Laser to Screen (LTS)

[inkman996]

If laser comes down to I Image range of pricing I would consider it here. We are 6 years into our STE and did replace the head once but over all love the machine and what it produces. But to have a machine that uses no wet inks and the constant up keep would be a major consideration on our end. Idiot proofing everything as much as possible is also always a bonus. I couldnt care less if my low end dots looked like a meteorite or a perfect circle (Maynard reference).

[Dottonedan]

So, for (improved image quality), the laser would be best but only in the area specifically where needed most in the highlight ranges that would help assure your small dots are very small and accurate. At the same time, comes the necessity to assure that the laser is calibrated to hold those small dots for sure.  For example, I've been involved with two different shops now that had their LASER machines installed (at default installation) as they call it and yet could not hold below 20% halftone in 65lpi for sim process. Those two shops printed mostly sim process so having it be able, was critical.
We were able to get that corrected, but we had to request calibration for that and that took over a week. At the time, the Tech that could calibrate had to log in remotely, make adjustments, test screens, then print...and mail the results back to the tech...so he could measure results with e densitometer. Time consuming. I believe now, they had to have added a few more people that are able to do that. This one guy was backed up with doing just that. The small dots on the laser... will be best. Cleaner, more accurately formed dots. Lets say from 15% dot and below (compared to the results we get from other CTS machines either wax or wet ink.  Under a magnifying glass, prints would be better. From the 20% on up into the 80% ranged, there is not much benefit agasint the wax or wet ink as those dots are well formed...and can be adjusted to match an accurate % tone (e.g. 50% being 50% on press).  In comparison, if you separate for your machines ability, your customer will not notice any improvements.
A judge using a magnifying glass at a competition may find the differences.

To me, since you expose using an outside the machine source, you would save on that re-loading time if getting a laser, but...you could also get an M&R STElll and expose on the machine. About the same production on the 3 head...and you also expose on the machine. Don't bother getting a 1 head or two head. May as well get the three if you decide to go M&R at all.

I've heard/read some post that SAATI has come down in price from the 120's to near 90 or 100k to be more cost competitive with the M&R STElll but I don't know that for sure.  And I've also heard the same about the M&R STElll coming down in price also. It used to be in the mid 90's but I think they are closer to the 80's now.  The STElll will be much faster than your current machine both due to 3 heads printing and exposure on the machine. This production time is running neck and neck with the double exposure Laser.

To answer your questions (what would I do if I were in your shoes).  Being already comfortable with the I-Image, I'd do M&R.  It's cheaper, about the same (higher production than what you have) either way toy go, and a little less in cost...+ I don't like the idea of the way the resale value of the laser looks in 5-6 years in the end of the lasers lives.  As far as overall quality improvements, for tee shirt printing, I don't see me choosing to go Laser for the limited quality benefits. (Only really in the lower end of the small dots of sim process).

[GraphicDisorder]

So, for (improved image quality), the laser would be best but only in the area specifically where needed most in the highlight ranges that would help assure your small dots are very small and accurate. At the same time, comes the necessity to assure that the laser is calibrated to hold those small dots for sure.  For example, I've been involved with two different shops now that had their LASER machines installed (at default installation) as they call it and yet could not hold below 20% halftone in 65lpi for sim process. Those two shops printed mostly sim process so having it be able, was critical.
We were able to get that corrected, but we had to request calibration for that and that took over a week. At the time, the Tech that could calibrate had to log in remotely, make adjustments, test screens, then print...and mail the results back to the tech...so he could measure results with e densitometer. Time consuming. I believe now, they had to have added a few more people that are able to do that. This one guy was backed up with doing just that. The small dots on the laser... will be best. Cleaner, more accurately formed dots. Lets say from 15% dot and below (compared to the results we get from other CTS machines either wax or wet ink.  Under a magnifying glass, prints would be better. From the 20% on up into the 80% ranged, there is not much benefit agasint the wax or wet ink as those dots are well formed...and can be adjusted to match an accurate % tone (e.g. 50% being 50% on press).  In comparison, if you separate for your machines ability, your customer will not notice any improvements.
A judge using a magnifying glass at a competition may find the differences.

To me, since you expose using an outside the machine source, you would save on that re-loading time if getting a laser, but...you could also get an M&R STElll and expose on the machine. About the same production on the 3 head...and you also expose on the machine. Don't bother getting a 1 head or two head. May as well get the three if you decide to go M&R at all.

I've heard/read some post that SAATI has come down in price from the 120's to near 90 or 100k to be more cost competitive with the M&R STElll but I don't know that for sure.  And I've also heard the same about the M&R STElll coming down in price also. It used to be in the mid 90's but I think they are closer to the 80's now.  The STElll will be much faster than your current machine both due to 3 heads printing and exposure on the machine. This production time is running neck and neck with the double exposure Laser.

To answer your questions (what would I do if I were in your shoes).  Being already comfortable with the I-Image, I'd do M&R.  It's cheaper, about the same (higher production than what you have) either way toy go, and a little less in cost...+ I don't like the idea of the way the resale value of the laser looks in 5-6 years in the end of the lasers lives.  As far as overall quality improvements, for tee shirt printing, I don't see me choosing to go Laser for the limited quality benefits. (Only really in the lower end of the small dots of sim process).

All fair points. I don't think I would do a STE, in my mind a screen could be burning while a screen is imaging, while that over lap is much smaller on a 3 head im sure, it is some amount. So id probably keep my starlight and keep exposing that way if I stuck with M&R.

All things being equal, if the laser was set up correctly which it would simply have to be or id punt it back out the door from go, is there a reason NOT to go that way other than money?

I don't know the current pricing of a STE or ST in 3 head flavors to be fair.

But the saati unit is just a touch over 100k installed.

[zanegun08]

Money isn't a issue

Look at European companies, they have ones where you can load 10 screens and walk away and come back to 10 screens ready to go.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m17Pl-mrfms

https://signtronic.com/en/stm-tex-series.html

May not be "faster", but "faster" when you factor in labor.

These have been around for a long time, and more popular in Europe where labor isn't as cheap.

Why only buy European Cars when you can also buy European equipment!

[Doug S]

I can't compare to other DTS machines but coming from the rocket launcher to the 3 head STE has been an insane improvement.  It will crank out a screen in no time.  I have used the onboard exposure for the 225's and up but for the lower count screens I've been using my tri-light.  I'm really impressed with the opacity of the ink compared to what I had.  I wanted a wax unit but this was so cheap I had to buy it and it had 3 new heads installed the day I picked it up.  It's way more capable than what I need.  I think it was advertised as being able to produce 300 + screens in an 8 hour shift "I may be wrong on that one" but I believe it could.

There is still some testing to be done on halftone screens.  I'm sure I'll have to work on  some curves.

[GraphicDisorder]

I can't compare to other DTS machines but coming from the rocket launcher to the 3 head STE has been an insane improvement.  It will crank out a screen in no time.  I have used the onboard exposure for the 225's and up but for the lower count screens I've been using my tri-light.  I'm really impressed with the opacity of the ink compared to what I had.  I wanted a wax unit but this was so cheap I had to buy it and it had 3 new heads installed the day I picked it up.  It's way more capable than what I need.  I think it was advertised as being able to produce 300 + screens in an 8 hour shift "I may be wrong on that one" but I believe it could.

There is still some testing to be done on halftone screens.  I'm sure I'll have to work on  some curves.

I had the rocket launcher too, it was a turd. We didn't keep it long, 4 months maybe or something.

[Dottonedan]

So, for (improved image quality), the laser would be best but only in the area specifically where needed most in the highlight ranges that would help assure your small dots are very small and accurate. At the same time, comes the necessity to assure that the laser is calibrated to hold those small dots for sure.  For example, I've been involved with two different shops now that had their LASER machines installed (at default installation) as they call it and yet could not hold below 20% halftone in 65lpi for sim process. Those two shops printed mostly sim process so having it be able, was critical.
We were able to get that corrected, but we had to request calibration for that and that took over a week. At the time, the Tech that could calibrate had to log in remotely, make adjustments, test screens, then print...and mail the results back to the tech...so he could measure results with e densitometer. Time consuming. I believe now, they had to have added a few more people that are able to do that. This one guy was backed up with doing just that. The small dots on the laser... will be best. Cleaner, more accurately formed dots. Lets say from 15% dot and below (compared to the results we get from other CTS machines either wax or wet ink.  Under a magnifying glass, prints would be better. From the 20% on up into the 80% ranged, there is not much benefit agasint the wax or wet ink as those dots are well formed...and can be adjusted to match an accurate % tone (e.g. 50% being 50% on press).  In comparison, if you separate for your machines ability, your customer will not notice any improvements.
A judge using a magnifying glass at a competition may find the differences.

To me, since you expose using an outside the machine source, you would save on that re-loading time if getting a laser, but...you could also get an M&R STElll and expose on the machine. About the same production on the 3 head...and you also expose on the machine. Don't bother getting a 1 head or two head. May as well get the three if you decide to go M&R at all.

I've heard/read some post that SAATI has come down in price from the 120's to near 90 or 100k to be more cost competitive with the M&R STElll but I don't know that for sure.  And I've also heard the same about the M&R STElll coming down in price also. It used to be in the mid 90's but I think they are closer to the 80's now.  The STElll will be much faster than your current machine both due to 3 heads printing and exposure on the machine. This production time is running neck and neck with the double exposure Laser.

To answer your questions (what would I do if I were in your shoes).  Being already comfortable with the I-Image, I'd do M&R.  It's cheaper, about the same (higher production than what you have) either way toy go, and a little less in cost...+ I don't like the idea of the way the resale value of the laser looks in 5-6 years in the end of the lasers lives.  As far as overall quality improvements, for tee shirt printing, I don't see me choosing to go Laser for the limited quality benefits. (Only really in the lower end of the small dots of sim process).

All fair points. I don't think I would do a STE, in my mind a screen could be burning while a screen is imaging, while that over lap is much smaller on a 3 head im sure, it is some amount. So id probably keep my starlight and keep exposing that way if I stuck with M&R.

All things being equal, if the laser was set up correctly which it would simply have to be or id punt it back out the door from go, is there a reason NOT to go that way other than money?

I don't know the current pricing of a STE or ST in 3 head flavors to be fair.

But the saati unit is just a touch over 100k installed.

Since you won't want to swap exposures, then there is no real benefit IMO of the M&R over the Laser or vise versa. Other than that resale value thing and what to do with a laser that needs updated so much financially that it makes it difficult to either find worthy of investing that much back into or selling off.  and if you sell it off, what can you get out of a laser machine that someone much also put in another 30k? The benefits of having laser doesn't sit well with me personally. Another kink with using the laser is (when/after it's dialed in), you can't come in a year later and make your own adjustments without a lot of the same initial effort of calibrating with a densitometer. What happens if you decide to change emulsions for whatever reason a year later. It all needs re-calibrated and There is NO dot gain compensation tool within the software that one can adjust or fine tune on their own within the RIP for laser. Laser puts out, what you put in. So compensation is all done manually (for each file) in advance. TO correct for new emulsion of make a change in coating procedures, someone else from SAATI must make any adjustments needed for you. I'm a fine dot snob. I'm always trying to use what ever I can in the seps for tone to achieve adding to what is needed. In this range of 3-15%, I can obtain whaat might amount to a 5-7% improved difference in overall visual quality doing so. Is that 5%-10% improvement WORTH it?  I donno. But like I mentioned, I can make that work on other machines also.

I use a lot of 3-5% tints combining 3-5 colors for a specific shade of color here I'm not using a color. With the ability to do 65lpi or even 75lpi (fully), that improves it (for me).  Therefore, it's important for me to be able to hold small dots well. But I do that already using wet ink and wax. (The seps are adjusted manually to obtain that) but it's true that it would look "better" from a LASER at 75lpi in those tones. The smaller the dots that can be printed, the more overall consistent that area would look. Less noticeable dots. I'd really like LASER for that reason alone to know that what I put in there isn't going to cause anyone any issues in screen making and is (finer) than what I can get from wet ink or wax. Having said that, I can do without the laser and it's benefits. The roi for that reason alone, isn't as worth it for me. I'd choose to save 20k. But really, There is no "bad decision" between the two.  It's going to work REALLY well (once dialed in) for anyone that buys one, but so would the M&RSTElll.

For you, taking out the (exposing while imaging on the machine) removes the LASER exposing faster factor and the exposing on the wet ink machine factor. That EXPOSING ON THE MACHINE factor, is what sets the production speed for both being BETTER than an ST of any number of heads.  I know a 3 head alone, is not going to give you as much improvement in production speed as would a double laser or STElll. It will give you more for sure, but not as much.

Like Sanegun08 mentioned, We may be focusing in on the wrong areas.  Thinking beyond a Saati, M&R or Douthit deserves a hard look.

I believe both the SAATI double exposure and the STElll are in the high 400's per 8 hr shift.

(edit) From the M7R site.
"one-printhead i-Image STE I systems can image and expose up to 150 screens per 8-hour shift; two-printhead models can image and expose up to 300 screens per shift;
and three-printhead models can image and expose up to 400 screens per shift. In fact, three-printhead models can generate and expose full-size images in less than a minute".

The above is based on a FULL sized image.

[Evo]

Figure in the cost of supply over the life of the machine. Wax and/or ink, etc and not to mention the inevitable head replacements (not if but when)

At the moment, laser looks to be about the same or cheaper over 5+ years.

[tonypep]

Fair statement. And, even at JSR (all sim pro all day every day) we never viewed shirts under a magnifying glass

[GraphicDisorder]

So, for (improved image quality), the laser would be best but only in the area specifically where needed most in the highlight ranges that would help assure your small dots are very small and accurate. At the same time, comes the necessity to assure that the laser is calibrated to hold those small dots for sure.  For example, I've been involved with two different shops now that had their LASER machines installed (at default installation) as they call it and yet could not hold below 20% halftone in 65lpi for sim process. Those two shops printed mostly sim process so having it be able, was critical.
We were able to get that corrected, but we had to request calibration for that and that took over a week. At the time, the Tech that could calibrate had to log in remotely, make adjustments, test screens, then print...and mail the results back to the tech...so he could measure results with e densitometer. Time consuming. I believe now, they had to have added a few more people that are able to do that. This one guy was backed up with doing just that. The small dots on the laser... will be best. Cleaner, more accurately formed dots. Lets say from 15% dot and below (compared to the results we get from other CTS machines either wax or wet ink.  Under a magnifying glass, prints would be better. From the 20% on up into the 80% ranged, there is not much benefit agasint the wax or wet ink as those dots are well formed...and can be adjusted to match an accurate % tone (e.g. 50% being 50% on press).  In comparison, if you separate for your machines ability, your customer will not notice any improvements.
A judge using a magnifying glass at a competition may find the differences.

To me, since you expose using an outside the machine source, you would save on that re-loading time if getting a laser, but...you could also get an M&R STElll and expose on the machine. About the same production on the 3 head...and you also expose on the machine. Don't bother getting a 1 head or two head. May as well get the three if you decide to go M&R at all.

I've heard/read some post that SAATI has come down in price from the 120's to near 90 or 100k to be more cost competitive with the M&R STElll but I don't know that for sure.  And I've also heard the same about the M&R STElll coming down in price also. It used to be in the mid 90's but I think they are closer to the 80's now.  The STElll will be much faster than your current machine both due to 3 heads printing and exposure on the machine. This production time is running neck and neck with the double exposure Laser.

To answer your questions (what would I do if I were in your shoes).  Being already comfortable with the I-Image, I'd do M&R.  It's cheaper, about the same (higher production than what you have) either way toy go, and a little less in cost...+ I don't like the idea of the way the resale value of the laser looks in 5-6 years in the end of the lasers lives.  As far as overall quality improvements, for tee shirt printing, I don't see me choosing to go Laser for the limited quality benefits. (Only really in the lower end of the small dots of sim process).

All fair points. I don't think I would do a STE, in my mind a screen could be burning while a screen is imaging, while that over lap is much smaller on a 3 head im sure, it is some amount. So id probably keep my starlight and keep exposing that way if I stuck with M&R.

All things being equal, if the laser was set up correctly which it would simply have to be or id punt it back out the door from go, is there a reason NOT to go that way other than money?

I don't know the current pricing of a STE or ST in 3 head flavors to be fair.

But the saati unit is just a touch over 100k installed.

Since you won't want to swap exposures, then there is no real benefit IMO of the M&R over the Laser or vise versa. Other than that resale value thing and what to do with a laser that needs updated so much financially that it makes it difficult to either find worthy of investing that much back into or selling off.  and if you sell it off, what can you get out of a laser machine that someone much also put in another 30k? The benefits of having laser doesn't sit well with me personally. Another kink with using the laser is (when/after it's dialed in), you can't come in a year later and make your own adjustments without a lot of the same initial effort of calibrating with a densitometer. What happens if you decide to change emulsions for whatever reason a year later. It all needs re-calibrated and There is NO dot gain compensation tool within the software that one can adjust or fine tune on their own within the RIP for laser. Laser puts out, what you put in. So compensation is all done manually (for each file) in advance. TO correct for new emulsion of make a change in coating procedures, someone else from SAATI must make any adjustments needed for you. I'm a fine dot snob. I'm always trying to use what ever I can in the seps for tone to achieve adding to what is needed. In this range of 3-15%, I can obtain whaat might amount to a 5-7% improved difference in overall visual quality doing so. Is that 5%-10% improvement WORTH it?  I donno. But like I mentioned, I can make that work on other machines also.

I use a lot of 3-5% tints combining 3-5 colors for a specific shade of color here I'm not using a color. With the ability to do 65lpi or even 75lpi (fully), that improves it (for me).  Therefore, it's important for me to be able to hold small dots well. But I do that already using wet ink and wax. (The seps are adjusted manually to obtain that) but it's true that it would look "better" from a LASER at 75lpi in those tones. The smaller the dots that can be printed, the more overall consistent that area would look. Less noticeable dots. I'd really like LASER for that reason alone to know that what I put in there isn't going to cause anyone any issues in screen making and is (finer) than what I can get from wet ink or wax. Having said that, I can do without the laser and it's benefits. The roi for that reason alone, isn't as worth it for me. I'd choose to save 20k. But really, There is no "bad decision" between the two.  It's going to work REALLY well (once dialed in) for anyone that buys one, but so would the M&RSTElll.

For you, taking out the (exposing while imaging on the machine) removes the LASER exposing faster factor and the exposing on the wet ink machine factor. That EXPOSING ON THE MACHINE factor, is what sets the production speed for both being BETTER than an ST of any number of heads.  I know a 3 head alone, is not going to give you as much improvement in production speed as would a double laser or STElll. It will give you more for sure, but not as much.

Like Sanegun08 mentioned, We may be focusing in on the wrong areas.  Thinking beyond a Saati, M&R or Douthit deserves a hard look.

I believe both the SAATI double exposure and the STElll are in the high 400's per 8 hr shift.

(edit) From the M7R site.
"one-printhead i-Image STE I systems can image and expose up to 150 screens per 8-hour shift; two-printhead models can image and expose up to 300 screens per shift;
and three-printhead models can image and expose up to 400 screens per shift. In fact, three-printhead models can generate and expose full-size images in less than a minute".

The above is based on a FULL sized image.

M&R is coming tomorrow to discuss. Guess ill get their perspective and such. I am not sold on any of it yet. Ink/Wax/Laser.

[TCT]

Not sure if any of this will help, but here is my input on this:

We had a rocket launcher, without that not sure if we would have adopted CTS when we did. It was what it was. Modified Epson no one really wants to acknowledge. But it worked. From that we moved to a ST3. Three heads is FAST super nice. We did not have the "E" version so we exposed separate, which is fine. Imaging was faster than exposure. BUT it was ink. Up in the North here that sucked for a handful of reasons, but damn that sucker was fast and nice! Until the heads got out of alignment. Then pretty much everyone said not to do 3 heads again because that happens....

We switched to wax. DAMN! Overall ease, detail and quality, I was blown away. Still love how reliable and the quality that machine puts out daily.

When we went from the 3 head ST to wax I wanted to see what the time difference was to see if we would have a new bottle neck... Sent a big 19" tall image to Douthit, same image to a friend that had/has a single head I image and then I ran it on our 3 head. Asked both of them to print in in single direction(slower better detail) print so I could see where things stacked up. It has been a few years, but if memory serves me, our 3 head was like 42 sec, both the single head I-image and wax were within like 2 seconds of each other at 1:19.  1:19 didn't create any new bottle necks so we went wax and I never have regretted it. 

As far as laser, I have watched the Saati one for a while, but knowing that they basically just rebrand, AND we don't need a new unit, I haven't done anything. I would also prefer a single screen unit. I still watch the development because it is interesting, but I think it will need more speed. Also, for us we have to think about exposure and emulsion. We are over 95% discharge/waterbase and there is ZERO possibility of switching emulsion, and breakdown ends up being WAY more costly than if we used plastisol so I'm super cautious.

I have had my eye on a newer company(link below) coming into the states that has a laser, got to talk with one of the people and one of the soon to be techs. Seems pretty interesting! Expensive, but none of the lasers are ink/wax price. If we were going to be upgrading I would at least consider them! Still love the damn wax though!

https://luescher.com/en/product-lines/screen-cube

[Doug S]

Not sure if any of this will help, but here is my input on this:

We had a rocket launcher, without that not sure if we would have adopted CTS when we did. It was what it was. Modified Epson no one really wants to acknowledge. But it worked. From that we moved to a ST3. Three heads is FAST super nice. We did not have the "E" version so we exposed separate, which is fine. Imaging was faster than exposure. BUT it was ink. Up in the North here that sucked for a handful of reasons, but damn that sucker was fast and nice! Until the heads got out of alignment. Then pretty much everyone said not to do 3 heads again because that happens....

We switched to wax. DAMN! Overall ease, detail and quality, I was blown away. Still love how reliable and the quality that machine puts out daily.

When we went from the 3 head ST to wax I wanted to see what the time difference was to see if we would have a new bottle neck... Sent a big 19" tall image to Douthit, same image to a friend that had/has a single head I image and then I ran it on our 3 head. Asked both of them to print in in single direction(slower better detail) print so I could see where things stacked up. It has been a few years, but if memory serves me, our 3 head was like 42 sec, both the single head I-image and wax were within like 2 seconds of each other at 1:19.  1:19 didn't create any new bottle necks so we went wax and I never have regretted it. 

As far as laser, I have watched the Saati one for a while, but knowing that they basically just rebrand, AND we don't need a new unit, I haven't done anything. I would also prefer a single screen unit. I still watch the development because it is interesting, but I think it will need more speed. Also, for us we have to think about exposure and emulsion. We are over 95% discharge/waterbase and there is ZERO possibility of switching emulsion, and breakdown ends up being WAY more costly than if we used plastisol so I'm super cautious.

I have had my eye on a newer company(link below) coming into the states that has a laser, got to talk with one of the people and one of the soon to be techs. Seems pretty interesting! Expensive, but none of the lasers are ink/wax price. If we were going to be upgrading I would at least consider them! Still love the damn wax though!

https://luescher.com/en/product-lines/screen-cube

If you don't mind, did anything happen to cause the misalignment on the 3 head or did it just happen?  I'm hoping we don't have the same issue that doesn't seem like a DIY fix.

[TCT]

Not sure if any of this will help, but here is my input on this:

We had a rocket launcher, without that not sure if we would have adopted CTS when we did. It was what it was. Modified Epson no one really wants to acknowledge. But it worked. From that we moved to a ST3. Three heads is FAST super nice. We did not have the "E" version so we exposed separate, which is fine. Imaging was faster than exposure. BUT it was ink. Up in the North here that sucked for a handful of reasons, but damn that sucker was fast and nice! Until the heads got out of alignment. Then pretty much everyone said not to do 3 heads again because that happens....

We switched to wax. DAMN! Overall ease, detail and quality, I was blown away. Still love how reliable and the quality that machine puts out daily.

When we went from the 3 head ST to wax I wanted to see what the time difference was to see if we would have a new bottle neck... Sent a big 19" tall image to Douthit, same image to a friend that had/has a single head I image and then I ran it on our 3 head. Asked both of them to print in in single direction(slower better detail) print so I could see where things stacked up. It has been a few years, but if memory serves me, our 3 head was like 42 sec, both the single head I-image and wax were within like 2 seconds of each other at 1:19.  1:19 didn't create any new bottle necks so we went wax and I never have regretted it. 

As far as laser, I have watched the Saati one for a while, but knowing that they basically just rebrand, AND we don't need a new unit, I haven't done anything. I would also prefer a single screen unit. I still watch the development because it is interesting, but I think it will need more speed. Also, for us we have to think about exposure and emulsion. We are over 95% discharge/waterbase and there is ZERO possibility of switching emulsion, and breakdown ends up being WAY more costly than if we used plastisol so I'm super cautious.

I have had my eye on a newer company(link below) coming into the states that has a laser, got to talk with one of the people and one of the soon to be techs. Seems pretty interesting! Expensive, but none of the lasers are ink/wax price. If we were going to be upgrading I would at least consider them! Still love the damn wax though!

https://luescher.com/en/product-lines/screen-cube

If you don't mind, did anything happen to cause the misalignment on the 3 head or did it just happen?  I'm hoping we don't have the same issue that doesn't seem like a DIY fix.

It's not a DIY fix. The fix is basically replacing the 3 heads with 1 head. Then it could probably be DIY. It was just time from what I understood from the techs. Machine didn't move in the years it was there, always capped it properly and filled with cleaning solution. I really liked it so I took care of it!

[GraphicDisorder]

M&R came today, we are discussing options.

Also talked to Mark from Douthitt, good conversation as well.

[Dottonedan]

Figure in the cost of supply over the life of the machine. Wax and/or ink, etc and not to mention the inevitable head replacements (not if but when)

At the moment, laser looks to be about the same or cheaper over 5+ years.

I've done the comparisons and Wax/Wet ink consumables average out to about 3-5k less (over a 5 year span) compared to the cost of labor and parts of replacing lasers at end of life.