TSB
screen printing => Equipment => Topic started by: blue moon on October 13, 2013, 11:07:54 AM
-
We've been testing the Vastex Exposure unit here for last few weeks and I find myself liking it more and more to the point it is the first unit I go to when exposing screens. The MH unit is seeing very little use right now. I will be sad to see it go back (not in the budget right now).
pierre
-
So you would switch 100% given the choice?
-
So you would switch 100% given the choice?
I like it very much and would most likely switch. I still have one more batch of tests to do and will know better then. My opinion, FWIIW, is that anybody not printing at competition level would be better off with this unit. If the tests go as anticipated, even the high end stuff will look as good as MH unit while having many other advantages.
pierre
-
If you have a chance can you let us know more about what emulsion(s) you're testing and the results. I guess more details in general would be awesome.
-
I would like to know how it handles 55 an 65 lpi when you run those test.
-
If you have a chance can you let us know more about what emulsion(s) you're testing and the results. I guess more details in general would be awesome.
It may take some searching, but I think that Pierre has posted a bit in other threads about the experience with different emulsions and the Vastex and original Baby Joe units.
-
If you have a chance can you let us know more about what emulsion(s) you're testing and the results. I guess more details in general would be awesome.
It may take some searching, but I think that Pierre has posted a bit in other threads about the experience with different emulsions and the Vastex and original Baby Joe units.
cant speak for others units but ours is exposing pure photo polymers at 3 seconds and diazo at 12 seconds. Lon Winters has been here one week so far and has one more to go and we will have most emulsions mapped on all three different versions of ours. Test results will be available by the SGAI show in two weeks.
-
With exposure times like that how opaque does the film have to be? I'm assuming the amount of UV is massive, and wonder if my inkjet film will block it sufficiently...
-
If you have a chance can you let us know more about what emulsion(s) you're testing and the results. I guess more details in general would be awesome.
It may take some searching, but I think that Pierre has posted a bit in other threads about the experience with different emulsions and the Vastex and original Baby Joe units.
cant speak for others units but ours is exposing pure photo polymers at 3 seconds and diazo at 12 seconds. Lon Winters has been here one week so far and has one more to go and we will have most emulsions mapped on all three different versions of ours. Test results will be available by the SGAI show in two weeks.
For those of us not making it to that show will there be a way to see the results?
-
3-12 seconds Rich??? That's quick, gowns the Vastex ones times Pierre?
-
3-12 seconds Rich??? That's quick, gowns the Vastex ones times Pierre?
It is what it is. Our units will be at the show AND we will be coating and exposing screens. Look for the big yellow room!
-
3-12 seconds Rich??? That's quick, gowns the Vastex ones times Pierre?
not that quick, but not far off either. . .
pierre
-
If you have a chance can you let us know more about what emulsion(s) you're testing and the results. I guess more details in general would be awesome.
It may take some searching, but I think that Pierre has posted a bit in other threads about the experience with different emulsions and the Vastex and original Baby Joe units.
cant speak for others units but ours is exposing pure photo polymers at 3 seconds and diazo at 12 seconds. Lon Winters has been here one week so far and has one more to go and we will have most emulsions mapped on all three different versions of ours. Test results will be available by the SGAI show in two weeks.
For those of us not making it to that show will there be a way to see the results?
there will be video shortly after the show.
-
I've got 5 screens I was going to take over there and test out but couldn't do it on Friday due to being shorthanded so maybe I can go today. I'm not going to mess around with the expo calculator rules and I will just put the screens on there and burn them for 10-30 seconds in 5 second increments and see what happens. According to the expo calculator I used last time, nothing would have been exposed properly until the 30 second range and that was 305 and HVP emulsion, no diazo so I'm not thinking this unit I'm testing with the emulsion I'm using is going to be as fast as some are expecting. I hope I'm wrong though, I want LED to be great.
When it comes to testing this stuff, we can do some crazy 10 second exposures with our MH unit and get a usable stencil but no way would that screen hold up to DC inks so I'm not sure what the standard should be when testing. There is no real way to test this unit without running a long DC job on them when we're finished exposing them for 5 seconds or whatever the time is because I've seen it so many times, a screen looks fully developed and shows no signs of underexposure until you're 50 shirts into a DC print.
-
Do you have any of the exposure step strips? We throw those on every screen to see how our exposures/coating/emulsion is doing. Just sort of a checks and balance... only downside is the ink and tape react after a while.
-
OK, those throwing with numbers of 3, 5, 10, 12 seconds made me think a bit.
Is there really an advantage of having a exposure unit that will save you 4 seconds per screen, even if you are making 100 of screens per day?
That is 400 seconds which is less that 7 minutes per day if you do 100 screen per day, and there is only a few of people here that do that regularly. (Maybe)
My biggest concern is a margin of error in the 3 or 5 seconds exposure time.
I have Nuarc 40-1K and takes me about 80 seconds to expose a screen. I expose one, wet it, get the new screen out and put it in exposure unit, wet the first one again, start exposure, wet the first one again, wait a bit, wash out. By the time I wash out the first one, second one is exposed. Even if I mess up a bit with exposure times, i'm still OK with slightly overexposed screen.
But if you overexpose a screen with this unit by a .25 of the second, you are screwed. And, after 4-5 minutes you will have 20 screens exposed and none of them will be washed out, or if you have two people working, you might have 3-4 washed out by the time you expose 20.
I would like to have better exposure unit, and maybe expose the screens in 30 seconds, but to me, I do not see the benefit of exposing a screen that fast. I understand a benefit of saving time exposing, but unless you can was out that fast, what is the benefit? Except maybe say that you have a machine that can expose a screen in 3 seconds.
Just thinking out loud :)
-
There is no real way to test this unit without running a long DC job on them when we're finished exposing them for 5 seconds or whatever the time is because I've seen it so many times, a screen looks fully developed and shows no signs of underexposure until you're 50 shirts into a DC print.
BINGO!
-
Alan is correct, the time needs to be longer. Richard Greaves spoke with me at length once regarding this. Fast is good for production in some situations but not optimal for the strongest stencil. I think the ideal is a speed that gives the flood of UV light adequate time to penetrate through the stencil but not so long that undercutting begins to effect fine detail.
DK, to answer your question I feel that you can always setup a screen area to allow someone to do another task while exposure is going on- aligning film, etc. So expo time to me is more a function of getting the perfect screen, not speed of exposure
Now, if one were to develop an emulsion specifically for a certain LED spectral output you may be able to change this and rip out quality exposures at 3sec but DK is correct in that your margin of error will be very unforgiving here. I say that a 12-24s expo is plenty fast for a 1up unit.
Also, we're all comparing expo times using halide bulbs which are placed much further away from the screen. Our unit's shutter is optimal at about 64", for example. If we had a bank of tiny little halide outputting devices sitting inches away from our glass that would obviously change a lot of expo values. Inverse square law or some business like that.
-
OK, those throwing with numbers of 3, 5, 10, 12 seconds made me think a bit.
Is there really an advantage of having a exposure unit that will save you 4 seconds per screen, even if you are making 100 of screens per day?
That is 400 seconds which is less that 7 minutes per day if you do 100 screen per day, and there is only a few of people here that do that regularly. (Maybe)
My biggest concern is a margin of error in the 3 or 5 seconds exposure time.
I have Nuarc 40-1K and takes me about 80 seconds to expose a screen. I expose one, wet it, get the new screen out and put it in exposure unit, wet the first one again, start exposure, wet the first one again, wait a bit, wash out. By the time I wash out the first one, second one is exposed. Even if I mess up a bit with exposure times, i'm still OK with slightly overexposed screen.
But if you overexpose a screen with this unit by a .25 of the second, you are screwed. And, after 4-5 minutes you will have 20 screens exposed and none of them will be washed out, or if you have two people working, you might have 3-4 washed out by the time you expose 20.
I would like to have better exposure unit, and maybe expose the screens in 30 seconds, but to me, I do not see the benefit of exposing a screen that fast. I understand a benefit of saving time exposing, but unless you can was out that fast, what is the benefit? Except maybe say that you have a machine that can expose a screen in 3 seconds.
Just thinking out loud :)
Come to the show and see. There will be a developer there washing out the screens as well. No need to have a person doing it with the Econo-Rinse unit. Seeing is believing and we are running the screens with no break down yet!
-
Rich, did you guys build a standalone, contained pressure washing unit? I've always thought that would be perfect to have a couple of those in the wet room instead of blasting water and chem vapor everywhere with a press washer.
-
Rich, did you guys build a standalone, contained pressure washing unit? I've always thought that would be perfect to have a couple of those in the wet room instead of blasting water and chem vapor everywhere with a press washer.
Yes we did. The unit will be on display at the SGAI show.
-
Excellent. One of your boys is stopping by tomorrow, I'll be sure to request some pricing.
-
Excellent. One of your boys is stopping by tomorrow, I'll be sure to request some pricing.
Pricing and information to the regional wont be ready until the day before the show. Still pricing the BOM.
-
I just got through developing and analyzing the 5 screens I burned with the Vastex unit. I know this won't matter to a good many of us but this is what I did with what I had. HVP, pure photopolymer without the diazo added to it. We've found the HVP to burn almost exactly like all the other PP's that we've tried. These were all coated with the glisten method and had around 15-20% EOMR. I can get exact emulsion thickness numbers if anyone really wants them but just know these screens weren't thick by any means, but they weren't the bare minimum stencil either. I did the 305 at 10 seconds, 230 at 15, 195 at 15, 156 at 20 and the 110 at 30 seconds. The 156 and 110 were noticeably underexposed. The 305 sprayed out nicely and showed no signs of underexposure and the 230 and 195 also came out looking great. Our bulb is older now and when it's new, a light unit is about 5-6 seconds, now it's about 12-15 seconds per unit so when comparing exposure times with an aged bulb, the LED is significantly faster.
Now for the quality and stencil edges: I don't know if I'm just tired and couldn't get into looking through a loupe for an hour but I couldn't find any blemishes on the LED screens. Besides the usual underexposure problems that you see, there was really no difference between the 305 I burned with the MH unit versus the LED. They both looked fanstastic and held the same percentage dot and the edges were as crisp from screen to screen. I will look at these again in the morning to see if I find anything of significance on the LED screens but I don't think I'm gonna find anything that will matter to any of us, even those guys who are entering competitions.
So I guess I'll eat some crow. After my first test, I didn't think the LED would perform as good as a 5K and up MH bulb, but after these 5 screens, I am proven WRONG. More to come later as I think of it or if anyone has any questions on my little testing session today. I'll also look at the screens again in the morning with a fresh mind.
-
Other than the fast exposure times I thought the main benefit from the LED units is the fact that you would rarely, if ever, have to change the bulbs. I think what is appealing also, is that you can get close to a MH quality exposure in a smaller, tabletop unit. I know that isn't right for everyone, but for a smaller shop that isn't going to expose screens larger than 23x31, this type of unit will be ideal. If I'm in a space constraint, having a smaller exposure unit without sacrificing screen quality is a home run.
-
I just got through developing and analyzing the 5 screens I burned with the Vastex unit. I know this won't matter to a good many of us but this is what I did with what I had. HVP, pure photopolymer without the diazo added to it. We've found the HVP to burn almost exactly like all the other PP's that we've tried. These were all coated with the glisten method and had around 15-20% EOMR. I can get exact emulsion thickness numbers if anyone really wants them but just know these screens weren't thick by any means, but they weren't the bare minimum stencil either. I did the 305 at 10 seconds, 230 at 15, 195 at 15, 156 at 20 and the 110 at 30 seconds. The 156 and 110 were noticeably underexposed. The 305 sprayed out nicely and showed no signs of underexposure and the 230 and 195 also came out looking great. Our bulb is older now and when it's new, a light unit is about 5-6 seconds, now it's about 12-15 seconds per unit so when comparing exposure times with an aged bulb, the LED is significantly faster.
Now for the quality and stencil edges: I don't know if I'm just tired and couldn't get into looking through a loupe for an hour but I couldn't find any blemishes on the LED screens. Besides the usual underexposure problems that you see, there was really no difference between the 305 I burned with the MH unit versus the LED. They both looked fanstastic and held the same percentage dot and the edges were as crisp from screen to screen. I will look at these again in the morning to see if I find anything of significance on the LED screens but I don't think I'm gonna find anything that will matter to any of us, even those guys who are entering competitions.
So I guess I'll eat some crow. After my first test, I didn't think the LED would perform as good as a 5K and up MH bulb, but after these 5 screens, I am proven WRONG. More to come later as I think of it or if anyone has any questions on my little testing session today. I'll also look at the screens again in the morning with a fresh mind.
Can you expose some linearized 55 and 65 lpi screen halftone screens? I am waiting for someone to share that info....... :)
-
Pierre, if someone had a MH unit (msp3140) do you think they would see enough advantages going LED to make it worth it? I've been tempted to upgrade my old fluorescent unit (Nuarc first light).
Rich, will M&R also have an upgrade kit for fluorescent units?
-
Pierre, if someone had a MH unit (msp3140) do you think they would see enough advantages going LED to make it worth it? I've been tempted to upgrade my old fluorescent unit (Nuarc first light).
Rich, will M&R also have an upgrade kit for fluorescent units?
you would be better off with new. Cost would be less.
-
Just sharing.
I've had my Baby Joe 2000 for a bunch of months now and it's been awesome!
And even in Humidityville Hawaii, it's been handling great. Not sure how much changed when Vastex and the man who made the Baby Joe. Did it change much Pierre?
Any way, I was flourescent bulb guy for years upon years. Here in Hawaii it would take me a good 3:30 to expose a 156 screen. Now it takes me 30 seconds and it holds really good detail. I know that if I was back in California where it was really dry, exposure time would be faster.
Like I said. Just sharing.
Stoked I went LED.
-
I just got through developing and analyzing the 5 screens I burned with the Vastex unit. I know this won't matter to a good many of us but this is what I did with what I had. HVP, pure photopolymer without the diazo added to it. We've found the HVP to burn almost exactly like all the other PP's that we've tried. These were all coated with the glisten method and had around 15-20% EOMR. I can get exact emulsion thickness numbers if anyone really wants them but just know these screens weren't thick by any means, but they weren't the bare minimum stencil either. I did the 305 at 10 seconds, 230 at 15, 195 at 15, 156 at 20 and the 110 at 30 seconds. The 156 and 110 were noticeably underexposed. The 305 sprayed out nicely and showed no signs of underexposure and the 230 and 195 also came out looking great. Our bulb is older now and when it's new, a light unit is about 5-6 seconds, now it's about 12-15 seconds per unit so when comparing exposure times with an aged bulb, the LED is significantly faster.
Now for the quality and stencil edges: I don't know if I'm just tired and couldn't get into looking through a loupe for an hour but I couldn't find any blemishes on the LED screens. Besides the usual underexposure problems that you see, there was really no difference between the 305 I burned with the MH unit versus the LED. They both looked fanstastic and held the same percentage dot and the edges were as crisp from screen to screen. I will look at these again in the morning to see if I find anything of significance on the LED screens but I don't think I'm gonna find anything that will matter to any of us, even those guys who are entering competitions.
So I guess I'll eat some crow. After my first test, I didn't think the LED would perform as good as a 5K and up MH bulb, but after these 5 screens, I am proven WRONG. More to come later as I think of it or if anyone has any questions on my little testing session today. I'll also look at the screens again in the morning with a fresh mind.
Can you expose some linearized 55 and 65 lpi screen halftone screens? I am waiting for someone to share that info....... :)
The exposure calculator has 65, 85 and 105 line halftones from 0-100%. The LED held the same dot as the MH unit. On the 65 line it held the 5% down to the 97% coverage hafltones, I didn't really look at the 85 and 105's because those dots are way too small for a 305 in my opinion. I did hold them in probably the 9%-82% range on the 85 line row but I don't remember at all what the 105 looked like, I rarely pay much attention to that row because if my guy outputs anything at 105 I'm gonna put a boot in his rear.
-
I just got through developing and analyzing the 5 screens I burned with the Vastex unit. I know this won't matter to a good many of us but this is what I did with what I had. HVP, pure photopolymer without the diazo added to it. We've found the HVP to burn almost exactly like all the other PP's that we've tried. These were all coated with the glisten method and had around 15-20% EOMR. I can get exact emulsion thickness numbers if anyone really wants them but just know these screens weren't thick by any means, but they weren't the bare minimum stencil either. I did the 305 at 10 seconds, 230 at 15, 195 at 15, 156 at 20 and the 110 at 30 seconds. The 156 and 110 were noticeably underexposed. The 305 sprayed out nicely and showed no signs of underexposure and the 230 and 195 also came out looking great. Our bulb is older now and when it's new, a light unit is about 5-6 seconds, now it's about 12-15 seconds per unit so when comparing exposure times with an aged bulb, the LED is significantly faster.
Now for the quality and stencil edges: I don't know if I'm just tired and couldn't get into looking through a loupe for an hour but I couldn't find any blemishes on the LED screens. Besides the usual underexposure problems that you see, there was really no difference between the 305 I burned with the MH unit versus the LED. They both looked fanstastic and held the same percentage dot and the edges were as crisp from screen to screen. I will look at these again in the morning to see if I find anything of significance on the LED screens but I don't think I'm gonna find anything that will matter to any of us, even those guys who are entering competitions.
So I guess I'll eat some crow. After my first test, I didn't think the LED would perform as good as a 5K and up MH bulb, but after these 5 screens, I am proven WRONG. More to come later as I think of it or if anyone has any questions on my little testing session today. I'll also look at the screens again in the morning with a fresh mind.
Can you expose some linearized 55 and 65 lpi screen halftone screens? I am waiting for someone to share that info....... :)
The exposure calculator has 65, 85 and 105 line halftones from 0-100%. The LED held the same dot as the MH unit. On the 65 line it held the 5% down to the 97% coverage hafltones, I didn't really look at the 85 and 105's because those dots are way too small for a 305 in my opinion. I did hold them in probably the 9%-82% range on the 85 line row but I don't remember at all what the 105 looked like, I rarely pay much attention to that row because if my guy outputs anything at 105 I'm gonna put a boot in his rear.
If that exposure calc was image set thats good news. Most shops cant hold a true 5% dot anyways let alone print it. Thanks Alan.
-
Yeah Blue, it's an imagesetter film. The halftone dots are so clean and crisp compared to an inkjet. The epson film with accurip makes a decent halftone that looks fine by eye but under a loupe you can really see the difference. The hafltones I've seen from most inkjets look like little meatballs and the imagesetter dots are like ball bearings. But that difference you see through a loupe means very little when printing on a t-shirt so anyone with an injet and a RIP can do some amazing things.
-
Imagesetters were what we used at companies like OATS, Winterland, Harlequin etc in the days before inkjet and yes, in some cases print quality was actually better than today in some cases but not by enough to affect sales. Andy A is the only one I know of who still uses one but I'm sure there are others. And yes the dots are truly round and not popcorn (or meatball!)
-
Imagesetters were what we used at companies like OATS, Winterland, Harlequin etc in the days before inkjet and yes, in some cases print quality was actually better than today in some cases but not by enough to affect sales. Andy A is the only one I know of who still uses one but I'm sure there are others. And yes the dots are truly round and not popcorn (or meatball!)
I think Andy's bailing wire finally gave up and he is using an EPSON now. . . .
pierre
-
HA! Not surprised last time I was there he was pretty worried about parts
-
Excellent. One of your boys is stopping by tomorrow, I'll be sure to request some pricing.
Pricing and information to the regional wont be ready until the day before the show. Still pricing the BOM.
Can you throw one in the crate with my new dryer? My old 3140 has seen better days......lol
-
not sure if it's been posted or not, but did you guys see this one?
http://lightspeedequipment.com/patent-pending-led-uv-exposure-unit/ (http://lightspeedequipment.com/patent-pending-led-uv-exposure-unit/)
-
I don't know about that "pattern" of bulbs... doesn't seem uniform.
http://lightspeedequipment.com/wp-content/uploads/patent-pending-led-uv-exposure-300x128.png (http://lightspeedequipment.com/wp-content/uploads/patent-pending-led-uv-exposure-300x128.png)
I like his demo area, good place for UV exposure "test". :)
-
Tada!
http://www.mrprint.com/en/Screen%20Exposure%20Units%20&%20CTS%20Systems/Screen%20Exposure%20Systems/Screen%20Printing%20Exposure%20Units/D-SCAN%20Scanning%20UV%20LED%20Screen%20Exposure%20System (http://www.mrprint.com/en/Screen%20Exposure%20Units%20&%20CTS%20Systems/Screen%20Exposure%20Systems/Screen%20Printing%20Exposure%20Units/D-SCAN%20Scanning%20UV%20LED%20Screen%20Exposure%20System)
-
So M&R's new exposure unit only works with those who have a CTS??????? Ouch...
"Since D-Scan is designed to work in conjunction with screens that have been imaged on CTS systems and since it does not utilize vacuum or glass, will not work properly with conventional film positives."
-
We use CTS. Surely they have developed a unit for conventional film exposures.
-
I just realized that the absence of glass could be one of the contributing factors of shorter exposure times.
Does anyone have real numbers on this factor? How much does the glass filter out?
-
Not using glass makes our exposure times 40% faster. Sometimes it's more like 50-60% on the low mesh screens.
I have real numbers if you really care I can get later.
I like the fact that it is space saving but it looks expensive and an LED / no glass / no vacuum exposure unit that is just a LED on off timer should be very inexpensive imo compared to a 5-10k watt MH unit.
-
In our case, exposure time was reduced 60-70 percent.
-
So why is that M&R not just one unit- CTS followed by LED scan? That would be slick.
-
^^Exactly! Next to the auto coater and robotic infeed/outfeed drying cabinet. ;)
What about not having film too? I bet most decent films block more UV than decent glass...
-
Our exposures were also in the 60% time also.
-
So why is that M&R not just one unit- CTS followed by LED scan? That would be slick.
That's what I thought we were going to see with their unit, but I was just guessing.
-
And the imagesetter clear film is "supposed" to only block 9% of the UV light and laser paper/vellum blocks 45%. So perhaps the lack of glass is a bigger time saver than no film. I would have thought the waterproof inkjet film would block more UV than the glass on our expo unit but I guess I'm wrong.
-
Film is a couple thous thick, our glass is what, 3/8s?
-
Somebody actually posted a value for how much each mm of float glass blocks what % of UV on the older message boards. I used it when going to thicker glass to adjust expo times and it worked!
-
We use CTS. Surely they have developed a unit for conventional film exposures.
Surely...??? <insert cricket noise>. Anyone? Anyone? Bueler? Fry?
-
We use CTS. Surely they have developed a unit for conventional film exposures.
Surely...??? <insert cricket noise>. Anyone? Anyone? Bueler? Fry?
from what I can tell, there is quite a bit more going on, but they probably have to wait for the official release date. . . Give ti few more days.
pierre
-
M&R does have a cts unit with a led light bar on it..... It's called the I Image STE and will be at sgia from what Rich told me........ Brand new, nobody has one yet but I know they have been testing it......
It's an all in one cts/exposure unit....
-
LED for reg film positives, w glass and vacuum?
http://www.mrprint.com/en/Screen%20Exposure%20Units%20&%20CTS%20Systems/Screen%20Exposure%20Systems/Screen%20Printing%20Exposure%20Units/STARLIGHT%20UV%20LED%20Screen%20Exposure%20System (http://www.mrprint.com/en/Screen%20Exposure%20Units%20&%20CTS%20Systems/Screen%20Exposure%20Systems/Screen%20Printing%20Exposure%20Units/STARLIGHT%20UV%20LED%20Screen%20Exposure%20System)
8)
-
And the next post will have the link to the led unit that can hold a 25x36 screen with a film positive taped to it right? Help a brotha out!!! :-)
-
the lightspeed in reply 36 and 37 does that, id imagine there will be an M&R unit soon enough.
-
And the next post will have the link to the led unit that can hold a 25x36 screen with a film positive taped to it right? Help a brotha out!!! :-)
Vacuum, we don't need no stinking vacuum. Back in the day,1998... this guy I know... ::) had no exposure unit. He would lightly spray tack films and affix them to back of the screen, step out the back door of the shop and in one minute would have an exposed screen. Ahh, the good old days.
-
And the next post will have the link to the led unit that can hold a 25x36 screen with a film positive taped to it right? Help a brotha out!!! :-)
Vacuum, we don't need no stinking vacuum. Back in the day,1998... this guy I know... ::) had no exposure unit. He would lightly spray tack films and affix them to back of the screen, step out the back door of the shop and in one minute would have an exposed screen. Ahh, the good old days.
Don't recall the name, but remember that he was an Aussie, a regular at TSPMB, used to boast of using "turps" to adhere films with no glass or vacuum.
-
Vacuum, we don't need no stinking vacuum. Back in the day,1998... this guy I know... ::) had no exposure unit. He would lightly spray tack films and affix them to back of the screen, step out the back door of the shop and in one minute would have an exposed screen. Ahh, the good old days.
We used to print shirts for the SF MOMA and other museum shops with wood frame screens exposed in the sun. 4 color reproductions of Frida Kahlo, etc.
3M artist adhesive spray. One light coat on the film, stick it to the screen. Bring the screen out on a black fabric covered board. Angle the screen to the sun and lift the cover to expose, then get it inside.
I think the shop manager had some technique for measuring the exposure times by using a camera light meter. I never got the details, I'd just expose at the times she'd tell me on a given day. Worked great.
Films were a fricken MESS though.
:o
-
LED for reg film positives, w glass and vacuum?
[url]http://www.mrprint.com/en/Screen%20Exposure%20Units%20&%20CTS%20Systems/Screen%20Exposure%20Systems/Screen%20Printing%20Exposure%20Units/STARLIGHT%20UV%20LED%20Screen%20Exposure%20System[/url] ([url]http://www.mrprint.com/en/Screen%20Exposure%20Units%20&%20CTS%20Systems/Screen%20Exposure%20Systems/Screen%20Printing%20Exposure%20Units/STARLIGHT%20UV%20LED%20Screen%20Exposure%20System[/url])
8)
If there would be just a bit more info about that unit. 3-5 sec. Exposure, how was the screen coated, what mesh count, etc. Unfortunately it looks like it can't hold a tri loc frame. So far there is a unit for the CTS guys and one for shops that obviously don't have use for the tri loc. I hope there will be a third LED unit soon. Would consider buying the starlight if it would be slightly bigger.and by the way the dimensions in CM are totally wrong.
-
LED for reg film positives, w glass and vacuum?
[url]http://www.mrprint.com/en/Screen%20Exposure%20Units%20&%20CTS%20Systems/Screen%20Exposure%20Systems/Screen%20Printing%20Exposure%20Units/STARLIGHT%20UV%20LED%20Screen%20Exposure%20System[/url] ([url]http://www.mrprint.com/en/Screen%20Exposure%20Units%20&%20CTS%20Systems/Screen%20Exposure%20Systems/Screen%20Printing%20Exposure%20Units/STARLIGHT%20UV%20LED%20Screen%20Exposure%20System[/url])
8)
there is a larger one as well. It is called The Starlight 3140. Will be
If there would be just a bit more info about that unit. 3-5 sec. Exposure, how was the screen coated, what mesh count, etc. Unfortunately it looks like it can't hold a tri loc frame. So far there is a unit for the CTS guys and one for shops that obviously don't have use for the tri loc. I hope there will be a third LED unit soon. Would consider buying the starlight if it would be slightly bigger.and by the way the dimensions in CM are totally wrong.
-
LED for reg film positives, w glass and vacuum?
[url]http://www.mrprint.com/en/Screen%20Exposure%20Units%20&%20CTS%20Systems/Screen%20Exposure%20Systems/Screen%20Printing%20Exposure%20Units/STARLIGHT%20UV%20LED%20Screen%20Exposure%20System[/url] ([url]http://www.mrprint.com/en/Screen%20Exposure%20Units%20&%20CTS%20Systems/Screen%20Exposure%20Systems/Screen%20Printing%20Exposure%20Units/STARLIGHT%20UV%20LED%20Screen%20Exposure%20System[/url])
8)
there is a larger one as well. It is called The Starlight 3140. Will be
If there would be just a bit more info about that unit. 3-5 sec. Exposure, how was the screen coated, what mesh count, etc. Unfortunately it looks like it can't hold a tri loc frame. So far there is a unit for the CTS guys and one for shops that obviously don't have use for the tri loc. I hope there will be a third LED unit soon. Would consider buying the starlight if it would be slightly bigger.and by the way the dimensions in CM are totally wrong.
Great that`s going to be ours. Any idea about the price already?
-
Here you guys go... the combined cts and exposure unit from m&r... Now if I could just get rich to send one my way I'll let you all know how it does! ;D
http://www.mrprint.com/en/Screen%20Exposure%20Units%20&%20CTS%20Systems/CTS%20Computer-to-Screen%20Imaging%20Systems/Computer-to-Screen%20Imaging%20Units/I-IMAGE%20STE%20Computer-to-Screen%20Imaging%20&%20Exposure%20System (http://www.mrprint.com/en/Screen%20Exposure%20Units%20&%20CTS%20Systems/CTS%20Computer-to-Screen%20Imaging%20Systems/Computer-to-Screen%20Imaging%20Units/I-IMAGE%20STE%20Computer-to-Screen%20Imaging%20&%20Exposure%20System)
-
...we are super-stoked here to have actually secured the Starlight demo unit from SGIA! We hope to have it here next week sometime, and not a moment too soon....our old fluo-tube unit has really become a bottleneck here. I will, of course, be sure to let you all know how it works out!
...let it be said that having manufacturer representation on this forum, in this case Rich/244, is a benefit that shouldn't be overlooked. Thanks again Rich!
-
Here you guys go... the combined cts and exposure unit from m&r... Now if I could just get rich to send one my way I'll let you all know how it does! ;D
[url]http://www.mrprint.com/en/Screen%20Exposure%20Units%20&%20CTS%20Systems/CTS%20Computer-to-Screen%20Imaging%20Systems/Computer-to-Screen%20Imaging%20Units/I-IMAGE%20STE%20Computer-to-Screen%20Imaging%20&%20Exposure%20System[/url] ([url]http://www.mrprint.com/en/Screen%20Exposure%20Units%20&%20CTS%20Systems/CTS%20Computer-to-Screen%20Imaging%20Systems/Computer-to-Screen%20Imaging%20Units/I-IMAGE%20STE%20Computer-to-Screen%20Imaging%20&%20Exposure%20System[/url])
That's what I've been waiting for! Genius.
-
Did I not see something like this on a post from Germany. As I recall you put the coated screen in one end and it came out the other end exposed washed out and dry. Kind of overkill I guess. :o :o
-
Did I not see something like this on a post from Germany. As I recall you put the coated screen in one end and it came out the other end exposed washed out and dry. Kind of overkill I guess. :o :o
There was a video posted a few weeks back that had what looked to be about a million dollar machine that the image was burned into the screen via direct light. No ink or anything on the screen, just a beam of light exposing the image onto the screen. Now that is amazing technology but not feasible for most.
-
did not get a chance to check the M&R site yet, but from what I understand, the unit they are showing will print (DTS) and expose as it prints (using LED lights).
The big machine from Germany (about $300K) will actually expose with a laser and then wash out the screen too. There are similar units that can be had for $150K or so, but based on Volkers testing they do not seem to be worth the money.
pierre
-
did not get a chance to check the M&R site yet, but from what I understand, the unit they are showing will print (DTS) and expose as it prints (using LED lights).
The big machine from Germany (about $300K) will actually expose with a laser and then wash out the screen too. There are similar units that can be had for $150K or so, but based on Volkers testing they do not seem to be worth the money.
pierre
The machine Volker has is amazing. I was looking at the company's website to see if they had a cheep version or what have you. They are based out of Switzerland and have 1 other office, it's in the US and I'll be damned if I haven't been driving by it for the last 4 years everyday on my way in!!! What are the chances? Switzerland and Minnesota? Anyway ya, those suckers are a bit more than a shiny nickle. I'll have to drive by their dumpster on my way home nightly, maybe they throw the old ones away! :P
-
did not get a chance to check the M&R site yet, but from what I understand, the unit they are showing will print (DTS) and expose as it prints (using LED lights).
The big machine from Germany (about $300K) will actually expose with a laser and then wash out the screen too. There are similar units that can be had for $150K or so, but based on Volkers testing they do not seem to be worth the money.
pierre
The machine Volker has is amazing. I was looking at the company's website to see if they had a cheep version or what have you. They are based out of Switzerland and have 1 other office, it's in the US and I'll be damned if I haven't been driving by it for the last 4 years everyday on my way in!!! What are the chances? Switzerland and Minnesota? Anyway ya, those suckers are a bit more than a shiny nickle. I'll have to drive by their dumpster on my way home nightly, maybe they throw the old ones away! :P
I'll come help you dumpster diving!
pierre
-
Bet you they don't throw out those blue lasers...(if they're still working, of course.)
And the imagesetter clear film is "supposed" to only block 9% of the UV light and laser paper/vellum blocks 45%. So perhaps the lack of glass is a bigger time saver than no film. I would have thought the waterproof inkjet film would block more UV than the glass on our expo unit but I guess I'm wrong.
Should have clarified 'Inkjet' film, but I'm only guessing it's worse than imagesetting film. IIRC, the stat I had on 1/4" 'low iron' glass was 91% UV transmission, so maybe high quality glass and high quality film are pretty similar.
-
I heard that German machine used a DLP setup for the light source. That seems to make sense to me.
-
LED for reg film positives, w glass and vacuum?
[url]http://www.mrprint.com/en/Screen%20Exposure%20Units%20&%20CTS%20Systems/Screen%20Exposure%20Systems/Screen%20Printing%20Exposure%20Units/STARLIGHT%20UV%20LED%20Screen%20Exposure%20System[/url] ([url]http://www.mrprint.com/en/Screen%20Exposure%20Units%20&%20CTS%20Systems/Screen%20Exposure%20Systems/Screen%20Printing%20Exposure%20Units/STARLIGHT%20UV%20LED%20Screen%20Exposure%20System[/url])
8)
there is a larger one as well. It is called The Starlight 3140. Will be
If there would be just a bit more info about that unit. 3-5 sec. Exposure, how was the screen coated, what mesh count, etc. Unfortunately it looks like it can't hold a tri loc frame. So far there is a unit for the CTS guys and one for shops that obviously don't have use for the tri loc. I hope there will be a third LED unit soon. Would consider buying the starlight if it would be slightly bigger.and by the way the dimensions in CM are totally wrong.
The Starlight 3140 will be available this year？Would love to buy some new equipment before the end of the year. I will get Rick to email me quote anyway.
-
I heard that German machine used a DLP setup for the light source. That seems to make sense to me.
Does look like it could be a projector, but a laser with a scanning mirror array could look just like that as well in a video. I think the question is what DLP stands for--digital light projection, or process.
Any tech docs in English? ;)
-
I heard that German machine used a DLP setup for the light source. That seems to make sense to me.
Does look like it could be a projector, but a laser with a scanning mirror array could look just like that as well in a video. I think the question is what DLP stands for--digital light projection, or process.
Any tech docs in English? ;)
I talked to them in Orland last week. It uses a small MH bulb that is then sent to the screen by mirrors (DLP). The bulb is good for thousand hours (100 days of 10 hours per day) and it costs $3k to replace!!! :o
pierre
-
LED for reg film positives, w glass and vacuum?
[url]http://www.mrprint.com/en/Screen%20Exposure%20Units%20&%20CTS%20Systems/Screen%20Exposure%20Systems/Screen%20Printing%20Exposure%20Units/STARLIGHT%20UV%20LED%20Screen%20Exposure%20System[/url] ([url]http://www.mrprint.com/en/Screen%20Exposure%20Units%20&%20CTS%20Systems/Screen%20Exposure%20Systems/Screen%20Printing%20Exposure%20Units/STARLIGHT%20UV%20LED%20Screen%20Exposure%20System[/url])
8)
Whats the retail on one of these??
-
LED for reg film positives, w glass and vacuum?
[url]http://www.mrprint.com/en/Screen%20Exposure%20Units%20&%20CTS%20Systems/Screen%20Exposure%20Systems/Screen%20Printing%20Exposure%20Units/STARLIGHT%20UV%20LED%20Screen%20Exposure%20System[/url] ([url]http://www.mrprint.com/en/Screen%20Exposure%20Units%20&%20CTS%20Systems/Screen%20Exposure%20Systems/Screen%20Printing%20Exposure%20Units/STARLIGHT%20UV%20LED%20Screen%20Exposure%20System[/url])
8)
Whats the retail on one of these??
Why don`t you wait for the Starlight 3140, at least it can hold the tri loc frame. That will be released beginning of next year I was told.
-
I heard that German machine used a DLP setup for the light source. That seems to make sense to me.
Does look like it could be a projector, but a laser with a scanning mirror array could look just like that as well in a video. I think the question is what DLP stands for--digital light projection, or process.
Any tech docs in English? ;)
I talked to them in Orland last week. It uses a small MH bulb that is then sent to the screen by mirrors (DLP). The bulb is good for thousand hours (100 days of 10 hours per day) and it costs $3k to replace!!! :o
pierre
<whistles>
Didn't realize skilled labor was THAT expensive in Germany.
I bet we don't even want to know what the mirror array costs to replace. ;)
-
I'm not being critical here, I'm just asking a question because honestly I really don't know. The cost of a good LED bulb...the ones I have looked at to put on my truck range in price drastically from one manufacturer to another, these are light bars that's all the rage in the offroad vehicle community. They are reasonably priced units, encased in rugged enclosures to stand up to a lot of abuse. I'm thinking there are more bulbs needed in an exposure unit but the enclosure material would be cheaper and at the very least, not more expensive even though there is more of it. I've seen some 50" light bars like this for a decent chunk of change.
http://www.xtralights.com/50-e-series-flood-light-bar-white-single.aspx?utm_source=GoogleShopping&utm_medium=organic&gclid=CNTGrpeyxLoCFQto7AodPGYARA (http://www.xtralights.com/50-e-series-flood-light-bar-white-single.aspx?utm_source=GoogleShopping&utm_medium=organic&gclid=CNTGrpeyxLoCFQto7AodPGYARA)
I'd like to know, are the LED's needed for our exposure units significantly more expensive than the ones going into the offroad light bars like above? There are light bars this size and with similar specs for 1/3 of the cost and the Rigid seems to be one of the more expensive units. I realize they may be more specialized to hit the spectrum that we need, but does the added specialization raise the price of a bulb by a huge margin?
I realize the people that can answer these questions probably aren't participating in this forum and most of us don't know exactly what bulb is going into these expo units nor what they cost, but I though maybe someone might have some knowledge to throw out here.
-
I'm not being critical here, I'm just asking a question because honestly I really don't know. The cost of a good LED bulb...the ones I have looked at to put on my truck range in price drastically from one manufacturer to another, these are light bars that's all the rage in the offroad vehicle community. They are reasonably priced units, encased in rugged enclosures to stand up to a lot of abuse. I'm thinking there are more bulbs needed in an exposure unit but the enclosure material would be cheaper and at the very least, not more expensive even though there is more of it. I've seen some 50" light bars like this for a decent chunk of change.
[url]http://www.xtralights.com/50-e-series-flood-light-bar-white-single.aspx?utm_source=GoogleShopping&utm_medium=organic&gclid=CNTGrpeyxLoCFQto7AodPGYARA[/url] ([url]http://www.xtralights.com/50-e-series-flood-light-bar-white-single.aspx?utm_source=GoogleShopping&utm_medium=organic&gclid=CNTGrpeyxLoCFQto7AodPGYARA[/url])
I'd like to know, are the LED's needed for our exposure units significantly more expensive than the ones going into the offroad light bars like above? There are light bars this size and with similar specs for 1/3 of the cost and the Rigid seems to be one of the more expensive units. I realize they may be more specialized to hit the spectrum that we need, but does the added specialization raise the price of a bulb by a huge margin?
I realize the people that can answer these questions probably aren't participating in this forum and most of us don't know exactly what bulb is going into these expo units nor what they cost, but I though maybe someone might have some knowledge to throw out here.
as in your truck LED's there are huge differences in the LED's we use for the exposure units. We have one design for curing ink on our multicolor graphic press manufactured by Phoseon that cost me $10,000 for an 8" unit so as you can see the price and type can be anywhere. The LED units you see in most if not all applications will do nothing to emulsion as there is no UV putput from the LED. The LED must be within a certain wave length and must generate UV. Our unit has circuit boards manufactured with the proper LED, wave length, and UV output. The unit on our I-Image STE has 960 LED's on the exposure bar and focused exactly where they need to be to produce the results we are looking for.
-
One of the biggest questions I had was answered in that there are 960 LED's on one unit. That's significantly more than I had thought would be there. I don't know exactly how many bulbs I saw on the Vastex unit I tested, I should have looked more carefully but I'm 100% certain there wasn't 960.
-
One of the biggest questions I had was answered in that there are 960 LED's on one unit. That's significantly more than I had thought would be there. I don't know exactly how many bulbs I saw on the Vastex unit I tested, I should have looked more carefully but I'm 100% certain there wasn't 960.
I can tell you that 960 leds is significantly more than the unit I have. Mine has 8 bars with approximately 12 to 16 lights per bar. I can only imagine how well the 960 would be because the 96 or so on the unit I have does an incredible job.