I can't even find that :o
Printable View
I can't even find that :o
Sure, either way. We can tell the difference :D.Quote:
Originally Posted by Speculative Lasers - Dan
Also, really we'd rather people not sign up yet. Just wait until it is ready. We'll put a post on this forum and our other forum once we're ready...
Bill
Hey, in the youtube overview video from Pangolin, is that a new unreleased version of QuickShow? I downloaded the latest version just before and it seems to be missing a few things in the video like a few of the QuickFX etc ?
Interesting, the version I have here has QuickFX.
Then again, I had problems trying to get any version of QS to work on my FB3. (Even the version on Pangolin's website would not work)
It works perfectly, now, thankfully. :}
Remember Pangolin announcing Beam Brush? Where is it?
Btw... seems like Cambridge Technologies has something like that already.
http://camtech.com/products/DFM/dfm.html
Beam brush is out but only available to OEM manufacturers as I understand it due to the complexity of setting it up correctly.
As for the Cambridge link, I'm not sure its the same thing. From memory, the purpose of the beam brush is to increase the beam width by means of an oscillating mirror that spreads the beam and increases its width / divergence, a bit like shaking a torch from side to side but much faster and more accurately controlled. It appears that what Cambridge are talking about is a device that enables 3 Dimensional scanning in X, Y and Z planes.
I believe that's the same thing... If memory serves me right, during the presentation Bill referred to the beam size as the third dimension of control.
--DDL
Hehe. No, it's not the same thing :D although it serves a vaguely similar purpose...
This uses a scanner (which is clearly visible) coupled to a taught band, to move a lens along a track with roller bearings. There is friction involved, and this thing is really pretty slow.
Ours does not use bearings. It uses a complex flexure system (hehe, that's getting more complex all the time) and it is really very fast. Our system does not use a scanner (rotary motor) and instead uses a linear motor technique.
Ours is as fast as lightshow scanning, but Cambridges is much slower -- as far as I know it is not even as fast as typical industrial scanners which are much slower than light show scanners.
Bill
Sorry Bill, I did not mean to imply they are the same. I should have quoted what I was referring to in my previous post. I just do recall you referring to the focusing/blurring of the beam as the third dimension of control. Please correct me if I was wrong.
--DDL
But the primary question still was'nt answered yet:
Where / when available?
Bill commented on the availability of the Beam Brush device at SELEM 2010...
Basically, the problem is that Bill has hundreds of ideas, but there are only so many hours in the day. At the time of his presentation at SELEM (back in August of 2010), he had something like 13 *major* projects in the works.
Some of those projects included Quickshow 2.0 for the FB3, the Beyond 3D engine for the QM-2000, the Beam Brush device, the Pangolin Show Site, Quickshow for the QM-2000, an improved LivePro interface, a new design for a Pangolin-branded scanner set, and several others that I can't remember off the top of my head.
Bill also realized at the time that there was no way he could finish all those projects by the end of the year. In fact, he was beginning to understand that by trying to juggle so many different projects all at once, he was actually slowing himself down. So his plan was to pick *ONE* project and see it through to completion before he did anything else. And his choice was to work on Quickshow 2.0, which as most people know, is now available.
As for the Beam Brush device, it's been in development for several years, and it's gone through several revisions. It started out as something about as large as a coffee cup. Then it was shrunk to the size of a soda can. Now it's down to the size of a roll of quarters, and it's amazingly fast.
Bill said he's measured something like 70 newtons of force on the moving section of the device. It's so fast that it will end up having "size" information fed to it at roughly the same speed that point data is fed to the scanners and color data is fed to the lasers. Think about that for a minute...
So yeah, it's not available just yet, and it might be a while yet before it's released. But Bill is certainly still tweaking the design while he waits for the production arrangements to be worked out. When it does come out, I'm sure it will exceed everyone's expectations.
But in the mean time, we need to be patient. Pangolin is still a small company with just a handful of employees, so they can't do everything. (Much as we might want them to.) Personally, I think Bill is smart to focus on one thing at a time. After all, he still has a company to run...
Besides, if you had to pick something to be finished this year, I think a lot of people would choose Quickshow 2.0 over the beam brush device anyway. :)
Adam
So it's still an order of magnitude slower than the focus servo in a blu-ray sled, thenQuote:
Originally Posted by buffo
Don't forget the Show Site which is now up and running.Quote:
Originally Posted by buffo
So that's Steeeerike TWO !! *retardo
Huh?! :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by heroic
Do tell... *vigil
--DDL
you know what makes me giggle about the beam brush...
all this time and effort goes into making reds and blues nice and tight...
and yet we all want a device that undoes all that on the output lol
dunno, I guess I would have to "see it to appreciate it" but from description and concept I just dont really see the point?
but kudos for moving laser shows forward :)
Stop trolling, Jas. You know as well as anyone that the range of focus on a blu-ray sled is also an order of magnitude smaller. (Maybe two orders of magnitude smaller, even.)Quote:
Originally Posted by heroic
If you think it's such an easy problem to solve, then why aren't there any other commercial solutions out there right now for a beam brush device that can be installed in a projector? Surely at a price point of $750 to $1000 there is enough profit to be made for SOMEONE to have developed one by now, right?
I know you don't particularly care for Bill, but given that you never attended any of his presentations and know basically nothing about this device, it would seem beneath you to bash it so blatantly.
Adam
[popcorn] O_oQuote:
Originally Posted by buffo
--DDL
EDIT: Although, upon second look, the use of the word "servo" somewhat implies the use of mechanical force... I am fairly certain that under any circumstance the use of mechanical drives would be extremely cost prohibitive, size prohibitive, and likely impossible, to achieve the same result as a magnetic drive... such as galvo's for example...
can I have some popcorn too?? *retardoQuote:
Originally Posted by daedal
Now that Quickshow 2 is done I'm hoping they put their energy into the FB3 SDK. At SELEM Bill said he expected to be out by the end of the year.
:starving:
Mike
And QM2000 support in QS, glad there picking things off now one a time for efficiency.Quote:
Originally Posted by blowfly
Because nobody's software supports itQuote:
Originally Posted by buffo
Hehe. As far as I know not... For our patent application and to make a valid comparison, I measured the force out of a Bluray (and other disc player) actuators. I powered them with a 9 volt battery and measured the force output with our force gauge (in Newtons). With the 9 volt battery, there was so much current flowing through the wires, that it smoked -- so this is really far more current than would typically be seen. Nevertheless, at 9 volts I took this overestimate as gospel (which is of course conservative when comparing ones self with the competition). So I am pretty sure I know the maximum force capable from one of these devices. We also measured the moving mass as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by heroic
What we measured with the disk player heads was a peak force output of 0.2 Newtons and with a moving mass of 0.3 grams.
By comparison, the peak force attainable from our actuator is 77 Newtons (good memory Adam) and the moving mass is only 4 grams. This gives a peak linear acceleration of 19,250 meters per second squared!
So it seems that our device has nearly 300 times the linear acceleration capability of a typical disk player actuator.
Hehe. LD for Windows, released in 1992 supported Beam Brush. LD2000 does as well. Anyone can go do the "View/Beam diameter" menu to find it.Quote:
Originally Posted by heroic
We considered ourselved to be software developers, and if we only implemented the software to do it, someone would eventually make hardware to do it. Well, it turns out we were wrong... So it seems we must do it ourselves.
In fact we currently have three candidate devices on the drawing board. This project has turned out to be more difficult than even I expected. The reason why these things don't exist is because it's so difficult!
We have already accomplished an amazing feat in terms of the peak and RMS force from this actuator, and the moving mass. The suspension is the trickiest part, and there are yet other tricky parts too. Nevertheless we are making progress on this...
Bill
Pangolin supports it. In fact, I think it's been supported for over a decade. (And how much market share do they have again?) It is most certainly a product with a viable market.Quote:
Originally Posted by heroic
This is not a new idea. People have been talking about it for a *long* time. But this is a new implementation of the idea, and one that is much, much faster than anything that has been done before. The "cool" factor here is the speed and small size rather than just the overall concept.
Adam
one thing that I don't quite understand about the whole beam brush thing is where does it go?
after the scanners? before the scanners? if before how do you fit the expanded beam? if after how close can it be to the second scanner, how does it deal with wide scanning etc
From my understanding, the beam brush module would go in right before the scanners. I'd imagine the beam hitting the scanner mirrors would actually converge rather than expand to avoid having to use larger mirrors.Quote:
Originally Posted by flecom
hrmm, I suppose that would make sense... so this thing is not a beam expander really... it changes divergence on the fly?Quote:
Originally Posted by 300EVIL
...and-how! :D This should 'clear things up' - Bill, if I should not post these for some reason, lemme know, I'll take 'em down..:cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by flecom
Attachment 22653Attachment 22654...images courtesy-of and © 2009 Pangolin, Inc. All rights to spank you for stealing, reserved... :p
...Beam Brush is some seriously cool 'cookie dough'... Will look forward to when its' 'done baking'.. :)
cya
j
is the current version of the beam brush still based around bill's old patent?
http://www.wikipatents.com/US-Patent...sm-for-rapidly
I don't think so. It's based on a moving lens/voicecoil arrangement like the "eye" on a disk player. The moving lens is probably holographic to conserve on the moving mass... just a guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by swamidog
you don't need to wiggle a small lens very much if it's placed in the beam waist.
i'm kind of goofing around with a prototype of something right now, but when i get a few, i may slap some hardware together and see what happens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 300EVIL
Ah, but when your dealing with amazing response time, milligrams mean a lot.Quote:
Originally Posted by swamidog