Just out of curiosity. What kind of printer and process is this they are using?

[Panagiotis]

https://vastphotos.com/displays/

[digitaldog]

No idea, but the potential marketing BS seen is not too comforting. Is it a print or a display (a floor wax or a dessert toping)? 

[mearussi]

https://vastphotos.com/displays/
[/quote/]
It's a RA-4 laser printing process, vastly inferior to inkjet in DR, color saturation, resolution and longevity. Any time you see the words laser and chromogenic you know it's RA-4.

[enduser]

Continous tone or DPI?  Can't be both!

[digitaldog]

Continous tone or DPI?  Can't be both!

Why not?

[Panagiotis]

https://vastphotos.com/displays/
[/quote/]
It's a RA-4 laser printing process, vastly inferior to inkjet in DR, color saturation, resolution and longevity. Any time you see the words laser and chromogenic you know it's RA-4.

So there is a lot of hype in there. Thanks for the info.

[kers]

Then it must be the 4cm(!) acryl on top that prevents the photo from fading.

[Panagiotis]

Then it must be the 4cm(!) acryl on top that prevents the photo from fading.

That brings another question in mind. Do the various adhesives (top/bottom) affect the longevity of the print?

[dgberg]

Pretty nice stuff. At $250 to $300 a square foot I guess it better be nice.

It begs the question is it worth 3 times more than a standard face mount at $100 a square foot. Or 6 times better than Chromaluxe metal at $50 a square foot.
There have always been a group of people that want the best of the best cost non withstanding. Many companies have been very successful with this business plan.
This just may be one of those.

[mearussi]

That brings another question in mind. Do the various adhesives (top/bottom) affect the longevity of the print?

Not sure that's ever been tested, but it certainly adds a lot of mechanical protection to it as well as (usually) adding some extra UV protection. I wouldn't claim any print using a laminate as archival though because it hasn't been tested and for all anyone knows the adhesive may indeed shorten the life of the print.   

[Richard.Wills]

Drytac facemount offers excellent UV stability to graphic prints, assuming they are not using a silicon based system.

But, what they really bring to the table is block chain. Anything with block chain is awesome. Never knew that I missed it in my printing, but now I want all my work protected by block chain.
I want my car protected by block chain, my beers protected by blockchains, a block chain to keep me at my desk.
Nurse.
B#########s

[StuartR]

I am not sure how they can blockchain an RA4 print...
They call it a chromogenic print in their marketing and talk about it being continuous tone, and the longevity and Endura line all line up with it being a digital C print. Their innovation is probably in having a high end digital c print machine that can expose the paper at 6100 dpi. I am not sure how they would get a photo with that much resolution, however, as even 720dpi is enough to crash an Epson at larger than about an meter. I do not doubt that they are doing nice prints, but I'll believe it when I see it, basically. I think the numbers are meaningless here...the file is going to be the driver of the resolution, no one can see the dots of a 1440 inkjet print, let alone a 2880 one. They probably get some tonality benefits with the continuous tone, but they will have a gamut penalty, no flexibility in paper choice and inferior longevity. Digital C prints can be great, but the gallery market seems to have chosen inkjet...at least in my part of Europe.

[Stephen Ray]

Most likely they’re using a LightJet 500XL

The Endura material is currently their only option for this machine but that’s not say they can’t commission another.

The adhesive and acrylic adds tremendously to the life of the photo print. These prints will outlast all us if they’re properly processed in fresh chemistry. I have no doubts they're using the process correctly.

Original marketing hype was LightJet prints were equivalent to 4000dpi. I know some Durst Lambdas were specially modified for map making and VAST makes mention of their machine’s former use. So, maybe their LightJet has a special mod. I dunno, but it’s not a stretch.

To say any RA4 print is inferior to inkjet is plainly wrong. It’s a photograph made with light. It has its purpose and can serve its purpose for a very long time with plenty of color and detail.

Most collectors and most decorators of the target market know exactly what they’re looking for in the product. The most challenging aspect is the image itself. They already know this product and many have known this product for decades. They have a space to fill, they look at catalogs online, they place an order if they find the right image. If they have a very particular color match, they first order a small sample sent in a mailing tube.

In the case of VAST, they’re providing the provenance by using blockchain which is a step beyond the typical seller’s and dealer’s database.

It’s just a photo product of an image which should be enjoyed.

I wish them luck.

[digitaldog]

To say any RA4 print is inferior to inkjet is plainly wrong. It’s a photograph made with light. It has its purpose and can serve its purpose for a very long time with plenty of color and detail.

True to some degree and its up to the end user to decide what's superior or inferior. But it has a much smaller color gamut. The options for paper surfaces is much more limited. It isn't as archival. Is there any RA4 process with papers that completely lack OBAs? Inkjet, yes.

[Richard.Wills]

I read the article on their blog about the giga pixel lightning strike image.

In this age of retina and 6K screens, when lasik has the potential to restore the vision we had in our youth, I can kind of imagine the experience of spending time with a truly immersive and detailed print. I often ask my print clients about viewing distances and how they relate to the image, and much as I dislike the marketing hype, I  kind of get the purpose, and the value of the product.

The bonded single optical component of a good reverse face amplifies the apparent saturation of the image, in a not dissimilar way to a CibaChrome. I can imagine a couple of surface finishes - gloss, and Optium. Print surface is protected by adhesive, so no surface oxidation, in front of which is a UV inhibiting layer, so that might help with the OBA degredation.

I disliked the first level sales pitch, but am starting to have a grudging respect for this new, and learned from Diasec.

Monstrously expensive, and emotively hyped, but there is a market for Range Rovers, Leicas, Louis Vuitton and Vast prints. Not my market, nor my market place, but they've seen a sector.

I get the block chain is way of saying, no, yes this is real, but suspect that the majority of their market won't care, when time comes to change the curtains.

[kers]

It takes a certain type of photo that works well with 4cm acryl on top. It changes the photo, for me often not in a way i like.
a square meter at 6100 dpi makes  a 160GB.
My d850 has about 6100 dpi on the sensor.... so i could make a nice 2.4 x 3.6 cm Vast print a little block of acryl.

[Stephen Ray]

It takes a certain type of photo that works well with 4cm acryl on top. It changes the photo, for me often not in a way i like.
a square meter at 6100 dpi makes  a 160GB.
My d850 has about 6100 dpi on the sensor.... so i could make a nice 2.4 x 3.6 cm Vast print a little block of acryl.

Be sure not to confuse PPI with DPI.

Also beware of marketing hyperbole. In the case of LightJet printers, 300PPI is the spec most often published. Marketing copy peddled 4000DPI apparent resolution. There is / was also a setting of 200PPI to enable faster imaging times. Bear in mind these large format machines were put in service in the 1990's when the vast majority of files were small except drum scans targeted for the machine. Even for the small format Noritsu, Fuji Frontier, Kodak, etc., found in 1-hour shops, the imaging process of sub-sampling pixels sometimes would be counted toward the resolution numbers, thus  marketing departments would tout. A good portion of Durst Lambdas which were originally 200PPI machined were modified to 400PPI, ironically to better accommodate small prints. Consider the viewing distance and resolution required.

A test "back in the day" was to resolve a single, square pixel of each red, green, and blue in a field of gray at the center and edges of the wide media at the advertised resolutions of the machines. They all could meet the test.

[JRSmit]

What is the pixel per inch input into this print pipeline, what is de dot per inch lighting of the chromogenic paper, what is the addition in this so called high dpi resolution of the the color couplers attached to a silver halide crystal? How many silver halide crystals per inch?
What is the long term stability of the adhesive used,  of the interaction between the adhesive and the print, and of and with the acrylic?
What is the need to show the strength of their solution by comparing it with something they call a fine art inkjet print, but in fact is a fantasy of themself? Does that make their product look better? If so in whose eyes?

[dkaufman]

Duggal Visual Solutions in New York City claims to have the only laser printer capable of 6100 equivalent output, giving the appearance of continuous tone. That's very good as I've had many images output on a Chromira, another laser printing system, which has a lower output specification and it approximates continuous tone quite well. This is a dot placement measurement, not an input specification for the file. So perhaps VAST is having all their prints made and mounted at Duggal, which is my strong suspicion. More information about this process is at the Duggal site, but even on their site their is little information about file setup requirements for the 6100 dpi output process.

David Kaufman
www.davidkaufmanphotography.com

[Lessbones]

I'm not sure where this "6100 apparent" resolution comes from in terms of how they are calculating it in marketing speak, but it's not specific to Duggal.  It's a Polilettronica printer-- they've been claiming for a while that they can do "610dpi optical" which is much more reasonable.  I've seen this side-by-side with the 300dpi prints off the machine, and it has made only an infinitesimal difference.  Also, almost never does one encounter a file of this resolution for printing bigger than, say, 11"x14", and then you're pretty much at the mercy of the fineness of the paper you're using.  MAYBE on fujiflex or something you could see the difference.  That said, the old LVT film recorders (used for transferring from digital to film negatives) can actually be loaded with positive film media (like fujiflex) and actually print to an optical resolution of 1524dpi (or maybe 2032?  Can't remember offhand).  I would love to see a print made on one, just for s***s and giggles...

here's some more info on Duggal's Poli:  https://pdnpulse.pdnonline.com/2015/08/digital-c-prints.html