Homebrew PCBs

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

thanks...

looks good, but not perfect.
if you have time, may you place the film against bright light and check 
with a maginifier or so
if the dark areas are smooth black or if you can see a variation in 
density?

i can remember from my 300dpi hp that you could see the "dots" without any 
aid with your eye.

i guess the edges are a bit more straight in real life that on the scan?
(i mean if your scanner resoultion is lower than the printers)

but if we get the same quality (and smooth covering) with the resist ink it 
would be perfect.


regards
stefan

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/
>
>
>

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.

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/ 
> 
>

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

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.

I've got an epson stylus 400 colour and 440 colour inkjets. These
can do sharp tracks easily thinner than 8mil and are no hassle at
all to operate. With the proper ink and transparency there's no
pin holes anywhere on large ground planes. They're available <$50
and even give-away. (720dpi)

> 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.

they have a few things for industry that would do it just none for 
home/hobby/desktop use so far 

some links to this kinda stuff 

http://www.markfine.jp/pcb/pcb.html
http://www.sericol.co.uk/Imaging/website/index.htm
http://www.avecia.com/inkjet/
http://americanprinter.com/ar/printing_flatbed_digital_pressuvcurable/
http://www.circuitree.com/CDA/ArticleInformation/features/BNP__Features__Item/0,2133,92921,00.html
http://www.xaar.co.uk/industrial.htm

Brian
-- 
"Nemo me impune lacesset"

>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

The problem with the lasers is that they tend to unvorseably scale the
foils (and this also includes all other media like regular paper,
tracing paper etc) while they pass through the fixing station "at
will". This is usually no problem as long as you are not drilling
holes with a CNC machine. Another issue with lasers is that they are
not as black as it looks to the eye at the first glance. This is also
not a problem if you work with base material that is already coming
with photo sensitive cover. Since I'm trhough hole plating I'm using
copper plated only base material and then use photo resist laminate
after the trhough hole process. Because the laminate is magnitudes
more light sensitive, I can't use the laser anymore because it's
output is simply not black enough. I still use the laser for single
sided PCB's to use up my stock of coated base material though.

When it comes to creating totally black foils, InkJets are much better
here that said I especially agree with Adam's observations that Epson
printers (IMHO mostly because of the ink they use) give brilliant
results. I meanwhile use an Epson Stylus 62C (which goes for $80 over
here) exclusively to print high quality films althouhg I already had a
HP DeskJet which turned out to also create not "black enough" output.

Markus

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.


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.
> 
> ~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.
>
Professionals do not use printers for their artwork. My local screen printer
does not even own an inkjet printer. These guys use expensive equipment that
is made for this type of work. They usually use a photographic method with
artwork from paper to a transparency film that they hit with a massive light
source using a vaccuum table.
In regards to printers, I have used the epson laser printers (1200dpi) with
perfect results. I am sure that other brands also provide very good results.
The best transparencies are PMT, but I have never had a bad board with a
good laser transparency. You have to use the built in settings to set the
toner for extra dark and highest DPI. I have also gotten fairly good results
with a 600 DPI oin non critical artwork, but then again, I use a light box
on every transparency before it goes to production. The 600 DPI sometimes
requires touch up.
In the past, I have also gotten good results by taking my artwork to the
local print shop and let them use their high DPI copier machines, which is
the same technology. Inkjets might have come a long way since I have tried
them for this, but when I first tried making transparencies with them, I did
not get good results. It is actually the reason I purchased my first laser
printer. I guess the technology has changed since then.
-Mike

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.

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/ 
> 
>

And there is the problem of shrinkage due to the heat of the fuser.
Uneven shrinkage seems to be the rule, which is bad because you can't
just scale everything up a percent or so.

Steve Greenfield

--- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, adam Seychell
<adam_seychell@y...> wrote:

> 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.

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/ 
> > 
> >

Just ran some test on the HP  and it's much better than the other 
laser I'd used. In fact, quality appeared on par to the best inkjets.

I've also added a database to the database section of this group so 
others can share their rough experiences. 
As mentioned by Adam, it would be better to have a more rigorous and 
comparable test suite, but I figured I'd get the ball rolling with 
some information now.

Cheers,
Ted
--- 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/ 
> > > 
> > >

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.

4 main factors effect print quality;

* brand of transparency media
* inkjet printer
* ink
* printer driver settings

As Mike said the pro. shops do not use the office printers (Laser or ink
jet) to make the artwork. In fact the artwork my favorite board shop
uses is a light red and it's easy to read newspaper through it in the
"dark areas"...

I've been using my HP LaserJet 1100 for some time now and have none of
the problems described here and elsewhere in this thread.
Using Apollo CG7060 I am able to do 5 mil lines all day long.

As far as I'm concerned the quest for absolute blackness is a non issue.
A simple test is to place a sheet of white paper with regular black text

under the "dark areas" and in good room lighting you should not be able
to read the text, if that test is OK, then holding a transparency up to
a strong room light you will
see light through it as a "grey" area.

The real trick is exposure. Get to know your light source and always use
the same distance between lamp and  artwork.
I use GE 500W bulbs at a distance of 6 inches and expose for 70-90
seconds.
I work in normal room lighting and during day time simply close the
blinds, no need to "darkrooms"
As you see here it's Texas daylight outside and the board exposure came
out perfect. http://hans-w.com/setupforexposure.jpg
I then develop in a mixture of household Lye (caustic soda and other
fancy names) for about 30-45 seconds. I re-use the Lye, no need to throw
it away, my current mixture is a dark green from developing many boards
and is at least 9 months old.

It works every time, and has done so for many many years...it  never
fails.

As far as scaling goes, I figured out a long time ago, when I mirrored
the one side to get the emulsion close to the board, it always
came out at a different scale.

As most of my home made board are small I have never had a problem with
scale. For a while I used my CNC mill to drill the board before exposing
the two side (at the same time). If scale had been wrong then the CNC
mill using converted Excellon file would have been wrong also.... it
never became an issue.
For the most part I find it's faster to use my Dremel drill in a Dremel
drill stand and am able to drill 16 mil holes without breaking the bits,
I can't do 16 mil by hand...breaks every time :-)

Hans W



Adam Seychell 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.
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

----- 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

Leon Heller wrote:
> ----- 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.

Even an epson will give crap results if the ink isn't compatible with
the film. The genuine epson transparencies absorb the ink *into* the
surface and the drying is quick. With most other transparencies the ink
only sits on the surface, takes longer to dry, and shows pin-holing.

> 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 also get good results with the laser/tracing paper combo BUT, it
also depends on the method used and that's IMHO the reason why so many
people post even conflicting experience. The laser/tracing paper works
ok here (if not to say very good) for standard photo sensitive coated
base material. Since I started to use my through hole plating station,
I can't do it this way anymore and have to use a photoresist laminate
instead. This laminate is MAGNITUDES more ligh sensitive. I.e. the
exposure time is only 15 seconds (90 seconds with the tracing
paper/lasser combo) and with this laminate it's no longer possible for
me to use the laser. I tried with different kind of papers and foils
to no avail. Same story also with the HP DeskJet 950Csi I happened to
have also. A friend then told me to try an Epson Stylus C62. I first
did not wanted to belive it, but now that I have one I must say that
the results are stunning. I use the Avery (Zweckform) 2502 foils with
it and as others pointed out the foil used also makes a huge
difference.

Markus

Hrm.. there is a pattern developing here. I get decent
results from my laser printer - which happens to be an 
old HP Laserjet //. Many of the newer laser printers
utilize a toner which melts at lower temperatures, and
so it could very well be possible that older laser printers,
with their high temp toners, do a better job fusing to transparencies.

--- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, "Leon Heller" 
> 
> 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.

[ Yep, I'm resurfacing after some time :-) ]

Instead of transparencies, I usually use Avery 3276 Inkjet Decals for Windows 
(the traditional glass Windows, not the Microsoft type).  [ I like to ensure 
that the board will not slip relative to the transparency and have found that 
scotchtape on transparencies leave marks (lines of copper) in the resulting 
board. ]

I found excellent results some months ago with a friend's HP930c inkjet and 
these decals.  But that was in another state.  Here, I've recently started 
using a LaserJet 5L (paid $40 for it, including toner) with the same 
(inkjet!) transparencies, and so far have successfully done a 15-mil board at 
600dpi.  I have not found these decals specifically for laser printers 
anywhere.

For PCB's and other reasons (front panel transparency masks), I've been 
desperately looking for a low-cost printer that prints very dark, but oddly 
this one does not, yet gives me good results with PCB's.  I'll need to try 
smaller traces/spaces to see if I can successfully do 10 mil or less.

Cheers,
-Neil.



On Sunday 29 June 2003 20:37, Adam Seychell scribbled:

> 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.

I totally agree. I spent a great amount of time setting up the height and
exposure time of my system when I first put it together knowing it would
save me grief in the future. I wasted a lot of FR4 in the process, but found
the perfect time vs height for my system. Once there, I never had a problem
with exposure.
-Mike

--- 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.

- Carsten

> 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 think the basic idea should be to set up a website that references 
good working combinations. Nobody usually wants to buy a new machine 
just to optimize his PCB work. Media is easy to change. I do know 
that old LaserjetIII work well with some media. If someone owns that 
printer - no problem. If someone owns a Stylus - point him to the 
right transparency and driver settings.

If a new printer is needed anyway:
From my experience, it's easier to find an inkjet well suited for PCB 
work than a Laser. Simply take an Epson Stylus.

- Carsten

c_kurz wrote:
> --- 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.

Maybe it's the toner particle size. About the only other thing
is the intensity and duration of heat applied to the toner.