SAATI LTS 6080 holding most of 2% dots 55 dpi 305 mesh. Not long before I came along it was a struggle with 45/5% using white mesh/vellum/flourescent bulbs so.......!!!
Phase two will be 55 dpi high mesh DC UB w/ plastisol top colors.
make sure it's calibrated. Not sure about laser, but the inkjet CTS tends to make the dots much, much bigger then they are supposed to be. Stuff I've seen was that 2% was actually over 10% in some cases!
pierre
This is very true for the WET INK CTS and the WAX. A lot of manipulation to the curves to get decent results.
It's also very true for the Laser. The thing about the lasers is that they are specifically dialed in for your emulsion, each mesh, and a specific emulsion thickness. This is key. An auto coater is a MUST if buying laser. If not, you are randomly obtaining small dots. One mesh you are, the next mesh you are not. So Auto coater FOR SURE.
Now for the kicker.
No biggie. I don't mean that in a snarky way, but so your dots are not true. A 3% is a 6% for example. The 600dpi printers cannot form the 1% dot. It just can't physically create a small round dot out of 1-2 square squares out of the 600dpi grid system. So, to form a better, more controllable, reproducible dot, you make it larger. For example, you can produce a 45lpi much better. Looks pretty good and can hold a true 5% dot in a 45lpi. It's literally the same issues for digital film printers as well. Blow that 1% dot up under a 500 power magnifier and see that it's junky. If you jump to a 55lpi, the 5% dot is less smoothly formed. Go to a 65 and the 5% is not very producible. Well, it is, but it would truly come out to similar in (size) but not shape... to a dot that is produced by a 3400dpi true wet process camera imagesetter (for example). A 1% cannot be held in the mesh. That's why more refer to holding a 3% rather than shooting for a 1%. A 5% dot at (65lpi) wet ink
digital speckle of spray cannot be held in the mesh well so it is enlarged to what can be held well.
Same issues with wax. People have said (wax is superior) to wet ink...while wax machines cannot reproduce (as minutely) as wet ink machines. Now, before you chop my head off and tell me about your beautiful, well rounded 65lpi dots, hear me out.
The wax machine has a print head that has to print out larger spurts of wax. It's denser, it's thicker. Therefore, it must spit out a 14-16 Picoliter spray of wax (maybe more), I don't specifically remember... in order to flow and produce multiple spits of wax onto a dot shape.
Consider the square pixels shaped specs that are formed in the wet ink machine. Wax machine users believe their dots to be "better" because their 5% dot in a 65lpi is fully formed. Rounded even. To the naked eye, it's pretty round or nice looking. Holds well when exposing. That's only cuz it's FATTER. This fatter dot (works). It's not a prefect dot, but it works...and THAT is what makes people think it's superior. It's fatter ugly, meteorite looking, inconsistent blob that's crapped out like a warm turd onto the colder screen and hardens...with that waffle look laying over top the surface forming this added height to the dot (semi rounded mound) protruding off of the screens surface. This waffle look is due to the building process (stacking) of the 6 "passes" of wax to form the image.
Under a magnifying glass, this dot is more of a meteorite looking turd. Not a perfectly rounded dot. What's my point? The point is, the wax cannot "duplicate" the 3 squares of pixels...put into the tif file, to represent a specific lower % like a 2, 5, or 7% dot in a 65lpi for example. It's only capable of putting down a blob. A blob that cannot duplicate itself in the same way...in the next dot over at the same %. It's another uniquely formed/misshapen dot. You might say
SO WHAT? my prints looks great! I'd agree. So what? There is no real benefit or non benefit to the miss shape. It's just a shape and as long as you can manipulate that shape to get what you need from it, then it works great.
So why all of this mumbo jumbo? Waste of time here. Sure is, but I got nothing to sep tonight so....The fact is, Wet ink CAN reproduce that same exact shape of 3 pixels that is in the tif file. It's ugly, It's not a perfectly rounded dot...but neither is the wax dot. The Wet ink print heads (because it's a thinner liquid) can put out a spray of ink at 3 Picoliter. That's nearly 5x smaller than wax. If I'm not mistaken, I think they run the wet ink machines at 7 Picoliter for faster production. At 7 Picoliter, it's print head can be ran at 6pass (uni or bi), 12 pass (uni or bi), 18 pass (uni or bi), and so on up to 24 passes for a more versatile output.
Wax machines run best at 6 pass...uni directional (slower). Now, in recent years, there is a newer wax head that runs at (bi) directional, providing a faster production. Yet that faster production at wax...does not produce halftones
as well as the uni directional. It fills in more in the shadow tones. For this reason, people who do have the newer heads will switch to uni when printing finer halftones.
Now, let me say, (I like a true dot) just as much as anyone. In truth, I've not had a true dot since I've worked at Disney using true wet processing/camera imagesetter film. Under a 500 power magnifying glass, The edges are formed more like vector in Adobe Illustrator. THAT, is the benchmark of a true dot shape.
Since then, I've worked with Thermal film (not fond of at all) and mostly digital wet film at 600dpi output from various printers and M&R's wet ink CTS and then onto Wax (Douthit) at 600dpi output and then Saati Laser at 1200dpi and output. Out of all of those, I've never had a customer send a job back because the dot was not the right size. For me, This is not because they don't know about dots, but that they do know about color tones and what looks like it should (or as close to what it should on a tee shirt). Therefore, I can say, It's all about how you prepare the separations.
It's similar to what I've said about the competitions and using wax, wet ink or laser. There are plenty of people who have won awards (prints look great) that have done so with both wet ink and wax machines and now lasers. Just as much, there are also award winners that have dots that are not true in size. Some may be, and some may not be, but only the actual printer will know (maybe).
Take a Mark Gervie (spelling?) for example. That guy does 65lpi, 75lpi on a 156 mesh and 230's. Why? How? Because he doesn't use 5% dots. maybe not even 20% dots. He uses the smallest dots (that holds) in that 65lpi on a 156 mesh....lets say that is a 25% dot in a 65lpi...and that becomes his 3% dot location. and he manipulates the mid tones to the shadows. Gets coverage...
and tonality. Thats where it's at. "Tonality". He may use 3-4 greys + a black, + a white + a top white to get a greyscale. It's a horse (print) of a different color...and it's all in the seps.
Now, I (like Pierre) have also seen people have 10% as their 2%, but that (could be) for several reasons.
1, They don't know any better and have just tossed in a number that works and off they ran with it. Commonly the case.
2, A Tech that also doesn't know any better put in one of the 10 saved settings options they have now...and dropped one in there and that's what they are running with.
CTS (and now laser) manufacturers rely on the fact that
the user should calibrate the machines to their shops unique and specific needs. Epson printers don't come calibrated for your shop. Wax machines don't come calibrated for your shop. Lasers don't come calibrated for your shop. You do that or so they want you to believe. But many who pay out 30k, 60k, 80k, 120k for a printer...want it calibrated to work right (as they should) IMO. Now, I know that the each have a "standard" or default calibration, but I can tell you from experience from many machines, that the defaults are not what you are looking for.
Regarding Laser.
You have the calibration issue thing going (takes days to achieve per mesh, per auto coating thickness variables, per LPI calibration via remote process) unless the Tech is now attending installs...and with Saati. People are catching on now and complaining about getting theirs installed and can't do sim process with small dots in the 3-15 and even 20% Dots depending on mesh. Now tho, I think they have upped their game and are installed with proper calibrations. At least they should be by now.
When you think laser, you think perfection. But that's not the default. You have to pay a little more for the best resolutions...for those who think they are going to do 85lpi holding the 3% dots. Want to cut cost and use a cheaper RIP? (I don't think you can on the laser). That might just be for the Wax machines. Maybe you can use your own...or pay the additional $ for the 1200DPI Harlequin ...or, upgrade to the higher costing Harlequin that gives you the 2400 dpi and higher resolutions. To me, who really needs that on tee shirts? Overkill for 80% of the industry. Maybe a Mark Coudrey, or Andy Anderson...and those searching for award winning printing and want to do the almost perfect round and smooth-edged dot at 3% in a 65lpi.
Production speed? Keep in mind that the SAATI Laser (double imaging) that cost more, is pretty neck and neck on production per 8 hr shift with M&R's I-Image STElll (3 heads) that images one screen at a time and also exposes on the machine. So it cost more, needs to image 2 at a time...to equal the I-Image STElll.
And we say (what about the quality?) The laser quality (imaging on screen) is bar none. and I say, " Do YOU, really need that level of quality on your tee shirts to justify paying that extra money? What will be the return?
Would I get Laser? Sure, I'd love to have one, if I didn't have to pay for it, I'd use it. What would I pay for? I'd get a Douthit wax machine and external exposure... or a I-ImageSTE single head. I can always upgrade to more heads later as the need arises. If I were just starting out getting my first CTS, doing 70 screens a day, I'd go I-ImageS for 30k.
Lastly, people say....What about the "no consumables benefit"?
Well, look deeper into the life of the lasers...(roughly 10,000 hours) and the cost to replace them...and then consider that by the time the lasers go bad (5-6 years), you will have paid up to 30-35k on replacements and labor. If it's been 6 years, you may want to replace all of them and keep going without any hiccups. This to me, is negating any "no consumables benefit" as the consumables for wax and wet ink (Heads, Inks, parts), over 5-6 years is actually slightly less than what you're going to pay for new lasers in 5-6 years. Then consider (after 5 years), there may be newer laser technology...and you want to sell your existing laser...and upgrade. So, what is the resale value on a laser that needs 30-35k of investment to get it good to go for resale? You either dump 30k into it jsut to sell it off, or you sell it as is. What's that worth?
That's my thoughts on Laser.
