2.5 watt Eleksmaker
all pep in LightBurn
1200 mm/min 35% power 363 DPI
50 minutes 105 x 105 mm
5 Likes
This greyscale…another whole different animal…
Missed the title … no dither duhhh
Remarkable nevertheless
Sas
Awesome burn. Very nice. Agree…grayscale a whole different animal, as is Halftone that @LightBurn made me aware of and suggested for one of my burns.
I personally don;t like the halftone for “My machine” diode I can see all the "newsprint " effects
First photo half tone .second Jarvis dither
2 Likes
I vote for second one. Substantially better
Wow! That’s unbelievable … the difference. I’m still pretty “green” to understand the complete differences of filters… what they do and don’t…the material and settings effect… I’m still reading, watching video’s, learning from you individuals in the forum. I will say I LOVE IT when people post their work (like you have) saying what you did to achieve the effect. Also super helpful in comparing the pics. Thank you so much. Our vote is unanimous on #2. 
Do you find that the MACHINE does a play a significant role in the result of the pic burned? For example, Greyscale or Jarvis looks amazing done on your machine, but someone else uses a different machine (say a C02 whatever), using the same photo, wood, settings,etc but they produce different results with same filter? Possible? Or the result produced, even if different, wouldn’t be significant? Just wondering…
ABSOLUTELY IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE
0.875 watts is KEY… large machines can not fire their lasers that low
Cheers
Sas
1 Like
Halftone is better suited to high DPI, and using some dot overlap. Dithering works much better when you’re right at the point where the lines from the laser touch, but don’t overlap (or just barely) and this is what makes it tricky to dial in.
Diode lasers are relatively slow, but produce a nice fine dot, and they tend to char, not vaporize material, whereas CO2 systems are the opposite - material tends to just vaporize before it darkens, so you have to burn deeper to get it to darken, but that makes a wider spot (in wood, at least).
CO2 lasers vary a lot based on the wattage of tube and the optics - shorter focal length lenses will produce a finer spot, as will a lower power (lower diameter) tube, and different materials will be affected differently as well. All of it plays a role, which is why basically no one can tell you “use settings X Y and Z for a perfect image”. It’s probably the hardest thing to do well with a laser, and it takes trial and error to get a feel for what works with your setup.
2 Likes
Good explanation…Oz…Every machine is different.
.I have so many Diode people who want my settings expecting to get same results…and they end up getting frustrated and some think I,m holding out on some details
It doesn;t work that way…same as for pre-processing photo…every photo is different…some require little or no pre-processing
You need to obtain the “Laser eye” as I call it…a gut feeling what will or won;t work
It has taken me hours with lots of errors …PLUS you must “know” your machine
You are being too kind in you’re statement that Diode Lasers are relatively slow…LOL…they are very slow…but hen again I don;t move that quick anymore either…lol
You nailed it Bulldog. “You must know your machine.”
I looked briefly into purchasing a diode laser just for fine detailed work such as photos, however, I have way too many hours and years getting to know my machine and know just when it needs a little “TLC.”
I do not want to learn another one at this time so I’ll keep playing as I get time. Besides the stuff I do 95% of the time I already know the settings and what ole blue can do.
Keep inspiring us with the pics that don’t make it to the garbage can.
BTW, I would like to make a special request if I may of a photo done in a particular dither for comparison, maybe on cardboard. More on this later if you are willing.
Sure no problem…I use Jarvis on photos where subject matter is fine completion with no outstanding features ie wrinkles like I have,lol…Stucki on images with a lot of “character”