Well, it seems that it doesn't run on W7 x64. I found out last week. It works on 32-bit Vista and W7 for me though.
I will release a new version soon. I'm downloading Visual Studio 2008 now (legally I should add :p).
Printable View
Well, it seems that it doesn't run on W7 x64. I found out last week. It works on 32-bit Vista and W7 for me though.
I will release a new version soon. I'm downloading Visual Studio 2008 now (legally I should add :p).
It doesn't seem to work for me on Vista or W7 32 or 64 bit :(Quote:
Originally Posted by tocket
Looking forward to the next revision of this fantastic tool :D
Thanx;
DDL
I had it running on Vista 64 bit but I couldn't get it working on W7 64 bit which was why I contacted Tocket. My research showed that there's a compatability problem between Matlab and W7 64 bit.
There should be no such problem on Vista 64 though as its a W7 problem.
An updated version is finished. Unfortunately, since I'm running W7 x64 with 64-bit MATLAB on this computer the new Chroma is 64-bit (and for no good reason).
The good news is that I've added a few new features. See the screenshot below and changelog for details.
Attachment 14420
Download link: http://blue.orgchem.kth.se/Chroma/distrib/x64/
Chroma v1.1 x64
This program will only run on 64-bit Windows!
Changelog:
Updated to MCR 7.11 - You need to install this version of MCR to run Chroma 1.1.
Added requested luminous power comparison.
Changed luminous flux to luminous power.
It is now possible to look at single wavelengths.
Minor GUI changes.
Command line interface has disappeared.
I just downloaded & installed Chroma (Win XP) for the first time...
WOW!
Awesome software, Tocket!
Thanks for sharing this with us!!
Interesting how clearly it shows the effectiveness of 640nm vs 660nm when it comes to "white balance" -
And how there's no way I'll be able to afford to balance my 400mw of 532.... $$$ :eek:
I do like that extra edge I get in beams, however..... :)
I should add that I haven't actually tested the new version on a computer that does not have matlab installed, so I would appreciate if you let me know that it works. Remember to remove the old and install the new MCR.
32-bit users should still be OK with the old version. The new will not work for you until I can compile it on a 32-bit system, which I currently have no way of doing.
What do you need to compile a 32 bit version? I've got both 32 and 64 bit versions of W7, and both with VS2008...Quote:
Originally Posted by tocket
--DDL
Thanks Tocket, working fine here although it is very slow to initialise still.
@ Stuka, the best 1W balance I've found is 600mw 640nm, 300mw 532nm, 250mw 473nm. Works out to be 1.15 Watts and balance is dead centre perfect. Only improvement would be a little more blue.
Yes, it is still slow to start and uses a lot of memory. That's the MCR... a bit like java. The only way to get rid of that is to port it to some other language. It might happen some day, but it's not a high priority.
Well, you also need MATLAB 32-bit.Quote:
Originally Posted by daedal
Yay! W7 64 with Chroma :D
Thank you *retardo
--DDL
how did you get it to work? I also have W7 64-bit, and I tried all packages on the ftp, and it doesn't work
I recall having a problem with one thing... needing to move the file. I don't recall having any issues with the installation. Can you elaborate on the error you are getting?Quote:
Originally Posted by bryce007
--DDL
EDIT: I should probably mention that I moved it into a folder in 'Documents' that I created. ;)
Ooops, I didn't have it in the same folder as the MCR. My bad!
Is your web down as its refusing to serve me - connection problems dialogue.
Yes, the web server really is down. Making some changes to the computers at work (just got a Core i7 980X). I will have a (much slower) mirror up later today.
Here's the mirror:
http://tocket.mine.nu/Chroma/
Only 10Mbit unfortunately.
Side note for everyone, can provide b/w to people for free projects if needs be.
Hi guys. I installed and updated a fresh legit copy of Win7 Pro 64-bit, installed .NET, the latest graphics card drivers, Matlab 7.11, changed the PATH and still when I click the Chroma x64 app the computer heistates as if it's about to launch and then... nothing. It doesn't launch, create any files or give an error message. It acts as if I never clicked on anything at all - nothing additional appears in the task manager during this process. I have tried installation in a different order many times, read and re-read this topic and Chroma readme with no luck. Matlab is installed in the proper location as described in the readme, too. Do any of you Windows 7 gurus know what might be the problem? Thanks in advance :)
It takes a long time to launch, typically around 30 seconds or so.
Maybe you're just not waiting long enough before cancelling the threads from task manager. If not then I'm not sure. I have it on Windows 7 64 bit and it runs fine on mine.
Thanks for your reply. It's really strange because I have the task manager open and never force close anything - when "launching" chroma nothing appears in the task manager at all. I've let it sit there overnight and still nothing. I'll get the "working" mouse pointer icon for a few seconds after double clicking chroma but that's it.
I bought and installed Windows7 on a new hard drive just for Chroma so I'm not giving up :)
I'll post exactly what I have and maybe someone will see something I've missed:
1. Install Win7 Pro 64bit
2. Install MATLAB 7.11 - resides in directory C:\Program Files\MATLAB\MATLAB Compiler runtime\v711
3. Add entry into the USER environment table as the variable "PATH" pointing to C:\Program Files\MATLAB\MATLAB Compiler Runtime\v711\runtime\win64
4. Place Chroma folder in Program Files.
5. Double Click Chroma
Anyone see anything wrong with this? Are there any special software updates or hardware requirements for Chroma with Matlab 7.11?
Thanks!
Ron
You probably need to install microsoft visual c++ 2005 sp1 redistributable (x64)
That did the trick for me.
Check the event viewer. I bet it's complaining about VC80.MFC being missing every time you try to run chroma.
I found this tool which lets you compile your MATLAB code as libraries or standalone executables so it can be used without needing to install 250MB of libraries.
http://www.mathworks.com/programs/te...ler_ipspot_kit
It would be really helpful if you could compile your code using this tool to minimize the install size. Thanks for making an awesome application!
If wavelenghts can be calculated from RGB colors and intensity I was wondering whether this can be used to calculate the originally contributing wavelenghts and to construct electronic bandpass filters by eliminating any wavelengtht below and above a certain threshhold.
Any other solution to apply a bandpass filter after a CCD camera would be welcome. The intended use is surgery.
Not really, a ccd has broad sensing filters, you need to either cycle the lightsource through a monochromator, filter wheels, or other means such as multiple leds or dichroic filters.
Tunable filter before the camera or after a light source:
Acousto Optic Tunable Filter. (AOTF)
Neos Technologies, Intra-Action Brimrose AA Technologies make them
Known to us laser show folks as a Polychromatic Acousto-Optic Modulator.
If you need more then one spectral band, start with Neos, A Gouch and Housego company
And yes, you can image with them, and yes, they work very well with incoherent light
If you want to do color processing other then that, Try Image-J software for some free source code.
Steve
links dead
any mirrors ?
mirrors would be nice yes
I don't think Tocket has been on here in over a year.
Most probably because he took the time to produce a useful utility and then got constantly flamed for it.
oh really, I thought it was useful.
well if someone can get me the files I can host it.
I think its useful. It gives a guide to colour and also allows you to predict luminosity.
Perhaps you should try Tockets PM details. If he has email notification activated he should get an email when you send a pm.
Tocket was never flamed; the only people who did get a slap on the face were the likes of yourself who misinterpreted and misused the data it generated, often informing people they should use some insane colour concoctions who came looking to spend their hard earned cash. Your reccomendations, often akin to horoscope predictions, had zero real world grounding, and I felt it out of order for anyone to attach any credence to them.Quote:
Originally Posted by White-Light
That Sir, is why you were "flamed".
Erik's Matlab code was actually very good.
There was nothing at wrong with my recommendations. Dan, you made it perfectly clear you preferred real world testing to prediction software and then attacked threads where Chroma was used as the basis for a recommendation. Whereas I can't argue with real world experience as being the best way, Chroma was a perfectly good tool for prediction and there were no insane colour concoctions as you put it. In fact I believe Chroma predicted 1:1:1 for 532:640/637:445, and what is the golden mix for those - 1:1:1! http://www.photonlexicon.com/forums/...ghlight=Chroma post #18
From my memory, you also constantly spammed every Chroma thread with the fact that it was poo.
I've yet to see any evidence that predictions generated by Chroma are in any way inaccurate. In fact the white balance provided by the inner triangle, of which I was the only person to point its existence out, seemed highly accurate. The white balance also accords perfectly well with what I see on the Kvant so before you start making wild accusations of insane colour concoctions, read back through the threads and get your facts right! It seems you have a selective memory!
I think you will like my references. I shall let you discuss your points now with yourself:
Quote below from: linkQuote:
Originally Posted by White-Light
Quote:
Originally Posted by White-Light
------------------------------------------------
Quote below from: linkQuote:
Originally Posted by White-Light
Quote:
Originally Posted by White-Light
------------------------------------------------
Quote below from: linkQuote:
Originally Posted by White-Light
Quote:
Originally Posted by White-Light
------------------------------------------------
Quote below from: linkQuote:
Originally Posted by White-Light
So, let me get this straight, you are saying hit any of the white bit in the CIE chart, and this produces a type of white?Quote:
Originally Posted by White-Light
Wow; this is a groundbreaking revelation. It was a good job I was sitting down.
------------------------------------------------
Because they always get it right...Quote:
Originally Posted by White-Light
http://www.synchrovision.co.uk/produ...canners-30kpps
and
http://danielbriggs.co.uk/laser/imag...sa2010sale.jpg
I stand by everything I said.
The perceived luminosity of 445nm is less than 532nm watt for watt, that's a proven medical fact as the eye has a greater response to the green wavelength.
Dark blue pulls down the lighter colours in mixes, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to work that out. Try with some paint at home, put 1 blob of white with 1 blob of light blue then do the same with 1 blob of white and 1 blob of dark blue and tell me the result with the dark blue isn't darker.
The feint white triangle rather than the spot in the centre of chroma was something I brought to everyone's attention as previously everyone (including myself) had concentrated on the very small white spot in the centre.
Although Kvant are fantastic projectors, Kvant traditionally have had a bias towards blue, even my 2.1W Kvant is slightly blue heavy and that's with only 1W blue and 680mw 637 & 500mw 532. If you're seriously suggesting that 4w 455nm can balance with only 600mw 640nm and 500mw 532nm to produce a perfect neutral white then I suggest you're dreaming.
http://www.australianclimatemadness....horse_what.jpg
Additive and subtractive colour issues aside for one moment:Quote:
Originally Posted by White-Light
Then you are a fool.Quote:
Originally Posted by White-Light
Really?Quote:
Originally Posted by White-Light
Discuss.Quote:
Originally Posted by White-Light
nice use of a pot and a kettleQuote:
Originally Posted by White-Light
Rob
Entirely.Quote:
Originally Posted by stanwax
1. Whereas I respect both yours and Dan's experience, you can't argue with the laws of physics and medicine and they clearly state that the eye is more sensitive to green than blue.
In fact Dan states he respects Tocket's Chroma, so just putting aside any past comments, and running some figures, chroma States:
1 Watt 445 Blue: Luminosity 28.9531 lumens
1 Watt 532 Green: Luminosity 604.3433 lumens
Feel free to run the figures yourself.
It also predicts the golden mix of 1:1:1 with 445 and 640nm.
However, I concede that whilst with 445nm there is phenomena that occurs when its a pencil beam in that it appears to glow white not blue at its core and thus appears much brighter than expected, when you fan 445nm out into a wide fan side by side with a fan of 532 of the same power, the 445 is not as bright (luminous).
So I see nothing wrong with the statement that 445nm blue is not as bright as 532 and all the established scientific evidence, physical, medical, mathematical and visual backs that up.
2. As for colours, irrespective of whether its additive or subtractive if you take away or add dark blue to any light colour, then dark blue will have a larger influence on the colour of the mix produced than if you took away or added light blue.
3. Specifically for yellow, its harder to explain other than to say 100% pure yellow is just red and green. However, lasers produce many millions of shades of many colours and so unless a yellow is 100% pure, it will contain an element of blue if only in a small quantity. Again dark blue will have more of an influence than light blue on the luminosity of a mix which is why I say that lighter colour mixes appear darker in a projector with 445nm in it when compared to one with 473nm in it. I'm also not the only person to have observed this. I believe some while ago Buffo said he had observed the same thing as did several others.
This ratio might be accurate under photopic vision but is not at all true under scotopic vision.Quote:
Originally Posted by White-Light
You're full of shit, and adding more significant figures does not make you any less full of shit.
Al Al Al, sit down and have a listen, and no butting in. Hear me out.
err no thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by White-Light
Yes you can.Quote:
Originally Posted by White-Light
And being the kind person you are you have very thoughtfully pre-empted my line of thought and provided an example to make this an easy point to prove.
We all know this is impossible. How can a blue beam from a [practically] single wavelength source appear to us to be white. Please demonstrate with that confounded program the groundbreaking revelation that a blue laser on its own makes white light. It cant. It cant because where it (the c program) falls down is that it only uses the physical and medical facts and omits one very important variable. That variable, which I suspect is as good as un-quantifiable, is the marvelous ability of the human brain to play tricks on us. So rather than actually being white we just perceive it that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by White-Light
The fact is that within reason, you can pretty much stick any mix of red green and blue in the projector and without any other external reference, such as a perfectly balanced projector displaying white, we will swear blind that it can make white. Now I know what ya gonna say, you want to point out the faint http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faint?s=t (as opposed to feint http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/feint?s=t) triangle that allows a range of mixes around that 'golden' centre area. Well I would bet all my lasers that the triangle does not reach out far enough. The reason, the un-quantifiable human brain variable.
A practical example of this, may be demonstrated by my own blue green projectors. 1W each of 445 and 532nm meaning that there would be a very well defined range of colours available based on these wavelengths. With both lasers on full, the colour they produce is cyan. That’s a physical and medical fact. However with certain colour effects the brain interprets the contrasting shades and tells you that the cyan you can physically and medically prove is cyan, appears to be white. Choma please show how this is possible. Its a rhetorical question because I know you cant. With you amazing ability to show relative luminosity and blends of colours based on power and wavelength you can’t!
Not convinced?
Another example then.
Same projector and a colour effect that I think you are gonna like as its cyan (100% green and blue) at the edges and green (100% green) in the middle. Stand in a not that dark environment and observe. You would swear its white at the tips and yellow in the middle. Yes yellow! It cant be! That’s impossible I hear you cry. Yes its impossible but it happens to be true, a fact of life not physics or medicine. Once again I ask the same question, demonstrate this in that program (cant bring myself to say its name again - was tough enough the first time!). And here’s another thing, you may see this yellow as more or less yellow than I do. Luminosity cant explain that.
And that’s the point, we can never say what different brains, no matter how few synapses may be online, will tell the individual what they are seeing.
This is why I have never had a desire or inclination to download or use software to tell me what I should be seeing as my brain will override this data in any case.
Therefore I conclude that for real life practical examples, no matter how many times you shout about it, no matter how proven the physical and medical facts are or how well written the software may be, without taking into account the impossible brain variable, the output of this software has no practical value. I prefer to use my knowledge and experience to spec real world projectors without referring to the nonsense from this program.
So now I respectfully ask you to move away from the flogged to death high horse until you have knowledge and or experience to back up the garbage you pedal.
Oh one more thing – I will go and get me some paint – but not to do your test, rather to apply it to a surface so I can watch it dry.
Rob
Well at least someone has said something that actually presents a reasoned argument!Quote:
Originally Posted by j4cbo
The eyes sensitivity to blue varies according to the ambient lighting and there's no argument from me there. But did I ever specify that I was putting forwards the above luminosity figures based on total darkness?
No because from the figures chroma produces I imagine chroma works in the photopic when making luminosity predictions looking at those values and in the scotopic when making colour predictions, although you'd have to ask Tocket for confirmation on that one, so it may well be those luminosity figures would be much closer under scotopic loading which is why when chroma makes colour predictions it recommends close to 1:1:1 with 445 and 640 in the mix even though on luminosity values they are a world apart. At the end of the day , its like any tool, it depends on how you use it. My recommendations were made on white balance prediction not luminosity.
..and btw just to be absolutely clear my understanding is scotopic vision only occurs in almost absolute darkness, that is when the ambient light is below 0.034 lm/m²/0.034 cd/m2 equivalent to a night time with no moon.
Even then the peak sensitivity is 507nm / 508nm which is still slightly closer to 532 than 445.
It's far more likely that in many nightclubs vision would be mesopic depending on the ambient light levels. Some I've been to are probably even photopic where LED dance floors or large numbers of other fixtures are in use at the same time eg moving heads or where there's eg bright bar lighting just off the dance floor. Many others are going to be mesopic.
There's absolutely no need to be an arse hole especially when you quote scotopic as the definitive reason when in many situations your assertion is incorrect as with ambient lighting it's more likely mesopic.Quote:
Originally Posted by j4cbo
@ Rob, I'm quite well aware that its impossible for blue to turn white so again no argument from me that this phenomena is probably down to the brains interpretation of the level of saturation of blue you see in the pencil beam. I am actually well aware that you can produce an apparent white from just two colours and yes again the brains interpretation of this is probably the only explanation.
As for chroma, its only a prediction tool and no-one ever said it was perfect. However its a lot better than taking a wild guess at the required amounts of each wavelength required to make a balanced white projector especially for the novice builder as its far cheaper than trial and error. To that end it does appear to correctly predict white balances with some degree of accuracy which is why I've always given Tocket credit for his utility.
Argghhh... and we go round again...! O_oQuote:
Originally Posted by White-Light
Before this thread goes any further into the chasms of hilarity/stupidity/pejoratives/groundbreaking-colour-theory (delete as appropriate);
let's wheel out the horse again for light relief:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YivhhrYmRY&feature=fvst
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YivhhrYmRY&feature=fvst
So the chroma hate continues despite the fact that it predicts a ball park white that can be fined tuned by small software adjustments rather than making expensive guesses when new wavelengths come along or when the novice is self building, and yet Briggs wonders why Tocket apparently left.Quote:
Originally Posted by danielbriggs
Again personal attacks just proves the point in #91 above once more.Quote:
Originally Posted by stanwax
You don't believe in Chroma yet you can't challenge the fact that for white balance it comes out with ball park ratios that are what you recommend anyway.
As RGB Laser Systems have a good reputation for white balance, lets put their projectors through chroma and see if we get any of the "wild colour concoctions" that Chroma recommends as stated by Mr. Briggs because if it comes up with the wild colour predictions that I have allegedly recommended to others, then with sensible power values the predicted white should be way out:
Compact RGB4
2W 638
1W 532
1W 450
http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/2379/rgbcompact4.jpg
Looks pretty much like a slightly warm (red sided) white to me.
Compact RGB6
2W 638
2W 532
2W 450
http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/8849/rgbcompact6.jpg
The golden 1:1:1 ratio it's a slightly cool sided white, exactly what most people see from this ratio.
Compact RGB8
4W 638
2W 532
2W 450
http://img845.imageshack.us/img845/5510/rgbcompact8.jpg
Surprise, surprise, a slightly warm (red sided) white again and exactly what you'd expect to see once more from an accurate prediction.
I could do this all day through every projector they make and the white balance prediction in chroma would be ball park accurate.
i don't have chroma installed (couldn't get it to work with Win7 64-bit :( ) but i'd like to know what would be the mix of
300mW 532
300mW 640
1W 445
in kvant. By the eye it seems blueish/purplish white, it's blue overkill after all, what would chroma say?
I don't have the zip file to redistribute and I'm not sure where it installs plus you need Matlab which is like 1/2GB, so I can't give you the programme although I would be quite willing to do so if I did have it in a distributable form. (I'll have another scout around later).
However, I'm happy to run the figures and chroma says exactly what you're reporting seeing and its still within the white triangle:
http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/1990/58722466.jpg
BTW I'm on Win7 64 bit.
I like the bit at 1.18 in,Quote:
Originally Posted by stanwax
Spoken to Erik today, you can download Chroma here:
http://blue.orgchem.kth.se/Chroma/distrib/
We all need update so the app will at least start...
It starts for me although I appreciate that's no comfort for you.
I've pm'ed you Tocket's contact details so that you can get in touch and hopefully find a solution.
Hope that helps.
So I've been using Chroma to evaluate various projectors I've seen, but can I just confirm something..
So I came up with Red 640nm/200mW, Green 532nm/100mW, Blue 637nm/200mW as an example of a good ratio (the circle's pretty near the middle) - I take it that means 100% power on each module will give (a predicted/YMMV etc) near-as-dammit white. (?)
Attachment 33299
However, due to the visibility function of each individual component colour being different, am I right in thinking that if you have only the 100mW green module on at 100% power (to display your 'greenest green'), it'll appear brighter than the red on its own at full power, which in turn will be appear brighter than the blue at full power? (from a visibility function chart I found: .862*100 > .175*200 > .11*200)
If so, isn't it reasonable (as an alternative strategy for choosing power ratios, and only in the case of analogue modulated projectors) to optimise for equal visibility of each colour in isolation, given that you can always achieve your perfect white in software?
So in this alternative scheme of choosing modules, 100% blue, 100% red, 100% green each in isolation will look equally bright, but producing white will require some unequal ratio of the three.
I say it's only an alternative strategy, no better or worse necessarily, as you can obviously compensate for this in the reverse way, i.e. (to achieve an image of uniform brightness) in software, don't drive your green to 100% to produce 'greenest green'; only ever drive it to the perceived (i.e. visibility-function-compensated-at-full-power) brightness of your perceived-dimmest module (the 640nm red in this case), same for the blue.
Of course this doesn't apply to TTL projectors, in that case if I understand correctly you get all-or-nothing of each colour in any combination. So to get a nice white, you'll have to trim one or more of your modules back to less than full power (in the case of analogue modulated modules driven by a TTL board). And of course the modules remain trimmed back when a given colour is used in isolation, so therefore you'll've have 'wasted' money on power you don't need in that particular module (assuming of course you care about making a nice white).
Or am I just getting it all wrong :) I'm new here :)