What I’m trying to figure out… What is the point of all this bagging on Envisiontec?
Yes but even 3D Systems and especially Stratasys can’t produce the same high level detail as Envisiontec. I have to print jewelry all day so for me there’s no other option. 
However, should I need to dice out some drone props, cell phone cases, or GoPro housings then Formlabs is probably the way to go. In fact, I’m lobbying my boss to get us a Form2 just to have in the arsenal.
1 Like
These old fashion companies are holding the world back with their patents(3D printing is a really old technology) and as you can see in the ad, they have this interesting attitude. That way of advertising might work in the US, but many outside the US don’t appreciate it.
And yes, I truly believe that the current patent systems world wide don’t work and slow down innovation.
I don’t know what business you’re in, but the machine at work paid itself back in about three months. We save a tremendous amount of money on not having to buy fixtures elsewhere and are able to charm customers with real models, winning more business.
1 Like
Astonishing BS.
Really? So you’re saying the world wasn’t ready for 3D printing while the technology is there for years and coincidentally they started to become affordable when some patents expired? It’s not that the materials and technology for these machines weren’t available 10 years ago.
Something interesting to read:
There are many more examples with other products as well.
Anyway, their attitude towards us as potential customer and the arguments they used to convince us how terrible the form 2 is, was best described in your words “astonishing BS”.
2 Likes
The patent system actually drives innovation. It drives investment in the development of new ideas and allows the company that came up with the invention a set amount of time to recoop the cost of development. There are a ton of things that are patented in the auto industry (even I’m on a couple). A patent doesn’t mean you can’t use the design or process. It does mean you have to pay to use it for a set period of time.
Envisiontec has serious shortcomings for general printing (mainly the build size). Will it work for jewelry? Yeah, great. How about printing 180mm wide molds on it? How about building several 45mm square parts at once? It’s probably great for one or two tasks but it’s not useable for 80% of what I do.
1 Like
The patent system drives invention, not innovation.
A 5 or 10 year patent would be very reasonable to earn back your investments and an incentive to research new things. 25 years however not so much. Once a process like for example FDM is invented, the patent holder is the only one having the right to make products for 25 years or give a license to other companies(what I understood happened after the lawsuit against FL). There is absolutely no reason for them to improve their product if they are the only one and assuming the product works decently as this would only cost them money, hence blocking innovation(continuous improvement of a product or process).
If you have a good enough idea, it shouldn’t be too difficult to earn back your invention in 5 or 10 years.
There are a ton of things in the automotive industry that are patented(I worked on a few as well), but I don’t share the idea that automotive is the most innovative industry, more the contrary(for reasons I totally understand, eg. costs involved). There are a few large players which do an OK job, but it is always interesting to see the smaller start ups doing most innovation. Both have a different way of thinking and large OEM like to be on the safe side.
1 Like
Yes because saying “BS” without an actual logical rebuttal must mean it’s true. Patents have been turned into weapons to stop production and extract ridiculous licensing fees, i.e., they aren’t working as intended. Don’t confuse that as an argument to throw out the patent system.
3 Likes
Think again with regard to Stratasys. We replaced a Dimension 1200 (FDM printer) with a Form 2. The Stratasys machine was a joke. My FDM printer at home produced better quality parts that were stronger. In 10 years they never once refined the slicing algorithm to make better parts, nor did they update the layer height. Plus it is a huge machine with a massive power draw due to the large heated chamber. Factor in our $4k/year support contract and you have a loser of a machine. On the rare event we have a large part we can just send it out and we’re still saving thousands.
Dear Mimo,
I just read your post and see as you have Envisiontec Perfactory machine. I have some subcontract work which would like done. Could you get in touch on robert.p@nxprogramming.com
Best Regards
The Core, unfortunately, is not open at all. B9 make a pact with the devil, and now makes the Core in a different color for Kulzer, who ups the price $6-7K. The Core would allow us to rush prints, while the F2 churns out the aligner models, but greed spoiled that opportunity.
I have both Form2 and Envisiontec Perfactory machines in my workshop.
Envisiontec is an excellent printer - totally love it and worth every penny if you need this level of quality on smaller prints. IMO currently there’s no other machine that matches this level of quality with reliability, great resins and well thought-out software (Solidscape app looks like something taken from the 90’s - but at least it gets the job done, while DWS still has a long way to go in this matter - for example at this moment support strategies in their Nauta app are simply pathetic).
Would I trade Form2 to get a discount for it - no way. Form2 is great printer too - good quality paired with reliability and nice, clean software. I don’t consider it a “rival”. Both machines complement each other quite nicely, I use them for completely different tasks. Envisiontec for smallest and most demanding items (jewelry, small figures), while Form2 shines on a bit larger items (props, busts, larger miniatures like vehicles etc).
For me, the high build volume without sacrificing quality was a major factor. On the project I’m working on I was able to print a large object in fewer parts vs. the Form1+ and it made a big difference since I didn’t have to attach as many pieces and fill in lines.
In short - Yes, the Vida CDLM is a very very fast printer and the part quality is very good. However, I would only recommend it for jewelers and dentists who need a high throughput system and a great service contract.
For many industrial uses, Formlabs 2 is simply too slow. CDLM fills that niche between a technology like Form 2 and a technology like Carbon. Also, Envisiontec has a large marketshare with jewelers and a smaller but significant one in dental labs, so don’t think they’re out for hobbyists.
2 Likes
Are you using XFAB?
Those are all reasons why a DLP printer should cost LESS than a Form 2- fewer parts, less calibration, less to go wrong.
but DLP printers all use essentially retina screens for exposure… and that means that they have a definitive RASTER in every the cross sectional layer.
The ONLY thing DLP has going for it is speed. If a Form 2 makes a print a little Finer than you actually need… and Way too slowly- then you might prefer a DLP machine… but not at 20 times the price.
Technically that’s not accurate. DLP projectors have a “feature/function” called “wobulation”, which effectively smooths out the image by overlapping the pixels, thereby eliminating the mask, or grid, or as you refer to it as the “raster”. This is only true of true DLP printers, the kind that use a DLP projector. Direct LCD panel based printers, such as the Wanhao, or other inexpensive ones, will indeed suffer from the “screen door effect”.
This is also the reason why most theaters do not use standard LCD projectors for projecting the main movies, some use regular LCD projectors for all the filler before the show, but once the actual move (and trailers) start, they use DLP projectors. Even with 4K projectors it’s impossible to see a grid regardless of how large the screen is or how close you get to it.
Wobbulation tries to HIDE raster by essentially BLURRING it.
It does not ADD detail- nor is it a more accurate curve, it is just an anti aliasing trick to try and make the hard corners less distinct. Wobbulation will, in fact soften hard features that a raster CAN otherwise create.
I’ve seen output from DLPs- it compares okay with 0.1 mm setting on the Form 2- but otherwise just doesn’t cut it.
I never suggested it would add detail, but it doesn’t blur it either, and for what it’s worth, it’s not anti-aliasing either.
Anti-aliasing, as it applies to graphics, uses an average of adjacent pixels to create the illusion of a smooth curve or diagonal line.
This process (wobulation), superimposes the same image over the existing one, but the second image is shifted 1/2 pixel in order to “fill in” the gaps and smooth the image. Since the DLP chips use micro-mirrors to reflect the image, they don’t have a grid mask, so the space between the pixels is transparent, unlike that of an LCD which is a black mask. Because that space it transparent, when the shifted image is superimposed, it actually fills the space.
You’re correct in that this does not add any extra data or detail, but does effectively remove any space between the pixels, and it does so without blurring the image.
Yes, there are some lower end DLP chips that are 1/2 horizontal resolution, and use the wobulation feature to double the horizontal resolution, but high end projectors, especially those used in industrial environments or in theaters have native resolutions and the wobulation process works to fill in the gaps, not do interlacing.
But we digress. DLP printers have the potential to produce images that are sharper than anything the Form 1 or Form 2 can produce, it’s all a matter size and resolution, the higher the resolution, and smaller the projected image, the sharper the image and finer the detail:
A 1920x1080 image projected at 10" diagonally, is about 8.5" x 5.5", pretty large. That’s roughly 300dpi, or put differently, the pixel size is 0.085mm (85 microns). The Form 2 laser spot is "somewhere between 140 ~200 microns. So all things being equal, the DLP has the potential for sharper images.
The reason I keep using the word potential, is because technical specs don’t always translate into the expected real world output.
The spot size is not really the defining parameter of the detail achievable.
I’m talking about the difference between a SPLINE and a pixel.
A laser can Draw the perimeter of a profile as a continuous line. It doesn’t aim the center of the spot at the edge of the profile… it aims the EDGE of the spot at the edge of the profile. As a result it can account for the width of the laser spot and actually draw subsequent profiles half or a tenth or even a hundredth of a laser spot width offset from the prior layer.
thus each step vertically can be nuanced at far less than the actual width of the laser spot.
A DLP HAS to offset subsequent perimeter profiles by NO LESS than the raster. And Diagonally, the raster is wider-So a DLP does not even have consistent measurement in all directions across the profile. ( i.e.- a perfectly circular profile will have a different number of pixels diagonally across its center that it will on X and Y- the accuracy of that curve will be no greater than plus or minus nearly the diagonal measure across a pixel. )
A Laser, actually HAS no raster. It can draw a curve anywhere and any shape on the x-y plane.
The spot size really only limits how sharp a corner the laser can draw-
1 Like