Although I have three form2. And the form3 looks interesting.
Do you think the new printer of sprintray pro. Can break the form3?
I did a simulation with sprintray pro software and printing 12 models at same orientation took 5.30 hours at 50 microns. And in form2 it took 18 hours
What do you think?
It’s not really a fair comparison if you’re solely talking about speed. DLP printers will win in speed tests from what I’ve seen 9 times out of 10. Form 3 will beat it in detail and if you’re already in the Form ecosystem and have had reliable experience I say why break that for an unknown. Plus you should be able to get that discount off the Form 3 for being a previous Formlabs printer owner. So for being cheaper and greater detail for me I’d go with the Form 3 unless you really need to push out speedy prints at double the price of the printer.
The Form is indeed reliable. But you can not say the surfaces more accurate. In the Y Z axis the parameters are 140 micron. And Sprintray Pro 75 micron. So if their printer is more accurate and more quick. why still stay with Form?
And only remind that I have 3 from2 .
@orthoniv3d the minimum feature size and X/Y resolution are both 95 micron for the Sprintray Pro (https://sprintray.com/pro-desktop-3d-printer-technical-specifications/) which matches the 1080p DLP chip they’re using divided against the build area.
The F3 advertised X/Y resolution is 25 microns, and the minimum feature size will be somewhere around the laser spot size at 85 microns. So I think the F3 wins there.
The thing that I’m excited about for the Form3 though is the peel cycle - much less stress during peel - means fewer supports and smaller support contact points. So this means higher quality parts, that need less post-processing - but it also opens up new part possibilities with finer more fragile features that weren’t possible before.
I’m not sure exactly how the “Selectively Textured Elastomeric Membrane” in the sprintray pro “introduces air between the resin and the tank floor” that sounds a little suspect to me, but even if it is better than the current Form2 peel cycle with the long-life-tank - I sincerely doubt it will be better than the Form3 peel cycle.
Oh - and I just noticed the price $6750 - I guess it depends on what you’re using it for. Print speed isn’t really a concern for me, part quality is the main thing (and machine price) - but if the sprintray makes good parts fast (at that price it had better) and speed is important to you, then perhaps it’s a better printer for you.
Sounds like you made up your mind why even ask the forum for opinions? lol Get them to send you some test prints and judge for yourself. Story still remains that Sprintray is double the price of the already expense Form 3. So if speed is what you’re looking for and price is no object, enjoy.
Thanks for the detailed and educated answer
To present arguments for pros and cons do not necessarily indicate that I have decided
DLP printers produce much less detailed and accurate parts. Although the Form 2 and 3 have a laser spot size… that is not the same as the pixel matrix size on a DLP projector.
The Laser can trace profiles to a much higher accuracy than can the projector. The spot size only limits how sharp a corner the laser can draw on a given layer. With each layer the laser can trace a path offset from the prior layer by 1/4 the diameter of the laser spot size or less… whereas a DLP can ONLY step over the full width of a single pixel.
As a result DLP printers will show much larger scale printing artifacts caused by the aliasing of the model contour to the pixel grid of the printer.
The Resolution listed on DLPs is also a bit of a misrepresentation. The pixels are in a rectilinear grid, like lego blocks. So their diagonal measure is greater than the length of their shortest dimension.
This will create moire patterns in the prints that are more severe in diagonal surfaces.
For this reason you will have to find a DLP printer with a pixel size about 1/8 the diameter of the laser spot on the Form 3 for the DLP to approach the finish quality of a laser printer.
Beyond that there are questions regarding the eveness of the exposure across the build plate which will affect the Isotropic quality of the prints… and, of course the printer you cite has half the build volume in one axis as the Form 2 and 3.
That said- if you NEED a printer that runs parts fast, and the parts don’t need to be as good as a Form 2 can print, and you don’t mind the higher price and smaller volume- then maybe this printer would be good?
It’s difficult to do a comparison between two printers which are: just released, but not really tested (the Form3) and an announced printer (Sprintray Pro - I can’t find the release date).
However, I agree with some comments that it’s two different technologies in the SLA world: laser vs pixels.
If you don’t mind, I can talk about another “fast” LCD SLA printer: the Slash PLUS from Uniz. This is a fast printer with a volume similar to the Form2, but I was able to print a 19cm tall model in 9h45 at 50 microns. No way the Form2 could do such print even at 100 microns. But if you look at the surface finishing, the Slash print is aliased. That’s the common issue with LCD/pixel printers when it comes to curvature, especially on curved designs, which requires extra post process like sanding. The Form2 finishing is way ahead, and by far.
Then if I want to do quick print and I’m not that much in surface finishing, the Slash is the printer I’ll use, but if I want qualité for my surfaces, the Form2 is my choice, it’s a no brainer. And with the Form3, I guess it will be even better.
Now, some other points to keep in mind or to consider:
- LCD/DLP can be noisy. The Slash, with its 300W LED matrix, is loud as hell because of the cooling system. I can’t work while it is running in the office…
- The Slash PLUS has a resin refill function. We can complain about the Form2 system… but the Form2 is by far the greater. And I have to say that as I print big, I prefer having a refill system than none. Because the Slash system is a no go, I’m not using it…
- Look at the whole ecosystem, not only the printer, but also the software to manage the print process, eventually, the cleaning kit or options to do automatic print clean/cure. About the software, so far PreForm is the better for everything I tested so far…
The Form 2 / 3 have higher detail, and the Form3 is sharper since the laser spot is almost half the size of the Form2
The one thing that’s nice it that for the Sprintray Pro they have a new method for layer separation, it sounds similar to what was done for the Carbon3D printer where it uses oxygen in some way to make it so that the print isn’t directly on the bottom of the tray which makes it easier to lift the print to do a new layer and provides a lot of benefits. However, it remains to be seen how well their method works and how that would compare to the new peeling method of the Form3
So at first glance, I’d say this:
Form 3 will have better detail and costs almost half the price
The Sprintray seems to be all the rage in dentistry right now. I think the 2 big factors in the current trend are speed nd ease of use. Compared to the first Moonray and the form 2, it’s blistering fast. But the more important thing for a guy like me is ease of use. Apparently, the software is robust and almost mindless. It will put bases on models and automate the entire printing process so that all that is required is an .stl file. It will close holes, position supports, add bases to models with just a push of a button on the display. The biggest problem for the Sprintray pro is that it is double the cost of the Form3. I have no experience with either machine or their respective software, but I wonder how they compare. In the end, speed, accuracy, and detail don’t mean much if a dumb dentist can’t get the thing to print in the first place.
It’s obvious that you are basing your entire argument on the idea that a DLP has a fixed resolution grid, which makes it impossible to place a dot between the pixels, meaning you can’t have X/Y movement in increments smaller than 1 pixel.
True enough, and with respect to the SprintRay, the 95 micron feature is based on it’s pixel density of ~270 dpi. But on most DLP projector based printers, you can use the zoom to reduce the size of the projected image in order to increase the DPI,
For example, reducing the projected size by about 22%, yields an image that is 5.5" x 3.0" with a 350dpi pixel density, or roughly 72 microns, 15% smaller than the Form 3 laser spot.
And then there are the smaller Masked SLA printers (LCD based), which have even higher resolutions. My $300 Photon has a 542dpi pixel density, making the pixel size about 47 microns, almost half the size of the Form 3 laser spot. And if I were to upgrade the LCD panel to 4K, I would end up with 812dpi and a 31 micron pixel.
So if you want to go by the numbers, I think some of the low cost MSLA printers have got the Form 3 beat.
On a side note, now that I see the laser dot on the Form 3 is only 85 microns (40% smaller), it makes sense to me that the Form 3 would be substantially slower, as it now has to make 40% more passes to fill in the same area it used to fill using the larger dot of the Form 2.
Remember though that the point size of the Form2/3 laser is not the resolution, the laser can move in much smaller increments than that and it gives a smooth shape that DLP/LCD can’t match. The only downside is that corners can only be as sharp as the laser so in some cases the edges won’t look as sharp.