# Direct to Screen imaging.



## cvreeland (Jan 31, 2008)

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


----------



## cvreeland (Jan 31, 2008)

Obviously not too popular with this crowd?


----------



## A Perfect Pixel (Jul 4, 2008)

i wonder if you could rig a inkjet printer like that guy who built a DTG to print the black direct on the screen....

when you did your washout, the ink would come right off (might need a little rubbing alcohol)

hmmm... maybe my next experiment?


----------



## Catbox (Oct 3, 2007)

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


----------



## out da box (May 1, 2007)

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.


----------



## cvreeland (Jan 31, 2008)

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!)

Edit: Aha! Here it is: http://www.planetbtech.com/

Who distributes there?


----------



## acetransco (Jan 2, 2007)

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([email protected]), or call 800-525-3126
Regards, David Shaw


----------



## cvreeland (Jan 31, 2008)

acetransco said:


> 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!!
> 
> ...


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.


----------



## MotoskinGraphix (Apr 28, 2006)

Sounds like a great technology. Kinda on the same subject but wondering can you directly print on direct or indirect emulsion films?


----------



## alan802 (Mar 24, 2008)

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.


----------



## DAGuide (Oct 2, 2006)

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. 

Best wishes in your research.

Mark


----------



## alan802 (Mar 24, 2008)

ImageIt said:


> 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.


----------



## cvreeland (Jan 31, 2008)

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.


----------



## out da box (May 1, 2007)

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.


----------



## alan802 (Mar 24, 2008)

We are using an epson r1800 with accurip and are getting almost techstyler type quality. We considered the oyo when our film positives were terrible but decided to work with what we had. We were having problems with our film and troubleshooted every possible area and finally got a trial version accurip and then our film quality was unbelievable. 

Then we started having issues with our film ink pealing off onto the emulsion after we exposed because we stopped using the carrier sheets and started taping directly to the screen. Now we fixed that little problem and we can output high quality positives that will last a long time. We are using onefilm WP from davis international. Good film for the price.

I don't have any experience with the epson 4000 but we have a 4800 we use for sublimation jobs. Our 1800 is fairly slow but that is because we are using a high resolution setting and get perfect clean edges so it is worth the wait. It takes about 5 minutes for a standard full size image to print. Even though it takes a while to print we rarely have to wait around for film. 

Keep us informed what you find out.


----------



## shutchason (Oct 28, 2009)

I know that this is a really old post but I am currently in discussions with several different vendors and one of them happens to be pushing the Sprite from Planet B.

My company is busy enough to get a good RoI using a DTS machine. However, I have several issues that make me step away from the technology. 

First is that you lose the ability to proof the art before it goes into production. If you choose to go in this direction I hope that your artists have it together or else you will be wracking unwanted costs. 

Second is that it sounded like there were definitely going to be issues if anything went wrong with the equipment. There are no service techs in my area or from the way it sounded any other area in the US. This leads me to believe that any repairs will be very costly.

I am also looking at Epson Ink Jet printers. I am a little concerned about loss in quality though. I would really appreciate it if you could let me know if you made a decision and if so how it is working out for you.


----------



## davisint (Oct 9, 2007)

Planet B has been out of business for over a year.

A properly configured Epson printer is capable of detail that far exceeds anything that can be printed on a t-shirt.


----------



## RichardGreaves (Nov 7, 2006)

*Computer to Screen*

Planet B & Lowery are no longer in business as Tim wrote. 

These machines were built using Epson 7xxx series inkjet printers. 

I don't see how a CTS machine would prevent you from proofing art, just as traditional camera positives didn't make proofs either. 

Yes, they aren't full color printers after they've been hotrodded to become one color CTS machines.

I also agree with Tim that an Epson & RIP combo will produce outstanding positives at tremendous value. 1% 75 line dots.


----------



## Unik Ink (Nov 21, 2006)

At the SGIA show in NOLA, they had a CST digital light imaging machine. It did not use wax or ink to print directly on the screen. The "printhead" used a light that traveled back and forth on the screen to exposure the parts that needed to be exposed, and you merely washed it out after it was done. They had about a 20 foot screen that had been exposed and had incredible detail. The most impressive thing at the show IMO.


----------



## out da box (May 1, 2007)

Unik, you have a link to that? Sounds gnarly.


----------



## Unik Ink (Nov 21, 2006)

Provider of pre-, post-press and web screenprinting/lasercutting equipment - CST Photos You can download a powerpoint presentation that has video of it in action.


----------



## alan802 (Mar 24, 2008)

I looked at that site a few weeks ago and I wonder why that technology hasn't emerged as the best in CST. I guess there are cost or effectiveness limitations but it seems like it would be the easiest to maintain and cost the least to operate. We have an epilog laser and it is very easy to operate and this technology seems very similar.


----------



## RichardGreaves (Nov 7, 2006)

alan802 said:


> I looked at that site a few weeks ago and I wonder why that technology hasn't emerged as the best in CST. I guess there are cost or effectiveness limitations but it seems like it would be the easiest to maintain and cost the least to operate. We have an epilog laser and it is very easy to operate and this technology seems very similar.


Lower energy DLP (or digital micromirror devices DMD), exposure doesn't reliably cross-link even with custom high speed emulsions. High energy laser does reliably cross-link, but needs water cooling which makes it more expensive.

US$150,000 to US$250,000 for DMD UV projection devices in a 30"x30" size, but the elimination of consumables (film, ink or wax and chemicals), clearly points to this technology in the future because it has excellent resolution & speed, and the cost will come down as projection technology is adapted & improved for other industries.


----------



## ImpressionzPrint (Sep 11, 2008)

I know this post is very old but I figured I'd chime in. We are not at the volume that would validate the expense of a direct to screen. However, we are running older M&R equipment and do not have the tri loc sytem. 

Upon our move in a few months we are going to be upgrading to brand new equipment (Press TBD, Tri Light, Tri lock and possibly a DTS)

The way I am looking at the ROI is the time saved in production will be well worth the investment. No taping films to carrier sheets, waiting on film to print, cost of film, etc. 

Also, being able to go from DTS to exposure unit, to press without lining up art is amazing. Not to mention the money you will save in a tri-loc or double tri loc. You will only need the pallet for the press. 

As soon as I figure out our finances in a few months I hope to be able to add one of these babies to our shop when we make the move.


----------



## larkinja (Nov 10, 2011)

ImpressionzPrint said:


> I know this post is very old but I figured I'd chime in. We are not at the volume that would validate the expense of a direct to screen. However, we are running older M&R equipment and do not have the tri loc sytem.
> 
> Upon our move in a few months we are going to be upgrading to brand new equipment (Press TBD, Tri Light, Tri lock and possibly a DTS)
> 
> ...


HI, wondering if you ever invested in a direct to screen printer? I have been considering one, but prices seem to be all over the place. Have you purchased one and if so what did you get, how much, and do you like it. Anyone else using one? 

Thanks!


----------



## red514 (Jul 21, 2009)

We purchased the I-image DTS from M&R about 2 months ago and have already seen a vast improvement in production. The imaging speed is very fast and accurate. exposure time has been reduced to 8-10seconds from 36-40seconds. Using the tri-loc, on press registration takes a fraction of the time it used to. The cost to image a screen is also a fraction of what it used to cost us.
the image quality is very good, comparable to my imagesetter.
After using it for just 2 months i can safely say we are extremely happy with the addition of the DTS.

I should mention we are having some minor issues with our emulsion (we believe it's the cause of the issue), we are capturing slightly less detail then previously when using film from the imagesetter. exposure times were much longer, with the new exposure time we end up with pinholes. increasing the exposure time by as little as 2 seconds fixes the pinhole issue but we then loose the <10% halftones (using 55lpi) (we usually capture the 8%+ with no issues).
Other then that, i can't think of any other issues we've had.


----------



## danny95133 (Feb 3, 2011)

May i know how much it cost for the I-image DTS from M&R you bought ? Thanks


----------

