M&R iImage rocket launcher

[brandon]

Just curious when they designed this unit back in the day why the slant to it? Everything is either vertical or horizontal now so did the designer really just have a thing for rocket launchers haha

No really

[TCT]

Just curious when they designed this unit back in the day why the slant to it? Everything is either vertical or horizontal now so did the designer really just have a thing for rocket launchers haha

No really

I always thought it was to save SOME space... That and probably just tried to push the limits of what could be done, plus it just looked cooler than a ST.  We had one and then we had a ST-III. The rocket launcher took up less floor space which I really appreciated.

I don't know if that was their reasoning officially, but it is what I always figured it was.

[Doug S]

I was told by a guy at M&R that the I image ST stood for I image "Second Try"

[zanegun08]

I'd say it was the path of least resistance to convert an epson to work with their screen loading mechanism.  And it was a happy mistake to take up less room.  The printer itself prints more vertically, however as you can see they tipped the printer backwards to make it more horizontal.  If they tipped it any further though I bet the ink would start pouring out of the capping stations and waste ink tanks.

The reason they had to tip it though is because with inkjet ink if printing more vertically it probably just dripped down the screen.  It was probably a balancing act to find a happy medium between having the ink level enough to not drip, and also the printer level enough to not pour out of it.

The reason they probably went flat and then with exposure on imager is because the ink is so runny moving the screens around to exposure units will change the image as it's really just surface tension holding it in place.  Which is why on Wax they are mostly vertical as you don't have any of the above issues as it becomes a solid once on the screen.

It was just an interesting choice to convert that printer when they could've gotten a flat bed printer, probably so they could make that M&R Gucci markup as the Epson's were cheap to buy, and pay for those embroidered polos.

[Dottonedan]

All a lot of educated guesses there. I don’t know why the slant. I never asked or thought about it. It was before my time there. I can’t even work on them as they wanted all of my training to be focused on the new models. But I can tell you it’s not because of ink running.  At any time, the chemist at the CO where they get the ink can add chemicals to make the ink run as thick as wax if they wanted, but it’s not a good idea. They then would be restricted to only running at 6 pass, only using at least 2x larger picoliter of spray and only getting so much detail out it as you do with wax.


Some of the previous brands of ink were dry at once when hitting the screen and would for sure, not run. I’m sure that is the type they would have been using at that time if they had stayed with a vertical or slant machine.  Heck, if it were about being any more vertical, and the waste tank would run out...they would just align the base of the waste tank to rest/sit horizontal.  I’ve always wondered why they had vertical or even slant machines at all for any brand. It’s working against gravity as it’s being shot out.


It will be good to get Pierre’s feedback on the actual quality of the wax versus the ink. I can have him provide the test file comparrisons that I’ve been wanting to show.


I’m sure like many of you, he will make it work no matter the differences as (that is what you have) to work with. The purchase has been made so there is commitment to your decision. But hey, the real deal, is that it doesn’t matter. They are all good for us. I think he’s done testing/comparisons in the past already I’m sure, but I’m also sure, he wasn’t doing the same testing.  But there is more to the story of quality than is it rounder, or is easier to wash out the images because it’s chunkier).  In the end, like I’ve said many times, the differences and the benefit of those differences are minute and inconsequential.  I would go wax, or wet ink, or (double laser) at any given time.


Now, going 1200dpi wax is probably a discussion that is far more valuable. Do you go 1200dpi wax or do you stay with 600dpi wax? They are the same quality as their 600dpi. A blob is a blob and the wax can be jetted only so small due to its viscosity. It’s output size is finite. It requires a specific size of jet opening and picoliter size spray. [size=78%]In fact, it would be harder for wax machines to go 1200dpi than 600dpi.[/size]


There isn’t a need for much better than 600dpi on the apparel.  Now, if someone wanted to do wet ink at 1200dpi, it would benefit and make a difference (in the shadow tones and in the highlight tones. My guess as to why M&R did not/will not go 1200, is that for screen making for apparel, 600dpi works just fine without any additional financial investment.


The benefit of a laser is that it can indeed hold a more perfectly round vector looking dot (as good as your emulsion can hold) in the screen stencils thickness down to the full 1-99% and actually holding a near perfect 3%-97% (truly round) dot.  This then opens up the door for us to really hold far more accurate %’s and reproduction. You would use this and benefit from this when doing very light pastel colors of 3-7% for example in all C, Y, M,  K seps. This is the stuff that Mark Coudrey and the like, would be looking for in a CTS in comparison to the original best (photo chemical wet film processing and imagesetter dots at 3600dpi).  For both wet and wax ink, anything below 10% is not a true or accurate %. It must be adjusted to the point that it can be output via the device at 600dpi.  It’s not really “the device”, but rather they 600dpi. For example, when previewing the prt file in a wet ink file, the small dots are not formed well. The wet ink can reproduce this ill formed shape (on the stencil) more accurately than wax ink. The wax can only put out a blob...and at only so small...and therefore, cannot produce the same shape as wet ink does. the 3% in wax, will have to be more like a true 6% or more.


We thinks dots look “better” because this larger, chunkier blob of wax works for us better. We can wash it out easier and they don’t look like little crosses.

[TCT]

It will be good to get Pierre’s feedback on the actual quality of the wax versus the ink.

I can give you mine. Now I am nowhere near as sophisticated or in depth as Pierre, but I do have him in the looks department... 

I've had 2 different ink machines and 1 wax. The wax KILLS the ink machines in every aspect. Only hold out is when comparing the speed of the wax machine vs. the ST-III I had. But the wax is the same speed as a single head ink.

[Dottonedan]

It will be good to get Pierre’s feedback on the actual quality of the wax versus the ink.

I can give you mine. Now I am nowhere near as sophisticated or in depth as Pierre, but I do have him in the looks department... 

I've had 2 different ink machines and 1 wax. The wax KILLS the ink machines in every aspect. Only hold out is when comparing the speed of the wax machine vs. the ST-III I had. But the wax is the same speed as a single head ink.

Right. (Wax is now the same speed) as a single head.  Cuz a wax can ONLY print at a 6 pass. This used to be, ONLY at the LOW speed and UNI directional. Now, (Newley improved Bi directional...and at a HIGH speed setting that enables it to now equal a wet ink machine. BUT, for fast paced production, would be for the more open printing such as a 45lpi or solid vector work.   So the WAX, is only as fast as WET INK...if the WAX machine is at it’s lowest quality/fastest production setting.


If you need more quality out of the wax machine (such as a 65-85lpi), you should need to switch it to a higher wax output resolution, 6 pass (LOW speed), uni directional printing. In this case, wax would not be the same speed to the wet ink machine.  Any of the wet ink machines.
I’m changing my comment to include the concept that (one can use a  low speed fast production for even higher levels of printing such s 55-85lpi (but with poor results) that are subject to personal preferences. Gotta include the personal acceptance of quality levels in there.

In addition, Wet ink machines are more “versatile”in it’s output.  It can print at HIGH SPEED or LOW SPEED, Bi Directional or Uni, and at 4, 6, 8, 12, 18, 24 speeds. All for various options and preferences of output. For example, “Layering the ink lay down” at a slower speed and in layers, (similar to an airbrush artist puts ink coverage down for blending). This allows for far more accurate placement of picoliter of spray. For this reason, the wet ink machines print higher lpi (more precisely), more well formed without having to adjust the dot gain curves in the output.  The WAX, is so dense, it must be put down at 6 pass and to be dumped down more quickly (for the lack of a better word). This is a good thing for wax machines as they look more (faster paced). They can tend to fill in or gain too much at the shadow tones if they were to be switched to a 8-12 pass.


Now, lets look at what actually KILLS the wet ink machine in comparison "in every aspect”.  I mean literally. Lets look a that. Because there is a lot of “surface talk”,  but often missing the specifics...and I haven’t found one reason yet, as to where the WAX machines (process) is providing something that the WET ink machines cannot. The only areas where there is a clear difference and wax comes out ahead in a comparison, is with WAX not being susceptible to a poor or extreme environment. It works in extreme cold, extreme heat, extreme dryness and extreme moisture.  Wet, requires to be within tolerances of a standard screen room environment such as 30-45% RH (give to take 5%) depending on location. To accommodate for that, you purchase a devise to control your RH.


There are plenty of people who will say “My wax is better” but how so?  Is it really, or are you just happy with your current results and were not as happy previously?


I’m very interested to be proven mistaken. If there is evidence to bring forth that will prove me to be incorrect, then I am happy to accept that and will easily concede.  This would also prove to be a good selling tool for the wax devices.


Please (in your own time and convenience), stop back and list all of the categories where a wax machine can beat a wet ink machine “in every aspect”. I then, can provide my feedback as well, as it relates to each category.

[inkman996]

It will be good to get Pierre’s feedback on the actual quality of the wax versus the ink.

I can give you mine. Now I am nowhere near as sophisticated or in depth as Pierre, but I do have him in the looks department... 

I've had 2 different ink machines and 1 wax. The wax KILLS the ink machines in every aspect. Only hold out is when comparing the speed of the wax machine vs. the ST-III I had. But the wax is the same speed as a single head ink.

Right. (Wax is now the same speed) as a single head.  Cuz a wax can ONLY print at a 6 pass. This used to be, ONLY at the LOW speed and UNI directional. Now, (Newley improved Bi directional...and at a HIGH speed setting that enables it to now equal a wet ink machine. BUT, for fast paced production, would be for the more open printing such as a 45lpi or solid vector work.   So the WAX, is only as fast as WET INK...if the WAX machine is at it’s lowest quality/fastest production setting.


If you need more quality out of the wax machine (such as a 65-85lpi), you should need to switch it to a higher wax output resolution, 6 pass (LOW speed), uni directional printing. In this case, wax would not be the same speed to the wet ink machine.  Any of the wet ink machines.




Now, lets look at what actually KILLS the wet ink machine in comparison "in every aspect”.  I mean literally. Lets look a that. Because there is a lot of “surface talk”,  but often missing the specifics...and I haven’t found one reason yet, as to where the WAX machines (process) is providing something that the WET ink machines cannot. The only areas where there is a clear difference and wax comes out ahead in a comparison, is with WAX not being susceptible to a poor or extreme environment. It works in extreme cold, extreme heat, extreme dryness and extreme moisture.  Wet, requires to be within tolerances of a standard screen room environment such as 30-45% RH (give to take 5%) depending on location. To accommodate for that, you purchase a devise to control your RH.


There are plenty of people who will say “My wax is better” but how so?  Is it really, or are you just happy with your current results and were not as happy previously?


I’m very interested to be proven mistaken. If there is evidence to bring forth that will prove me to be incorrect, then I am happy to accept that and will easily concede.  This would also prove to be a good selling tool for the wax devices.


Please (in your own time and convenience), stop back and list all of the categories where a wax machine can beat a wet ink machine “in every aspect”. I then, can provide my feedback as well, as it relates to each category.

Making your screen room with in tolerance to accommodate an ink machine is not as trivial as you are making it out to be. This is coming from an owner of an I Image. It was by far the biggest struggle for us to deal with. Plopping a humidifier down did not work, plopping a second more robust humidifier down also did not work. The final solution was dampening the screens before imaging. The shop that we were sent to by M&R to see a demo of an I Image had major issues with controlling the environment for their machine. Their operator demonstrated for us what he had to do to imagae a screen. He had one of those hand help steamers used in dry cleaning for moistening the screens, then the screen had to sit for a period of time before being imaged. So yes their is a clear advantage to wax tech and ink tech that a potential owner should consider.

[inkman996]

And my guess for going away from the slant is gravity. You have to have the appropriate strength stepper motors to handle the weight and the gravity with out losing steps, some of the frames out there are rather heavy. Instead of beefing up the motors it would make more sense to go horizontal.

[Dottonedan]

It will be good to get Pierre’s feedback on the actual quality of the wax versus the ink.

I can give you mine. Now I am nowhere near as sophisticated or in depth as Pierre, but I do have him in the looks department... 

I've had 2 different ink machines and 1 wax. The wax KILLS the ink machines in every aspect. Only hold out is when comparing the speed of the wax machine vs. the ST-III I had. But the wax is the same speed as a single head ink.

Right. (Wax is now the same speed) as a single head.  Cuz a wax can ONLY print at a 6 pass. This used to be, ONLY at the LOW speed and UNI directional. Now, (Newley improved Bi directional...and at a HIGH speed setting that enables it to now equal a wet ink machine. BUT, for fast paced production, would be for the more open printing such as a 45lpi or solid vector work.   So the WAX, is only as fast as WET INK...if the WAX machine is at it’s lowest quality/fastest production setting.


If you need more quality out of the wax machine (such as a 65-85lpi), you should need to switch it to a higher wax output resolution, 6 pass (LOW speed), uni directional printing. In this case, wax would not be the same speed to the wet ink machine.  Any of the wet ink machines.




Now, lets look at what actually KILLS the wet ink machine in comparison "in every aspect”.  I mean literally. Lets look a that. Because there is a lot of “surface talk”,  but often missing the specifics...and I haven’t found one reason yet, as to where the WAX machines (process) is providing something that the WET ink machines cannot. The only areas where there is a clear difference and wax comes out ahead in a comparison, is with WAX not being susceptible to a poor or extreme environment. It works in extreme cold, extreme heat, extreme dryness and extreme moisture.  Wet, requires to be within tolerances of a standard screen room environment such as 30-45% RH (give to take 5%) depending on location. To accommodate for that, you purchase a devise to control your RH.


There are plenty of people who will say “My wax is better” but how so?  Is it really, or are you just happy with your current results and were not as happy previously?


I’m very interested to be proven mistaken. If there is evidence to bring forth that will prove me to be incorrect, then I am happy to accept that and will easily concede.  This would also prove to be a good selling tool for the wax devices.


Please (in your own time and convenience), stop back and list all of the categories where a wax machine can beat a wet ink machine “in every aspect”. I then, can provide my feedback as well, as it relates to each category.

Making your screen room with in tolerance to accommodate an ink machine is not as trivial as you are making it out to be. This is coming from an owner of an I Image. It was by far the biggest struggle for us to deal with. Plopping a humidifier down did not work, plopping a second more robust humidifier down also did not work. The final solution was dampening the screens before imaging. The shop that we were sent to by M&R to see a demo of an I Image had major issues with controlling the environment for their machine. Their operator demonstrated for us what he had to do to imagae a screen. He had one of those hand help steamers used in dry cleaning for moistening the screens, then the screen had to sit for a period of time before being imaged. So yes their is a clear advantage to wax tech and ink tech that a potential owner should consider.

Good feedback.  I find it ridiculous that one would have to do that. (add moisture to the screen or dampen the screen with a cloth). But there are some I would imagine, that a newer ink and some environments might need some unique accommodations for. Such as your example.  I can change that for you if you like, so you Never have to do that again.


The shop I was at last week was using T6 ink. They did not/nor ever dampen, and also did not have a dehumidifier in the room. Just a heater in the drying cabinet for drying screens.

[Dottonedan]

Inkman,  you should call your I-Image department and ask them what is being done about this dampening thing. You should not need to do that. They should have another ink to offer you to use.  The last shop I was at last week uses T6 and have no issues whatsoever. They don’t dampen.  They do however, have an Eco-Rince in the same room about 20’ away. I’m sure that introduces moisture overall.


Now, if you coat, and are using a type of emulsion that dries out (a lot) after sitting, or if you coat up and stack 200 screens to be ready, but only use 50 a day, and your surrounding area stays dry...then perhaps I can see a modification to your process and having to use a dampening process to assist you. But that’s not really an ink thing is it.  Now. should it be an answer to this. Just try switching up the ink types. It’s a “emulsion, dry environment and screen turnover” thing maybe. What is your RH in that room? Of course, if you were using Wax, then this would a non issue. If that is your only concern, then maybe a deciding factor of an additional 20-30k is in order and get the wax machine so that you never have any of these potential “too dry” issues.  But back to my resolve for this.  You can change up the ink type to see what type works best for you...or you can dampen the screens as you have been. Refer to a TECH for feedback on each and the settings needed. Some don’t need any head setting changes while others do.


They are keeping with 4 brands that seem to work for different shops for sale on the mrprint.com website.   The Type D2,  the type T6.  The original (KARA) type K and a new KX. These inks have actually came down in price They used too be $190.00 now $176.80

[GraphicDisorder]

Making your screen room with in tolerance to accommodate an ink machine is not as trivial as you are making it out to be. This is coming from an owner of an I Image. It was by far the biggest struggle for us to deal with. Plopping a humidifier down did not work, plopping a second more robust humidifier down also did not work. The final solution was dampening the screens before imaging. The shop that we were sent to by M&R to see a demo of an I Image had major issues with controlling the environment for their machine. Their operator demonstrated for us what he had to do to imagae a screen. He had one of those hand help steamers used in dry cleaning for moistening the screens, then the screen had to sit for a period of time before being imaged. So yes their is a clear advantage to wax tech and ink tech that a potential owner should consider.

Just speaking from my own experience here.

My i-Image is 10ft from my 18/20 Gauntlet. It is in our wide open warehouse. Its 40-45 in winter (nights and weekends) and its 110-115 in summer. Its seeing that 100% of the time. We don't use a humidifier or anything for it. Its exposed to whatever the printing climate is. We've not really had any issues with it. Now and then it will have some hiccups that we clear up with a tiny bit of dorking around with cleaning head, but this is months or more apart really.

Its a Original ST, its a single head still on its original head from when we installed it in 2014 and still using the K ink. I am sure it will explode tomorrow now.

[Dottonedan]

Making your screen room with in tolerance to accommodate an ink machine is not as trivial as you are making it out to be. This is coming from an owner of an I Image. It was by far the biggest struggle for us to deal with. Plopping a humidifier down did not work, plopping a second more robust humidifier down also did not work. The final solution was dampening the screens before imaging. The shop that we were sent to by M&R to see a demo of an I Image had major issues with controlling the environment for their machine. Their operator demonstrated for us what he had to do to imagae a screen. He had one of those hand help steamers used in dry cleaning for moistening the screens, then the screen had to sit for a period of time before being imaged. So yes their is a clear advantage to wax tech and ink tech that a potential owner should consider.

Just speaking from my own experience here.

My i-Image is 10ft from my 18/20 Gauntlet. It is in our wide open warehouse. Its 40-45 in winter (nights and weekends) and its 110-115 in summer. Its seeing that 100% of the time. We don't use a humidifier or anything for it. Its exposed to whatever the printing climate is. We've not really had any issues with it. Now and then it will have some hiccups that we clear up with a tiny bit of dorking around with cleaning head, but this is months or more apart really.

Its a Original ST, its a single head still on its original head from when we installed it in 2014 and still using the K ink. I am sure it will explode tomorrow now.

If it does explode,  I can come fix it.

[dirkdiggler]

Making your screen room with in tolerance to accommodate an ink machine is not as trivial as you are making it out to be. This is coming from an owner of an I Image. It was by far the biggest struggle for us to deal with. Plopping a humidifier down did not work, plopping a second more robust humidifier down also did not work. The final solution was dampening the screens before imaging. The shop that we were sent to by M&R to see a demo of an I Image had major issues with controlling the environment for their machine. Their operator demonstrated for us what he had to do to imagae a screen. He had one of those hand help steamers used in dry cleaning for moistening the screens, then the screen had to sit for a period of time before being imaged. So yes their is a clear advantage to wax tech and ink tech that a potential owner should consider.

Just speaking from my own experience here.

My i-Image is 10ft from my 18/20 Gauntlet. It is in our wide open warehouse. Its 40-45 in winter (nights and weekends) and its 110-115 in summer. Its seeing that 100% of the time. We don't use a humidifier or anything for it. Its exposed to whatever the printing climate is. We've not really had any issues with it. Now and then it will have some hiccups that we clear up with a tiny bit of dorking around with cleaning head, but this is months or more apart really.

Its a Original ST, its a single head still on its original head from when we installed it in 2014 and still using the K ink. I am sure it will explode tomorrow now.

You and I got ours at the same time, switching from K ink always caused problems for us, been through 5 or 6 heads.  Finally back to K ink about 2 years ago and I WILL NEVER SWITCH AGAIN!  You were smart for never switching, thats where all the problems come from.

[GraphicDisorder]

Making your screen room with in tolerance to accommodate an ink machine is not as trivial as you are making it out to be. This is coming from an owner of an I Image. It was by far the biggest struggle for us to deal with. Plopping a humidifier down did not work, plopping a second more robust humidifier down also did not work. The final solution was dampening the screens before imaging. The shop that we were sent to by M&R to see a demo of an I Image had major issues with controlling the environment for their machine. Their operator demonstrated for us what he had to do to imagae a screen. He had one of those hand help steamers used in dry cleaning for moistening the screens, then the screen had to sit for a period of time before being imaged. So yes their is a clear advantage to wax tech and ink tech that a potential owner should consider.

Just speaking from my own experience here.

My i-Image is 10ft from my 18/20 Gauntlet. It is in our wide open warehouse. Its 40-45 in winter (nights and weekends) and its 110-115 in summer. Its seeing that 100% of the time. We don't use a humidifier or anything for it. Its exposed to whatever the printing climate is. We've not really had any issues with it. Now and then it will have some hiccups that we clear up with a tiny bit of dorking around with cleaning head, but this is months or more apart really.

Its a Original ST, its a single head still on its original head from when we installed it in 2014 and still using the K ink. I am sure it will explode tomorrow now.

You and I got ours at the same time, switching from K ink always caused problems for us, been through 5 or 6 heads.  Finally back to K ink about 2 years ago and I WILL NEVER SWITCH AGAIN!  You were smart for never switching, thats where all the problems come from.

I dunno why I never changed but we never did and I tend to think I made the right call, was 100% luck but ill take it.