# Brother GT-782 wash results



## Printzilla (Mar 22, 2007)

Just finished the fifth wash of the samples I picked up at the Atlanta ISS. All I can say is WOW. It really held up well. No noticeable loss of color. Zero flaking or cracking, and very, very little cracking under an extreme stretch. I must say, if the machine was a little less expensive, and the ink was reasonable, I would probably be the proud owner of the 782. 

The hand on the Brother ink is much better than the Dupont in my opinion. The ink is several times thicker than Dupont, and I think that is a plus for longevity. 

Zilla


----------



## stix (Feb 3, 2008)

Marc,

Do you still stand behind your thesis of having 2-3 Epson based printers versus the Brother 782 for the price?


----------



## Printzilla (Mar 22, 2007)

Yes. The ink cost is to much to over come for my new business model. Under my previous retail business, I might feel different. And it would actually be 3-5 new epson machines, if you consider the discount you could get for buying multiples. Factor in around two bucks a dark shirt lower ink price, and twice as many shirts per hour, and I think the Epsons squeak out the win.

Factor in buying used Epsons, and it really makes since to go Epson. I could buy 6-10 for the price of the Brother. Now I am at three times as many shirts per hour.


----------



## DAGuide (Oct 2, 2006)

Not pushing one printer or another, but there are new pricing for Brother users for those users that will go through more than 10 white carts a month. Should contact Brother for additional details.

I do understand the concept of multiple printers though. Just need more heat presses to make up for the longer cure times. Either way, you need to have the correct business model for the printer you choose.

Mark


----------



## Printzilla (Mar 22, 2007)

What is the yield from one Brother cart for a standard 12x14 print on dark? I know i get around 100 per liter of Dupont.


----------



## DAGuide (Oct 2, 2006)

No clue. I did hear that Brother pulled the printer records on the 782 printers when they did an upgrade recently and that Brother would have this info. I do know from a printing software side that you can run a print on the 782 and the amount of white ink is 4 to 5 times the amount of CMYK ink. (You can see this when you make an ARP file). The standard ratio for an Epson-based printer is 8 to 10 times. This could be the result of the difference in viscocity between the two inks - not sure.

Mark


----------



## acca (Jun 25, 2006)

Another thing to consider is color. We have the 541 and getting great purples and pinks are near impossible, so I would think the 782 with the same CMYK inkset will be the same.


----------



## Printzilla (Mar 22, 2007)

Don't get me wrong, I do not think I could fade the ink cost at 50% more per print, but i sure like the feel and wash fastness from a 35 second cure.


----------



## loloxa (Sep 5, 2007)

Belquette said:


> Not pushing one machine or another, but in production settings that have both Epson and Brother white ink platforms the Epson based machines are the still the preferential platform used with our customers, both on output quality and price of consumables.


Sorry if I'm confused. but since you only sell "Epson based machines" would that not make it obvious that your costumers prefer "Epson based machines"? or I'm misreading your comment?

also when people talk about output are you accounting for the curing time?, in the time that you can cure 1 Epson based shirt you can cure 3 made with the brother.


----------



## Justin Walker (Dec 6, 2006)

DAGuide said:


> ... I do know from a printing software side that you can run a print on the 782 and the amount of white ink is 4 to 5 times the amount of CMYK ink. (You can see this when you make an ARP file). The standard ratio for an Epson-based printer is 8 to 10 times. This could be the result of the difference in viscocity between the two inks - not sure...


I'm gonna have to check the ink volume on some of the recent prints we've done on our Epson unit.... However, since I print the white ink layer @ 1440 x 1440 (2,073,600 pixels of ink), and the color layer at 720 x 720 (518,400 pixels of ink), doesn't that mean I am only laying down about (4) times as much white as color? This would actually put us on par with the Brother ratio of ink consumption (white v. CMYK), if I understand the math correctly.... There might be something I am not considering, but when doing long term experimentation with various resolutions, we have always used simple math like that to calculate the approximate differences in ink volume between various resolutions. My general rule of thumb has always been "the white under base layer typically runs about 4 times more volume than the CMYK top layer".


----------



## Justin Walker (Dec 6, 2006)

Of course, there could be a volume variable I am not considering (droplet size?) - I will have to check what our RIP determines as the actual cost difference between the two layers..... That might be more accurate for me to judge!


----------



## DAGuide (Oct 2, 2006)

Justin Walker said:


> Of course, there could be a volume variable I am not considering (droplet size?) - I will have to check what our RIP determines as the actual cost difference between the two layers..... That might be more accurate for me to judge!


Justin,

Below is information from the status message tab of a customer that was printing the shark design at 12" x 13" (or so based on their email). They used Color Layer Auto Mask, but only printed the white at 1440 x 720 on an 1800 based printer. They had $0.47 for the color layer and $3.35 for the white layer. I believe the ink cost in RIP was default ($300.00), but even if that was different - it would not change the ratio.

In the end, don't believe what I am saying... do some research on this forum and you will see where Don has stated the same exact thing. 

Either way, I don't sell ink or printers. I know the printing software side for both printers fairly well and am just sharing some knowledge.

Mark
--------------------
Ink Density: C: 100 M: 100 Y: 100 K: 100 W: 90
|/|/|/| Ink Usage: /|/|/|/|
***** Cyan: $0.0000 (0.0000 ml)
***** Magenta: $0.0000 (0.0000 ml)
***** Yellow: $0.0000 (0.0000 ml)
***** Black: $0.0000 (0.0000 ml)
***** White: $3.3545 (11.2190 ml)
+*+*+* Layer Total: $3.3545
Ink Density: C: 100 M: 100 Y: 100 K: 100 W: 90
|/|/|/| Ink Usage: /|/|/|/|
***** Cyan: $0.0812 (0.2715 ml)
***** Magenta: $0.1516 (0.5069 ml)
***** Yellow: $0.2319 (0.7756 ml)
***** Black: $0.0032 (0.0108 ml)
***** White: $0.0000 (0.0000 ml)
**+*+* Layer Total: $0.4679
Rendered 45 bands
%[Page: 1]%
%[LastPage]%


----------



## Printzilla (Mar 22, 2007)

I had a brother rep rip a couple of my files for me to compare ink costs. Using standard Brother prices, and $280 per liter for Dupont, the Brother cost was always in the 40-50% more per print range using 3 as the under base strength. 

Now if I use the bulk Brother pricing for buying 10 carts at a time, it closes the gap to around the 20-25% mark. Calculate it with the bulk ink refill system and that falls another 5% or so, depending on your monthly volume etc........


----------



## Printzilla (Mar 22, 2007)

Mark - funny you should bring that file up, as it was actually one I had tested. On the Brother at standard pricing that image was 4.49cc which is $2.70, while the color was .61cc or about $0.50 for a total of $3.20. It was also 12x13 as I wanted it tested a size I could compare to my Epson based machine. If I added a white highlight setting of one it raised the final price to $3.85. Seems strange it would be more on an Epson. I am going to RIPIt now and will report back in 5 minutes.


----------



## Printzilla (Mar 22, 2007)

On my Kiosk it was $2.98 in white, and $0.45 in CMYK. This is really weird. This is the first print were the price has been this close. I know the print would be bright and vibrant white on my Kiosk. I am not sure if the Brother would need to turn up the white or print it twice. This could be the difference, in that the 782 needs to print the white twice. Maybe someone with more experience on the 782 could chime in. 

Off to watch Monday Night Football!!


----------



## WholesalePrint (Sep 23, 2008)

> Adding a heat press or 2 will solve that.


This adds cost to your operation costs.

Brother costs have gone down substantially. As a Brother owner and I will admit the ink cost aren't what you think they are.

We are actually getting to the point of trying to get a second machine.


----------



## Printzilla (Mar 22, 2007)

WholesalePrint said:


> This adds cost to your operation costs.


About a quarter an hour per press. I think anyone doing the volume of shirts to justify additional presses can afford the extra costs of 1-2 cents per shirt. 

I agree that after close examination, the ink prices are less than I was originally lead to believe, even taking into account the daily maintenance.


----------



## WholesalePrint (Sep 23, 2008)

I still say your math wrong  but you are starting to understand . Lol


----------



## Justin Walker (Dec 6, 2006)

I'm gonna have to do a more careful observation, the next time I'm ripping files! I assume the assorted RIP's will have slight differences, depending on how they process the files?


----------



## WholesalePrint (Sep 23, 2008)

Hey Clueless Soldier reminds of the the good old usscreen days in the forums. very productive conversation.


----------



## Printzilla (Mar 22, 2007)

WholesalePrint said:


> I still say your math wrong  but you are starting to understand . Lol


Instead of postulating that my math is wrong, why not just prove it? Based on the cost of electricity in my area, and the amount of kWh it takes to run my heat presses, my previous post is accurate. Now if I am missing something please share.


----------



## Printzilla (Mar 22, 2007)

And if it's labor you are pointing out, in my shop it takes the same amount of labor to run four presses as it does to run one, because of the long press and print times.


----------



## WholesalePrint (Sep 23, 2008)

I just disagree with the print cost, that s all.


----------



## Printzilla (Mar 22, 2007)

Oh ok, I thought you meant the press numbers. What part of the print cost do you disagree with? Using published Brother ink costs, and the cc's output from the Brother software, I came up with the price. Pretty simple math. I understand that the bulk ink container option is considerably less, but you need to be doing a large enough amount of shirts a month to justify it. While I think that is fine for me, I am trying to post up a fair comparison for the average user. 

How about some actual info from you regarding the exact pricing, rather than the bland " your math is wrong" answer. I am truly trying to be as accurate as possible, and am willing to listen to any figures and examples you care to offer.


----------



## WholesalePrint (Sep 23, 2008)

W averag 3.5 liters every 2.5/3 weeks so I can see why our numbers are. different


----------



## Printzilla (Mar 22, 2007)

That makes sense. I know you are using the 3400+-cc bulk containers, which make a great deal of impact on the price. 

At around 5 liters a month seems to be where it starts to make sense to look at the bulk system, which with my guesstimates would be around 1000-1200 shirts. 

Thanks for the info.


----------



## WholesalePrint (Sep 23, 2008)

Thiss is why I say don't count brother out. They are trying. I believe thier modo is why buy big boy machines if you can't buy big boy quantities. And for playing with the big Boys they compensate well. I am happy with how they have came thru with price adjustments so in return we buy more ink as a thank you.
Now the CMYK is different story lol


----------



## jbrian (Aug 6, 2010)

We also went to Atlanta to look at the Neoflex. Justin from all american was excellent. He answered every question we had.We took our own design and had them print us 2 so we could do a wash test.Then we took the same design to brother and had them print us 2 shirts.Now to compare any machine out there to the brother is kind of unfair due to the price difference.I believe the neoflex is probably the best machine i've seen in it's price range,but it was too slow for what we need.The colors were exellent on it compared to other samples we've gotten except the brother.The ink cost verses the brother was a tremendous suprise also.
1 print times on our 12x12 design. Neoflex-8 mins.per shirt=16 mis on two. Brother 2 shirts 5 min 20 sec.
Ink cost. Neoflex- we were told it cost 3.50 per shirt to print.
Brother - 3.96cc total ink= approx. 2.60 - 2.70 per shirt.
I think the neoflex is an excellent machine,it's just not for us.I'm still not to a point where i can justify the price of the 782 yet.(but i'm getting closer). Until i can we'll just keep printing on our 541 on white shirts.


----------



## Rodney (Nov 3, 2004)

*Thread note:* please note that some self promotional posts have been moved out of this thread. It's best that machine owners contribute opinions on the machines unless facts are needed from the vendors. Any questions, please contact me directly ​


----------



## Rodney (Nov 3, 2004)

@Printzilla do you have photos of the before and after prints?


----------



## Printzilla (Mar 22, 2007)

I did not take any pre wash pictures.


----------



## Printzilla (Mar 22, 2007)

No significant change after 15 washes. I am really starting to consider this machine.


----------



## Justin Walker (Dec 6, 2006)

That good, eh?


----------



## WholesalePrint (Sep 23, 2008)

Pics would be nice for the doubters but with your credentials no reason to second guess it


----------



## Printzilla (Mar 22, 2007)

Justin Walker said:


> That good, eh?


Yep. And if you ever answered your &[email protected]% phone, I would tell you all about it.


----------



## Printzilla (Mar 22, 2007)

stix said:


> Marc,
> 
> Do you still stand behind your thesis of having 2-3 Epson based printers versus the Brother 782 for the price?


I am quickly backing off of this statement. With the new bulk ink pricing from Brother (brought to my attention after the show), 16x18 print area, combined with the super fast cure and the great hand and durability, I have really come around. Add to this the in the field reports of not having to do the ink recovery everyday, as long as you are printing everyday (and if you are going to spend this kind of money, you should be printing everyday), and I am on the verge of plopping down the AMEX.

In my mind, the only two issues now are:

1. Initial price
2. Lower resolution


----------



## loloxa (Sep 5, 2007)

My 2 cents

Our family business has been silk-screening and pressing plastisol transfers since the mid 70's. 

In 87 we spent the same amount of money that today costs the 782 for an oil based color copier from Agfa and high pressure heat press in order to do on the spot personalization, at one point we even had 2, and the copiers have changed every 5 years, of course getting cheaper but nonetheless the last one I got 4 years ago was still around 7000$. 

This is to illustrate that I have had my share and time of seeing and wearing for countless years printed t-shirts, and I have not ever seen anything wash as well as the "on dark" prints from my 782, not any of my transfers ( any to chose from the kung fu series of the 70's to the glitter skulls we bought last week), or any of the silkscreen samples I still wash and wear from all this time, and of course none the prints of my 782 without white ink.

The oldest sample I have of a 782 will be 1 year old in one month and I have washed it at least every third wash I do, the shirt has lost more ink than the print, but the most astounding thing for me and the hardest to come around is the hand of the print, It is just unbelievable soft. I have to disclose that I have never used discharge but the discharged t-shirts I have feel pretty close to some prints done with the 782.

The cost is high ( inks and machine) but unless you have the machine sitting on a basement it will pay for itself.

The resolution is not as high but is more than twice as fast ( if you account for curing). so that is a tradeoff you have to keep in mind and evaluate.

It is true, if you print a lot of darks the retrieval process can be overlooked and the machine will not waste those 35cc every morning, but it will still waste on the starting head cleans and every 22 prints, maybe not as much as if you do a retrieval every day but it will still have to be accounted for. You just have to print every day as much ink as remains in the lines if you do not want it to settle ( I would guess anything between 60 to 90 cc at around 4cc per shirt you do the math).

Since this thread is scarce with pictures I'll reprint the oldest washed t-shirt I have from my machine and have a side by side comparison.

regards


----------



## islandtees (Nov 20, 2007)

We have a shirt from a file that was printed from Brother at the Orlando show back in Feb.To this day we still wash it alot(cant begin to tell how many times,maybe 30)it still looks like it just came off the machine.A little cracking of the print but the colors still look great.This was one of the biggest selling features to me.I dont want a customer coming back after 3 or 4 washes and showing me a print that has wash faded complaining.I say this since the Epson test prints we got from the recent Atlanta show from some machines have washed very bad.So the extra costs of the Brother to me will pay in the long term with happy customers referring others to me.One complainer can spread bad news than many spreading good news.I need something else explained about this resolution of the print.The Brother seems to print very fine detail(that is what our test file had)so I dont understand what you are talking about that the Epson prints better resolution.Please explain.


----------



## Printzilla (Mar 22, 2007)

The Epson has thinner ink, and smaller droplet size. It produces better, smoother gradients, and IMHO, better resolution prints. With that said, the Brother still produces excellent prints that are more than acceptable. Maybe in a couple of weeks I can post some examples of the same file printed on both types of machines........


----------



## islandtees (Nov 20, 2007)

I would love to see a shirt with the same design printed by both to understand if the higher resolution makes that much difference especially to a customer.The Brother prints excellent prints which to me means a normal customer would not even know the difference.Since we are all in the business we are more critical.If someone could post the same design from each printer maybe I can see what we are talking about.


----------



## royster13 (Aug 14, 2007)

Would not the coarseness of the fabric negate any benefit of higher resolution to a certain point?......


----------



## Belquette (Sep 12, 2005)

> Maybe in a couple of weeks I can post some examples of the same file printed on both types of machines........


Mark,

If you would like to print one of those off a_ mod1 _as the' other type" your more then welcome to come by and run it off, or alternatively we could print the file for you, either way.

Various software and hardware refinements make the difference between ok, good, acceptable or outstanding prints, especially on top of a white ink layer.


----------



## Belquette (Sep 12, 2005)

> Would not the coarseness of the fabric negate any benefit of higher resolution to a certain point?......


Not when you are printing on a white ink layer.
The analogy is the same as printing on draft paper vs coated (photo) paper.
The resolution and details really become apparent since the dot gain is minimal on the white ink layer, quite similar to the (photo) paper.


----------



## Printzilla (Mar 22, 2007)

loloxa said:


> It is true, if you print a lot of darks the retrieval process can be overlooked and the machine will not waste those 35cc every morning, but it will still waste on the starting head cleans and every 22 prints, maybe not as much as if you do a retrieval every day but it will still have to be accounted for. You just have to print every day as much ink as remains in the lines if you do not want it to settle ( I would guess anything between 60 to 90 cc at around 4cc per shirt you do the math).
> 
> Since this thread is scarce with pictures I'll reprint the oldest washed t-shirt I have from my machine and have a side by side comparison.
> 
> regards


I don't think you have to print enough shirts to use all of the ink. Just moving the ink while printing a shirt or two every 8-10 hours should keep it from settling, at least it does on my Epson. Also, on the 782, since the ink lines are tied to the arms of the printhead, doesn't that movement qualify as a gentle agitation?


----------



## TPrintDesigner (Sep 16, 2007)

Printzilla said:


> Also, on the 782, since the ink lines are tied to the arms of the printhead, doesn't that movement qualify as a gentle agitation?


That's a really good point and something I had never thought of.


----------

