Once you go wax you will never go back...

[dirkdiggler]

I love my CTS and wouldn't go back to film, but.....I have a shop shirt that we did on film years ago, and I can not reproduce the quality with my CTS.  Its close, but not as good.

[zanegun08]

I have a shop shirt that we did on film years ago, and I can not reproduce the quality with my CTS.  Its close, but not as good.

We have this same issue, and since some of our reps are a bit dense when something doesn't look the exact same years later, they like to blame CTS.

But realistically since the RIP is different than the films, and CTS holds so much more detail, we are taking the original separations, curving them back (lightening), and then getting very similar results.

Also since going to CTS, our emulsion has changed, coating methods, inks, even the same shirt can be different years later, so it isn't really comparing apples to apples and sometimes I find we get more details, but we have to dumb it down to match the previous prints from film.

If your shop shirt was just spot colors, then everything I said above doesn't apply.

[Dottonedan]

I love my CTS and wouldn't go back to film, but.....I have a shop shirt that we did on film years ago, and I can not reproduce the quality with my CTS.  Its close, but not as good.

ZaneGun reminded me of this event.
They will be different.  Very hard to get one to match back up to something that was done before using a different device.

Funny to me now, but Dirk might remember when I installed his.
I was telling you about the curves and dot gain compensation. You said, "Heck yea, lets try it out on a separation we've already got", I thought great, they can see the huge difference when comparing past to present devices.

So we printed it, and it took out a ton of the dot gain that was in it based on printing films and previous screens with glass etc... but I didn't know you were running that for an order. LOL  You said, "I CAN"T SEND THAT TO THE CUSTOMER!!" it's way different than the original we ran.  Yes, it was vastly different. Had I known up front, you were using the test print, (for an actual order) to run that day, I would have not used the curves or would have suggested using the old films. The new one showed all of the minute shadow detail that was in the seps yet hidden in the approved print, because it didn't come out in the film seps or the screens the first time around.

Dot gain compensation (or any changes in any device) should not be applied to a job that was ran previous on an older device. . As Zanegun stated, at least not for sim process or 4 color process. Solid spot color work is a no brainer.

[Lizard]

We actually get very similar results with cts vs what we were getting with film. I like to think we had our film dialed in very well and before ever printing a single job with cts we did a densitometer reading with the cts printed to film and adjusted it to match our film output. There is some slight difference though just in the overall dot shape in the very light tones.

Now I must say I have never been overwhelmingly excited about the quality of the ink jet printing onto the screen. I have never used wax but if day in and day out the print quality is consistent I could see why wax may be preferable.

Top is cts, bottom is film

[Dottonedan]

My thoughts on 1200 versus 600 dpi DTS machines.
I know nothing about the possibilities of the image detail but I can't imagine that you would see any visual improvements (in print) on the shirt considering all of the other variables such as garment thread, ink layers, pressure, stroke speed etc. We can't even see this with the old wet film imagesetters at 4800 dpi.   Higher dpi just don't improve that.

I do know about the mechanical limitations of DTS, be it wax or wet inkjet.  The only way you would get to see a (very small) improvement.... would be only after you first calibrate your DTS...and run the printer at a very high print pass such as 24 pass. This would run the machine S L O W E R. Far slower than people want to run their DTS machines.  Due to the fact that you have a print head moving back and forth across the screen at a high rate of speed, lets say at 6 pass or slower, but good coverage, at 12 pass, you get "fill in" at the shadow tones. This is with wax of ink. The printer is releasing the ink (as the head travels), so there is some angled flow. The slower the machine prints, the more accurate the print is. 6 pass for example is fast pace production. Very fast. For that, most people print solids and maybe 45-55 lpi but don't expect to hold the best shadows tones as the ink will fill in a bit more. Here, in this case, you would adjust your curves more and opne those shadow tones up to compensate for fast production. That's from a 600dpi DTS.

With 1200 dpi, having the image detail improved x 2 for wax, (does nothing for any of the halftones past eh 4-5% threshold. So shadows tones will still be the same problem). At best, it will only benefit you to make a more defined "close to" a circle in that highlight of 1-5%. So than the 600dpi 1% dot wax will still be a blob and the wet ink will be a cross shape at 600dpi and the 1200 dpi will be a slightly formed circle. More like a smaller blob.

A wet ink DTS would benefit more at 1200dpi than would a wax printer (for the wax and it's characteristics that I am aware of). They say there are some improvements the wax guys are making in the chemistry of the wax. It will be interesting to see, but overall, I am not expecting there to be much reason to go 1200 than there would be to go 600. At 600, the wax guys can already produce a 1-2% blob representing a 1-2% in a 55lpi.  From what I imagine, it would still be a blob at 1200dpi.   Then again, most people aren't concerned with (are they holding the 2% wax blob at 600 or 1200....or are they holding the 2% inkjet cross X shape at 600.  Especially, considering how many people are following the trend of the Murakami mesh...where they print 55lpi on a much lower mesh holding more finer halftones, but still not really holding the 5-7% range, let alone the 2%.

My guess is, they are creating the 1200 dpi (not designed for, nor benefiting) the textile industry, but more for the flat stock industry screen printers at a higher lpi like 85lpi - 100 lpi.  Many will buy it anyways i textiles because they think it will improve something. Just my thoughts.

[Dottonedan]

Toby,

That's pretty close. The differences are subtle. That's the only way you can really come close. Most don't have or want to get the desitometers but that's what you need to do to get what you had on film. ans some don't want to go back to what they got on films. lol.

[Dottonedan]

those are pretty rough dots Danny. Is there no way to make them cleaner? We recently bumped the resolution and ink deposit on our old school M&R CTS and are seeing much better results. The dots are cleaner and the deposit is much thicker (to the point of pooling so we had to back up).
Dan as an ex tech you would know, can the resolution be increased on the units with RICOH heads?

pierre

No.  It is a 600dpi printer. It does give you the option to choose a lower dpi... (to produce faster) with less quality. You would ONLY do this for solid large art like athletic designs but it does not go any higher than 600dpi at this time. Apparently IF there were any benefits to using 1200 at all, I'm sure the other DTS makers will follow, but I don't see the need for textile printers as of yet for wax nor inkjet. It may benefit the flat stock printers more.

[Dottonedan]

Congrats!

Danny, what dpi are you running at?

1200

Sounds about right.  Anything under 900 and a struggle is going to ensue trying to linearize your 1-10% range, not enough pixel to work with at 600 to get that kind of control necessary for a higher end print, imo. 

Great work as always.

If a 600dpi printer is linearized using a densitomoter, you will not capture the 1-10% range accurately like you said. You would be in the negative and can't be done. So, if you linearize the rest, all you are really holding is the 10-90 (if that in the shadow tones.  This is why I go above that in the shadow tones.   I put in what is not there for dots. I make them larger, so that once printed and close up more with gain, you will see something. I don't mind if it's 99 or a 95% dot tone. As long as there is a tone.  The highlight, I always keep pretty steady and slope up slowly. Lets say my 1 is really a 2 and my 3 is really a 4. MOST will still not capture that 2% but I can often get that 3% easily.

at 1200, you will still have the same issue and still need to compensate, but more like once linearized, it will be less. Like you won't get the 1-7% but you will get the 8 and above where as with 600, you won't get the 9 and 10 perhaps. 

[Sbrem]

We actually get very similar results with cts vs what we were getting with film. I like to think we had our film dialed in very well and before ever printing a single job with cts we did a densitometer reading with the cts printed to film and adjusted it to match our film output. There is some slight difference though just in the overall dot shape in the very light tones.

Now I must say I have never been overwhelmingly excited about the quality of the ink jet printing onto the screen. I have never used wax but if day in and day out the print quality is consistent I could see why wax may be preferable.

Top is cts, bottom is film

I think the shadow detail is better with the CTS print, IMHO

Steve

[3Deep]

Two different color garments and that makes some difference in Toby's pic, but I'm liking the bottom pic better, looks like more detail to me from what Steve is seeing in the top pic.  I know we all want to improve every print we make which is not a bad thing, but me thinks some of us go a little overboard, I say that when we start looking at our print details through a loupe, I want to see it how the customer is going to look at it with the naked eye in a a well lit room, but still like I said nothing wrong with upping our skills until the next best thing comes along.

[blue moon]

thanx Toby for a great print, great art and great points made in the post.

Thanx Darryl for keeping us all back on track so we don't forget the bigger picture!

To recap, we seem to be in agreement, that the 1-10% (probably more like 7-8%) is a little bit of a struggle for the current generation Ink Jets. Doable, but could be better.

pierre

[Maxie]

Will there be a noticeable difference between a shirt printed from 10-90% or from 5-95%?
Is there a visible difference?

[T Shirt Farmer]

the difference from 5% to 10% is huge in some instances as is 90%-95% really depends on the art and the printers threshold for quality. The neat thing about wax is the consistency of getting a 5% to hold on numerous thread count and emulsion variances. JMO

[Dottonedan]

I take advantage of the 3% dots as much as I can, especially with a good printer. I don't give most all customers that area in the art (or if I do, I don't expect them to be able to hold it). If, by chance, they do, it's a bonus. Many of the DTS users are holding in this range well. Whether it's an accurate 3% is not important to me.  I'm concerned with are they holding this .  or are they holding this  .     


When I'm looking to hold color tone in a very light or subtle area of color, I gang up several colors to create a lighter area so that this area is not totally white. For example, creating a very light beige/tan color can be made up of 2-5% of Base white, Yellow, Red and Blue + top white. So in some art, it's very important.


Pierre for example, hits the 3%'s for me all the time. They know, that's needed.

[T Shirt Farmer]

Update:  Exile came and replaced the vacuum system with there new updated design and since I have had zero problems with wax feed. As many have said before you just cant imagine the value of DTS until you get one. I am still amazed on how many screens we can process in such a small amount of time.  I used to stress every time we had a sim process job as I knew I would have to reburn several screens to get the half tones to come out right using ink jet film. Now it is just plug and play, every dot resolves every time. I have much respect for Exile there service has been exceptional.