Scanner endurance.

Some time has passed... I guess people now have some idea about which scanners last longest. Please let me know what you think. I'm assuming that a good scanner, not pushed too hard, as with most things, is the way to go for long life. I'm not after intense performance, but accuracy is vital, scan angle need not be wide, but it must be able to draw fine detail unattended for a very long time. Being capable of passive cooling is important, systems relying on forced air don't usually live long. Basically I want it to run like the energiser bunny so I can leave it that way while I program for hours on other stuff, absent-mindedly enjoying the view.

So what do you think? I want the name of the scanners you would trust to the ends of the Earth, rather than those more immediately impressive...

I'll take a stab at this and say that I think you will find the general consensus of most people to be:

1. Cambridge Technologies 6215's
2. Eye Magic EMS4000's
3. Dragon Tiger 40 Pros

That's basically the order in terms of price, performance, reliability, preference etc.
Personally I am a big fan of DT40wides and they're my favorite scanners although, "trust to the ends of the Earth" would probably need to be the Cambridge.
Yes there are other brands, models that people may prefer and it may also depend on application and what you are doing with them. General Scanning probably has some fans too.

Cambridge.


It really depends on how big of mirrors you are using. I have 6810's with 1/2 inch mirrors that have been batting photons for well over 10,000 hours at 12K. I have actually only killed one 6800hp out of at least 100, and that was from a dab of superglue that ran onto the shaft when I was trying to fix a broken mirror at a show.

I only have 1 set of chinese scanners out of at least a dozen that have lasted for any amount of time, and i only have about 400 hours on them and they just recently started to act jittery.

If you want reliability, long life, and ease of operation, CAMBRIDGE. If it's going to be for programing, i would go with a pair of 6800hp's and the DTR Diode bundle. That would be easy on the eyes, last forever, and be really small. Want me to build you one? lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slicklasers

...I have 6810's with 1/2 inch mirrors that have been batting photons for well over 10,000 hours at 12K.

---

My Cambridge 6240's are still going strong after 10+ years. If you can afford it, or save for a bit, get Cambridge scanners and be done with it.

Doc!! How the hell ya been? You haven't posted here in like .. forever. Thought you must have given up lasers or something bizarre .. but I see ... NAHHHH !!!!
Don't be a stranger .. :)
As far as the question; from the reviews through the years, Cambridge Technology has the highest quality scanners that will probably last a lifetime (and the price-tag definitely reflects it - no pun intended lol )

We've been using 3 sets of Chinese Scanpro 20s for beam shows for over 5 years. Thousands of hours each, not a single problem. Unfortunately I can't seem to find them for sale anymore... We have 2 sets of 30k "PT" scanners that have been going along their merry way for 4 years, also with many hours on them. Not a single issue, in fact they look a touch better than the Scanpros in terms of tuning. Knock on wood we haven't had any major issues with any of the Chinese stuff we've been using all this time, and it seems like the quality is improving steadily. I can only speak for what we use, though, so I'm not saying that all inexpensive Chinese units are reliable. We've had very good experiences with our scan sets resulting in many successful shows, but we don't do much graphics work. Graphics do look very good on all of our projectors though, with negligible over/undershoot, tails, or other anomalies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bradfo69

1. Cambridge Technologies 6215's

---

what he said, 6215's rock :)

I have had nothing but trouble with Asian scanners over long periods of time. My use pattern is very mild but critical for quality. I now use only Cambridge and Eye Magic.

Steve

I have JM raytrack 35K's in my 2 main projectors and so far so good - came very well tuned and i particularly like the single driver board that saves a lot of space.

I always wanted Cambridge scanners ever since a girl called Helen wrote back to me several years ago with a quote for 6800HP, a mount, and some drivers. I bought a Yamaha SY99 instead. As I have spent the last many months doing what I love best, working with phase modulation synthesis (and C and Win32 API, having decided I would go all the way), I have rested my eyes from lasers and know that any deterioration in sight is due to causes other than lasers. I also have enough money stowed to aim for the best scanners I can get, or at least make a start...

I'm after 6215 scanners, and if anyone can make me an offer I can't refuse (by PM or openly), I'll go for it if I can afford it. This is just the scanners for now, I'll have to buy mount and drivers later, as I think there may be more to choosing drivers than I can take on right now.

As far as I know, the scanners themselves are prepared for a particular combination of speed, optical angle, and aperture, purely based on choice of mirrors, then the driver boards and scanners are 'tuned' together to get best results for PID control. I also imagine that notion stands some need of correction so please have at it if you know how.

I want the scanners new, but the mount and driver boards can be used. I may not have enough so I'll try not to waste anyone's time, but having decided to do this while I stand a chance of success, now is a good time to try. I have a small scanner table I built, with Widemoves, that I may sell to raise money to speed this up. Steve (Roberts) had some kind words to say about that when he saw the pics last time, saying it was 'varianceable', given a change to an opaque top. It's smaller than most, as stocky as a Staffordshire bull terrier, but as lasers shrink that is likely a Good Thing for many people these days. It's shock-mounted and the scanners are in a dust-proof chamber behind a wide and very tough window, and the whole thing is extremely solidly built, compact, etc... I have no idea how much I can get for it, but I can find pictures and other files related to its design for anyone serious about taking it on. Widemoves are great for intended purpose, but I find that a long-throw accurate scan for very small angles is what I want now, so building a new platform makes better sense than modifying this one, and if I can trade it for accelerated build of a new system, I will.

Lastly, hello Steve-o. I'm glad I came back. I tried many post attempts to try to say why I left, why I returned, etc, and binned each attempt. It would take too long. All I can say is that my first love (phase modulation synthesis, now extended to coding my own synthesiser) is not thwarted so I have no reason to feel thwarted about any failure of plans in my second, so I'm back to see if I can make the most of that too.

Just caught up with this thread... I'll second what Steve-O said. Welcome back :)

There's some new Pangolin scanners on the horizon. These have been a fair while in development but are supposed to be extremely good, and reputedly equal if not better than the CT6215's. Might be worth dropping an email to contact@pangolin.com for some information before you finalise your decision.

Cheers

Jem

the difference between 6215 and Mystery scanners is that first mentioned are already tested by time :)

the difference between the 6215 and the mystery scanners is one is vaporware and one is not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dzodzo

the difference between 6215 and Mystery scanners is that first mentioned are already tested by time :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by swamidog

the difference between the 6215 and the mystery scanners is one is vaporware and one is not.

---

The Pangolin scanners are not vapour ware. Attend any trade show and you can see them working in person.

I understand the reason why they've only been supplied to OEM manufacturers atm on a very small scale is because Pangolin haven't yet had time to develop their own drivers. However, the scanners are very much working and will work off Cambridge Drivers, albeit not at their full performance. The issue with a general release as I understand it is the lack of their own dedicated blocks and drivers something which will be along in time.

as far as i'm concerned until a product is actually released and available for purchase, it's vaporware. no matter how many trade shows, no matter how many posts, no matter how many advertisements.

this applies to all vendors. i'm not picking on pangolin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by White-Light

The Pangolin scanners are not vapour ware. Attend any trade show and you can see them working in person.

I understand the reason why they've only been supplied to OEM manufacturers atm on a very small scale is because Pangolin haven't yet had time to develop their own drivers. However, the scanners are very much working and will work off Cambridge Drivers, albeit not at their full performance. The issue with a general release as I understand it is the lack of their own dedicated blocks and drivers something which will be along in time.

---

One thing to consider when buying 6215s, the cable harness and AGC current source may not be backward compatible with older amps. Second thing to consider, there is a scale factor pot and sensor linearity pot on even the cheap Asian clone amps. Those two are not common user adjustments. Setting that accurately takes some work and a calibrated test jig. While not always a killer mistake, setting it incorrectly reduces performance and can cause excess heating.

One of the differences between a high end amp and a poor clone is the output stage.

The moral of the story is if you invest in new 6215s, you might want to get the matched, tuned, amps with a high end output stage. With the amp configured and matched to your 6215s before you get it. You will retune it a bit for show use, that is a given.



Steve

Hello Jem. :) I could go for the Pangolin scanner if early adopters are made offers they can't refuse. I'm probably too reclusive to be a useful ambassador to Pangolin in return for any generosity, but I'd be fully and helpfully descriptive here. I have read Bill Benner's posts many times, several in the last few days while looking into stuff about step response and anything that seemed important. 'Vapourware' or not, he is a man likely to come up with a good scanner if he wants to make one, and he certainly has the resources to make it happen.

Having said all that, I'll likely go with my first choice because I always wanted some good Cambridge scanners, and buying a synthesiser after asking for a quote on scanners always seemed like turning away from a path I knew I'd have to take eventually.

Steve, thankyou, point taken. I think trying to mix drivers and scanners might be as unwise as mixing DPSS laser heads with different external supply and control boxes, and I should have thought of that. The main question is whether I can afford to buy all at once. I'll have about £1470 in the last week of next month. After that it will rise a bit during the following six weeks, after which things will change and my window of opportunity closes faster than a storm over Florida's launch pads and remains that way for the rest of the year. If someone wants to tempt me, do it now. :) I guess Cambridge (and various trusted resellers) aren't in that much of a hurry, but I'm spelling out a prognosis so you can pick and choose if you want. I'm not in a position to ask any special favours but any generosity will help me get back into lasering and I'll repay that help by posting enthusiastic stuff about the scanners as I discover it in the time ahead. I've decided to go for the best so I doubt I'll be disappointed.

(And if anyone wants a ready-built scanner platform with Widemoves, in good clean low-milage domestic-use-only condition, ask me for the files and images so you can decide if it's something you want to take on. I'm only selling it because it's the fastest way to fund building a new system.)

Doc... You can buy CT6215's through Pangolin and Bill will optimise them for you. He's incredibly knowledgeable about scanners, I bought my set through Pangolin and never regretted it. His price is keen, drop him an email and ask for a quote.

Cheers

Jem

That's a good idea, best of both worlds, a good system, independently set up and tested in advance. I've been reading posts again. (Dangerous, I know, makes heads explode on the hottest night of the year...) Apparently Cambridge really make a LOT of these things! While the odd dodgy mirror coating or misplaced cable might occur, it might have a tough time getting past Bill Benner un-noticed. I'll PM him soon, when I have thought more about what I want. (Or if he sees this he can PM me..) So far I'm keen on the 60K speed with the 671 boards and the extra transistors for full strength. I did consider going for the wider angle at 30kpps but I can always use Widemoves for that if I haven't sold them. They've had a very quiet life so they work as well as they ever did. The other thing I know for sure is that I'll want 3mm aperture 5 at most, I won't be putting wide beams through.

Jem, I read enough posts to know that you mentioned those 6215's you had in past tense. Que pasa? They sound like something no-one would want to part with once they got some, so I have to ask, why...

Only reason they got sold was that they were in a projector that I decided to part company with. The only reason I sold it was because I took a decision not to do any more commercial shows for health reasons, I had unfortunately become unreliable.

I had a couple of 1 watt green satellites and the central RGB, the RGB was built very solidly and was quite heavy. The weight was mainly down to the power supplies used for the 60/k CT6215's, these things suck some juice when driven at high speed. Anyway, I really wanted a very small projector for home use only, so using the money I got from the sale of my mega robust, withstand anything, projector I commissioned a member here to build me super small RGB with the very best beam spec's possible. I regretted selling the big projector almost as soon as I saw the guy drive away, but the truth is he wanted it for commercial shows and bought it specifically because it was fitted with the high power CT6215's.

The CT6215's are beautiful scanners, they would scan perfectly just about anything you threw at them. You do need to have decent power supplies that are well on top of the job, they can also produce quite some heat if you drive them hard. This means having fans in the projector (something I dislike ;)), my new mini RGB had a 'no fans' clause in the build specification. It's one thing having fans in a projector for use in a noisy environment, but quite another when the projector is sat in your office at home :).

You won't regret going with the CT6215's, it's just hard parting with the money initially.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mixedgas

...AGC current source...

---

Automatic gain control? Just making sure I don't miss something important... Is this the thing that drivers do to make the scanned image smaller than expected if they think the galvos are in danger of being overdriven?

With the Widemoves I judged the overdrive partly by watching the circle in the ILDA pattern, and especially the jitter in the (usually blanked) bight that connects from the small square to begin the circle. There was also a distinctly dirty edge to the noise they make in a silent room when pushed to that point! That and the deterioration in repeated positional accuracy told me when to back off.

It will help me a lot to know what to look for when using the Cambridge system. While an AGC might protect better than I alone can, it might also mask an onset that I'd otherwise detect.


Jem, thanks, a clear image of things helps. I read about that power demand, could be enough to heat a small room. Something over 240W per axis I read somewhere. I'm ok with thermal design though, enough to solve the need, same for power supply. Won't be an overnight thing though. (And it was at least a year since I bought the Widemoves before I'd mounted them and run them having enough support to make it meaningful). Maybe I should keep the small platform I made just because it IS small. Did you go for very narrow beams for high visibility in air and fine graphics? That's pretty much what I want to do, but to explore image generation with light the way analog synthesisers can make sounds. 'Abstracts', in a way, but a more directed thing, ideally something that can become a live performance. I have a very synaesthesiastic take on how lasers might work with sound. This is why I want endurance. My Mackie HR-824 speakers seem to last forever and I'm hoping that CT6215's, if driven at modest levels, will run for many tens of thousands of hours without need of maintenance. I hope that isn't an impossible thing to ask of them, anyway...

AGC in this case modifies the position sensor LED current to improve linearity based on the instantaneous sensor positioning. You are thinking of power limiting, which is a different circuit.



Steve

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mixedgas

AGC in this case modifies the position sensor LED current to improve linearity based on the instantaneous sensor positioning. You are thinking of power limiting, which is a different circuit.



Steve

---

Ok. Thanks. And now for a deeply technical question: Why is water dripping on the floor of your lab?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Doctor

Did you go for very narrow beams for high visibility in air and fine graphics?

---

Pretty much, yes. I have this unhealthy obsession with abstracts, not so much with graphics. And, as you state, very fine low divergence beams tend to give high visibility for overhead beams. The overall balanced white power of my mini projector is just under 1 watt, but it appears much brighter when viewing the beams.

Because I work on water cooled lasers. Either during install or operation, there are always some drips, it is the nature of the beast.

Despite what you might think, many modern lasers are still water cooled. This will be the case for quite some time.


Steve

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mixedgas

Because I work on water cooled lasers. Either during install or operation, there are always some drips, it is the nature of the beast.

Despite what you might think, many modern lasers are still water cooled. This will be the case for quite some time.


Steve

---

Doesn't surprise me at all. Even a little diode laser can benefit from water cooling, I experimented with that for a while. I just thought your location statement was casting whimsical aspersions at the general fixtures and fittings. :)

Incidentally, given the special attributes of water, and its very high specific heat capacity, never mind 'quite some time', water cooling will be vital in many things unless the laws of our universe substantially change.. I also note that some guy tested a load of thermal greases, and found little difference in any, silver loaded or otherwise, but a smear of water beat the lot, and if the stuff didn't dry out so easily there'd never have been a need to invent 'Arctic Silver'.


Jem, did you post any details on that laser? I'm interested, it sounds like you have the right idea for my aims too. And there is nothing unhealthy about an obsession with abstracts... Seriously, which is preferable, a mind blowing display of Tangerine Dream-like synaesthesia, or 16 grand's worth of kit making Donald Duck waddle erratically and repeatedly across a screen of wall or water? I rest my case. >:) I like Donald Duck when in the mood, but there are limits..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Doctor

Jem, did you post any details on that laser? I'm interested, it sounds like you have the right idea for my aims too. And there is nothing unhealthy about an obsession with abstracts... Seriously, which is preferable, a mind blowing display of Tangerine Dream-like synaesthesia, or 16 grand's worth of kit making Donald Duck waddle erratically and repeatedly across a screen of wall or water? I rest my case. >:) I like Donald Duck when in the mood, but there are limits..

---

Lol, now you're talking... Tangerine Dream Vs. Donald Duck... HeHe :)

TD are one of my favourite bands. You'd have enjoyed the recent ShowLEM, we played TD and Pink Floyd all the Sunday morning whilst playing with beams and abstracts... Chilled out does not even begin to describe it :cool:

As for the projector i'll drop you a PM.

i can relate.. i'm also firmly in the "love for abstracts" camp.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jem

Pretty much, yes. I have this unhealthy obsession with abstracts, not so much with graphics. And, as you state, very fine low divergence beams tend to give high visibility for overhead beams. The overall balanced white power of my mini projector is just under 1 watt, but it appears much brighter when viewing the beams.

---

Hey Doc

You've got your preferences set to not allow private messages. Can you either change it or drop me a PM with your email as i'd like to tell you more.

Cheers

Jem

Sorted.. I forgot that, a hangover from when I left last time. While I fixed it I discovered 'Black & 635'.

PM now sent :) ....

Jem,

Quote:

---

Doc... You can buy CT6215's through Pangolin and Bill will optimise them for you. He's incredibly knowledgeable about scanners, I bought my set through Pangolin and never regretted it. His price is keen, drop him an email and ask for a quote.

---

I didn't know that Pangolin sold any scanners other than their open loop actuators. I was holding out hope for a year now that they would finally get a working COMPLETE system to market. This still looks distant, but if they will optimize a set of CT6215's is this beneficial compared to purchasing directly from Cambridge or from some other supplier such as OSLS?

i imagine OSLS would sell galvos tuned and tweaked if you asked them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by planters

Jem,



I didn't know that Pangolin sold any scanners other than their open loop actuators. I was holding out hope for a year now that they would finally get a working COMPLETE system to market. This still looks distant, but if they will optimize a set of CT6215's is this beneficial compared to purchasing directly from Cambridge or from some other supplier such as OSLS?

---

Sure they will. They list CT's on their website, but I was wondering if you knew if Pangolin is a good alternative or even if the manufacturer themselves sell a system that functions without the need for an expert distributor to tune them up for operation or for less cost?

my assumption is galvo vendors like CT and EMS do a better factory tuning job than their chinese counterparts. post factory tuning might not be an issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by planters

Sure they will. They list CT's on their website, but I was wondering if you knew if Pangolin is a good alternative or even if the manufacturer themselves sell a system that functions without the need for an expert distributor to tune them up for operation or for less cost?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by planters

Jem,
I didn't know that Pangolin sold any scanners other than their open loop actuators. I was holding out hope for a year now that they would finally get a working COMPLETE system to market. This still looks distant, but if they will optimize a set of CT6215's is this beneficial compared to purchasing directly from Cambridge or from some other supplier such as OSLS?

---

I'd recommend dropping Bill an email and ask him about the tuning. To be completely honest i'm not very knowledgeable about scanner tuning and therefore i'm not really the best person to give advice. All I know is that they were by far the best scanners I have ever owned, I should never have parted with them.

I will do that. Thanks.

Now, about the abstracts vs. graphics debate...

Quote:

---

Seriously, which is preferable, a mind blowing display of Tangerine Dream-like synaesthesia, or 16 grand's worth of kit making Donald Duck waddle erratically and repeatedly across a screen of wall or water? I rest my case.

---

I have complained with out much response to the general lack of graphical content available. My "poster boy" is "Mr. Magoo". This is one reason I have become less enthralled with the laser medium and am more interested in high res/ high power video. There is so much content available to work with in the video realm and the graphic libraries for lasers are so heavily geared toward the goofy looking and cartoon-ish. Literally, you can invest 10's of thousands of dollars in equipment to project a very bright duck. I'm not talking about some toy from Spencers and an image on a wall in a basement. For this the duck is OK, but from there unless you are a graphic artist with time to burn that is about it.

I know the point count, even with fast scanners is always limiting, but how about 50 different stylized trees, hands, chairs or horizons rather than Squidward?

You are totally speaking my language here. I have no interest in cartoon laser shows. That's what video projectors are for.

I've put tons of hours into learning lsx and making (hopefully) interesting and unique abstracts. This is the strength of the medium. Eye catching lines and colors and flickering oscillations from transient fragments of light. Tricks and patterns that get stuck in your brain and play over and over again when you try to sleep.


On the other hand, I did just complete a graphic show... At least it's not mr. Magoo.


http://youtu.be/VvbFwroR4XU

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by planters

I will do that. Thanks.

Now, about the abstracts vs. graphics debate...



I have complained with out much response to the general lack of graphical content available. My "poster boy" is "Mr. Magoo". This is one reason I have become less enthralled with the laser medium and am more interested in high res/ high power video. There is so much content available to work with in the video realm and the graphic libraries for lasers are so heavily geared toward the goofy looking and cartoon-ish. Literally, you can invest 10's of thousands of dollars in equipment to project a very bright duck. I'm not talking about some toy from Spencers and an image on a wall in a basement. For this the duck is OK, but from there unless you are a graphic artist with time to burn that is about it.

I know the point count, even with fast scanners is always limiting, but how about 50 different stylized trees, hands chairs or horizons rather than Squidward?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by planters

I will do that. Thanks.

Now, about the abstracts vs. graphics debate...



I have complained with out much response to the general lack of graphical content available. My "poster boy" is "Mr. Magoo". This is one reason I have become less enthralled with the laser medium and am more interested in high res/ high power video. There is so much content available to work with in the video realm and the graphic libraries for lasers are so heavily geared toward the goofy looking and cartoon-ish. Literally, you can invest 10's of thousands of dollars in equipment to project a very bright duck. I'm not talking about some toy from Spencers and an image on a wall in a basement. For this the duck is OK, but from there unless you are a graphic artist with time to burn that is about it.

I know the point count, even with fast scanners is always limiting, but how about 50 different stylized trees, hands, chairs or horizons rather than Squidward?

---

Nice. Someone gets it. :) I'm not the best, I have no glory to boast, but what little I offered is so un-noticed I have to wonder if most people in the laser 'biz' actually have a clue what they want!

Ramble ensueth, I shall at least try to be entertaining here...

I saw laser drivers with 100 Hz, maybe 200 Hz capability, decided that the right op-amp and an LM317 could make great power, speed, cheapness, easily available to all. Instead, people seemed to demand more of what I considered to be lesser drivers, given waveforms shown. granted, at least two of those got good since from what I read, but I was getting MHz, never mind a couple of KHz! I even posted it here, AND in Sam's LaserFAQ, with a PCB layout, never mind just a schematic, and no-one seemed to care except Sam Goldwasser. As a man with fine musical taste I'm glad to say he recognises when someone is trying to make something with which art can be done. I don't want worship, way too embarrassing, but I did at least think people here would have the vision to recognise when they were given a good thing.

What all that boils down to is that while laser scanners have mass, there IS scope for gradients in curves, subtle geometrical forms, etc. Instead of DMX, which in my view is fairly limited born of lighting equipment, better use MIDI, born of fast responsive realtime audio performance fit to draw crowds of thousands. Good enough for THAT, should be good enough for any of you. You don't have to own the rare Zyklus MIDI Performing Instrument' but there is plenty of cheap leeway to go better than hitting a button and zap-zap-zap all done for you. That's CRAP. Seriously! It's the equivalent of hitting the bossanova button on a cheap keyboard beat box! You wouldn't even impress a kid in a music store with that these days!

To end my rant, I make one point to bind it all: It's about vision! One day many people here will wake up to learn someone did some amazing performance with limited gear, live, throwing strange fleeting shapes that draw minds in like music does, and they will wonder why that person got the glory instead of them. Even if you aren't after that glory, aren't you at least a bit curious as to what CAN be done? You won't get there agonising over angles, small differences in wavelength, and ignoring a diode driver five times faster than the current standard when it's thrown right in front of you. Even if you have to build that board yourself, isn't it worth it?

I got mighty curious, but given the cost of lasers, and the cheapness of coding my own synthesiser, I went with the coding. But I'm still hanging around here, at least for a while, hoping to see if anything really INTERESTING happens, because it should, and lasers are cool. (I'm also wondering if anyone wants to buy my Widemove scanner platform too, which will keep me waiting here a while till I lose patience and interest. I only raise that issue here because if I do not sell, I can't buy the 6215's I want. I have some ideas about live performance with a laser equivalent of an analog monosynth that would need their speed and power. If someone helps me by actually buying them, it improves (though cannot guarantee) the chances that I may create something else to offer, beyond the driver and power meter design already offered (and strangely ignored) here before I left last time. I can't afford to get new scanners if no-one is willing to place any value on my current ones. I keep them in good untouched order specifically for whatever future anyone is willing to give them, now.

Anyway, again, good to see at least two or three people recognise the lack of vision, and try to spark a bit of new fire into life. All I'm trying to do is the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Doctor

snip
To end my rant, I make one point to bind it all: It's about vision! One day many people here will wake up to learn someone did some amazing performance with limited gear, live, throwing strange fleeting shapes that draw minds in like music does, and they will wonder why that person got the glory instead of them.
snip

---

Actually his name is Ivan Dryer - and if not the only to sell 20 million tickets - certainly the first...

Oh, I enjoyed the, "...Donald Duck waddle erratically and repeatedly..." line.

Brian

Hey Doc...

I'd put a post in the sales section of the forum for the Widemoves. You'll probably attract a much better response there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jem

Hey Doc...

I'd put a post in the sales section of the forum for the Widemoves. You'll probably attract a much better response there.

---

All in good time. :) As any old-time showman might say, there's no point setting up a pitch if you don't get so much as a look sidewise when suggesting that you might. So the best I can do, having offered to put up pics and associated design files for the system, and got no hint of interest, is to try to make myself interesting here in the meantime.

Brian, thanks. In the immortal (wry, smug) words of Auric Goldfinger: So did I. :) Actually I got my inspiration for that when I was at a ship festival in Bristol harbour. I'd watched the fireworks from the crow's nest of the Jean de la Lune where I was soon to be part of the crew for a trip to Dublin. Later I went to see a laser show called 'Aquabats'. There was a large (vast) frame of copper water pipe with fine holes pouring a wall of water, and I was hoping for great things, then a few flickering fish and a old-time diver showed up waddling across the screen like that hypothetical duck. Given several watts of 488 nm and what was obviously a mighty beast amongst water-cooled lasers, I was slightly shocked to find it a right thumb-twiddler. I spent more time admiring the fine lines it accidentally drew on the rigging of the Matthew, moored prior to its trip across the Atlantic. Bright yellow wood contrasting with hard argon blue lacing across white rigging, a sight to remember, for sure, but the mix of awe and disappointment told me that something was wrong. I got more fun out of an experience with just 20mW of same coloured argon but I haven't made up my mind whether to risk boring people with that story yet.

EDIT:
Brian, I like that avatar! If you did that with a laser scanner, you're doing ok. I faked mine. It's a vague idea of something I'd like to see done, but it's just layers in paintshop. Maybe the original bit in the middle was a fake-colour still from a real laser but I can't even remember, I did so much fiddling in Paintshop to make it look like that. Probably was a lens-flare fake originally, I liked the effect while playing with filters someone was trying to impress me with.

Ct knows the ILDA pattern well. They had / have Pangolin. Should be no problem getting excellent tuning from them or OSLS.

Steve

Steve,

I'll give them a call as well and ask about tuning.

My opinion regarding the abstract approach is that there is a strong appeal to meaning. That is what graphics bring. Abstracts are like the music and graphics are like the lyrics. The music can exit without lyrics, but can be enhanced by it. However, the lyrics usually fail without the music...shallow poetry. The problem with current laser graphics is that they tend to be so clumsy.

One of the problems I have been faced with is that even the most complex hardware, once it has been completed, can run for thousands of hours. But, because good content is so limited I often see it repeated interminably and I am rarely "surprised". Again, I am attracted to the video approach because of the vast library of available material. Just think of the screen savers available for abstracts and animusic videos for graphics. Then, there are the millions of still images that can be stylized and merged. Don't get me wrong, I like lasers. I can't stop building them. But, they are really just very nice paint. Real art, to be entertaining needs to inspire and surprise. It needs to evoke deeper feelings and thought. Abstract art can do this as can realism, but even more powerful, in my opinion, is impressionism which melds these two disciplines. And then there is the whole area of sculpture ie 3D. Here the parallel is video mapping and virtual reality. Lasers can have a part here, but the field is wide open and even less explored than this already esoteric laser hobby.

I wish there were more active interest in these other technologies or at least a less ham handed approach to laser graphics.

When it comes to tuning, to my understanding, Bill Benner worked as consultant to CT on servo component and amp design during several of their scanners development including the 60K 6215's.

I'm sure either company could do it well, but personally I'd find some comfort in knowing they'd been tuned by someone who was involved in their design and development.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by planters

My opinion regarding the abstract approach is that there is a strong appeal to meaning. That is what graphics bring. Abstracts are like the music and graphics are like the lyrics. The music can exit without lyrics, but can be enhanced by it. However, the lyrics usually fail without the music...shallow poetry. The problem with current laser graphics is that they tend to be so clumsy.

One of the problems I have been faced with is that even the most complex hardware, once it has been completed, can run for thousands of hours. But, because good content is so limited I often see it repeated interminably and I am rarely "surprised". Again, I am attracted to the video approach because of the vast library of available material. Just think of the screen savers available for abstracts and animusic videos for graphics. Then, there are the millions of still images that can be stylized and merged. Don't get me wrong, I like lasers. I can't stop building them. But, they are really just very nice paint. Real art, to be entertaining needs to inspire and surprise. It needs to evoke deeper feelings and thought. Abstract art can do this as can realism, but even more powerful, in my opinion, is impressionism which melds these two disciplines. And then there is the whole area of sculpture ie 3D. Here the parallel is video mapping and virtual reality. Lasers can have a part here, but the field is wide open and even less explored than this already esoteric laser hobby.

I wish there were more active interest in these other technologies or at least a less ham handed approach to laser graphics.

---

Good stuff. That bit mentioning impressionism especially, not lost on me, it's what I was getting around to. Your point about lyrics and music fits well too.

The one real strength of a laser is that it can dance. The same could be said about other projections but they will ALWAYS look like the image of the dance at best, even when spontaneous and live. The intensity of a laser's dance is unrivaled. I won't tell the whole of that story I was considering posting last night, but I'll explain why I wanted to, the core of the thing... I built a 20mW argon laser for someone. Compared to standards here it, and its scanners (small mirrors stuck to 4" loudspeakers), were thunderously awful, but it was the best he could find for a grand. It took me a week to build, I'd tested it, liked the few Lissajous figures that were about all it could do. No blanking, never mind beam change unless you threw a switch for five more amps. He set it up in a small snooker club, and collected me later in a hurry because it wasn't working. Was just a mounting flaw for its big dodgy case on cushioned bar stools, blocked aperture.. I was left wondering what to do there. How to please a bunch of people sitting around waiting for something to happen.... The only thing I could do was make it draw sine waves by Wein bridge oscillators, and pan either axis a bit too. So I improvised. You can slow it right down in horizontal, stop it in vertical, let it draw a lighthouse beam across the bottles of spirits above the bar on the far wall. Or let it slowly weave a gentle watery surface. Or suddenly swap them and speed it up then pan a slow vertical fan. I'd already figured out a few memorised points for integer relations to get certain Lissajous figures I liked best, so could get those in an instant and set them rotating. Once that happened I started listening a bit more to the DJ because they'd started getting interested, and playing better music too. So it was like a slow dance, uncertain steps getting a bit more secure and expressive. To cut to the chase, by the end, there were girls dancing in that light (which was always on a wide high fast wild pattern at such moments, never mind frenetic expression, got to keep the dwell time right down when doing that! In the US it's probably illegal even with 20 mW.) One guy trying to get the slow beam straight between the eyes, so I sent it floating over his head and amongst those bottle again, out of reach. In short, I learned that you have to interact, work with whatever you have got, give it everything you have got, and people will respond to that.

The real power of expression has to be the way we can shape it live, small and fairly crude expressions can have deeper meaning because of the immediate context, people will understand more subconsciously than consciously, which is why this is more powerful than any consciously planned work. A bit of choreography helps, but never rely on that alone.

I have seen oscilloscope patterns like eyes, reeds bending in wind, feathers, various surprising things, and while a laser scanner can't do those fast, it ought to be able, especially given gradient control of beam power. The real question is: Can a recall of certain pattern memories be seamless and fluently fused with improvised dance? Given what many performers can do with a monosynth with a decent arpeggiator or simple step sequencer, the answer is obviously YES, but it's going to take a lot of cautious conversion of that notion to make the best of laser scanners. As to pre-made shows, it is always possible to jam, like any garage band, recording stuff. Can cut and edit later to assemble a show using whatever worked best. But if you can do it live, you'll never worry about needing the PRS, RIAA, or MPAA to protect you, you'll have something no-one can take from you, or copy, and if enough people like it they will likely pay to see it, repeatedly. And you won't be competing with me, I have far too much difficulty in social situations to put myself through that on a regular basis.

Widemoves. Just thought I'd mention those again, purely gratuitous... >:)

I post a lot, but I think I found something else worth risking more.
I was looking at DZ's analog console thread, and it's impressive in a crudely old-school kind of way, then I had a look at the tiny console I still have, used for the single show I described in the post before this one. Doesn't even have pan! Just frequency and amplitude, per axis. So damn basic that the memory of what I acheived with it led me to believe it was capable of more. Which is my point. Maybe less IS more, here! Maybe what's really needed is someone to figure out how the mix of dance, texture, visual timbre, is most easily and powerfully combined, and to create a console that becomes definitive. Bob Moog did that, with the MiniMoog monosynth. It's limited, too limited for me, (I prefer the SCI Pro One), but it has become a standard by which all others are judged because its power to ease ratio, in terms of live expression, is so good. Pro One adds a step sequencer that can be transposed live, a notion that I think can inspire some way to fuse graphic frames with improvised beam shows. And so it goes... And it will take the right mix of artist and scientist to make that definitive instrument. Unlike the MiniMoog, I'm not sure that the laserist equivalent has ever existed.

To date the definitive live performance console would have to be the Mark 6 designed and built by Laser Images. Nobody else to my knowledge came close in terms of live performance. Nobody else embraced live performance the way Laser Images did. Perhaps we need a sucessful economic model to bring Laser Shows much farther. Art for art's sake doesn't seem to have much of a following...

I believe that it's through live performance that this art form should be expressed. As a laserist evolves his performance eventually he gets ahead of the audience in complexity and pacing and he needs to dial things back a bit. The audience response let's you know how and how much to dial it back. I understand the wish to equate a laser console with early synthesizers, but the synth had previous musical instruments to emulate - laser imagery is completely new territory. Perhaps there are some lessons from the visual arts, but they too are mostly produced offline, and any insights might have to be abstracted beyond recognition to influence console design. The ability to record, playback, study, and critique music lends robustness to the art. Most laser shows today are at the early garage band stage, and aren't up to serious study.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by laserist

Perhaps we need a successful economic model to bring Laser Shows much farther. Art for art's sake doesn't seem to have much of a following...

---

Given the amount people will spend if they have it, and the ratio of that to what they expect to get back, I disagree. :) What does help is some cheap way for people to try things. I think ILDA might hold things back more than advance them. The best it has to offer is basically a form of notation, but that can't be expected to hold people back. Human language has taken some time to settle on which alphabets best create the most useful phrases of words.

I imagine that consoles may be further defined, and the cheapest way I know of to aim at some consensus is by MIDI because it's a strong protocol with lots of cheap DIY-based tools. Dieter Doepfer's 'Pocket Electronics', for example. A few pots or rotary encoders on a blank panel are alone enough to find the most effective instrument for them, and share ideas. The rest can be software, just needs MIDI input. Far more scope for extensive cheap experiment than DMX, I imagine..

About lack of prior references, that's less of a problem than it appears. Impressionism in music and visual arts already recognises that most people have synaesthesia to some degree. Any stage magician can tell you how effective is the power of suggestion, too. Most of the language of art is about shared consensus, and repeat experience. I have found that if I talk about 'visual timbre' or 'audible texture', people don't usually get it, but when hearing what I can do with a DX7 they do! One guy who dismissed the DX7 and all its works, citing how a guitar was better because you could take it up a mountain, came to visit me once, and I'd been making a keen sound with high mod index that slowly dropped the fundamental out leaving a sonic texture like that thin band of sky seen in near Earth orbit photos. I called it Violet Sky after that notion... None of which immediately grabbed him until I played it. He literally broke out in a cold sweat! He said it was like iced air off a mountain. There's real power in this game. I'm sure that fast scanners and colour gradients can make equally suggestive and powerful synaesthesiac textures, and modify them swiftly enough to form dance or narrative. Most people will get it, like that guy did, never mind conscious thought. We just have to use whatever references we get. I long since quit worrying if it all seemed a bit mad. What useful art or science doesn't?

EDIT:
Important, this one... 'Abstract' is a funny word. People use it arse over tit, base over apex, etc.. Most people seem to think that prosaic things like cups, trees, lightning, bags, are the reality of life, and that notions of branching and close containment are the abstractions! Reverse that. And keep it that way. That's the key to this (and a whole heap of understanding and science, art, etc). Branching, containment, capture, release, stasis, flux, these are the core of life, and all the bags, trees, cups, etc, are the abstractions. They are the things the core of life might express in any number of arbitrary ways. The trouble with most laser graphics is it tends to agonise over the last point detail in expressing a form that IS actually an abstraction, and having trapped itself there, has no easy way to fluently change. It's hard enough I imagine to DRAW Donald Duck let alone animate him! Better to find expressions to the core notions of travel on water, of flight in air. And to do it in ways that other forms of projection cannot compete with. The closest to any solid abstracted form it should go to is something analogous to a stem cell, from which easy changes in configuration can shape other forms. Fluid dynamics is easy. Less so is crystaline forms. While frosted glass can render things of huge power, getting somethign stable, repeatable, is all but impossible and needs a whole different sort of laser projector. But we can at least move between curves and hard angles to suggest such changes. In the end it will be the simplest and most expressive instruments that will win, the stuff people can form a band with. That won't happen until controller and lasers and scanners can all be bought for the price of a guitar and an amp. And that won't happen until some consensus on form has arrived. The only other way in is to deliberately exploit the synaesthesiac bit so that a symbiotic strength can be built between music and a solo laser show. The idea is old (Samuel Delaney wrote of a notional instument in 1968, he called it a 'sensory syrinx', in a book called Nova...), but as far as I know, no-one has taken the idea beyond a few rare avant garde experiments. I was hoping that small laser-based projectors made for mass production might change this but amongst all the iPads and tablets and laser-based keyboards, signs of this mythical beast are still conspicuously absent. Certainly there doesn't seem to be anything people can get cheap and adapt. So the only way might be the top-down method of building some consensus on an instrument, then eventually larger scale production will make them cheaper and more widely used.

Ah you seem to be a member of the "toil in magnificent isolation" school. I'm not. I'm a believer that it's the return of the audience that validates what I do. Getting them to come once is about the words/advertising. Getting them to come back is about the experience. Once you figure out what you need from a performance point of view you can implement it using whatever technology you like. I feel the attraction to jumping to a computer because *then I can do anything that I can ever imagine* (within the limits of my opto mechanics, programming skills, and/or the soft/hardware tools I've simply purchased...). But that direction also leads to just screwing around - look at this, isn't this cool, this is a constantly evolving n-dimensional wire frame projected into 2D, and other pretentious screen saver crap, but unless you're incredibly disciplined it won't lead to a user interface that maximizes live performance. It will almost always lead to a canned "performance" that will run afoul of the musician's synchronization rights and the record company's mastering rights. Unless you're the musician as well as the laserist, or at least partner with the musician(s) - synchronization rights are the brick wall across that path. Your friend wasn't wrong - of course you can make sounds or images that have never been seen or heard before - and evocative as hell - the trick is putting it all together in a performance that leads the audience where you want to take them in a way that makes them want to go. The way to learn how to do that with an audience is through performing live. You have to own the performance. You have to put yourself out there. You have to discover all the ways that don't work just as much or more than the ways that do.