Holy cow! I love my form1+ … but I would adhere a formX like this!
Though the printer (technique) and cathedral look impressive. My main concern is how successful it’ll be at printing hollow objects. In the video (2:20), you see that some objects still need supports which gets rid of the ‘hassle free printing’ as they so clearly mention. Furthermore they don’t mention if the freeware program they are using to slice the model can generate supports or that you have to add them to the model by yourself. That would mean editing at least 80% of the STL’s that you receive for printing yourself which will add additional costs.
Don’t get me wrong, but to me, it seems like just a larger version of the Fom1+ (which is nice!) but without the proper software to support it (or at least, they fail to mention this).
I agree … if FORMLABS would do something like this even if a bit smaller, i would buy it today. Heck, i would pre-order it and pay upfront!
But from an unproved company … unlikely.
1 Like
I’ve used creation workshop before. It’s a very nice software and it does generate support, but they’re not as effective or smart as preform’s.
It is not a larger version of a Form1 by any means. It is quite different on several fronts. First off it does not use PDMS at all, they are not clear what they have used in it’s place it may be a oxygen permeable membrane as the peel process seems to just involve pulling the print straight up, but this is only a wild guess, either way the peel process is completely different and the tray is not a consumable. This may result in better or worse peel forces that remains to be seen. Also they use an LCD screen to cure the resin, this is in many ways better and in many ways worse that the Form1+ with it’s laser. This method guarantees near perfect dimensional accuracy in the X and Y axis, and removes the concerns of dirt and dust in the optical path if it is done correctly, it also means the calibration of the machine is MUCH more straightforward so the product will likely be more dependable out of the box (this is still completely dependent on their QA and is yet to be seen). The unfortunate reality of this printer though is that they chose a pixel size for the LCD screen of 170umx170um. This means while the printer can print with a layer height of 25um and may do a better job of that than the Form1+ it’s X and Y resolution will be 170um, and because it uses an LCD screen it will print in at minimum 170umx170umx25um voxels. Meanwhile the Form1+ has a 300um diameter point that has incredible positional freedom in the X and Y axis so it can make very smooth curves instead of chunky approximations. To see what I mean by all of this go to the this article and look at the close ups of the rook and compare those to what the Form1+ would produce. You should see the rough finish in the X and Y. This can be greatly improved with higher pixel density screens. I know the iPhone 6+ screen has pixels of about 63.7umx63.7um which would be a huge improvement, however still not as fine as the 30umx30um of the B9 or 50umx50um of the Phoenix Touch. The problem with that is that such high pixel density screens are still specialized so if you are not Apple and buying a huge number getting on custom made is probably a bit pricey. If they chose to they could easily have built it with the screen being easy to switch out for a higher pixel density screen in the future.
2 Likes
Interesting, this explains why the surfaces looks not as smooth as the form on the same layer. There are actually limited by the LCD screen like for a screen.
I would be happier with a form with a larger built, but not so large, and a membrane based peeling like op models to reduce distortion. I am too spoiled by what i get by my form1+ at 0.05 right now.
the LCD resolution does seem like it would be a limiting factor.
If the next form1+ had multiple lasers and/or used the CLIP style printing technique we could have prints in minutes rather than hours -
Clearly the LCD solution is ok for large volume with post processing. CLIP is really really cool, but i guess it will be rather expensive.
I very nearly pledged on this one however I was sceptical about the x-y resolution claims (approx one third higher than a Form 1+) yet no close up pics and the quality of finish especially on the verticals of the Eiffil tower showed much lower quality output than the Form 1.
They are also using a bog standard LCD screen which has some pixels not utilised therefore not able to optimise the x-y resolution at present. So I’ll wait until they’ve tweeked the screen and employed an Industrial designer.
Not sure what Max and Formlabs are working on for a Form2 however I’m sure those investors would like them to capture some IPR to create additional value, whether home grown or bought in.
If it’s the latter then Formlabs have a look at Primlabs technology (fast, very high res and large area) they just need a bottom up version and your marketing and distribution?
Just a thought from a rock, IoM.
Just a though I don’t know the minimum quantity for a custom LCD screen however it won’t be small so when backers of the Morpheus get their machine someone could have a piezo actuator for alternate diagonal pixel shift ready for them?
I have a pledge on it, but i will probably cancel it before the end. Apart from the issues that it seems it suffers from lack of x/y resolution … for the project to be reliable, they need to have 10x more backers. For sure they showed me, though, that i really really would like a bigger print volume.
It’s not about the number of pixels in the display, or even the size of the pixels in the display, it’s how small the focused image area is when it intersects the resin tank bottom. That’s the real “benefit” of LCD projection systems, they are easily modified or upgraded to higher XY resolutions simply by changing the size of the focused image coming from the projector.
If you’re looking to print smaller objects, you could conceivably achieve much higher resolutions with any DLP printer. You just have to be willing to reduce the printable footprint to get your final pixels smaller.
My suspicions confirmed
Hi Marc, thanks for the compliments. The resolution of the Morpheus is not high…just so-so… if it is compared small size DLP and SLA. But we decided to open it for our backers so please wait. We’ll update soon.
Thanks, TEAM OWL WORKS
This is what i suspected all along. the problem with DLP is small built size even smaller than with laser.
The have posted something that shows what everybody though. The machine is yet impressive, but the finish is pixellated not smooth. Resolution is decent. Of course all is sorted out with post processing and sanding, but i am truly spoiled by the smooth finish of the form to he honest.
Why was the rook printed horizontally in the article linked above? I thought the whole point of the rook was that it was printable on the platform.
it was done vertically, the lines are a result of using an LCD with no free movement as discussed above and disclosed by them also in there last update pictures.
all removable with post processing, but it means this printer makes sense for fast, big and not fine details.
Pixels become voxels and create a fine grid like surface finish making it a little more difficult to establish build orientation from just a photo.
I’ve seen the close up images of the ring and the resolution is better than I expected and when in proportion to a large object would not be a significant issue for many (we’ve all been spoiled by our Form1’s).
The Morpheus KS project will be closely followed by Formlabs if for no other reason to track the possible demand for a larger
build volume product.
The Morpheus KS project will be closely followed by Formlabs if for no other reason to track the possible demand for a larger build volume product.
You work for formlabs?
I agree that the results are better than i expected. Probably for large objects and not too fine details, it is perfectly fine as all goes away with some sanding (that is needed anyhow). I still hold an SEB pledge, but i will likely let it go. The number of backers is too low to have confidence in their support level after delivery.
Nop I don’t - I should have started that line with ’ I suspect…
I’ve just purchased a nearly new Project 1500 for £400 on ebay which I intend to hack into a mUVe DLP hybrid which should end up with similar output quality and volume as the Morpheus.