experimentation and it is already making progress through this.
-
Thanks for saying succinctly what I was trying to convey. We're not the only industry that wishes this would work.
It's been tried.
Using a projector at close distances looks interesting however. I forget the three letter acronym they came up with
for that one.
Umm... I won't keep contending anything until I show more proofs and evidence and you can repeat it yourself.
But you do realize from the other links I posted, that 3D stereolithography machines are already being built and sold and work with this same exact technology??
We aren't the only industry who has tried it, perhaps the one who gave up on it, but obviously it works for other purposes and other industries, using the same variables - UV curing photopolymers and UV LED spectrums through LCD panel masking.
I find it very interesting that there seems to be a consensus that this "doesn't work / will never work" -- when it does work, and already is working.
I will wait to show more and produce a regular customer's print job with a screen made from the process and video the process so you can maybe have more opportunity to push for more of the "quality" that we would all like to see. But there is no "not possible" with this at this point. Maybe others have given up on it in the past, and I am not talking about "projection" with DLP or through LCD projectors either. This is a regular LCD panel, up against the emulsion/mesh, and with UV light behind projecting through.
Is there something I am missing, other than a few "consensus opinions" that it still is somehow "not possible" ...??
But I do understand what I have shown looks crude and not usable at all, the test was not for a printable screen, I was testing the cure-through and dark-blocking aspects to be sure that indeed, it would work... and it does. The only next step for a "usable screen for a real job" is just the full-area coverage of the UV light at the right power and distance for the right timing.... but I guess some will not "believe" it until they see a real job being printed with a screen made with this process?
That will be fun, I'm just sharing this because others already have the high-power methods to try it out if they want to take apart an LCD monitor and test it themselves.
I'm saving up for the lights now, maybe I will just get more flashlights or put them together in a way that tests a more connected area exposure, perhaps if I just show a left-chest area next printed successfully for a real job??
-
Not going to write a novel since I dont have the time, but basic points:
- No one is attacking you because you are doing something new or outside the box. The point is the concept is not new and the pitfalls have been tested and discussed for a long time. Don't let me or anyone else stop you from further testing, but understand that we are responding based on a context that is much larger than your specific experiment.
- I don't consider what you have shown as a usable or quality screen, which is why I said what I said. You have failed to prove it is viable beyond what you have shown, which is lacking.
- 3D stereolithography is not the same, so I'm not sure I understand why you're bring that up.
- you misunderstood my description of the issues with the LCD, as I was specifically discussing the downsides of the panel itself in relation to how it passes the UV, not whether glass or a vacuum are required or how they would interact with the panel. the panel itself is akin to a thick piece of non-optically clear glass, and the way it blocks UV is akin to a film that has not been vacuumed tight to the emulsion.
-
The bottom up 3d printers specifically want to cure the thinnest layer possible at a time. We essentially
want the opposite. Their medium is much much more UV sensitive as well.
I tested it awhile back, the results weren't usable, I looked into different panels and found that the very
composition of an lcd panel precludes what we are looking for. That was where I ended.
By all means continue your testing. We wouldn't have any of the inventions that we have if everyone quit
when someone said it wasn't possible. My only reason for commenting was you had asked if anyone has
ever tested it before. I had, it sucked.
My comments on the projection idea sort of takes into account what Frog is referencing, I believe Murakami
still sells an emulsion meant for projection? But the idea that the 3D printers use is to remove/replace the focal lens
and use the projector at super short distances. For us probably 3' or so. In 3D printing the light from the projector is
enough to cure their medium. We would likely require significantly long exposures, but as you've mentioned, it
bypasses an extra masking step.
-
FSS: No one is saying you can't successfully expose a stencil with LCD tech, but are implying the quality is not there compared to traditional methods, rather akin to a lot of spirited discussions on here over the last couple years.
FWIW, saying 'sufficiently dark' and 'sufficiently light' are extremely subjective terms when it comes to stencil making.
Plenty of people who once used halogen lights and oiled paper positives would agree with me... :)
Finally: Just a suggestion mods, but how about a thread split with a realistic title for all this stuff that has little to nothing to do with Zane's project or Saati's LED unit?
-
Just a suggestion mods, but how about a thread split with a realistic title for all this stuff that has little to nothing to do with Zane's project or Saati's LED unit?
I considered that from the second or so deviated post, but no one spot was completely perfect without a little confusion with a quote reference which would not then connect. Then, it just got piled on and on
I'll revisit the idea though
-
Image and Exposure are not the same. The key feature that needs to be addressed is exactly how strong is the exposure on the squeegee side? Soft? or so strong a pressure washer can't move it during development? The image created by LCD, and even our LED systems needs to be examined. I can hit a pure photopolymer on an MH for 5 seconds and get an image, same with LED, 3-4 will get you an image. But if on press with HSA or Discharge, how many prints are you achieving? I would love to have an LCD be able to hit 90k prints (The STEII is one of the few that has made it, but a lot of post exposure was needed.)
The reality is we are exploring great new areas, but Metal Halide wasn't broken, it makes a strong exposure. That is what any new system needs to achieve, not an image but a strong exposure. How vertical are the side walls on the halftones? How sharp is the ink gasket? How many prints can you achieve with a stretch white HSA base? Exposure is what keeps the press running. Images on a screen can be a production screen in disguise. If it breaks down it isn't worthy of production where we make our money. The effort put into LED is paying off, especially with CTS systems. STEII's are quite good. LCD will someday be a dream we have all had with the right light. For me that is multi spectral with amplitude across the 350-410nm range and not a single spike of a wavelength. When LED and LCD can expose a 700 micron thick film stencil with vertical side walls, sharp ink gaskets, and good exposure on the squeegee side where all the abuse takes place, then LCD will be also join LED and be a welcomed tool. Thick stencil detail is an area that needs improvement that point MH light sources hit with ease.
This is how thick film needs to look when exposed with any light source. 700 Micron Thick Film from Murakami shot with a 5k metal halide for 10 minutes Notice no undercutting, vertical sidewalls, super sharp ink gasket.
(http://murakamiscreen.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/img.jpg)
This thread has a ton of great info and shows our industry is growing and experimenting, someday one of you rocket scientists will dial this in.
Al
-
Alan,
All valid points and ones that must be considered when looking at new ways to burn a screen. However I will take one exception to your comment about MH not being "broken"...its not exactly that, it is however flawed in that its not a method that provides consistency. The bulb requires extensive time to get up to power, its output is inconsistent, hence the need for a light integrator and over time the bulb loses output and lets not even get into the failure rate and costs of replacement. Its not broken, but it is deeply flawed.
LED offers instant on, stable source of UV that can be delivered in finely controlled scales. My friends LED factory here in China can test and sort LED's into batches that are all within a range of 5nm or less variance. The only thing that is not currently offered by most companies who make LED exposure units is the wattage to match the MH bulb, but not for a lack of the bulb not existing because they do. Just today I found a 1950 Watt LED chipset that I believe most certainly would burn a 700 micron cap film. Light angles would have more to do with the reflector base than the bulb itself. look at a MH bulb and it wastes 50% of its energy from having a 360 degree output, not so with a chip LED.
Its just a matter of getting the wattage up, in my opinion. Right now companies use multiple low wattage bulbs I believe because its incredibly cheap..and it works for most people, because lets be honest the percentage of printers who have ever used even thick film is low, let alone 700 micron on a 90k job. But personally, I see no technical hurdles to get get parity with MH from an LED whether its in a single light source or multiple LED's on a board. Its merely a matter of focusing the energy which can easily be controlled by design.
-
Amazing information and definitely all factors that need to be considered and matched or improved...
But I definitely don't see production-quality screens coming out of this at certain levels because of the resolution demand at higher qualities, not just the exposure itself -- that needs to be matched to current standards of course, not just an "imaged" screen, but one that will hold up just as well and without a post-exposure...
But the resolution is the big issue and why this only works for spot and low-LPI halftones for the time being... with 1080P LCD panels.
The issue is size dimensions vs. actual resolution (also the thin grids between the pixels block light and cause a weaker screen you have to get enough scatter so the pixel-grid-lines still cure but the pixels themselves which are dark don't cure, and the screen holds up to pressure wash (or is as cured as our best production-ready screens and can stand up to the ink-demands and high-volume etc)... but the issue is with larger LCD dimensions you lose resolution.
http://teknosrc.com/resolution-vs-pixel-density-in-displays-all-you-need-to-know/ (http://teknosrc.com/resolution-vs-pixel-density-in-displays-all-you-need-to-know/)
The larger area we want to expose, at the same HD quality like 1080P - ... Pixel Density = Root((1920^2)+(1080^2))/32=68.84 ppi
for a 32" diagonal monitor, which we are getting perhaps 15" wide x 27" tall, we are only ending up with an actual resolution of 68 DPI! That won't do for anything but spot-colors and large halftone dots, perhaps a low-resolution index, but the reason I feel this is now evolving to where it is time to test further and see what is possible... is because of the cost reduction and proliferation of higher-resolution screens in the same styles where you can just disassemble and use the LCD panel.... and have it be cost-effective where 4K and 8K resolutions are at price-ranges as some of the components in a typical light-table or a more expensive DTS unit, thermal image-setter, etc.
http://www.engadget.com/2015/10/02/jdi-8k-display/ (http://www.engadget.com/2015/10/02/jdi-8k-display/)
That 8K display will get 510 pixels-per-inch.... but again that is only 17" diagonal, so 8" by 14" wont really work for most screenprint needs.... increasing the size will lower the resolution if those displays are made, but it is clear that we have the technology, smart-phone screens are now at those 500PPi levels and it is just we want a very large dimension area and a very high resolution.
The market span of this industry however is where a majority of present-day printers are just one person starting up with a screen and a squeegee and some ink (you don't honestly need a press to make a screenprint, you can just put it on something and squeegee your design... MOST present-day screenprinters are those just starting out, it is just the nature of the demographics, sure some of them won't stick with it, some will grow fast and large, others will stay at a small business or hobby level etc.... but this technology has a lot of potential down the line for the high-end and large-volume print shops for sure, just not now of course I know that... but for the MAJORITY of printers using screens and dealing with the all-too-common issues of printing films dark enough to expose and get a "usable screen" even if you post-expose normally, and it works for small runs and spot-color low LPI halftones... then it is still a solid step forward for the larger segment of screenprinters out there just trying to get their images to screens. The amount of time and material and headaches reduced is easily worth the post-exposure time if it is even needed for most of these startup printers.
I just think it is more about the comparison in entry-level tech and how they are pushed to spending hundreds or more to get an inkjet printer, ink systems and RIPs, and an exposure table as well.... some of the basic entry-level exposure tables cost hundreds and it is just a box with fluorescent lights, no vacuum top etc, so at first I see this tech actually being adopted and utilized on the startup/entry-level/beginner/small business print shops and then pushed to the higher quality/resolution/stencil-durability standards needed at the FEWER but more quality-driven printing industry shops/segment.
Very exciting stuff, I'm going to expose a left-chest area screen for a simple text job just using the flashlights angled so they all hit a common spot and with about an inch or two distance so they aren't just exposing only the spot-light area of each flashlight, angling them to point at the same area and a little distance gives me a more diffused spot-light that should capture and expose the whole small left-chest area, then I will have to obviously tape up a lot of the rest of the screen which washed out not being exposed, but it is only a test to see (with the materials I am working with) - to just make a screen that I will print a real job with... I might post-expose the screen as we do anyway, but for the majority of printers who are all startups and entry-level or just small-sized shops with the more basic equipment... if it only takes more flashlights or buying a high-power MH or LED bulb to get a larger area to expose the same way, but even for this left-chest example - if I expose a screen for a REAL PRINT JOB, and I print the shirts, and all of the other quality aspects are met - the ink cures, etc... the design looks crisp and passes quality, (oh by the way if only doing left-chest size prints or smaller pad-printing etc etc then the smaller the LCD screen the higher resolution will be held, it is more for larger screenprints on shirts and textile and posters that reduces the ability for this tech to meet the resolution demands.) but anyway if I make a screen with this technique, and print a real job for a customer, and they pick it up and pay for it....
Then did I make a "usable" screen, or a "real" screen, and actually screenprint a "real job" through an LCD-exposed stencil??
Or is it some sort of magic and I don't understand anything about making "real" screens?
All of the quality-standards being discussed are definite variables that need to be matched or improved... for the higher-end segment I already know its the resolutions that will matter more, they won't use it for that reason alone, not because of stencil-breakdown or other exposure issues as mentioned, but those things can be measured and will probably be easier to dial in than the resolutions which are dependent upon the LCD manufacturing and market-potentials on sizes and resolutions as that goes forward... some technology might replace LCD and then we won't have much chance besides using the tech that was put out in this era... but I think the resolutions will at least get to the 8K level at typical consumer price-points in a few years. Well it is all very fun and exciting and just tinkering around with the idea and trying to get to the point I can test with the higher-power full-area-coverage light, then move to 4K panels etc. But right now I'm gonna see if I can't at least make a "usable" screen for an actual print job. If it is possible to make a DIY exposure table out of just a few parts like a high-power light, and an LCD monitor disassembled, and you get "usable screens" that are perhaps low-resolution and have other quality-issues, but it is still a passable quality for the startup and entry-level side of the industry, and yet it is vastly improving the process for them, I don't see why it is not already "usable" technology for what is most likely the majority of screenprinters out there who have to deal with the whole process from art to seps to films to screens and printing.
It might not meet the quality standards of a high-end minority... but the stuff I work on is meant to apply to all levels, from beginners to seasoned professionals, the LCD idea is just an experiment and a start towards making improvements and such in my own workflow and shop, and we'll see maybe it can be just a different DIY startup-level approach and people still move towards buying higher-end units and then leave the LCD behind, or they stick with it at the level they print and it works for them... but definitely it is a massive amount of testing and work to dial in and see if the screens will reach the higher-end quality standards, I was never saying it was even usable for that yet, because the low resolutions alone make it a serious drop in quality of the image/sep itself and that is a worse factor making it unacceptable even if the screens held up to the other demands. But the cost of testing and putting this together is LESS than a typical entry-level bulb-box exposure unit. Instead of $400 on a bulb-box exposure unit, spend a few hundred on high-power light and $50 to $100 on LCD panel, piece of glass under it for support, etc.
A major issue is the damage that can be done irreversibly, if people have access to laying the screens down on the panel, instead of a machine that loads the screen in and has control over how it presses the screen mesh and vacuums to the panel with the glass behind it for strength..... but if someone just drops something or a screen-frame edge hits the LCD panel it could easily CRUSH the pixels and damage the screen - another major drawback to production-quality screenmaking (at high-end,high-volume etc). One dent in the panel and crushed the pixels the panel is useless if its in the area of exposures. But this is all where it is larger investment into the R&D.... whereas the very cheap DIY method requires little investment and might work fine for the smaller and lower-end spot-color etc printers. We'll see where it goes, I'll share as I discover.
-
So I'll give a comparison. You start a delivery service in New York using a bike. You out grow it with bigger packages and get a pick up. Then outgrow it and get a van, outgrow it and get a bobtail truck. The evolution of a printer is always towards more production, and light is one limitation of many printers. So I get them to go with the bobtail truck from day one, which is to me a Metal Halide and I will give the STEII it's due, it is working well with our new emulsion in a 24 auto shop.
All the drawbacks of MH are far less than breaking down every 500 shirts. Once you buy an automatic there is no turning back to just 18 piece team orders. You have to feed that beast. The larger the print run, the better if you print contract. For those selling shirt with print 200-600 is ok, but for contract work at .33-.50 you need volume and super strong screens. Then how good is your sim process? Recent award winning shirts are MH in most cases. Strong pin point light equals better halftones, with better sidewalls to control dot gain.
The less down time, the higher your profit return, the more competitive you can be. Lose a screen on a discharge run on an automatic press and you're down 30 minutes, or 300-400 prints with labor standing around doing non paying jobs most of the time and burning the profits you just made. Production is a race, and the length of the race grows with automatic equipment. The screens cannot fail. They have to withstand aggressive new ink systems due to the buyers demand for PVC/Phthalate free inks. Small shops? a ton of em for sure and LED does work. But back to an automatic purchase. Printers quickly do math in their heads and see the profits piling up if they can get enough work to keep the auto running constantly. Almost every shop starts small, this is one of the easiest industries you can grow into a million dollar business. I cannot run production with failing screens. Only bullet proof screens will make me money in an auto shop, only the highest quality printing penetrates the music biz or high end clothing lines.
I go back to the thick film screens, electronics, PV, domed printing, gels, puffs, high density, glitters. So many uses, it must be why I can't keep it in stock. Only Metal Halide can achieve the vertical side walls and proper adhesion for long runs. I'm sure LED or even LCD will one day replace it, it has for sure in spot color and even in typical printing, but give me a truck/Metal Halide that can handle the load when it comes to exposure. LED is getting better and better, my 24 auto shop has proven it to me, we are in a transitional stage. But again Metal Halide isn't broke, and regardless of drawbacks shoots the best variety of screens needed IMO. No auto shop ever wants to say I cant' print HD, sorry.
The following images are at 65lpi (maybe higher, I never asked Tom at Motion Textile) CTS Wax, Metal halide exposure: LED is not far away from this so while it could make a great print, can it equal this?
(http://murakamiscreen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/DotOnDotRegisterCUpPart2.gif)
(http://murakamiscreen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/MurakamiRocksTshirtLogo.jpg)
-
All the drawbacks of MH are far less than breaking down every 500 shirts.
Cliff's Notes for this thread. For all those just joining in and not committed to reading a novel...
-
You don't want to get me started on simulated process and separations.
What good is all the physical equipment even if you have all of the best equipment, if your separations are a mess? How much time, labor, materials, etc are an ever greater expense when you're printing with 12 colors a design that can print with 5 and come out even better??
But that's another story for another day.
-
What good is all the physical equipment even if you have all of the best equipment, if your separations are a mess? H
But that's another story for another day.
In its own thread! LOL!
-
The following images are at 65lpi (maybe higher, I never asked Tom at Motion Textile) CTS Wax, Metal halide exposure: LED is not far away from this so while it could make a great print, can it equal this?
([url]http://murakamiscreen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/DotOnDotRegisterCUpPart2.gif[/url])
([url]http://murakamiscreen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/MurakamiRocksTshirtLogo.jpg[/url])
That's a nice DW Collector's Series kit in a gloss natural maple finish, chrome hardware, with what looks like twin 22" kicks, a 12", 13", 16" and 18" tom set up, 5"x14" main snare and maybe a 12" accessory snare?
All DW 9000 series stands.
Mirrored Les Paul Standards in what looks to be tiger maple Honeyburst.
I can tell all that cause the damn detail is SO GOOD.
-
Yeah, I'm drooling at the quality of this print. Are you sure that's not a tobacco burst? ;D
Steve
-
A 68 tobacco burst with AAA maple top. It's not even mine, but I get to play it all the time! Off thread, but I'd talk music and guitars a lot longer than screen printing.
-
The following images are at 65lpi (maybe higher, I never asked Tom at Motion Textile) CTS Wax, Metal halide exposure: LED is not far away from this so while it could make a great print, can it equal this?
([url]http://murakamiscreen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/DotOnDotRegisterCUpPart2.gif[/url])
([url]http://murakamiscreen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/MurakamiRocksTshirtLogo.jpg[/url])
That's a nice DW Collector's Series kit in a gloss natural maple finish, chrome hardware, with what looks like twin 22" kicks, a 12", 13", 16" and 18" tom set up, 5"x14" main snare and maybe a 12" accessory snare?
All DW 9000 series stands.
Mirrored Les Paul Standards in what looks to be tiger maple Honeyburst.
I can tell all that cause the damn detail is SO GOOD.
Not to derail thread too much, just a comment. They are not using Newman Roller Frames, I beleive?
-
Not to derail thread too much, just a comment. They are not using Newman Roller Frames, I beleive?
??? Derail a thread that started as a DIY construction of an LED exposure unit, then morphed into whether led's cost too much, then to the concept of using flat panel lcd screens to expose screens in-between your favorite shows (just kidding), then an example of a print questioning whether it could be equaled using these newer exposure sources, to discussions about the musical instruments pictured in the print. And you dare now bring up the type of screens used in the print? :o
Boy Boris, do you ever fit in!! ;)
-
Not to derail thread too much, just a comment. They are not using Newman Roller Frames, I beleive?
??? Derail a thread that started as a DIY construction of an LED exposure unit, than morphed into whether led's cost too much, then to the concept of using flat panel lcd screens to expose screens in-between your favorite shows (just kidding), then an example of a print questioning whether it coulkd be equaled using this new exposure source, to discussions about the musical instruments pictured in the print. And you dare now bring up the type of screens used in the print? :o
Boy Boris, do you ever fit in!! ;)
LOL!! You guys don't want to hear the kind of music I make. Speaking of derailment, I love trains.
Bought a little 100 watt metal halide, but testing on the Digital LCD exposure I still had to put the bulb too close for a MH because of the heat.... the inverse-square-law really affects what I'm doing if comparing small UV LED flashlights at about 3 watts but held right up to the emulsion, compared to MH 100 watt bulb from a foot away. I still had to up the timing of the exposure - getting a full-area coverage this time, but I will explain more of the technical issues in an updated post with pictures and videos, but I need to get a better bulb and balast probably 400 watt to really test the distance/area coverage i need to get a full cure through the emulsion with MH without it being too close and causing heat issues, ... I had to push the MH test to like 20 minutes and way too close (smaller area coverage and got a little too warm) - just to get cure of the stencil but it didn't undercut the grid-lines as I WANT to happen and does happen when you get the ratio correct, while the pixels still prevent cure... but it held up to power-washing for few minutes, just the grid-lines left some underexposed and weak stencil... all of these are issues I already pushed with the flashlight tests, but trying to get a larger area coverage and spend less than the high power UV LED bulbs is what I'm going for, and get an exposure in probably 5 or less minutes as a starting point. I don't consider it a good screen unless I can get the stencil to wash out, everything else is cured and completely and holds up to power washing on both sides. Should not need post-exposure, post-exposing a washed out but weak screen isn't the right way to make this work.
It is cool however that without any LCD panel and spending maybe $100 for a retail MH flood bulb/balast/fixture from home depot I can do normal exposures in 1 minute and cures much better than our fluorescent-bulb unit which takes about 4 minutes but produces weak squeegee-side exposures. A vacuum and glass/box etc shouldn't be too hard to make, but probably with a 400 watt MH then normal exposures get down to 30 seconds or less for typical screens, and still the LCD panel when trying that just cuts back the UV getting through by a large amount -- if you think about it, yes for 100 watts it took 1 minute to cure and get a normal exposure through the emulsion and mesh etc... placing an LCD panel at same distance from light took over 20 minutes and not completely cured because of the panel grid lines (although I've pushed this test and gotten full cure but with the previous small-area flashlights held up close... but think about the difference in inverse-square-law with a few milimeters compared to 1 foot or more distance.)... but the RATIO of the density or amount of UV light passing the panel in the CLEAR pixels vs. the BLACK pixels is what you're going for... and it WORKS. The ratio works, and even when I push the exposure longer and with higher power, as I've already tested with the UV flashlights, I can get full cure of stencil all the way through and will hold up to power washing and the DARK AREAS wash out, they dont start to cure in like maybe some are assuming happens with this method.
I guess one simple analogy would be, imagine you have a piece of film that looks like sunglasses or tinted windows...... but your STENCIL on the film is literally black solid opaque and lets no light through. The LCD panel is not the same, as some light will get through the black pixels as well.... but the RATIO is all you're going for, the ratio of the "light passing" areas to the "light blocking" areas. If the LCD panel is automatically cutting out a lot of light, then obviously when the pixels are black they cut out -that much more- light which probably equals their contrast-ratio in a way, and has anyone thought maybe the contrast ratio of LCD panels are even more than contrast-ratio of clear and ink-printed films when talking about UV light passing? The polarizing and UV-blocking filters + the LCD on-state where the crystals are reconfigured to stop the light from passing the other polarizing filter, it is all definitely creating a similar clear-to-dark ratio, and I'm only trying to find the right power/bulb/distance configuration to get the whole panel-area to expose and in decent times like under 5 minutes. It really is past the tests for typical screenprint usage in low-volume, and only pushing to get to a production-level standard for the bulb power/distance/time, then I'll make a machine I can use regularly with vacuum etc, and start pushing the quality of dot and detail and resolution I can get and probably go to 4K monitors after working out all the kinks on a low-res one. I'll be back with some results in a few days etc, I did a lot of testing yesterday and it is all very informative results.
-
Drum print was printed with Murakami Static Stretch and glues, 225/S base, 350/S colors.
-
Drum print was printed with Murakami Static Stretch and glues, 225/S base, 350/S colors.
Do you happen to know the color count?
Was it separated automatically or manually?
Also do you have the original image/art?
I'm just curious, I love it, it is a great and very detailed and colorful print.
There are times that something calls for it and you can really add in colors in ways so that its photographic but in the areas needed to give more and more detail with individual colors and zoomed in close, so I understand fully how and why you can and want to get prints that you can just hold in your hand and up close and still see amazing color/image/texture clarity, but also it would be cool too if it was very few colors perhaps and just a finely detailed and printed halftone methods so its really mixed nice and gives that result. However it was done the result looks awesome and impressive.
Thanks for all the input you've given and what you share with everyone, and for showing that print example and the technical stuff you get into is appreciated very much as well.
-
Drum print was printed with Murakami Static Stretch and glues, 225/S base, 350/S colors.
On MHM machines.
-
Thanks for the replies to the drum print.
This was hand separated and if I'm not mistaken an 11-12 color print.
Here is the original art I provided him. I still like making a t-shirt now and then!
It's neat to go in a shop in some corner of the world and see a screen maker wearing one he picked up at a show or from my dealers.
(http://murakamiscreen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/ISS-2013-Show-Shirt.gif)
One of the best things I ever learned in this business was to outsource. We managed to grow our company by leaps and bounds using other company's skills. So many great printers that sometimes it doesn't pay to reinvent the wheel. We had a 6, 8, 12 color presses. but a job like this needs more heads, more flashes and so it was cheaper on high color count sim process to job it out. That company found we had puff foil dialed in with discharge printing, so we shared business. This is invaluable when you get overloaded with work, or the job is beyond your capabilities. We eventually became merchandisers and after he closed due to health it led me to a Nike Sourcing job and all the great shops in the US and Central America. Now I try to give back all the tricks I have learned from my shop and those that my printers are willing to share, some I won't share which are proprietary but golden. Tom at Motion, Pierre, Danny, Culture Studio, Morning Sun Shirt Company (which was my first comany I started and was sold to Kawi who has taken it incredilbe HSA printing), Mark Gervais from Ningbo in China, Techo Screen in El Salvador, are all great companies, and I'll bet there are many others here on the board that you need to know. You could be a small printer and land a big fish that you could partner with these great companies and land a new customer and capability that is often proprietary. I've tried duplicating Tom's seps by hand, and failed miserably. Some of the shops I go into have continual R&D and ask the tough questions at shows from Mark Coudray, Lon Winters, myself and fellow printers then go on to improve it. I couldn't touch the work from the companies I have mentioned above, they have it down, sometimes instead of beating them, join them and you too can offer product that can take years of hard R&D that never ends.
-
Thanks for the replies to the drum print.
This was hand separated and if I'm not mistaken an 11-12 color print.
Here is the original art I provided him. I still like making a t-shirt now and then!
It's neat to go in a shop in some corner of the world and see a screen maker wearing one he picked up at a show or from my dealers.
([url]http://murakamiscreen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/ISS-2013-Show-Shirt.gif[/url])
One of the best things I ever learned in this business was to outsource. We managed to grow our company by leaps and bounds using other company's skills. So many great printers that sometimes it doesn't pay to reinvent the wheel. We had a 6, 8, 12 color presses. but a job like this needs more heads, more flashes and so it was cheaper on high color count sim process to job it out. That company found we had puff foil dialed in with discharge printing, so we shared business. This is invaluable when you get overloaded with work, or the job is beyond your capabilities. We eventually became merchandisers and after he closed due to health it led me to a Nike Sourcing job and all the great shops in the US and Central America. Now I try to give back all the tricks I have learned from my shop and those that my printers are willing to share, some I won't share which are proprietary but golden. Tom at Motion, Pierre, Danny, Culture Studio, Morning Sun Shirt Company (which was my first comany I started and was sold to Kawi who has taken it incredilbe HSA printing), Mark Gervais from Ningbo in China, Techo Screen in El Salvador, are all great companies, and I'll bet there are many others here on the board that you need to know. You could be a small printer and land a big fish that you could partner with these great companies and land a new customer and capability that is often proprietary. I've tried duplicating Tom's seps by hand, and failed miserably. Some of the shops I go into have continual R&D and ask the tough questions at shows from Mark Coudray, Lon Winters, myself and fellow printers then go on to improve it. I couldn't touch the work from the companies I have mentioned above, they have it down, sometimes instead of beating them, join them and you too can offer product that can take years of hard R&D that never ends.
Can I print it as an example for educational purposes only and show manual/automated separation methods and the sep/halftone/print results? It might be fewer or the same number of colors depending on the level-of-detail and color-tone-detail-level I want to maintain.
Was there black used do you know or was it the shirt color?
There are products available to the industry that have been created which took years of hard R&D work that never ends, and hundreds of shops are using those products to print this level of art with automated methods developed by a professional manual color separator with years of experience, and I have been talking with Mark Coudrey for years about all of this as well, we don't communicate very often, but he informed me that I was on the right path with HSB and about all the other variables at work with the inks and gamut-mapping etc, and I share with him my research and progress. We aren't like long-term friends or anything but I am no stranger to these persons and companies you are mentioning. I have been trying to learn and study all I could from all the greatest in the industry for 12 years... I found a lot of stuff that worked and a lot that didn't make any sense at all and had to struggle to work my way out of those confusing aspects into more logical and repeatable workflows.
I was informed by Alvy Ray Smith in our correspondence that my research and development of the HWB color model is farther than he thought about it and encouraged by him to continue my work in these areas, as he is busy working on his book "The Biography of the Pixel".
This R&D into color models and color-processing and selection/masking/separation, halftone dithering (which I am now writing my own halftone algorithms and know how to work with existing index and mapping techiques, have written an expanded color model and processing directly at the RGB pixel-mapping level, object and shape recognition not just color-processing and separation) - and in some niche areas the outputs of color separation and halftone for things like screenprinting... it is way more than just a screenprinting color-separation thing. But the cool part is this came out of the needs of an artist/color-separator/screenprinter to have tools and understanding that worked more reliably and makes more sense, etc. We use white inks over dark backgrounds a lot more than most other print processes, we use black inks and white inks together a lot... with bright colors of various hues - some custom colors of course -- but HWB is the best color model for our understanding of color and working with it in many ways not just for screenprinting... it just naturally unravels into all other aspects of color and how it is thought about, discussed, and utilized. This entire journey I am on is about much more than screenprinting R&D. I wish there was a lot less of this closed-minded mentality that somehow these amazing screenprint companies and screenprint R&D guys have solved everything already and nothing new can be innovated and that color theory and science doesn't apply to this process at all. You wouldn't be printers today using the computers and graphics applications and color processing images from RGB using alpha masks and color image processing algorithms without the work of much more than the screenprint guys - consider the work of Alvy Ray Smith and then whether or not there is perhaps a lot more to come from developments based on his work and others that apply to screenprint as well as other areas..... we would be good to learn and extend the work of more than just the giants of screenprint, especially if it applies to our processes in very useful ways that improve our bottom-line. All of the technical stuff aside, what I have seen in both research and actual results is a major impact to the bottom line of anyone using the techniques either manually or automatically... artists spend more time creating art, print and screen guys make seps and screens in minutes that surpass what the artists could do anyway spending hours, and the print results can even use less ink colors or more if you want - but in logical ways and for detail/color tone reasons, and for the large shops this means millions of dollars of savings in labor and ink and usage etc. It is not just some new stuff that is only theory and unpracticed... a lot of the things I've brought to the table and developed and released have and continue to help hundreds of print shops do what used to only be considered capable if you had my pro-separator level of experience and years of skill and "eyes" etc... that is all not true because I put the methods logically into automations that are repeatable. Yes there is still some user input and quality-control needed etc. But sometimes I think what people call "manual" and "automated" could be the same steps just one is happening automatically, the other by a precise human operator.. like comparing manual printing to automatic. I know in my experience I can print on manual the same quality and accuracy as an auto... it will just take longer.
It is a good thing to realize that what was once considered to be absolute can quickly become obsolete.
-
Thanks for the replies to the drum print.
This was hand separated and if I'm not mistaken an 11-12 color print.
Here is the original art I provided him. I still like making a t-shirt now and then!
It's neat to go in a shop in some corner of the world and see a screen maker wearing one he picked up at a show or from my dealers.
([url]http://murakamiscreen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/ISS-2013-Show-Shirt.gif[/url])
One of the best things I ever learned in this business was to outsource. We managed to grow our company by leaps and bounds using other company's skills. So many great printers that sometimes it doesn't pay to reinvent the wheel. We had a 6, 8, 12 color presses. but a job like this needs more heads, more flashes and so it was cheaper on high color count sim process to job it out. That company found we had puff foil dialed in with discharge printing, so we shared business. This is invaluable when you get overloaded with work, or the job is beyond your capabilities. We eventually became merchandisers and after he closed due to health it led me to a Nike Sourcing job and all the great shops in the US and Central America. Now I try to give back all the tricks I have learned from my shop and those that my printers are willing to share, some I won't share which are proprietary but golden. Tom at Motion, Pierre, Danny, Culture Studio, Morning Sun Shirt Company (which was my first comany I started and was sold to Kawi who has taken it incredilbe HSA printing), Mark Gervais from Ningbo in China, Techo Screen in El Salvador, are all great companies, and I'll bet there are many others here on the board that you need to know. You could be a small printer and land a big fish that you could partner with these great companies and land a new customer and capability that is often proprietary. I've tried duplicating Tom's seps by hand, and failed miserably. Some of the shops I go into have continual R&D and ask the tough questions at shows from Mark Coudray, Lon Winters, myself and fellow printers then go on to improve it. I couldn't touch the work from the companies I have mentioned above, they have it down, sometimes instead of beating them, join them and you too can offer product that can take years of hard R&D that never ends.
I'll second this and to further drive Al's point, I'll say that we spent $10,000 and 1,000 hours on screens/stencil R&D! That's six months of doing nothing but working on screens eight hours each day.
We pretty regularly print for other screen printers when there is something they can't do. I'd also add that we are nowhere close to what some of the other shops mentioned are doing! Anybody that has an opportunity should check out Tom's prints, they are insane!
Pierre
-
So if I spend $10,000.01 and 1000 hours plus a minute on screens/stencil R&D can I come back and post?
-
Don't know and I am known to set aside some time for R&D but it appears some people have a whole lot of time on there hands ;)
-
Don't know and I am known to set aside some time for R&D but it appears some people have a whole lot of time on there hands ;)
To be fair and perhaps also add some perspective, Pierre's screen/stencil study is cramming a lot into a much shorter time in the industry than you have spent.
-
Yes a black was used in the print. One trick that I found very useful to get the most out of sim process was halftone base. This method however can create a lot of inks that can't be stored accurately by pantone number and they will lose opacity. Basically on press we kept a five of halftone base nearby and added it sparingly to the color overprints. Usually less than 10% and more often than not below 5% added halftone base. It can't be done by numbers. It is done by eye as it is printed. This sometimes added a half an hour and a lot of printed pellons and scrap shirts, but the eye can see on press what we can't see in the sep process, although opacity in channels helps preview, the wet onto wet process can step on the first down colors 6-7 times. Adding halftone base brings out a lot more color than just dropping in pantone matched inks. Works with 4/C process as well if one color is too strong. The secondary and tertiary colors in sim process created by overlapped/interlocking colors with added ink transparency helped achieve better sim process for us. No matter how good the separations we found adjusting transparency helped the wet onto wet printing achieve better color transition. In large production shops doing this to the ink can create an ink inventory nightmare. Also for long runs it is hard to get consistency. We did this on run lengths where we knew the amount of ink to print 600-1200 shirts was in the screen to begin with and any remaining ink was added to a black mix drum.
For anyone wanting to play with the drum art or guitar art to play with PM me.
Sorry this all led to the hijacking of the thread, but a lot of good info here on seps and exposure. Screen Printing's final product is a moving target, art complexity, sep technique, on press tweaks of inks, squeegee settings, all contribute to the print and we work in a subjective industry where beauty is in the eye of the beholder, unless your a screen printer. Then you pinch the print, stretch it, get out a loupe to see either how it was done or how it could be better. Constant improvement of techniques and product selection make all the difference.
Al