We run 2 automatics, and I'm currently printing film on an Epson 4000 unsing Ulano pigment inkjet film and PowerRip X software. The films look great to begin with, but they don't hold up well, and I find myself re-outputting film 1 out of 3 times on reorders. (I used to use a CalComp EcoPro, but sold it -- the ghost script language it used was abandoned by Adobe, and I was looking at $500.00 RIP software,anyway, in order to use CS versions of their apps.)
I'm also not too thrilled with the edges of the stencil on the Epson film -- I'm getting more undercutting on the thin lines, and along the sides of the image -- I'm guessing there's a drop in density at the edge of the art with this thing.
I've seen a couple articles about people imaging screens with Direct-to-screen machines that literally print the stencil onto the back of the emusioned screen, totally eliminating the need for film. Of course, I'm going to take any gushing trade mag article with a grain of salt, but I'm wondering if there's any real-world experience with these things here.
I saw one at a trade show about 8 years ago, but it was incredibly slow and expensive. I understand they're a lot faster now, but am also concerned with the complexity of setting up the files to image correctly, whether they can be printed to directly from Illustrator, Quark & InDesign, or if you've got to go through proprietary software as an intermediate step, and what the cost of ink is per screen in the long run.
Anybody using one of these things?
Do they break down & require constant maintenance, or are they pretty trouble-free?
How long on average to image a screen? (I'm using 23 x 31's not much "oversize" art -- pretty standard stuff)
Also, who makes them, and what are the most reputable brands?
Thanks,
Chris
__________________
when I retire, I'm going to write a book about my time in the T-shirt industry. It will be called "Blood Don't Zim."
I've seen the direct to screen burners at a show and it was cool... I've heard that the screens don't last for extended printing... 500 prints per screen...it's about 4k also... XpresScreen: About Us
The machine Chris is talking about is one of those high-end things that image with a thermal laser direct to screen- I think. Big investment, but I've heard of guys burning HUNDREDS of screens per day in their shops. On that type of scale, I can see why the investment makes sense.
__________________
Ridgely, Operations Mngr. Out Da Box Printing & Design www.outdaboxconcepts.com
I'm not looking for one that would apply emulsion -- I'm looking at the units that replace film by printing the image directly onto the already-coated screen. I've found one company online, but their site hasn't been updated in a year -- not exactly confidence-inspiring. (and now I seem to have lost the bookmark!)
Good Day,
They call it computer to screen, or direct to screen. We took delivery of our 1st CTS in Nov. 2007, It is made by Planet B, but I purchased it thru Saati America, it now cost's about .15 cents to image a screen, also we get a New Image every time, the resolution is unbelievable!!!
We have ordered another CTS, so have a backup, and also so we can produce more work, the price for each is about $60,000.00 US, but they also offer a table top model, with a max screen size of 23" x 31", for about $30,000.00, I can not brag enough about the machine and the technology, It IS Great!!
If you have questions, please email me(acetransco@gmail.com), or call 800-525-3126
Regards, David Shaw
Good Day,
They call it computer to screen, or direct to screen. We took delivery of our 1st CTS in Nov. 2007, It is made by Planet B, but I purchased it thru Saati America, it now cost's about .15 cents to image a screen, also we get a New Image every time, the resolution is unbelievable!!!
We have ordered another CTS, so have a backup, and also so we can produce more work, the price for each is about $60,000.00 US, but they also offer a table top model, with a max screen size of 23" x 31", for about $30,000.00, I can not brag enough about the machine and the technology, It IS Great!!
If you have questions, please email me(acetransco@gmail.com), or call 800-525-3126
Regards, David Shaw
Thanks, Dave!
I need to present to the "Powers that be" why we'd want one of these -- just trying to do a little research first. We're currently max. 20-30 screens a day, but with the trouble I've been having with film, & the dreadful slowness of the Epson 4000, it's not really a break-even proposition so much as a bottleneck-opener.
__________________
when I retire, I'm going to write a book about my time in the T-shirt industry. It will be called "Blood Don't Zim."
I have done some research on this as well and found that it is worth the investment if you are doing several hundred screens per week. We are holding off to see if the price goes down in the next few years while our production needs grow. Currently we use 10-20 screens per day. We also were having problems with our film not lasting but have solved that problem with a new rip and burning the image differently so the film doesn't stick to the screen and pull off the ink from the film.
Not sure if this is too last minute, but SGIA is hold a webinar on direct-to-screen / computer-to-screen today. Here is the link to it - SGIA Webinar Series. I have done a couple of their webinars and they are pretty good. The cost to sit in would be well worth it compared to the amount of money you would spend on a machine and the time you would use searching the internet. You can ask questions through out the presentation. They will also give you the power point presentation at the end of the webinar if you ask.
I'm also not too thrilled with the edges of the stencil on the Epson film -- I'm getting more undercutting on the thin lines, and along the sides of the image -- I'm guessing there's a drop in density at the edge of the art with this thing.
There is no reason to be guessing. Get a good magnifying glass and look.
The most likely cause is the film is not being pressed hard against the screen. If you aren't using a vacuum frame, you should consider one. Vacuum frames are much cheaper than fancy printers.
fred
__________________
A day late, a dollar short, so it goes.
There is no reason to be guessing. Get a good magnifying glass and look.
The most likely cause is the film is not being pressed hard against the screen. If you aren't using a vacuum frame, you should consider one. Vacuum frames are much cheaper than fancy printers.
fred
What type of light source do ya'll use Chris? Running two autos they probably have a good exposure unit with a vacuum but you never know. Also, we got a new rip and it cleaned up our halftones, fine lines and edges and gave us a much more dense film positive.
I've got a Richmond Solarbeam, with a good tight vacuum and a 3000 watt metal halide bulb. Film from the EcoPro did not exhibit this problem, was more durable, and that's not the only problem I'm trying to solve with the move to DTS. My other choice is $14,000.00 for a Oyo Techstyler. So yes, I've got to do the math there, but the ROI on not having to make film in the first place, as well as the time savings of waiting for film, taping it to carrier sheets, etc. might make it worth it. I always try to identify bottlenecks in my production, and right now, the biggest one is the Epson 4000. Is it a $25,000.00 bottleneck? I'm not sure -- that's why I'm researching.
__________________
when I retire, I'm going to write a book about my time in the T-shirt industry. It will be called "Blood Don't Zim."
They sure do make those time and production saving devices expensive don't they? Make you jump really high to get one. 10k-no brainer, 25k sheeesh! Good luck.
__________________
Ridgely, Operations Mngr. Out Da Box Printing & Design www.outdaboxconcepts.com
Direct to Screen imaging. 
