DTS and mesh count

[Socalfmf]

Ok.  so we have had our Direct to Screen for just about a year now. 

talking with my printer it seems like since using the dts we are now using different meshes vs when we used film...ie. our 156 can hold halftones like it cool.  our 230 seem to be like 305 we used to use for sim process....

anyone else notice this?

sam

[screenprintguy]

Yeah Sam, it's like we rarely use 110's any more. 156 actually does nice halftones now, I got them before but didn't trust the out come. 180 seems to be our most used mesh count now. I have to say, the CTS addition to our system has been HUGE!!!!!!!

[bimmridder]

Are you trying to tell me that eliminating film and glass actually gives you better detail? Whoda thunk?
 ( wonder if there are other benefits not realized by most ?)

[Homer]

Are you trying to tell me that eliminating film and glass actually gives you better detail? Whoda thunk?
 ( wonder if there are other benefits not realized by most ?)

yeah..you can save on tape....

[screenprintguy]

Home we actually use half of the tape we used to use, another great thing about CTS, no pin holes from the process, so there is actually a nice little savings on tape there too 

[DannyGruninger]

I'm still in the process of trying to linearize our dts so we can confirm what % our dots actually are so it's hard to say if our dts is printing a dot @ a different % then what it should be there's really nothing we cannot hold..... We noticed right off the bat we were opening up a ton more dots after dts then prior to it..... I know for fact you can get more of the lower % stuff out since the light isn't going through the film.


But yes, we noticed a big change with details

[GKitson]

Home we actually use half of the tape we used to use, another great thing about CTS, no pin holes from the process, so there is actually a nice little savings on tape there too 

So where did all the pinholes go, you got a box full of them somewhere? 

[screenprintguy]

Greg, where ever they are, they can friggin stay there, lol!!

[alan802]

The faster you can fully crosslink the area of emulsion not blocked out the better your results will be.  The benefits of DTS when it comes to this exposure speed is awesome hopefully all of you shops with DTS can hold a much finer dot than before.  Those fine lines and halftones will process much easier because of the faster exposures therefore you can perceivably hold a smaller dot than you could previously.  Although the size of the dot you can hold on a certain mesh count is a mathematical relationship and is considered constant, there are other variable in the mix here that change the outcome. 

[GKitson]

The faster you can fully crosslink the area of emulsion not blocked out the better your results will be.  The benefits of DTS when it comes to this exposure speed is awesome hopefully all of you shops with DTS can hold a much finer dot than before.  Those fine lines and halftones will process much easier because of the faster exposures therefore you can perceivably hold a smaller dot than you could previously.  Although the size of the dot you can hold on a certain mesh count is a mathematical relationship and is considered constant, there are other variable in the mix here that change the outcome.

Well spoken Alan however I want to plant a seed for potential DTS users to consider.

Don't get caught up in comparing the advertised resolution numbers of one machine to another.  It really does not matter if the resolution is advertised as 600, 1440, 2540, green or disco.

The simple fact is you can't compare like resolution numbers between film systems and DTS applications.

What you have to look at is information captured and retained on the finished print.  You can measure this with a densitometer and verify a 2% dot is indeed a 2% dot or you can simply look at the printed finished product from DTS imaged screens and say WOW! 

Remember customers pay for WOW!

~Kitson

[DannyGruninger]

The faster you can fully crosslink the area of emulsion not blocked out the better your results will be.  The benefits of DTS when it comes to this exposure speed is awesome hopefully all of you shops with DTS can hold a much finer dot than before.  Those fine lines and halftones will process much easier because of the faster exposures therefore you can perceivably hold a smaller dot than you could previously.  Although the size of the dot you can hold on a certain mesh count is a mathematical relationship and is considered constant, there are other variable in the mix here that change the outcome.

Well spoken Alan however I want to plant a seed for potential DTS users to consider.

Don't get caught up in comparing the advertised resolution numbers of one machine to another.  It really does not matter if the resolution is advertised as 600, 1440, 2540, green or disco.

The simple fact is you can't compare like resolution numbers between film systems and DTS applications.

What you have to look at is information captured and retained on the finished print.  You can measure this with a densitometer and verify a 2% dot is indeed a 2% dot or you can simply look at the printed finished product from DTS imaged screens and say WOW! 

Remember customers pay for WOW!

~Kitson

Greg, would you care to explain how you linearized your output on your dts machine? I'm starting to do some testing with ours so I was curious. When you would use your densiometer to test the output would you just tape some film on screen and output, then test that film or how are you comparing the % on screen/press to the computer?


Any help is appreciated.

[screenprintguy]

doing a dot to dot test for from film to dts for me proved how much film tracks off while printing, shows me why some designs were such a pain on press with film.

[ScreenFoo]

The faster you can fully crosslink the area of emulsion not blocked out the better your results will be.  The benefits of DTS when it comes to this exposure speed is awesome hopefully all of you shops with DTS can hold a much finer dot than before.  Those fine lines and halftones will process much easier because of the faster exposures therefore you can perceivably hold a smaller dot than you could previously.  Although the size of the dot you can hold on a certain mesh count is a mathematical relationship and is considered constant, there are other variable in the mix here that change the outcome.

Well spoken Alan however I want to plant a seed for potential DTS users to consider.

Don't get caught up in comparing the advertised resolution numbers of one machine to another.  It really does not matter if the resolution is advertised as 600, 1440, 2540, green or disco.

The simple fact is you can't compare like resolution numbers between film systems and DTS applications.

What you have to look at is information captured and retained on the finished print.  You can measure this with a densitometer and verify a 2% dot is indeed a 2% dot or you can simply look at the printed finished product from DTS imaged screens and say WOW! 

Remember customers pay for WOW!

~Kitson

At the same time though, wouldn't this be a huge deal in how linear your dots are?  Say you run 600DPI at 60LPI, you only have a 10x10 cell, or a hundred possible dot sizes--with 2560 you have over 40x40, or sixteen hundred.  Wouldn't that make a pretty serious difference in how accurate your dot percentages are, as well as avoiding banding and artifacts in linear fades?

Of course, the DPI numbers could be 'massaged', (they often are in other types of printers,) and they could fix banding with stochastic elements in an ordered dots, but it would seem to be at least a relevant detail for many...