Well, we finally got a Platesetter from a shop that sold off its business.
Got the 4100 for about $15,000 so we jumped on it. Now I have to figure out how to get it up and running.
We are trying Fuji's Eccomaxx-T plates to start.
Anybody familiar with such a setup? I'm sure to have some questions!
Same model we have. Was running Kodak when I started... now we're on [Agfa] Azura TS.
[edit]
The shop we got the 4100 from was also running Azura.
What was the deciding factor for the switch?
And, do you and the pressmen like it okay?
I'm not really locked into a manufacturer at this point, but we have a good relationship with the Fuji sales guy and wanted to give him first shot.
Also, I'm really wanting to be able to use our existing plate processor to develop the plates. It has a gum unit after the wash. If anybody has tried this, I'd be interested what chems you used, our press solution is too weak at the prescribed for press use. We are thinking of trying a very strong solution to se if that work.
Quote from: Grimace on May 10, 2011, 10:17:12 AMWhat was the deciding factor for the switch?
I/We have found Kodak plates to be horribly inconsistent, even thermal (but especially violet/poly). Sceening is just miserable. Plate wash would sometimes even remove image from the plate too. Azura plates were cheaper, consistent as can be and have a long run life. We made a deal with Pittman (now Agfa) to buy plates from them for two years, and they gave us the processor for free, with a 1-year service contract (which we never used).
Quote from: Grimace on May 10, 2011, 10:17:12 AMAnd, do you and the pressmen like it okay?
Both the pressman and I love Azura. They never had the consistency on rerun orders like they do now (but some of that may have been the previous prepress guy). Screening on a clean plate vs. a plate near the time the processor needs cleaning are pretty much identical. My dot reader has a + or - of 2 percent, and I am reading plates that vary by less than .5 percent. Kodak would be all over the place, but Agfa is steady.
Quote from: Grimace on May 10, 2011, 10:17:12 AMAlso, I'm really wanting to be able to use our existing plate processor to develop the plates. It has a gum unit after the wash. If anybody has tried this, I'd be interested what chems you used, our press solution is too weak at the prescribed for press use. We are thinking of trying a very strong solution to se if that work.
The Azura TS processor only has a gum solution. It's basically a chemistry free "processless" plate. The ph factor is neutral so any residue can safely be poured down a drain without a ProCam solution additive, and I don't think you even have to notify your local Hazmat of the Azura gum solution. Cleaning the processor (including rollers, scrub brushes, etc.) take 1 man about 2 hours or so give or take... and in between cleanings, just run rinse water and change the gum.
Quote from: DigiSig on May 10, 2011, 10:33:13 AMQuote from: Grimace on May 10, 2011, 10:17:12 AMWhat was the deciding factor for the switch?
I/We have found Kodak plates to be horribly inconsistent, even thermal (but especially violet/poly). Sceening is just miserable. Plate wash would sometimes even remove image from the plate too. Azura plates were cheaper, consistent as can be and have a long run life. We made a deal with Pittman (now Agfa) to buy plates from them for two years, and they gave us the processor for free, with a 1-year service contract (which we never used).
Quote from: Grimace on May 10, 2011, 10:17:12 AMAnd, do you and the pressmen like it okay?
Both the pressman and I love Azura. They never had the consistency on rerun orders like they do now (but some of that may have been the previous prepress guy). Screening on a clean plate vs. a plate near the time the processor needs cleaning are pretty much identical. My dot reader has a + or - of 2 percent, and I am reading plates that vary by less than .5 percent. Kodak would be all over the place, but Agfa is steady.
Quote from: Grimace on May 10, 2011, 10:17:12 AMAlso, I'm really wanting to be able to use our existing plate processor to develop the plates. It has a gum unit after the wash. If anybody has tried this, I'd be interested what chems you used, our press solution is too weak at the prescribed for press use. We are thinking of trying a very strong solution to se if that work.
The Azura TS processor only has a gum solution. It's basically a chemistry free "processless" plate. The ph factor is neutral so any residue can safely be poured down a drain without a ProCam solution additive, and I don't think you even have to notify your local Hazmat of the Azura gum solution. Cleaning the processor (including rollers, scrub brushes, etc.) take 1 man about 2 hours or so give or take... and in between cleanings, just run rinse water and change the gum.
Going to have to disagree with you on the Kodaks, we run both thermal kodaks and agfa and we have issues with the agfas (plate wear, blinding, sharpening during make ready, Kodaks on the other hand don't seem to have those issues.
and a half percent range? Brother I want what you are smoking? Hell a freaking dot reader alone can have a variance of a percent depending how the patch is read etc..or how many times you read it.
Quote from: G_Town on May 10, 2011, 10:38:01 AMGoing to have to disagree with you on the Kodaks, we run both thermal kodaks and agfa and we have issues with the agfas (plate wear, blinding, sharpening during make ready, Kodaks on the other hand don't seem to have those issues.
and a half percent range? Brother I want what you are smoking? Hell a freaking dot reader alone can have a variance of a percent depending how the patch is read etc..or how many times you read it.
I have to agree with this and Kodak plates. There was a bad batch of Sword plates released into the wild but they cleared that up pretty quickly and even gave plate rebates over that fiasco. The Trillian plates are great though. Truth be told, any of the major plate suppliers all have good plates. They can't stay in business if they are selling junk.
I firmly believe a lot of it has to do with maintenance, and how well you keep your processor and optics clean.
As for the percentage difference, I usually read it three or four times and take an average. I made a screen pattern in 5% variances to run without any curves and not linear to get it to a linear starting point. I claan and re-read my test plate monthly. It stays right within range always.
I was caught up in that batch of bad sword plates and their handling of it left a bad taste in my mouth. That being said if they made a plate that is a good fit for our shop I would give it a try.
Thanks for the quick replies, as always with this crew!
I just output our first plate for the Komori, and will be using it for a job later today.
Just one color-K so I have some grace on this.
A very worrying thing for me is that the Fuji plates barely have any contrast after developing, so to get a good read wasn't possible with out plate reader.
Our service tech is sending the plates to some company that writes the software for his reader, but in the mean time I don't have a calibrated plate!
We are just running one color stuff with no to little screening, so I can get away with it for now. Just to get this up and running.
Anybody had issues with getting the plate to read, oh, and I have a iCPlate II reader.
We also run a Komori 26 and I read my plates with iCPlate II also. Wait a minute... Are you me?
What RIP do you use?
Quote from: DigiSig on May 10, 2011, 11:19:48 AMWait a minute... Are you me?
It's all a part of my plan to make you think you know everything about me, only to find out later it's all a fake out.
Quote from: DigiSig on May 10, 2011, 11:19:48 AMWe also run a Komori 26 and I read my plates with iCPlate II also. Wait a minute... Are you me?
What RIP do you use?
Just got a RTI Harlequin 8.0
The machine came with Apogee's Raster Blaster Tiff Catcher.
And we also run a Komori 26....
spooky :sad:
Wait, I just saw your sig has the 6 color machine, ours is the Sprint 26-2 color.
I'm not you after all!
Quote from: G_Town on May 10, 2011, 10:38:01 AMand a half percent range? Brother I want what you are smoking? Hell a freaking dot reader alone can have a variance of a percent depending how the patch is read etc..or how many times you read it.
Hell, even the gum will add a half a percent. When we had our G7 fingerprint done, the tech would make me clean the gum off before reading and it was adding 0.6% to the reading off the Ultra-Dottie.
Okay, we're up and running.
I'm getting a line across the plate right where the page edge is in the file.
But there is nothing in the files to print. All files have done this, PDF or Illy, doesn't matter the source.
Any ideas what may be causing this? It is the tail end of the image, or the side furthest away from the punch.
This is what I'm getting.
Hit or miss whether it shows up.
If it's right on the edge of the page, it sure looks like you have a frame or a stroke in the page file.
does it appear in the same place on all the plates?
any color?
Quote from: david on May 11, 2011, 11:11:37 AMIf it's right on the edge of the page, it sure looks like you have a frame or a stroke in the page file.
does it appear in the same place on all the plates?
any color?
I know what it looks like. But really and truly there is no anything in the files.
I can create a new file, any size and just type the work "test" or draw just a box, any color, any document color mode, any file type etc..
And I get the line.
Our PlateRite is prone to the occasional "hot spot," but I don't think I ever got a line like that. I used to see lines like that on the Palladio. On the Palladio it's due to dust on the optics. Using a dust free, quick drying alcohol wipe (special optic cleaning pad like this one: http://www.harmonycr.com/ProductDetail.jsp?LISTID=200000-1135811874 (http://www.harmonycr.com/ProductDetail.jsp?LISTID=200000-1135811874)) clean the mirrors/optics. It's accessible from the panel on the right hand side of the machine as you're facing the plate loading area. Then, take the back panel off and wipe down the cylinder that the plate wraps around. Leave no dust anywhere, and don't touch anything (especially the laser/mirror/optics). You CAN do this yourself, but if you scratch the mirror/optics, game over. You might want to have it professionally serviced.
is your page file imposed?
have you checked to see if there is anything in the impose file?
and, before they are exposed, have you looked at the plates to make sure there is nothing on the plate like a scratch or anything?
Well, maybe it's due to something on the lens or whatever, but it is exactly the distance of the page edge.
Last night I imaged a couple of plates for our Komori and they ran great.
I come in this morning and I can't get a Komori plate to image.
I'm getting an error that states "Image size specified by host computer is larger than allowable output image size"
So, I think I sent the file the wrong orientation, landscape vs portrait. But no matter how I send the file I get the error.
The preview confirms the orientation, and I ran the files from last night and get the same error.
I thought maybe my coworker f'd with the settings, but even starting from scratch will not work.
I'm getting really bummed out.
Quote from: david on May 11, 2011, 12:39:56 PMis your page file imposed?
have you checked to see if there is anything in the impose file?
and, before they are exposed, have you looked at the plates to make sure there is nothing on the plate like a scratch or anything?
All good guesses. Not imposed, no scratch. just a perfect straight clean line where the page edge would be.
Quote from: Grimace on May 11, 2011, 12:44:47 PMWell, maybe it's due to something on the lens or whatever, but it is exactly the distance of the page edge.
Last night I imaged a couple of plates for our Komori and they ran great.
I come in this morning and I can't get a Komori plate to image.
I'm getting an error that states "Image size specified by host computer is larger than allowable output image size"
So, I think I sent the file the wrong orientation, landscape vs portrait. But no matter how I send the file I get the error.
The preview confirms the orientation, and I ran the files from last night and get the same error.
I thought maybe my coworker f'd with the settings, but even starting from scratch will not work.
I'm getting really bummed out.
Did you double check the Komori plate settings on the Screen touch screen panel? Maybe it lost it's settings somehow. I'm plating something right now, or I'd give you the dimensions we're using.
you're cursed....
or you have gremlins.
have you tried to reboot the RIP?
DERP!
:death:
figured out my problem, I changed the profile in the Harlequin to the wrong setting when I was setting up another device...
My fault totally.
But, I still have the damn line. Could it be that the as setting defining the media type or plate setting may have the wrong offset and creating this?
I'm a little gun shy to start changing values I didn't input in the first place.
I seem to remember having issues with dirty optics doing something like this on a screen machine I dealt with too regularly to want to remember. Ablation on the lens or something. Wasn't real hard to clean though
Also issues with dirt on the drum causing hot spots as the screen unit in question, I was told it did not dynamically focus like our beloved Kodak units.
I happen to know one of the lead techs for Screen too, but he's in Brazil on a service call currently, so probably no help :)
D'ya reckon he'll get a Brazilian while he's there? (Forgive me, have to attend a funeral today, so a little unhinged... :embarrassed: ) :slapownwrist:
:offtopic:
Quote from: gnubler on May 11, 2011, 06:10:08 PM:offtopic:
Er...yes. Already did the guilt thing, above. Any other purpose in stating the obvious? :undecided: Just bored? That's OK, then. :cheesy:
Joe wasn't around. Just trying to keep the boards clean. :angel:
So, aside from my own unwitting sabotage, the machine works.
The line IS the page edge being rendered somehow. The preview window on the RIP and on the Tiff catcher do NOT show anything.
If I rotate the image(90 or 180), the line follows to the trailing edge. I'm trying work it out without having to set all my files up to the plate size.
I wouldn't mind if I could configure the RIP to "impose" the image onto a page that equals the plate size, but I haven't figured out how to do this.
Harlequin 8.0 RIP from RTI. The impo options are simple Harlequin options.
Any ideas?
Quote from: Grimace on May 12, 2011, 08:31:10 AMAny ideas?
Go directly to the bar after work today. I'll meet you there around 5:30.
Quote from: gnubler on May 12, 2011, 08:36:05 AMQuote from: Grimace on May 12, 2011, 08:31:10 AMAny ideas?
Go directly to the bar after work today. I'll meet you there around 5:30.
That was Tuesday, was hungover most of yesterday, which kinda explains the snafu. :rolleyes:
Being that the line is going the x direction, I doubt it has to do with the optics, as the drum rotates on the other axis. Normally dirty optics or laser problems will be the y direction, with the rotation of the drum. Also, you're thermal and I assume you're running positive plates. The laser is exposing the background, which in turn falls off in the processor. The image left on the plate is where the laser did not fire. This means the line you have is not getting exposed. This can be from an actual image, like the 1-bit tiffs you are sending to it. It may be a minor discrepancy between your imposed size and the device size defined in the harlequin... this would leave a tiny area that the laser didn't know what to do with, so it would just not fire, which would leave image.
We have ours set to full image, due to our Harris press, so it exposes right over the clamps. You can see where the image plate is struck between the clamps, as the image falls off but it leaves image in the shape of clamps where the clamps are.
(https://www.b4print.com/data:image/gif,GIF89a%12%00%12%00%B3%00%00%FF%FF%FF%F7%F7%EF%CC%CC%CC%BD%BE%BD%99%99%99ZYZRUR%00%00%00%FE%01%02%00%00%00%00%00%00%00%00%00%00%00%00%00%00%00%00%00%00%00%00%00%21%F9%04%04%14%00%FF%00%2C%00%00%00%00%12%00%12%00%00%04X0%C8I%2B%1D8%EB%3D%E4%00%60%28%8A%85%17%0AG*%8C%40%19%7C%00J%08%C4%B1%92%26z%C76%FE%02%07%C2%89v%F0%7Dz%C3b%C8u%14%82V5%23o%A7%13%19L%BCY-%25%7D%A6l%DF%D0%F5%C7%02%85%5B%D82%90%CBT%87%D8i7%88Y%A8%DB%EFx%8B%DE%12%01%00%3B)
Have you tried opening the one-bit tiff in Photoshop to see if the line is in it?
Ya, I looked at his picture again. Can't be laser or optics, it's going the wrong direction. Could be on the tiff but I have seen similar things with a 1mm size discrepancy. It's kind of like there's a super tiny gap where the lasers aren't quite sure what to do, so they just don't fire. It should error out and give an incorrect file size but doesn't always.
Quote from: Earendil on May 12, 2011, 11:20:00 AMYa, I looked at his picture again. Can't be laser or optics, it's going the wrong direction. Could be on the tiff but I have seen similar things with a 1mm size discrepancy. It's kind of like there's a super tiny gap where the lasers aren't quite sure what to do, so they just don't fire. It should error out and give an incorrect file size but doesn't always.
I was thinking along the same lines (pun intended) as you. That the Platesetter has some discrepancy that it just decides to image.
However, we are running a negative plate (Fuji Ecomaxx-T.), not positive.
I'm continuing to check my settings to see if there is anything off, but nothing yet.
If it is in the ripped/screened one bit tiff than it is in the RIP. If it is not in the tiff than it is coming from the platesetter.
Oh cool... that is a no-chemical, processless plate, right? We have been talking about going to that. How do the press guys like them?
Nevertheless... it is still at the edge of your defined sheet, as imposed for plate. I have run a harlequin back in the film days but am not familiar with the workflow as far as the ripping and imposition stages these days. I doubt you will see that line upon viewing the 1-bit tiffs... I still fell like it's an anomaly in the software. Again, I have had laser stripes and printhead glitches and the stripes always run with the direction of drum rotation, not parallel to the clamps.
Are you sending imposed press sheet size 1-bit tiffs and letting the Raster Blaster dictate setback or are you sending full plate-sized tiffs to the RB out of imposition? Most workflows are doing the latter. If, for example, you're sending a 19x25 1-bit tiff to the RB plate queue and letting the RB put it in place on the plate by using margins (found in RB Device Config>Settings), then that is probably where the problem is. If you're sending full plate-size tiffs and not able to see the line in a scaled tiff, then you have a real strange problem.
Quote from: Earendil on May 12, 2011, 04:37:14 PMOh cool... that is a no-chemical, processless plate, right? We have been talking about going to that. How do the press guys like them?
Nevertheless... it is still at the edge of your defined sheet, as imposed for plate. I have run a harlequin back in the film days but am not familiar with the workflow as far as the ripping and imposition stages these days. I doubt you will see that line upon viewing the 1-bit tiffs... I still fell like it's an anomaly in the software. Again, I have had laser stripes and printhead glitches and the stripes always run with the direction of drum rotation, not parallel to the clamps.
Are you sending imposed press sheet size 1-bit tiffs and letting the harlequin dictate setback or are you sending full plate-sized tiffs to the harlequin out of imposition? Most workflows are doing the latter. If, for example, you're sending a 19x25 1-bit tiff to the plate queue and letting the device config put it in place on the plate, then that is probably where the problem is. If you're sending full plate-size tiffs and not able to see the line in a scaled tiff, then you have a real strange problem.
I doubt it too but it's an easy way to tell if it is the RIP or the imager.
Indeed it is. He can at least eliminate one variable.
I just modified that last post after re-reading the thread and seeing he is using a Raster Blaster tiff catcher. I have seen people send sheet size to raster blaster and use margins in the Dev Config... they often get strange little problems like this.
I always configure Raster Blaster queues to the plate size with no margin and impose full plate-sized tiffs in the workflow. Makes bigger tiffs but you know any problem like this has to be in the imposition before the tiff is sent to Raster Blaster.
Also used to get weird problems because of math/measurement discrepancies between Preps, Raster Blaster and the Platesetter. Had to go through and tweak dimensions by fractional increments in Preps when we first installed the platesetter.
Example: My Hantscho Heatset Plates...
Platesetter
W - 978mm
H - 658mm
Raster Blaster
W - 977.9mm
H - 657.32mm
Preps
W - 975.36mm
H - 656.844mm
See, weird discrepancies. :huh: Only way it would work tho. Again, if one were sending sheet sized tiffs to Raster Blaster instead of plate size, I can see how you would easily get strange lines and such. Just a thought.
(https://www.b4print.com/data:image/gif,GIF89a%12%00%12%00%B3%00%00%FF%FF%FF%F7%F7%EF%CC%CC%CC%BD%BE%BD%99%99%99ZYZRUR%00%00%00%FE%01%02%00%00%00%00%00%00%00%00%00%00%00%00%00%00%00%00%00%00%00%00%00%21%F9%04%04%14%00%FF%00%2C%00%00%00%00%12%00%12%00%00%04X0%C8I%2B%1D8%EB%3D%E4%00%60%28%8A%85%17%0AG*%8C%40%19%7C%00J%08%C4%B1%92%26z%C76%FE%02%07%C2%89v%F0%7Dz%C3b%C8u%14%82V5%23o%A7%13%19L%BCY-%25%7D%A6l%DF%D0%F5%C7%02%85%5B%D82%90%CBT%87%D8i7%88Y%A8%DB%EFx%8B%DE%12%01%00%3B)
Agreed. On our old raster blaster we did the same thing. Everything to plate size. If he is using sheet size that could explain the line where it is missing imaging that portion of the plate. Make it plate size and there is no chance of that.
Quote from: Joe on May 12, 2011, 05:20:44 PMAgreed. On our old raster blaster we did the same thing. Everything to plate size. If he is using sheet size that could explain the line where it is missing imaging that portion of the plate. Make it plate size and there is no chance of that.
Thanks, guys. I'm thinking the same thing. We did some tests yesterday and found some strange things.
I configured the device settings in RB to the exact dimensions of the plate to be used, but RB will display a setting that is fractionally different.
For example, our ABDick runs a 335mm x 485mm plate, RB displays 335.001 x 484.998.
I get similar results with the Komori settings, different size of course.
I'll try running page size same as plate size to see if that indeed isolates the issue to the Platesetter.
Page size same as plate size does not work.
I get an error that the image is too large for the media.
For now I'm just using a deletion pen to remove the line after developing.
Oh, yeah, I'm using our old Fuji plate developer with 50/50 fountain solution/water mix to "pre-develope" the plate prior to press. Works well.
We are usually a few weeks ahead of the presses around here, so this allows me to keep the work flow going without having to worry about when the press guys are able to get to any specific job. Lots of preempted "emergency" type stuff tends to get in the way. Our shop is built upon exceptions. But thats another thread topic.
Try changing the size to 1 millimeter or .1 inch less than the media size.
Yep... a lot of times the platesetter has an inaccurate measurement, especially in the plate width. The length (around the drum) is measured by a stationary sensor but the width is measured when the centering device for the punch moves in on the plate. This is a somewhat relative measurement as it is calculated by track-screw rotations from home position. If there has been a jam in the centering device, then there is a chance they have been moved slightly. This has happened here and so I just set the plate size in the machine so it works, even though it is not a correct absolute value. Basically, you have to make the platesetter work, then mess with the RB and impo until everything works, even if it makes no sense.
Regarding the horizontal line, try adjusting up/down the setback for the plate and see if the line follows the change. I am betting it is a check box in the RIP to make that line, allowing the press person to identify if the paper to be used is too short - ie the bars use to be on the tail perhaps. Are the small vertical lines with the numbers also coming out or just the one horizontal line?
Quote from: Chilbear on May 13, 2011, 10:36:34 AMRegarding the horizontal line, try adjusting up/down the setback for the plate and see if the line follows the change. I am betting it is a check box in the RIP to make that line, allowing the press person to identify if the paper to be used is too short - ie the bars use to be on the tail perhaps. Are the small vertical lines with the numbers also coming out or just the one horizontal line?
The numbers and lines are part of the image, a ruler, just the line is unwanted.
I'll double check the RIP, cause the weird thing is that some jobs are coming through without the line. Even when the page size is the same.
I have to concentrate on actual work today, but will experiment with files later.
Okay, back to setting up again. We are switching to Agfa Azura plates.
Does anybody know a good knowledgeable install guy? The guys Pitman sent are having problems remembering how and what does what.
I need a dedicated Screen 4100 pro. Any suggestions?
Quote from: Grimace on February 12, 2013, 02:00:19 PMOkay, back to setting up again. We are switching to Agfa Azura plates.
Does anybody know a good knowledgeable install guy? The guys Pitman sent are having problems remembering how and what does what.
I need a dedicated Screen 4100 pro. Any suggestions?
I know a guy, ask Sabrina if he was at all helpful. He works for Screen and travels the world doing so, last I saw he was in Osaka or something.
Quote from: t-pat on February 12, 2013, 02:42:07 PMQuote from: Grimace on February 12, 2013, 02:00:19 PMOkay, back to setting up again. We are switching to Agfa Azura plates.
Does anybody know a good knowledgeable install guy? The guys Pitman sent are having problems remembering how and what does what.
I need a dedicated Screen 4100 pro. Any suggestions?
I know a guy, ask Sabrina if he was at all helpful. He works for Screen and travels the world doing so, last I saw he was in Osaka or something.
Thanks, I may get info from you. It's been since 8 this morning, and they haven't even got the focus set yet.
like I said, ask Sabrina if this guy was helpful or if he blew her off, I can't say he's my guy, he's just a dude I know from the industry who works for Screen.
I can't believe the rep for the new plates didn't line up someone who knows what's up. I just tested new brands of plates last month. Both Fuji and Anocoil sent techs in that knew how to set up my Screen 8600. That said, I know it better than they did and kept an eye on them. One messed up a balancer constant setting, which I caught and fixed (could've been really bad) and the other tech did the focus incorrectly, which caused us grief for a day before I caught and fixed his mistake. But they at least knew how to get their way through the platesetter setup.
I suggest, when you do get someone in that knows what to do, watch and learn, that way you don't need to rely on the techs.
I know a guy - will post his info tomorrow.
Thanks for the replies. I have a possible dude around here that we finally got into contact with. Hopefully he can come by and teach me a thing or two.
The Agfa guy just left. Stayed until 6:30 last night. My 8 hour day normally ends at 3:30, so, yay.
I am up and running, but my hopes of solving weird issues we had with the Fuji plates - dashed.
If it makes you feel better mine totally shit the bed today with no real hope of being resurrected... and I have 2 of the bastards.
Sorry - I forgot. I was drunk last night when I posted that, and i forgot all about it until I saw this thread bumped again.
Don Chapman
530-210-4628
He works for Kodak, but he services our Screen 4100. I talked to him, and he said he's not sure Kodak is going to let him continue servicing Screen, and now it's hard for him to get parts.
I also found this number for Screen techs 1-800-372-7737 ext. 2265
Quote from: DigiCorn on February 13, 2013, 02:34:28 PMI was drunk last night when I posted that
Usually when drunk people say "I know a guy" it is a devious, sinister statement.
Matt Thomas
MT Precision Graphics
314-283-6855
Out of the St Louis area but very good and very reasonable - but a 1 man show.