ILDA Format

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by absolom7691

When an image is projected on a screen, that's what matters. I don't give a rat's ass about where optomized lines are in the file.

---

Then you would be mistaken. Those "optimized lines" (or the lack thereof) are *very* important. And yeah, it's another one of the things that Pangolin's hardware does for you behind the scenes. Without it, scanners can (and *will*) fail.

We saw an impressive demonstration of this at the Pangolin user's meeting on the ILDA cruise. Dirk Bauer of Medialas had one of his Infinity series RGB projectors set up in the room. These projectors have built-in scanner protection circuitry, so that if your controller sends an image that could harm the scanners, it will kick in and "excercise" the scanners in such a manner that the bearings will not fail.

We had the projector connected to a QM-2000 and were displaying a frame that consisted of just 4 white points. The 4 points appeared rather dim, considering this was a 3 watt RGB projector. Bill explained that the drop in brightness was due to the fact that the laser was off while the scanners were moving from point to point. I objected to this explanation, since surely the scanners were moving quite fast, and the distance between the points seemed rather small...

That's when Bill and Dirk both started talking about Cambridge scanners failing back in the late 1990's when displaying low-point-count frames consisting largely of a few static beams. Dirk's solution was the integrated electronics in his projector, while Bill's solution involved some changes to the QM-2000's operation. To demonstrate this, Bill dug deep into the menus in Showtime, and found the setting to turn off the scanner-protection feature that Pangolin has.

Bam! Instantly the points appeared brighter! But within a few seconds, they started to smear out into shallow lines, and they got dimmer again... Dirk explained that his scanner protection circuit in the projector was kicking in to save the scanners.

Now, I had never heard of this feature before, and I've been using Pangolin for over 18 months. For that matter, there were several professionals in the room (all long-time Pangolin users - some of whom owned several boards), and only one of them knew anything about this feature!

This gets back to my earlier point about passing judgment from a position of ignorance. *I* was ignorant of all that went into the QM-2000 back when I argued that it was over-priced several years ago. And even now, as a Pangolin user, I'm still learning about what it can do. (Just as the folks on the ILDA cruise were.)

So before you make the same assumption that I did, you might want to see what all the Pangolin users are going on and on (and on!) about. Because there really is more to laser show software than just parsing an ILDA file and sending the points to your scanners.

Quote:

---

Anyone who pays top dollar for the sake of paying top dollar is a moron.

---

I completely agree with this. If two things are exactly the same, but one costs more, then there is no reason not to buy the cheaper one. The problem is that sometimes the cheaper one is cheaper for a reason.

You mentioned CZ versus diamond. For *most* jewelry applications, I agree that a CZ would appear to offer few drawbacks over a diamond. However, diamond has a higher refractive index, much greater thermal conductivity (CZ is effectively an insulator, whereas diamond conducts heat better than copper), and it is also harder than CZ.

Of those three items, at least two of them (hardness and refractive index) play some role in the stone's suitability for jewelry, and as a result, a trained eye can spot a CZ fake. Is that relevant for you and I, or for most jewelry consumers? Maybe, maybe not...

But when you start talking about other uses for diamonds (industrial use, for example), all three differences become significant, and CZ quickly becomes completely inadequate. So saying that CZ is just as good as diamond only holds true for the specialized case of jewelry for the masses that won't notice the differences between it and real diamond...

The same principles apply to other products (like laser show software!) as well.

Finally, you mentioned that we should "Keep an open mind everyone"... I would like to add that your statement cuts both ways. While people *do* need to be receptive to new ideas, they also need to be receptive to the idea that they *don't* have all the facts they need to make an accurate comparison. In fact, a lot of the purchases we make are based on incomplete information. Sometimes that's not a big deal (choosing a brand of toilet paper, for example), but sometimes it matters a lot (buying a house!).

Laser show software and controllers are a significant investment for most hobbyists. And I can say that if I knew what I know now back when I got started in this hobby, I would have *jumped* on Pangolin and never looked back. (Instead, I started with the Alphalite, moved up to Mamba 2004, then Mamba Black, then considered Full-Auto for a while, before finally trying Pangolin.) I wasted a lot of time and a lot of money in the process.

Adam

What the hell does any of this have to do with chicken wings? :D

James. :)

Mmmm... chicken wings! (droool....)

Huh? what? Oh, yeah... Format 3. Right! ;)

Seriously though, my original post was in answer to Bill's comment. Then I expanded on it because Brian raised more points that were relevant.

Er.. Or something... yeah. Um...

(points to Soforene) It's his fault! His avatar distracted me! >:)

Adam

I'm not picking on you.

I was just pondering the general trend.

James. :)

...And Soforene shouldn't change his avatar. I like his new one :D!

Adam, I was just simply saying that across a room, on a woman's neck, even a trained eye couldn't see a difference between CZ and diamond. Obviously weight, heat conductance and whatnot all play a role. As far as lasershow software/hardware... many people on here are using audio DACs with various software. I am using G-120s and haven't killed them... yet>:). I find James's software to be great and would dare to compare its performance to high dollar software. Like I said, I look at it like this... I could spend a TON of money on a Conrad Johnson, Krell, or Mark Levinson amp for my home audio. Or I could spend a lot less for a Carver that even trained audio critics couldn't isolate. I would be interested to see a side by side comparison with Pango hardware and homemade hardware on a screen. I wonder if PL'ers here could tell the difference. Probably not. Maybe those who know what to look for technically.

Also, when I said open mind, I meant it this way: Pangolin is great stuff, no doubts. It can do a lot of things, but so can LaserBoy. For development of our tight-knit community, I think it is irresponsible for us to inadvertantly discourage free thinkers out there by calling their hard work "shite". Bill is one such free thinker too. What if GSI or CTI said his turbotrack was terrible and the public believed it. We would be short one hell of an amp. That is all.

I have no enemies here and don't want to make any. Constructive criticism is a very good thing, but I'd be willing to bet that half of the people who slam LaserBoy have never even looked at it. Maybe they don't want/need to, and that is fine, but James has provided a lot for those who have limited means to enjoy a part of this. I, myself, could buy Pango stuff. I recently sent a PM to Bill for pricing but I just choose to find a more cost effective way of making art. I think some of us lose track of that. Oh well, my soapbox is tired, I am done.

Sorry james, we hi-jacked it!:p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by absolom7691

...And Soforene shouldn't change his avatar. I like his new one :D!

---

I completely agree! :D>:)

Quote:

---

I would be interested to see a side by side comparison with Pango hardware and homemade hardware on a screen.

---

This is exactly why so many people have championed the idea of the "Laser Enthusiast's Meeting". It gives you that chance to see all sorts of hardware running side-by-side. You can play with it, ask questions, make comparisons, and learn a lot about the differences between them.

Quote:

---

I wonder if PL'ers here could tell the difference. Probably not.

---

In fact, the difference is easy to spot. See both of my posts above. (Or any of the others over the past few years were members have commented about how impressed they were after seeing Pangolin with their own eyes.)

This is what Bill has been driving at when he says, "The proof of the pudding is in the eating." Sure, it sounds like a trite, pat saying. But the truth is that unless you've seen it, you really don't know what you're missing.

Quote:

---

Pangolin is great stuff, no doubts. It can do a lot of things, but so can LaserBoy. For development of our tight-knit community, I think it is irresponsible for us to inadvertantly discourage free thinkers out there by calling their hard work "shite".

---

I don't think Bill or I ever called it that. I do believe that what James is doing is valuable to the community, and I know that Bill agrees with that sentiment as well.

But when people start saying that it's just as good as Pangolin, they're completely, utterly, wrong. I remember Carmangary once wrote that he was going to write his own software that was going to be *better* than Pangolin... I was shocked at the arrogance, until I realized that he had never seen Pangolin, and so he had no idea what he was aiming for.

It gets back to my point about arguing from a position of ignorance. If you don't know what's out there (or what's important), then what you have is all you know. For example, there once was I time when I was *deeply* dissatisfied with my Alphalite. I checked out Mamba Black, and at the time I thought it would solve *all* my problems. I thought it was all I'd ever need or want. This lead to some of my rather arrogant (and completely wrong) statements about Pangolin back in early 2006...

Quote:

---

Bill is one such free thinker too. What if GSI or CTI said his turbotrack was terrible and the public believed it. We would be short one hell of an amp. That is all.

---

The difference is that Bill came up with his design first, and tested it against the other commercial amps to *prove* that it was better *BEFORE* he started marketing it. Even now though, do you hear Bill crowing about how great his design was? No. You hear other people talking about it, because they suffered with the lousy amps before they got their hands on the TurboTrack, so they *know* how much better it is...

Quote:

---

I have no enemies here and don't want to make any.

---

Dude - this is a lively debate, nothing more. I don't consider you an enemy by any stretch. For that matter, I don't consider James an enemy either. (Can we get a group hug here?)

My posts are simply my effort to share the mistakes I made early on that cost me a lot (both in terms of time and money) because I didn't know what I was talking about.

Quote:

---

Constructive criticism is a very good thing, but I'd be willing to bet that half of the people who slam LaserBoy have never even looked at it.

---

I suspect that a number of people haven't looked at it for very long, but I believe everyone that has a stong opinion about Laserboy in this thread has at least run the software. Unfortunately, some people are really turned off by the interface, and thus they never get very deep into the program.

Quote:

---

James has provided a lot for those who have limited means to enjoy a part of this.

---

I agree completely. The combination of a sound card DAC (with a correction amp) and some free software is about the cheapest way you can get into lasers. And for some people, it's the *only* way, because of financial constraints. So I'm glad that the option exists, and I hope it continues to exist.

But just as I recognize that it *is* a cost effective solution, I also know that it's *not* an optimal one, and that long-term, there are serious drawbacks that will need to be dealt with. A lot of people think that "good enough" will always be good enough. That's not the case.

Adam

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buffo

I remember Carmangary once wrote that he was going to write his own software that was going to be *better* than Pangolin... I was shocked at the arrogance, until I realized that he had never seen Pangolin, and so he had no idea what he was aiming for.

---

Dude, again you are spreading BS about me. I didn not say Pangolin and was not even talking about them. I was refering to some of the other software like Popelscan and some of the cheaper pro stuff. Maybe you should read all the posts before writing.

Hi Gary!

Wecome back! :D

James. :)

Wooooo! Gary's back!:)