# MULTINK vs Chromoblast



## Tri-State (Jan 13, 2008)

Which makes better transfers MultiInk or Chromoblast? I know MultiInk can also be used to make positives (which is the real reason I bought the epson 4800). Can chromoblast make positives? are MultiInk postives as good as the epson brand ink. Thanks


----------



## DAGuide (Oct 2, 2006)

Chris,

MultINK is basically the same ink that is sold by several other companies as a heat transfer ink and also film positive ink. This ink is specifically made to minimize the color shifthing that happens with OEM Epson ink under a heat press. This is why there are suppliers in the industry that sell it specifically for heat transfers. It also has UV inhibitors in the ink that allow it to prevent the UV light from exposing the emulsion below the printed portion of the film. Neither Epson or ChromaBlast ink have the UV inhibitors. So for creating film positives, MultINK is better than ChromaBlast.

I know of one company that sells the SubliJet IQ / ChromaBlast hybrid to do film positives with a purchase of an additional RIP. This is an incredible expensive process because of the cost of the ChromaBlast ink compared to MultINK (twice the amount) and the amount of ink you use to create a film positive. No RIP that I am aware of has specifically created density curves (how much ink to drop on a specific type of medium to get the best results) for ChromaBlast. In addition, you don't get all the ICC profiles for sublimation that come with MultiRIP. The Sawgrass version only provides you color presets - not true ICC profiles for the different substrates.

Most RIPs will come with the basic density curve for Epson OEM ink on a generic film positive or the film positive that they sell under their name (i.e. FastRIP - FastPositive or Ulano - Ulano Waterproof). If you go with MultiRIP, there are currently 8 different types of films with built-n density curves. However, all of these density curves are done with MultINK. No one has ever asked us to create density curves for ChromaBlast ink because of the cost.

Hope this clarifies some things for you. Best of luck in your decision.

Mark


----------



## Tri-State (Jan 13, 2008)

Which makes better transfers particulary on cotton? I am definately leaning towards MULTIRIP thanks for the info. I have Wasatch and Fast Ink cartridges in numbers 5 and 8 I have only learned how to use the 5 or 8 not both, so far, I think there either will be a patch. I'm hoping to pitch the FASTINK and run with Air titanium and MutiInk if it is good enough on cotton.


----------



## DAGuide (Oct 2, 2006)

Chris,

MultINK is only as good as the graphics printed, transfer paper used and the curing method done. This is a general rule for heat transfer inks. ChromaBlast was designed to be one of the softest hands for a transfer, but it is a combination of the ink and transfer paper. If you put ChromaBlast or MultINK on a paper with a heavy hand (i.e. more Polymer), than they both will have great looking colors...but the window will be noticeable and the feel will be heavier.

MultINK does not have the clogging problems that ChromaBlast has and it provides great colors with the profiles in MultiRIP. The chemical makeup of MultINK allows it to minimize the color shift under the heat press. However, ChromaBlast (similar to dye sub inks) is the only heat transfer ink that I have seen that gets brighter after it is pressed. 

Basically, both inks are good for heat transfers. The both have positives and negatives. However, MultINK is the better one when you want to use it for film positives because of the UV inhibitors.

Feel free to ask additional questions if you have them. Here is a link to video as well - YouTube - MultiRIP Hybrid Printing Software - Digital Transfers & Film.

Mark


----------

