Why

[jason-23]

Why do they cost so freaking much? all it is is a flat bed epson printer that can print white ink too....wtf! is it because if they were cheap that everyone would be a screen printer? or am i missing something?

[Frog]

Why do they cost so freaking much? all it is is a flat bed epson printer that can print white ink too....wtf! is it because if they were cheap that everyone would be a screen printer? or am i missing something?

Not to answer your specific question, but seriously research the white ink thing.
That is still a weak point, a huge expense, or both.

Also, it has been said by more than one, that the machines based on Epsons are not the best compared to machines engineered from the ground up.

[blue moon]

Why do they cost so freaking much? all it is is a flat bed epson printer that can print white ink too....wtf! is it because if they were cheap that everyone would be a screen printer? or am i missing something?

heh, not sure if this is right, but here's my thinking. . . If they were made in large quantities like the actual paper printers, they would be a lot cheaper (economies of scale). So the parts are made in small batches where it is hard to automate the production, think a dozen shirts and 10k shirts. THe cost per piece is significantly lower with larger qty. Then add the time spent doing the R&D which can be a year or more, add the support personnel needed for a product that seems to need a lot of it, then add the cost of the RIP software and in some cases even a computer and you get to $15k-$20k for the EPSON based printers.

It is also my understanding that the printheads for the bigger Kornits are (or were when I talked to them few years ago) about $5k per color! So, CMYK and a White is $25 before you even start.

pierre

[mk162]

The epson based printers are just about a thing of the past.  They couldn't deliver the heavy pigments that textiles require.  The new crop of machines use aftermarket heads and are built on a new platform rather than on the epson platform.  This allows much more control over the heads, ink deposit and print capabilities.

The reason they are expensive....because they a.) cost a good amount of money to build/develop and b.) they should be able to make you a lot of money.

Do you think an the parts that go into an M&R are the same as the parts that go into a car?  No.

[tonypep]

I have a Kornit 2-head unit .Not have had the time to do any research/eval on it as of yet. Maybe 6 months from now. My film output Epson 4880 sits right next to it and I have multitask
employee performing both functions as well as helping out with inside neck label transfers. White shirts take 2 minutes (for two shirts) darks 4.
We use primarily for personalized tour shirts and band fan clubs. We can easily do several hundred a day without interfering the muscle production in the screen print department.

[gdavsfor]

Why do they cost so freaking much? all it is is a flat bed epson printer that can print white ink too....wtf! is it because if they were cheap that everyone would be a screen printer? or am i missing something?

Textiles are a lot less forgiving than paper, and unlike your inexpensive mainstream "use until it dies" inkjet printers, these units are built to be serviced and extend their life for a prolonged period of time.  If you run a specialty production shop, large or small, you need to be able to count on your equipment for a long time.  Generally if you have any problems with these units as they age, they can be fixed with a few part replacements and a little labor by any certified service team.  Think about buying a cheap eMachine vs. a production server designed to be upgraded and maintained.  They are still both computers, but the server can be maintained and will deliver consistant performance needed for a business.  eMachines are pretty much disposable and vary in performance do to lower quality assurance on the hardware.  It is all about performance and quality in the end, and is still a specialty market as well.

-Greg D

[Tagless Threads]

Supply and Demand.