Homebrew_PCBs

On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 00:57:59 -0000, c_kurz <c_kurz@...> wrote:

> Here's an example of inkjet transparency layout film, scanned.
>
> The quality is quite good. On the right is the digital original.
>
> http://www.gpskabel.de/ext/tinte.gif
>
> I did not do any contrast enhancing, retouching or other fancy things.
> The resolution of the scanner is somewhat lower than that of the actual
> film/printout.
>
> The printer was EPSON Stylus Photo 1200, the transparency is 'CLASSEN
> TRON XEROMAT I Universal', using 'Photo Quality Paper' or 'Photo Quality
> Film' setting at highest resolution. This will increase black.
>
> For PCB films, always use max photo quality, NOT the Inkjet transparency
> defaults of the printer driver.
>
> Different inkjet technologies need different transparencies. The one I
> quote is optimal for Epson inkjet printers.
>
> - Carsten
>
>
>
>
>
> Be sure to visit the group home and check for new Bookmarks and files:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Homebrew_PCBs
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Homebrew_PCBs-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

> Here's an example of inkjet transparency layout film, scanned.
>
> The quality is quite good. On the right is the digital original.
>
> http://www.gpskabel.de/ext/tinte.gif
>
> I did not do any contrast enhancing, retouching or other fancy
> things. The resolution of the scanner is somewhat lower than that of
> the actual film/printout.
>
> The printer was EPSON Stylus Photo 1200, the transparency is 'CLASSEN
> TRON XEROMAT I Universal', using 'Photo Quality Paper' or 'Photo
> Quality Film' setting at highest resolution. This will increase black.
>
> For PCB films, always use max photo quality, NOT the Inkjet
> transparency defaults of the printer driver.
>
> Different inkjet technologies need different transparencies. The one
> I quote is optimal for Epson inkjet printers.
>
> - Carsten
>
>
>
>
>
> Be sure to visit the group home and check for new Bookmarks and files:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Homebrew_PCBs
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Homebrew_PCBs-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

--- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, adam Seychell <adam_seychell@y...> wrote:
> A while ago I tested many different inkjet transparencies on
> several printers (Epson 660, HP 640 Deskjet) and found
> surprising large differences in quality of the prints. You
> can get very opaque and solid filled prints with and Epson
> 660 (or any model with same black ink composition), and
> Epson transparencies. I have not tried the CLASSEN TRON
> XEROMAT I Universal. The black ink in the Epson Photo 1200
> may be compatible with these transparencies. One day I'll
> get around to making a web page explains inkjet and
> transparencies for producing photomaks.
>
> One thing I have learned is that the ink and transparency
> MUST be compatible for good results. Looks like you found
> one such combination, Thanks Carsten for showing us.
>
> Adam

> Laser printers can be bought for roughly $100 these days.
> It's hard to beat the consistent output and quality
> of toner on transparencies. Also, if you're adventurous
> enough, they are good for direct iron-on transfer to PCB's.
>
> At that price, it's almost not worth hours of fiddling
> with inkjets - unless someone figures out how to
> do the direct inkjet resist to pcb method.

> At that price, it's almost not worth hours of fiddling
> with inkjets - unless someone figures out how to
> do the direct inkjet resist to pcb method.

>Laser printers can be bought for roughly $100 these days.
>It's hard to beat the consistent output and quality
>of toner on transparencies. Also, if you're adventurous
>enough, they are good for direct iron-on transfer to PCB's.
>
>At that price, it's almost not worth hours of fiddling
>with inkjets - unless someone figures out how to
>do the direct inkjet resist to pcb method.
>
>~Rolan

> Laser printers can be bought for roughly $100 these days.
> It's hard to beat the consistent output and quality
> of toner on transparencies. Also, if you're adventurous
> enough, they are good for direct iron-on transfer to PCB's.
>
> At that price, it's almost not worth hours of fiddling
> with inkjets - unless someone figures out how to
> do the direct inkjet resist to pcb method.
>
> ~Rolan
>
> --- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, adam Seychell <adam_seychell@y...> wrote:
>
>>A while ago I tested many different inkjet transparencies on
>>several printers (Epson 660, HP 640 Deskjet) and found
>>surprising large differences in quality of the prints. You
>>can get very opaque and solid filled prints with and Epson
>>660 (or any model with same black ink composition), and
>>Epson transparencies. I have not tried the CLASSEN TRON
>>XEROMAT I Universal. The black ink in the Epson Photo 1200
>>may be compatible with these transparencies. One day I'll
>>get around to making a web page explains inkjet and
>>transparencies for producing photomaks.
>>
>>One thing I have learned is that the ink and transparency
>>MUST be compatible for good results. Looks like you found
>>one such combination, Thanks Carsten for showing us.
>>
>>Adam
>
>
>
>
> Be sure to visit the group home and check for new Bookmarks and files:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Homebrew_PCBs
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Homebrew_PCBs-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

> Professionals use inkjets when
> it comes to making photomask for silk screening, ect.
> If you have had good success with laser printed photomasks,
> then please tell us more.
>

> it comes to making photomask for silk screening, ect.
> If you have had good success with laser printed photomasks,
> then please tell us more.
>
> With the epson inkjet/epson transparencies I can expose
> boards at least five times the normal period and still have
> perfect masking of the image. The only problem with such
> long exposures is excessive light undercut.
>
>
> rolanyang wrote:
> > Laser printers can be bought for roughly $100 these days.
> > It's hard to beat the consistent output and quality
> > of toner on transparencies. Also, if you're adventurous
> > enough, they are good for direct iron-on transfer to PCB's.
> >
> > At that price, it's almost not worth hours of fiddling
> > with inkjets - unless someone figures out how to
> > do the direct inkjet resist to pcb method.

> It's not that I've had amazing success with laser, but I
> haven't ever been able to make a quality transparency
> with the inkjet (Epson 800). It may have been the print
> mode or the plastic material, but the final art has
> always been somewhat ... transparent :(
>
> --- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, adam Seychell
> <adam_seychell@y...> wrote:
> Professionals use inkjets when
>
>>it comes to making photomask for silk screening, ect.
>>If you have had good success with laser printed photomasks,
>>then please tell us more.
>>
>>With the epson inkjet/epson transparencies I can expose
>>boards at least five times the normal period and still have
>>perfect masking of the image. The only problem with such
>>long exposures is excessive light undercut.
>>
>>
>>rolanyang wrote:
>>
>>>Laser printers can be bought for roughly $100 these days.
>>>It's hard to beat the consistent output and quality
>>>of toner on transparencies. Also, if you're adventurous
>>>enough, they are good for direct iron-on transfer to PCB's.
>>>
>>>At that price, it's almost not worth hours of fiddling
>>>with inkjets - unless someone figures out how to
>>>do the direct inkjet resist to pcb method.
>>
>
>
>
>
> Be sure to visit the group home and check for new Bookmarks and files:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Homebrew_PCBs
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Homebrew_PCBs-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

> I have tried a few "good quality" laser printers and never
> had any success. Its well known that lasers cannot
> sufficiently heat up the mylar plastic film to reliably fuse
> the toner. There are special transparencies available that
> supposedly fix this problem. Professionals use inkjets when
> it comes to making photomask for silk screening, ect.
> If you have had good success with laser printed photomasks,
> then please tell us more.
>
> With the epson inkjet/epson transparencies I can expose
> boards at least five times the normal period and still have
> perfect masking of the image. The only problem with such
> long exposures is excessive light undercut.

> I've seen many poor prints from inkjets too. The trick is to use
> the corrct ink/printer and transparency combination. The
> differences between the worst and the best is incredible.
>
>
> rolanyang wrote:
> > It's not that I've had amazing success with laser, but I
> > haven't ever been able to make a quality transparency
> > with the inkjet (Epson 800). It may have been the print
> > mode or the plastic material, but the final art has
> > always been somewhat ... transparent :(
> >
> > --- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, adam Seychell
> > <adam_seychell@y...> wrote:
> > Professionals use inkjets when
> >
> >>it comes to making photomask for silk screening, ect.
> >>If you have had good success with laser printed photomasks,
> >>then please tell us more.
> >>
> >>With the epson inkjet/epson transparencies I can expose
> >>boards at least five times the normal period and still have
> >>perfect masking of the image. The only problem with such
> >>long exposures is excessive light undercut.
> >>
> >>
> >>rolanyang wrote:
> >>
> >>>Laser printers can be bought for roughly $100 these days.
> >>>It's hard to beat the consistent output and quality
> >>>of toner on transparencies. Also, if you're adventurous
> >>>enough, they are good for direct iron-on transfer to PCB's.
> >>>
> >>>At that price, it's almost not worth hours of fiddling
> >>>with inkjets - unless someone figures out how to
> >>>do the direct inkjet resist to pcb method.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Be sure to visit the group home and check for new Bookmarks and

> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Homebrew_PCBs
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > Homebrew_PCBs-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo

> >
> >

--- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, "Ted Inoue" <ted@s...> wrote:
> Exactly. The specific transparency film makes ALL the difference. I
> use Pictorico premium overhead transparency film and it is
absolutely
> superb. Printing with four different Epson Inkjets (1160, 1200, C82,
> and 2200) have yielded uniformly "perfect" result. Deep rich black
> that's tack sharp. No problems at all with 10 mil lines and scaling
is
> consistent enough that I couldn't measure any error using a
> micrometer.
>
> I've tried only two lasers, and a variety of transparency film for
> them and had no luck. As others mentioned, the scaling inhomogeneity
> was intolerable (off by several mm over a few inches) as was the
lack
> of really black printouts. However, I'm not saying that lasers can't
> do the job, just that the one's I've tried didn't work well.
>
> I would think the most productive thing would be to keep a record of
> all the printers and media that work or don't work. In this way, a
> newcomer can simply refer to a chart and have an easy time learning
> from the combined experience of those in the group.
>
> -Ted
> --- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, Adam Seychell
<adam_seychell@y..
> .> wrote:
> > I've seen many poor prints from inkjets too. The trick is to use
> > the corrct ink/printer and transparency combination. The
> > differences between the worst and the best is incredible.
> >
> >
> > rolanyang wrote:
> > > It's not that I've had amazing success with laser, but I
> > > haven't ever been able to make a quality transparency
> > > with the inkjet (Epson 800). It may have been the print
> > > mode or the plastic material, but the final art has
> > > always been somewhat ... transparent :(
> > >
> > > --- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, adam Seychell
> > > <adam_seychell@y...> wrote:
> > > Professionals use inkjets when
> > >
> > >>it comes to making photomask for silk screening, ect.
> > >>If you have had good success with laser printed photomasks,
> > >>then please tell us more.
> > >>
> > >>With the epson inkjet/epson transparencies I can expose
> > >>boards at least five times the normal period and still have
> > >>perfect masking of the image. The only problem with such
> > >>long exposures is excessive light undercut.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>rolanyang wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>Laser printers can be bought for roughly $100 these days.
> > >>>It's hard to beat the consistent output and quality
> > >>>of toner on transparencies. Also, if you're adventurous
> > >>>enough, they are good for direct iron-on transfer to PCB's.
> > >>>
> > >>>At that price, it's almost not worth hours of fiddling
> > >>>with inkjets - unless someone figures out how to
> > >>>do the direct inkjet resist to pcb method.
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Be sure to visit the group home and check for new Bookmarks and
> files:
> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Homebrew_PCBs
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > Homebrew_PCBs-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo
> com/info/terms/
> > >
> > >

> I would think the most productive thing would be to keep a record of
> all the printers and media that work or don't work. In this way, a
> newcomer can simply refer to a chart and have an easy time learning
> from the combined experience of those in the group.
>

> I've seen many poor prints from inkjets too. The trick is to use
> the corrct ink/printer and transparency combination. The
> differences between the worst and the best is incredible.
>
>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Adam Seychell" <adam_seychell@...>
To: <Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 4:17 AM
Subject: Re: [Homebrew_PCBs] Re: Inkjet Transparencies


>
>
> Ted Inoue wrote:
> > I would think the most productive thing would be to keep a record of
> > all the printers and media that work or don't work. In this way, a
> > newcomer can simply refer to a chart and have an easy time learning
> > from the combined experience of those in the group.
> >
>
> That would be a extremely useful reference to use. I was planning
> on making a web page dedicated to this very topic, but hadn't had
> the time. Ideally some form of measurements would need to be
> taken so all the different printing tests can be accurately
> characterized. Some measurements that come to mind are; overall
> relative light transmittance and line edge jaggedness (or maximum
> deviation of ink droplets from an ideal line). I have a
> microscope that can take pictures of line edge jaggedness.
> The latter is responsible for the minimum PCB line widths that
> can be achieved.

Many years ago I worked on subjective copy quality for Xerox Research (UK),
correlating it with physical measurements. IIRC the main physical parameters
used were 'edge gradient' and 'line darkness', measured automatically with a
very expensive piece of equipment. Line darkness is basically your relative
light transmittance and edge gradient probably isn;t relevant with ink jet
technology using transparency material. I think you would need a statistical
measure of the 'jaggedness'.

Leon
--
Leon Heller, G1HSM
leon_heller@...
http://www.geocities.com/leon_heller

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Inoue" <ted@...>
To: <Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 3:34 AM
Subject: [Homebrew_PCBs] Re: Inkjet Transparencies


> Exactly. The specific transparency film makes ALL the difference. I
> use Pictorico premium overhead transparency film and it is absolutely
> superb. Printing with four different Epson Inkjets (1160, 1200, C82,
> and 2200) have yielded uniformly "perfect" result. Deep rich black
> that's tack sharp. No problems at all with 10 mil lines and scaling is
> consistent enough that I couldn't measure any error using a
> micrometer.
>
> I've tried only two lasers, and a variety of transparency film for
> them and had no luck. As others mentioned, the scaling inhomogeneity
> was intolerable (off by several mm over a few inches) as was the lack
> of really black printouts. However, I'm not saying that lasers can't
> do the job, just that the one's I've tried didn't work well.
>
> I would think the most productive thing would be to keep a record of
> all the printers and media that work or don't work. In this way, a
> newcomer can simply refer to a chart and have an easy time learning
> from the combined experience of those in the group.
>

I've mentioned this before - I get quite good results (down to 10/10 mils)
with an old LaserJet IIIp and cheap tracing paper. Looking at the output
with a powerful magnifier it's not bad - the edges are quite sharp but there
are lots of small blank regions. For the record, it's got a standard HP
cartridge and the density is set to maximum. It's better with LaserStar film
but the stuff is a lot more expensive than tracing paper.

Laser printers vary a lot - I tried a cheap Oki we had where I used to work
and it wasn't really usable.

I've got an Epson Photo 870 which I've tried with tracing paper - very poor.
I'll try it with some decent film (Mega Electronics sells some especially
made for PCB artwork, as well as the LaserStar) and see what happens.

I used to have an HP inkjet printer, and that worked fairly well with
tracing paper, but not with film material.

Leon
--
Leon Heller, G1HSM
leon_heller@...
http://www.geocities.com/leon_heller

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ted Inoue" <ted@...>
> To: <Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 3:34 AM
> Subject: [Homebrew_PCBs] Re: Inkjet Transparencies
>

> Laser printers vary a lot - I tried a cheap Oki we had where I used to work
> and it wasn't really usable.
>
> I've got an Epson Photo 870 which I've tried with tracing paper - very poor.
> I'll try it with some decent film (Mega Electronics sells some especially
> made for PCB artwork, as well as the LaserStar) and see what happens.

> I used to have an HP inkjet printer, and that worked fairly well with
> tracing paper, but not with film material.

>I've mentioned this before - I get quite good results (down to 10/10 mils)
>with an old LaserJet IIIp and cheap tracing paper. Looking at the output
>with a powerful magnifier it's not bad - the edges are quite sharp but there
>are lots of small blank regions. For the record, it's got a standard HP
>cartridge and the density is set to maximum. It's better with LaserStar film
>but the stuff is a lot more expensive than tracing paper.

>
> I've mentioned this before - I get quite good results (down to

> with an old LaserJet IIIp and cheap tracing paper. Looking at the

> with a powerful magnifier it's not bad - the edges are quite sharp

> are lots of small blank regions. For the record, it's got a

> cartridge and the density is set to maximum. It's better with

> but the stuff is a lot more expensive than tracing paper.
>
> Laser printers vary a lot - I tried a cheap Oki we had where I used

> and it wasn't really usable.

> I've seen many poor prints from inkjets too. The trick is to use
> the corrct ink/printer and transparency combination. The
> differences between the worst and the best is incredible.
>
> rolanyang wrote:
> > It's not that I've had amazing success with laser, but I
> > haven't ever been able to make a quality transparency
> > with the inkjet (Epson 800). It may have been the print
> > mode or the plastic material, but the final art has
> > always been somewhat ... transparent :(
> >
> > --- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, adam Seychell
> > <adam_seychell@y...> wrote:
> > Professionals use inkjets when
> >
> >>it comes to making photomask for silk screening, ect.
> >>If you have had good success with laser printed photomasks,
> >>then please tell us more.
> >>
> >>With the epson inkjet/epson transparencies I can expose
> >>boards at least five times the normal period and still have
> >>perfect masking of the image. The only problem with such
> >>long exposures is excessive light undercut.
> >>
> >>rolanyang wrote:
> >>>Laser printers can be bought for roughly $100 these days.
> >>>It's hard to beat the consistent output and quality
> >>>of toner on transparencies. Also, if you're adventurous
> >>>enough, they are good for direct iron-on transfer to PCB's.
> >>>
> >>>At that price, it's almost not worth hours of fiddling
> >>>with inkjets - unless someone figures out how to
> >>>do the direct inkjet resist to pcb method.
> >
> > Be sure to visit the group home and check for new Bookmarks and files:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Homebrew_PCBs
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > Homebrew_PCBs-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
> Be sure to visit the group home and check for new Bookmarks and files:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Homebrew_PCBs
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Homebrew_PCBs-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
> ---
> [This E-mail scanned for viruses]

> The real trick is exposure. Get to know your light source and always use
> the same distance between lamp and artwork.

> Laser printers can be bought for roughly $100 these days.
> It's hard to beat the consistent output and quality
> of toner on transparencies. Also, if you're adventurous
> enough, they are good for direct iron-on transfer to PCB's.

> I've got an Epson Photo 870 which I've tried with tracing paper -

> I'll try it with some decent film (Mega Electronics sells some

> made for PCB artwork, as well as the LaserStar) and see what

>
> I used to have an HP inkjet printer, and that worked fairly well

> tracing paper, but not with film material.

> --- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, "rolanyang" <rolan@h...> wrote:
>
>>Laser printers can be bought for roughly $100 these days.
>>It's hard to beat the consistent output and quality
>>of toner on transparencies. Also, if you're adventurous
>>enough, they are good for direct iron-on transfer to PCB's.
>
>
> The problem simply is: Not every laser does the job. I bought a
> Brother Laser, and I have special matte transparencies that seem to
> work excellent on the larger LaserJet models, However, they do not
> work on this particular model. Like inkjet, results depend on the
> printer, toner, and transparency combination. For this printer, I
> haven't found any suitable transparency.
>
> But even the best Laserjet prints on this matte transparency is not
> as black as the inkjet printout on this full transparent media.