My Thoughts on Our Vastex LED

[Dottonedan]

Vastex has heavier duty construction (more robust, I mean earthquake proof solid!).

That looks good on the surface, but I don't see how does that equate to production and image quality? Exposure units are not like a printer with heavy moving parts shifting from side to side with momentum and needs to be held sturdy, (not that it makes a difference to the customer) for or against.

[GraphicDisorder]

Ive always liked Vastex as a company and their products.  Good people up there. 

[blue moon]

Vastex has heavier duty construction (more robust, I mean earthquake proof solid!).

That looks good on the surface, but I don't see how does that equate to production and image quality? Exposure units are not like a printer with heavy moving parts shifting from side to side with momentum and needs to be held sturdy, (not that it makes a difference to the customer) for or against.

it would make very little difference. It is worth mentioning as in the end it is an industrial piece of equipment and it will be bumped and moved around during it's lifetime.

My point here was to not discount the Vastex as an inferior unit as it is not, it's just different.

pierre

[blue moon]

Vastex has heavier duty construction (more robust, I mean earthquake proof solid!).

That looks good on the surface, but I don't see how does that equate to production and image quality? Exposure units are not like a printer with heavy moving parts shifting from side to side with momentum and needs to be held sturdy, (not that it makes a difference to the customer) for or against.

p.s. Starlight has an edge when it comes to times, Vastex has a slightly better light field (or it did last time I took the comparative readings which was in Nashville last year). Can't tell about the actual spectral output of the lights, but the light coverage on the Vastex was slightly better.

pierre

[Dottonedan]

Vastex has heavier duty construction (more robust, I mean earthquake proof solid!).

That looks good on the surface, but I don't see how does that equate to production and image quality? Exposure units are not like a printer with heavy moving parts shifting from side to side with momentum and needs to be held sturdy, (not that it makes a difference to the customer) for or against.

it would make very little difference. It is worth mentioning as in the end it is an industrial piece of equipment and it will be bumped and moved around during it's lifetime.
My point here was to not discount the Vastex as an inferior unit as it is not, it's just different.
pierre

That's my view as well. Just different. This unit may fit a specific need better than another unit based on various specific characteristics of that shop.

[Dottonedan]

Vastex has heavier duty construction (more robust, I mean earthquake proof solid!).

That looks good on the surface, but I don't see how does that equate to production and image quality? Exposure units are not like a printer with heavy moving parts shifting from side to side with momentum and needs to be held sturdy, (not that it makes a difference to the customer) for or against.

p.s. Starlight has an edge when it comes to times, Vastex has a slightly better light field (or it did last time I took the comparative readings which was in Nashville last year). Can't tell about the actual spectral output of the lights, but the light coverage on the Vastex was slightly better.

pierre

As you know, I value your experience, professional opinion and research on this. As such, I'll agree with you on the fact that (it's just different). I say that because if one shows slightly different results than the other in terms of spacing or strength, yet both provide imaging results usable by anyone winning print awards, and yet one shows faster exposure times, than I find the results of comparing "light fields" that are not that far apart in terms of results to be less than worthy of mentioning yet in fact are slightly different. Better"  would indicate actual or notable differences on press or in the print. I've not seen any proof that printed results prove this to any degree.


Again tho, I follow your point and that is to isolate the differences. When doing so tho, some differences are so small, yet seem substantial if just noted without delving into the impact of the differences when obtaining information for making a choice.

[blue moon]

Vastex has heavier duty construction (more robust, I mean earthquake proof solid!).

That looks good on the surface, but I don't see how does that equate to production and image quality? Exposure units are not like a printer with heavy moving parts shifting from side to side with momentum and needs to be held sturdy, (not that it makes a difference to the customer) for or against.

p.s. Starlight has an edge when it comes to times, Vastex has a slightly better light field (or it did last time I took the comparative readings which was in Nashville last year). Can't tell about the actual spectral output of the lights, but the light coverage on the Vastex was slightly better.

pierre

As you know, I value your experience, professional opinion and research on this. As such, I'll agree with you on the fact that (it's just different). I say that because if one shows slightly different results than the other in terms of spacing or strength, yet both provide imaging results usable by anyone winning print awards, and yet one shows faster exposure times, than I find the results of comparing "light fields" that are not that far apart in terms of results to be less than worthy of mentioning yet in fact are slightly different. Better"  would indicate actual or notable differences on press or in the print. I've not seen any proof that printed results prove this to any degree.


Again tho, I follow your point and that is to isolate the differences. When doing so tho, some differences are so small, yet seem substantial if just noted without delving into the impact of the differences when obtaining information for making a choice.

agreed, some differences are so small that it takes an instrument to find them. The variance on the Starlight was less than 5% (from what I remember, I think it was around 3%  compared to 0.5-1% on Vastex) and I have seen variations of 20% that did not make any practical difference in production.

It just happens to be that I'd take the 13 seconds of the Vastex over the 4 seconds of the Starlight at this point (without know the price of either). Again, Starlight is a phenomenal unit, I am just being very nit picky here! I can't think of a scenario where I would tell any buyer to avoid either of the units (unlike some other ones).

Ultimately, we are still on a Nuarc 3140 and are very happy with it. Our next unit will be either an STE, a 5kW MH or high power LED that simulates a single point light source (I think SAATI is developing that).

pierre

[GraphicDisorder]

So you do or do not think the differences in the 2 would show up on press?

[blue moon]

So you do or do not think the differences in the 2 would show up on press?

based on what I've seen, I don't think you could tell anything. Actually am pretty confident that it would not be visible, but would stop at 99.9% rather than a 100% without practical confirmation.

pierre

[GraphicDisorder]

So you do or do not think the differences in the 2 would show up on press?

based on what I've seen, I don't think you could tell anything. Actually am pretty confident that it would not be visible, but would stop at 99.9% rather than a 100% without practical confirmation.

pierre

Fair enough, thanks!

[Orion]

Ultimately, we are still on a Nuarc 3140 and are very happy with it. Our next unit will be either an STE, a 5kW MH or high power LED that simulates a single point light source (I think SAATI is developing that).

Rumor has it, Douthitt is working on a single point LED too.

[mimosatexas]

Good info Alan.  Have you tried cannibalizing the vacuum from your Richmond unit yet?  If you want, I wouldn't mind bringing by one of my Gast pumps to test.  The draw down on that gigantic exposure frame I bought is about 25 seconds and the blanket even has holes in it, so I can't imagine how you're getting such long times unless the pumps used are absolute crap or there is a significant leak.  Even the harbor freight $100 oil pump was pulling vacuum on my DIY 1k unit, which has a 36x44" blanket, in less than 25 seconds.

[alan802]

Good info Alan.  Have you tried cannibalizing the vacuum from your Richmond unit yet?  If you want, I wouldn't mind bringing by one of my Gast pumps to test.  The draw down on that gigantic exposure frame I bought is about 25 seconds and the blanket even has holes in it, so I can't imagine how you're getting such long times unless the pumps used are absolute crap or there is a significant leak.  Even the harbor freight $100 oil pump was pulling vacuum on my DIY 1k unit, which has a 36x44" blanket, in less than 25 seconds.

I thought about pulling the Richmond's but surprisingly the guts of the Richmond is pretty complicated for such a simple machine and I could see some headaches coming if I started pulling parts from it.  When I pulled the cover on the Richmond that holds the electronics I was amazed at all it had going on.  It's got a light integrator and an MH bulb, vacuum and UV safe viewing light yet it looks twice as complicated as the RPM does under the hood.  I sat there for an hour trying to figure out why it needed all the other parts.

If you wouldn't mind coming by and messing with it I'd for sure like to do it.  Getting inside the Vastex is pretty easy and the wiring is pretty straightforward so I don't think it would be difficult to test it out.  Maybe once we got inside we might find a ruptured air line or something else that could be causing the issue.  I felt the same way and figured 2 decent sized vacuums would be great considering how well the Richmond performed and it was larger.

[blue moon]

Good info Alan.  Have you tried cannibalizing the vacuum from your Richmond unit yet?  If you want, I wouldn't mind bringing by one of my Gast pumps to test.  The draw down on that gigantic exposure frame I bought is about 25 seconds and the blanket even has holes in it, so I can't imagine how you're getting such long times unless the pumps used are absolute crap or there is a significant leak.  Even the harbor freight $100 oil pump was pulling vacuum on my DIY 1k unit, which has a 36x44" blanket, in less than 25 seconds.

I thought about pulling the Richmond's but surprisingly the guts of the Richmond is pretty complicated for such a simple machine and I could see some headaches coming if I started pulling parts from it.  When I pulled the cover on the Richmond that holds the electronics I was amazed at all it had going on.  It's got a light integrator and an MH bulb, vacuum and UV safe viewing light yet it looks twice as complicated as the RPM does under the hood.  I sat there for an hour trying to figure out why it needed all the other parts.

If you wouldn't mind coming by and messing with it I'd for sure like to do it.  Getting inside the Vastex is pretty easy and the wiring is pretty straightforward so I don't think it would be difficult to test it out.  Maybe once we got inside we might find a ruptured air line or something else that could be causing the issue.  I felt the same way and figured 2 decent sized vacuums would be great considering how well the Richmond performed and it was larger.

contact Vastex and see what the upgraded vacuum would cost! Or they might give you pointers on how to get what ever you have in there.

keep us posted!

pierre

[GraphicDisorder]

Or just get a CTS and stop using vacuum!