Very nice! Thanks to all who did testing! 
Yeah. That is more correct than what I said, because you’re right, 0% would be not moving. 
If they give their recommendation as a percent of some unknown number it’s a fairly unscientific starting point anyway.
Somewhere around here there’s a mapping to mm/min, I think.
Hmm… That’s counter intuitive. There’s a limit to how small of a dot the laser can make, so after about 300dpi you’re getting some overlap of the lines. That is you’re hitting the same spot with almost as intense heat several times. I wonder if you re-laser already fixed cermark if you’ll ablate it off again. Maybe as you increase the resolution you actually need to speed up or lower power?
2 Likes
Interesting… are you starting with a bitmap or a vector?
That looks like a vector score… I think the question was if you had tried engraving a vector version of the artwork.
And here’s the topic with the mapping:
2 Likes
I was just going looking for that. Given that the speed units used by GF are not linear, I think you’d need to look back to the conversion and see where the 45% speed of max (did I remember right that’s the recommendation?) really falls on the scale.
even if it shows up in initially in the GFUI as a score, you can always change it to an engrave. I only use bitmaps for photographs and 3D engraving with ‘vary power’, I keep all solid-color logowork or text as vectors.
But that’s not what I was thinking about when I asked about vectors/bitmaps.
I was thinking about the lines above the diamonds, and wondering if there were compression artifacts in a bitmap messing with you… and then got to wondering if maybe you had created the graphics at a much larger size and then re-sized them using the GFUI, and whether that was giving you some compression grief.
1 Like
I don’t think I did, but I’m happy to stop trying to help.
2 Likes
No good deed…
3 Likes
Meh… on review I can see how my first sentence could have come off as condescending. I didn’t mean it to be.
@Saburo may just need to expand appearance, since the GF doesn’t engrave stroke width. Several people have had that issue. I’d have to look at the file.
1 Like
I didn’t read it that way at all.
We are all at the disadvantage of trying to understand a concise thought by interpreting the meaning of words and their arrangement. It’s all open to interpretation.
“The single biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place.” - George Bernard Shaw
3 Likes
Was genuinely attempting to help, since you seemed less than pleased with those results. Don’t worry, that will not be an issue in the future.
Back to the topic - does anyone have any Cermark TAPE that they can run a test with? I’m curious to know if it’s the same quality, possibly easier/faster to clean and/or more economical per mark.
When you did the bees without cermark did you put tape over the metal or just the bare metal in the GF?
No tape.
1 Like
Were you using a pro or a basic. I read that the tape requires 45+ watt laser and I have the basic which is only 40watt
I have a Pro.
Was this all done without cermark or other product?
Huh. Why wouldn’t slowing a 40W (and with the GF increasing the LPI) work? That would create an effectively higher burn than a standard 40W laser pass.