Full Version: Atomic Art
From: Gary (GLSHOE) [#1]
2 Feb 2007
To: ALL
JUst an FYI. There is quite a discussion going on over at SMC about Atomic Art. One of the co-owners has weighed in with information, but comes off a little aggressive. Just thought I'd mention it. http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?t=50986
I'm still waiting to see if I can make Vegas.
EDITED: 2 Feb 2007 by DGL
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#2]
2 Feb 2007
To: Gary (GLSHOE) [#1] 2 Feb 2007
I'll take a look, but I've met the owners in person (possibly not the person you're mentioning) and aggressive isn't a word I'd use to describe them.
I did notice a post there, the other day and the word shill crept into my mind.
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#3]
2 Feb 2007
To: Gary (GLSHOE) [#2] 2 Feb 2007
Gary,
I just read the SMC thread. It was deja vu. :-)
Thom Price, one of the developers of the process, did appear to be slightly defensive, but I can't blame him.
When you consider he's been run through a similar Engraving Etc. mill of skeptics and naysayers, about 1 year ago (with myself leading the charge) I'd say he handled the mob mentality very well.
I'm in no way "stumping" for The Atomic Art process. It will rise or fall, on its own merit.
I can say the people involved (The Prices) have passed my personal litmus test, as being genuine people and their process does perform as advertised.
EDITED: 2 Feb 2007 by DGL
From: Gary (GLSHOE) [#4]
2 Feb 2007
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#3] 2 Feb 2007
EDITED: 2 Feb 2007 by GLSHOE
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#5]
2 Feb 2007
To: Gary (GLSHOE) [#4] 2 Feb 2007
I don't know if the process will be on display, other than the tangible samples, which are impressive.
Seeing is believing.
Hope you can make it to LV, but if not, we can certainly understand.
From: Gary (GLSHOE) [#6]
2 Feb 2007
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#5] 2 Feb 2007
From: Engravin' Dave (DATAKES) [#7]
2 Feb 2007
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#5] 2 Feb 2007
David,
I could produce durable samples and say I created them by rubbing my tummy and doing a back flip. Would that be enough to get you to invest $5,000+ to let me teach you how?
I'm not questioning their ability to do so. I just think their business model is way off track for our industry.
EDITED: 2 Feb 2007 by DATAKES
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#8]
2 Feb 2007
To: Engravin' Dave (DATAKES) [#7] 3 Feb 2007
As I said, I'm not campaigning or recruiting for Atomic Art (AA), nor am I an apologist for their business model. I've gotten to know Thom and Terry and I've seen the end results of the AA process.
I'm impressed by the people; I'm impressed by the product.
Whenever a company requires licensing of a process, amounting to thousands of dollars, (or any dollar amount, for that matter) whether it be the (laser-printer-generated), kiln-fired decal process or any other proprietary process, it's an automatic and instant buzz killer for many people.
That's a given.
AA doesn't stand for Automatic Art. There is a knack, special software and a learning curve involved. Shortcutting that learning curve will be worth money to some people.
How many? That remains to be seen.
Possibly so, although the laser machine manufacturers don't limit their exposure to the awards industry and those who display the AA process to other industries, will very likely find and sell to niche industries.
From: Rodney Gold (RODNEY_GOLD) [#9]
2 Feb 2007
To: ALL
David , I cant see the product selling at less then $150 a sq ft (80 mins to do one sq ft)
There are lots of other technologies that can compete at much cheaper prices and actually print better on more media.
That is not even including the exhorbitant training fee , and for $5500 I beleive you could probably get some other machine to enhance your business.
I have experience in this , we got a Busjet that can print beautifully on various items , at 1/10th the cost , there is a market , not huge and you got to do a lot develop it - at a lot more expense.
Im real sceptical about all this and it appears there are a LOT more like me. That bodes badly for the process and its originators - they should do SOMETHING to address this ......if so many ppl feel that way , it will never take off. This is probably the best advice I can ever give to AA etc.
Be transparent. My perception is that this whole thing is as clear as pea soup right now and just feels wrong.
What do you get for your money specifically.
List the pros and cons of the process
List the approx cost to print
Show High res pics on the net with crops
List the patents
Why is this way of "printing" better than any other?
What are potential returns?
Cmon , any person whos contemplating laying down $5k would want to know :)
From: sprinter [#10]
2 Feb 2007
To: ALL
From what is said on the Thermark website and the time it takes to do, I would have to guess it is nothing more than using color seperations and adding the different colors in layers.
I have to agree with Rodney, other processes are available at far less costs and takes much less time.
I find it interesting about a patent, do you really think Thermark would mention Atomic Art on it's website and alude to a 4 color layered process with the Thermark product if they really are trying to patent it. Anything that would use Thermark and potentially limit Thermarks sales would not be in the best interest of Thermark.
I'm not saying the Atomic Arts people aren't great people, but at the price they want, I won't be doing business with them.
EDITED: 2 Feb 2007 by SPRINTER
From: Harvey only (HARVEY-ONLY) [#11]
3 Feb 2007
To: sprinter [#10] 3 Feb 2007
From my early discussions with them, the tricks were special color profiles, laying down the coatings precisely and a set of very exacting laser settings to achieve the proper color photo results. I saw samples at the show last year and they were very impressive.
That being said, the time involved raises the final cost to customer too high in my opinion. There will be a small market for those products due to the cost.
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#12]
3 Feb 2007
To: Rodney Gold (RODNEY_GOLD) [#9] 3 Feb 2007
Rodney,
Competing with the durabilty of the AA image, on glass/tile, from what I've seen, could only be rivaled with the kiln fired decal process; another expensive, licensed proposition.
Keep in mind, the size of an image, using the decal process would be limited to the size of the (laser printer's) carrier sheet.
An image generated through other printing methods would be subject to severe UV fading and possible adhesion problems. Not permanent over the long haul.
Although they'll be exhibiting at the ARA show, the awards industry definitely isn't the AA audience.
Architectural applications and the monument industry, are most likely where they'll find inroads. In those markets, a $150 per sq. ft. price tag won't represent an impenetrable roadblock.
In reading the SMC thread, I saw the name Lightwave pop up. First time I'd heard the name and I have no idea what their angle will be, but it sounds like a competitor.
How can that be, if Thermark has formed an alliance with AA?
I agree with Ken, in that, there lies an incongruency and a potential tug-o-war, between Thermark's desire to cover the world with their product and AA's desire to limit the process to confined territories.
In that kind of uneasy environment, I'd be holding my cards close to my vest as well.
AA faces an uphill battle, to be sure, but I think they'll find successful markets for the process.
EDITED: 3 Feb 2007 by DGL
From: Dave Jones (DAVERJ) [#13]
3 Feb 2007
To: sprinter [#10] 3 Feb 2007
Somebody (like Atomic Art) can get a patent that is an improvement of another patented process. Since their paptent requires using another patented process, they have to license the original process from the original patent holder, but their improvement patent allows them to restrict who can use that improved process.
Often improvement patents are cross licensed with the original patent holder, allowing both parties to use the combined process. Other times the people with the improved process pay for the rights on the original process and keep the improved process to themselves.
Of course, if the people with the improved process can't get the original patent holder to license that patent, then nobody can use the improved process (neither the holder of the improved patent or the holder of the original). The improvement patent has no effect on the original patent holder using the original patent, just on them using the improved process.
Patents with improvements of existing patents are probably more common than original patents.