didn't know they existed..
but they are sold here....
http://www.hb-laser.com/temp/secondhand_0507_en.pdf
400mW multimode....
Printable View
didn't know they existed..
but they are sold here....
http://www.hb-laser.com/temp/secondhand_0507_en.pdf
400mW multimode....
Damn... I'd like to see a beam shot of that. I bet it is purdy. :D
I did a price quote from Nachia.
Pretty steep, though if Laser based TVs take off you may see a drop. Wonder what we could get out of a group buy. The 405nm were quoted just as high so it may be that the price has since, but the production levels of the 445nm is not nearly as high.Quote:
- Blue 445 nm
NDHB510APA (50mW) : US$3,000/each
Have a good one.
Shawndoe
Is 3 grand really THAT much for 400mW? What does a 400mW 473nm cost? :confused:
edit...
I'm an idiot, I missed the 50mW in that. I thought we were talking bout 400mW... DOH!. :D
For 442nm you will need 3 times the power then 473nm. More far you go towards UV or IR more power you need to make it visible. Lasershows are all about visibility.
473nm -Blue
532nm-Green
632nm-Red
The holly grail of colors.
Some companies will say "more deep colors"....it's a pure BS!. Again Lasershows are about color visibility!!
473nm.....400mw....hmm 200mw is about $2K I say about 5-7k for 400mw (473nm). Don't forget for 442nm you are getting 400mw/3 = ~150mw.
150mw 473 will cost you ~$1600
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Laser
Not true, though they might use it as an excuse at times.
A 635 nm diode makes a scarlet colour, anything shorter is vermillion verging to orange. If you want a rich crimson or ruby colour, you must go deeper, and you must add the extra power if you want to match beams.
I'm all for vermillion and lime green of DPSS, it's actually a very cool colour pairing, and probably best balanced aesthetically by a longwave blue around 488 nm. These would be highly visible, but they won't ever give you the strong colour gamut that you could get at 420 nm and 660 nm. And you won't get a real ruby light unless you can get some serious raw power at 690 nm.
Would be nice to have a small number of tunable lasers, maybe four, one for deep reds, one for shortwave red through orange and yellow to shortwave green, one for cyan through to shortwave visible blue (before violet), and one for violet and longwave UV, just on the legal limit of visible. That's just one way to go, but it could be one of the most expressive.
I have to agree. marconi has a picture of a 635 abstract shape next to a 660 of the same shape and there is a world of difference. I don't think I could live with out the deep red. The orangy-red can be gotten from a splash of green in that deep red... I'm all for getting as many colors as possible. I'd love to add a 442 for deep blues, and a 635 and 690 to fill out the reds completely. Pangolin has 6 color channels for some reason, right? ;)
How many colors would be possible with all those wavelengths? Pangolin will give you what... 4 levels per laser, 100, 75, 50, 25, and 0, so 5... 6 lasers, 30 bit color, or just 30 colors. :confused:
Pangolins color channels are 8-bit, 256 levels per color. I think you may be confusing the linearity adjustment in the palette setup?Quote:
Originally Posted by allthatwhichis
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Laser
I agree. How many people watching a laser show are going to say, damn, that would be so much better if they were using 660nm red. Though the beam quality of the 660nm from Marconi is much better than most 635nm modules. Which is one reason I still may switch, but for now 635nm is doing great for me.
Actually if you are refering to this: https://home.comcast.net/~djzurcher/comp1.JPGQuote:
marconi has a picture of a 635 abstract shape next to a 660 of the same shape and there is a world of difference.
That is my creation and is done with 200mW of 635 an 200mW of 660. Though it looks orange when compaired with 660nm, it is still quite red....
David
There is definitely a difference. You can't judge it by a picture displayed on a monitor though. Monitor reds are too broad, and their lowest wavelength is around 635 nm. Orange light there just means there's green in it.
If you make any red laser bright enough, eyes see it as shorter wave than it is, it's why the bright spot always looks almost orange due to saturation in the eye. The difference is in details and fades, so long as the eye isn't saturated, there IS a difference between the 660 and 635 nm reds regardless of relative power, and you don't need to put them beside each other to see it. On a monitor, we can kid ourselves that fading the red makes a deeper red, but only because it's not actually capable of a wavelength shift at all. A real wavelength difference is a very different effect. If you add the extra power to the longer wavelength to match apparent brightness of the shorter one, we can still sense the extra power, so the effect seems stronger and deeper, just as extending the bass in loudspeakers does even if the volume is equal, because even at equal volume, more air is moved. The analogy isn't physically exact, but the fact we can even analogise it at all proves that our brains process the different kinds of signals in similar ways.
I never said there wasn't a different between the two. But the photo is just about exactly the way it appeared on the wall, on my laptop display anyway. I'm sure (hope) that most of us here know the effects of saturation. There was no "fading" to create the above effect. Both lasers (660nm Marconi unit and a 635nm Lasever unit) are set to max output (5VDC on the input line) and fed side by side into the scan head. Sure to us we *may* be able to tell a difference between a scan head running 660nm or 635nm, but if you ask anyone watching a laser show if they can tell a difference, chances are the response will be "whats a nanometer?" Even so, at the upcoming SELEM, I think it would be a neat experiment to put up a random display (either 660 or 635nm) and see how many people can tell if its 660nm or 635nm. Then display both for compairison, I think the results might be surprising... With displaying one color and not having the other to compair to, I think some may be fooled...Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Doctor
David
I mentioned details and fades. We perceive that the same, even if there is no actual difference in intensity. It's the same way that old newsprint photos worked, by the ratio of ink to uninked paper. That fine detail appears as a fade or gradient unless you look close. Your spirals do it by a change in density of pattern...
I agree than many people at a show might not know the difference, but experience is on various levels. People at rock concerts will equally go blank if you ask most "What's a phonon?", but they'll nearly all be able to tell you which of their recent nights out delivered the most awesome bass.
People might often be unable to tell 635 from 660 unless they're exposed to these wavelengths often enough. As laser shows become more common, that will happen. I know I can tell. I could even before I was familiar. I'd walk into Maplin to buy bits to make RIAA preamps or for power amp repairs, and I'd see the HeNe laser they put on display, and the light had an odd pinkish quality unlike anything else. Later when it was gone, and they had 67o nm diode modules, and later still, 650 nm, I had an easy time seeing the difference, and it wasn't related only to brightness, there's a real subjective feeling to it. Picking out the 635 nm module was dramatic because it had the same odd orangish/pinkish quality that I remembered from the HeNe that I'd not seen for months by that time. The simplest way I can describe the change is a sense of the red being heavy or light regardless of power.
The main reason I think the difference is important to shows is that only the light reds can be emulated on monitors and TV's. Heavy reds have a power that is transcribed as a light red. It's unfakeable. If you can get a strong heavy red into a show, you have something that can't be faked or copied, you have to be there, you have a spectacle that people will pay to see because there's no other way they can get it. That said, so is the specular effect, that can't be faked by anything either.
Edit: The main reason I can think of for using the shortwave reds and oranges or any other colour in visible range is that the specular effect of monochromatic light is special. It's unfakability is extreme, even mixing red and green monochrome lasers to get orange gets you something that can't have the striking purity and intensity of one monochrome orange. Even with LED's this is true, with lasers, the vividness of a show can depend on it. I think that there are people who are very unobservant, but I think most do see, even if not consciously, it's just a product of the wit we all need to survive activities like crossing roads, or detecting radiant heat sources. We're not always conscious of it, but it's there all the time.
I'd have to say that I disagree. I really don't believe that more people would come to a show just because its a deeper red. To imply that using 635nm red is "fakeable" just doesn't make sense to me. I fail to see much difference between the 660nm Marconi unit that I've had, the 635nm Lasever unit that I currently have, a 632.8nm HeNe that I have and the 647nm from the Coherent that I've had. The main difference being the more aparent brightness per mW with 635. To be honest, what brings people to a laser show is content. I just went to a laser show at the local planetarium last night and overheard a group of people comment about how they didn't really care about the laser show so much as the 18,000 watt sound system that they use in the theater (which is amazingly loud). Going back to content, I'd put money on the fact that I could draw larger repeat crowds with a 3 color HeNe/60X argon combo with amazing AVI style laser graphics and a kickin sound system than anyone with a solid state white light using 671nm red running a simple home-made graphics show with a Radio Shack sound system....Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Doctor
David
I see the points that all you make. But don't forget we are laser geeks. We see things that 99.9% people will never understand or see. I don't think that lasershows will become so common that more people will see the difference between 635 and 660. Other thing is the price of the lasers. To balance those non standart lasers you will have to give so much more power. for 420 and 660 it's about 4-1-9. ex. 800-Red 200-Green 1.8-Blue. Auch....
Ok, go to the most basic experiment you can, if you've got analog mod and two beams of same thickness and divergence. Project around 50 to 100 mW of 660 and a few tens less mW of 635. Make them parallel, pointing to a white wall. Fill the air with a bit of fog and dim the lights. Adjust the 635 till it looks as near the same as possible. See if you can really make a beam you can't tell apart when looking at the beams, or the spots on the wall. The difference is obvious. It's also something people can pick out seperately in many cases, maybe most cases. I'm sure there are exceptions just as some can't hit the same note twice, not even close, when singing, but these are exceptions to the rule.
I agree about content actually. That's like people go to a gig because they like the music, and the sound system is a secondary thing. On the other hand, in recent demonstrations of the same image on a standard monitor, and on some kind of laser based display, I heard that people were impressed by the depth and brilliance of the colours. It might be that they'd not have noticed if different scenes were on each imager, but red is a broad, huge part of the spectrum, so unless one scene or both lacked reds, they probably would notice. If laser TV's ever take off, you can bet people will become deeply familiar with these effects, even if they limit the wavelength of the red to 635, as it's still deeper than a monitor shows well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Laser
Sure, but that's the way it is. It's the same when balancing frequencies in audio, and just as hard to put precise values on for different powers needed.
With current tech, this is a problem, so that affects price a lot, but while that constraint means there's sense in restricting to brighter, lighter reds, it won't always remain that way. People used to settle for very narrowband speakers and still call them hi-fi, but as magnets got better, and polymers were introduced, people could have deep bass for small money, in their homes. I think lasers will follow the same course, largely driven by the development of laser based TV.
Edit: I went looking on alt.lasers to see if I could find any independent observation that described what I mean, and I found this:
He suggests it's due to a rapid change in the eye's sensitivity in that range of wavelengths, but it's not that. If it were, the difference would be more apparent between deeper reds. In this case it's the increasing change in colour with wavelength, but even so, he's talking about a distinct change in colour that he did not expect to see, without any references to compare with. He also detected it when the wavelength difference could not have exceeded 13 nm, assuming the 0.3 nm per °C, which in the case of the material in red diodes is less; 'Redbelly' answering that post later said it was around 0.15 to 0.2 nm per °C. As the difference between 635 and 660 is 25 nm, we should expect to be able to detect it without difficulty.Quote:
Subject: Frequency vs. Temperature for viz LDs (~635 nm)
From: booatfractalfreakcom (address link neutered by me to stop spambots)
Newsgroups: alt.lasers
Anyone know what the minimum lasing frequency for 635-640 nm LDs is,
based on temperature?
I've got a few pointers based on the SDL-7501 LDs (~15 mW @ 635-640 nm)
I notice the rated frequency is @ 25C.
I recently had a a chance to use the pointer outdoors in very cold
conditions (-12 to -20C) (10 to -5F) and I thought the laser
looked 'orangier'. I left the pointer on for a couple of hours outdoors
in the frigid conditions to let it reach thermal eq. Looked beautiful
on the freshly fallen snow - a brilliant tangy orange. I wonder if it
was under 630 nm.
Since the eye's sensitivity is rapidly increasing in this part of
the visual spectrum, it's possible that relatively small changes
in the lasing frequency are discernable.
Eric
You giving the humanity a huge credit. There are not so many people who will see the difference. I work in many clubs and banquette halls. People are there to have fun. Most of them are drunk. If someone there thinking about nanometers and milliwatts my recommendation for him to get some more drinks and talk to the girls. Only place for milliwatts and nanometers is here or on ILDA Awards.... :) Ohh look at those nanometers they are so beautiful:))Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Doctor
Something I have noticed is this:
The ones that just dont care either way
There are those who dont care about the range of colors they could get only that its bright and close enough, or dont or cant notice the difference.
And those who can see the difference dramatically..and care very much about the color gamut.
27nm IS to me a great big difference and I like very much hue–saturation
so I fall in this catagory.
I gave up trying to explain the difference to the first two, sorry
You've missed the point. It's not the geeks with the numbers who see it and the majority who don't, it's the other way round. That's why I saw it before I knew anything much of lasers. That's why the guy who wrote that post in alt.lasers saw it, and went to a source of likely explanations. That's why ordinary people are wowed by the deep reds and sharp blues of a laser-based TV in a tech show.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Laser
There's nothing like a bit of knowledge to allow a person to rationalise what they see, to tell themselves what they think is a reason why they should or should not see. Ordinary people do see, though, because they haven't got the same level of stuff in their heads to tell them what they think they should see. And the only reason that the public isn't used to deep reds is that making them in strength for display purposes is expensive, and they don't see many, they mostly compare with TV's and monitors.
Dimiss it all you like, but hiding your eyes behind your hands doesn't make the changing world vanish, it just stops you seeing that it notices your strange self-imposed restrictions. I'm with Marconi, and the rest of the world on this, once you've given your best shot trying to explain, you move on. Can't force a horse to drink...
Ok, this converstion has gotten a bit rediculous... "Laser TV's" and a vector based laser projector are two different things.Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Doctor
The people who attend laser shows at planetariums or raves or whatever just wanted to be entertained, not educated and really could care less what you are using, so long as it is entertaining.Quote:
There's nothing like a bit of knowledge to allow a person to rationalise what they see, to tell themselves what they think is a reason why they should or should not see. Ordinary people do see, though, because they haven't got the same level of stuff in their heads to tell them what they think they should see. And the only reason that the public isn't used to deep reds is that making them in strength for display purposes is expensive, and they don't see many, they mostly compare with TV's and monitors.
I take this as an offense. To imply that I am somehow close-minded and cut off from reality while using inferior components is upsetting to me. It is clear to me that you seem to lack an understanding of what a good laser show is...Quote:
Dimiss it all you like, but hiding your eyes behind your hands doesn't make the changing world vanish, it just stops you seeing that it notices your strange self-imposed restrictions. I'm with Marconi, and the rest of the world on this, once you've given your best shot trying to explain, you move on. Can't force a horse to drink...
David
I lack understanding on all sorts of things, but colour and wavelength perception is fairly basic. Judging the threshold into the wideband red part of the spectrum might not be, as it's clear that trying to go below 690 and driving it at tens of watts to match a 300 mW green DPSS would be daft. I'm just saying that when you're talking about wavelengths so far up the red band as to verge on orange, it's safe to say that most people do notice the difference. Everything I've said is purely to support that point, not to offend. I could take offense at the post whose logical inference is that I am a weird loser who can't get girls because I'm too anal about the nanometres, but what would be the point of that? I stand by my point about human sensitivity to colour. That is all.
Unless the two wavelengths are side by side, no one is going to notice the difference between 635 and 660, and perhaps if they do, i wonder how many people are really going to care at your typical rave laser show, or whatever.
Each wavelength has its pros/cons, but im afraid to say i really take to the sheer brightness 635 gives :) There has been talk over here about combining quite a few big red diodes to give a multi watt 635
Apart from the bit of the quote I bolded, I agree. If the thing is an aesthetic decision, I wouldn't have any argument at all, I'd agree. I already mentioned I think the contrast of the scarlet/vermillion of 635 with 532 is very cool. If I could afford lots, I'd have plenty. (Once built a digital clock with date in lime green, time in red/orange, it was the nicest digital display I ever had).Quote:
Originally Posted by dave
The bit I take issue with is this idea that there is no meaningful difference between 660 and 635. The logic of this is simple, whatever judgement is made on it: If one person cannot see it, they cannot be sure that others can't, so thay can't assert that the difference has no meaning. If a person CAN see it, as I can, as Marconi can, as that guy with the freezing orangey pointer on Usenet can, we can assert that there is a meaningful difference, but that some possibly cannot see it, or do not care. So if you can cater for those who can and do, you please more people. I always liked 650 as the optimum point, but that's just my choice of compromise. It's pretty much in the middle of the red band, and looks to me like a perfect red.
The thing a lot of people seem to be overlooking here is beam quality, 635/650/660 are straight diode lasers, 671 is DPSS, there is a notable difference in beam quality, and 671 is available in reasonably high power levels, I would say up to 1W is not out of reach. Also most people here are mixing the red with two other DPSS lasers, so having the red dpss keeps the beam characteristics in line with the other colors for good long range mixes (comparable diverenge/size/etc), these things can be corrected with aspheric optics and beam expanders/collimators, but to me its just easier to avoid the losses and keep the starting beams as close as possible. The color gamut is very noticable. Forget about deep reds for a second, try and make that deep purple/violet that everyone loves with a 635 (wanna do it real nice you need 671 + 457). In my opinion the main advantage of a laser show display is color saturation, if you have limited range (ie long wave blue, shorter wave reds, etc), you are not doing a whole lot better than a good wide color gamut video projector with a xenon/halide source as it can make those wavelengths too. To see available color gamut, what you need to do is take a look at a CIE chromacity curve diagram, make 3 points on it (one for each wavelength), connect the dots, it will form a triangle, and inside the triangle it will show all the colors you can possibly make with those 3 wavelengths.
-illuzion
Ummm... Yea... How'd we go from 442nm blue to an argument on red? :confused: Personally I want the ability to get as many colors as I can, so the wider the difference between my highest and lowest wavelenth the better IMO. But it is also right, when I was going to raves to go to raves, I didn't give a shitte what range of colors the lasers could do, just as long as the lights kept moving... :cool:
Sorry David, I knew someone had posted that picture; thanks for the correction. :D
and thanks dave... the Pangolin color setup and usage confuses me a lil... but I'm gettin there. :)
Back on topic... I want some deep blue like that in my projector... :rolleyes: ;)
OK, here is a though:
Take 650nm and a 635nm diode of the same power. Mix green with the 650nm beam so the final color matches the 635nm color.
Which beam will be brighter, the 650+green or the 635 only beam?
We ran a lasershow just recently buffo where our new 400mw 635nm laser projector was physically strapped ontop of our RGB (which uses aroudn 600mw of 650-660nm).
To be honest, there was barely any noticeable difference between the 635nm and 650nm... i mean, yeah, the 635nm was not as deep as the 660nm, but i had to look REALLY hard to notice. The only difference between the two, was that the 635nm was fuck loads brighter, and about twice as divergent ;)
Edit: I'll also just add, the average non-laser type person would NOT notice the difference betweent he two if they were NOT side by side....
Hey Aijii;Quote:
We ran a lasershow just recently buffo where our new 400mw 635nm laser projector was physically strapped ontop of our RGB (which uses aroudn 600mw of 650-660nm).
Huh? How'd my name get in there? (bold emphasis added) This is my first post in this thread.?.
Granted, it's been an interesting thread, and it has made me re-think my own thoughts on color perception, but I purposfully stayed out of the discussion on this one.
Perhaps you were replying to Zoof?
Adam
I dare to say that I see everyone's point in this discussion. The reality of it seems to be that if you're doing commercial lasershows it really isn't about nanometers but about revenues, thus investments and return. So the real question isn't brightness v.s deepness but about making some $$
But when it comes to laser-freaks I guess it really the same as audio-freaks who can endlessly discuss what amplifier, cd player, pre-amp, speakers and other parameters create the best music. When I bought my audio set I simply abstracted from all that into one boolean: good or bad. I bought 'good' and I'm still very happy with it :)
On the other hand , when funds and time permit, I want to have a laser projector with all possible laser lines and count nanometers every once in a while just to see what colors can be created, how deep, awsome and bright. In my free time I discuss this on the internet with like-minded people and really enjoy that. And that is exactly what makes everyone unique and interesting.
Now back on topic:
For some reason I'm more attracted to 442nm than 635nm, probably because I have 650, which is a very nice red and I feel that my 473 has a bit of a wash-out effect and wouldn't want that for red. So I'm on the deepness side of this discussion but then again the powerlevels I play with are low.
I played with the idea of getting into commercial laser shows, probably won't do it, but if I did I would have to invest in high power gear and then I would stand by the very first part of this post.
jm2p
I also dont mean to offend anyone, just my preference.
Altho I dont provide lasershows, so making money from that is not too much of a concern for me.. but I do like seeing them and I do notice what they are using.
I've be going to lasershows since the 70's , Id say probably at least 50 of them and from the BIG BOYS, I especially like the planetarium style ones where i can relax and see everything. I look at quality and I'm there to have fun. And yes, Bright is they way to go if you want to be seen.....outdoors especially.
But if I was to do shows, I would want the best I could scrounge up to look better (and that means more cash flow) than the guy down the street or that last show I seen last saturday where they looked bland.
At home, I like seeing all the different colors my system can make, Thats why I went with analog modulation to get all that that is possible..out of it.. colors ! and more colors !
Not something I can see on TV or a rave. I want something different that is not run of the mill.
Not that I dont like 635, I have a 600mW that I like a lot, but the diodes are still too expensive and still have terrible divergence. to me.
I am still looking for these diodes for those that want them , as I do..But to make them cheap is another story.
Too cheap and you have garbage.
I to am also looking at 442 or even 457nm blue...and at about 400mW would do it nicely...very pretty.
Really extend the color pallet some more.!!!
What would you rather have, something run of the mill?
Or something outstanding that not many others have seen before..?
Its like the difference between a McIntosh or a fake Sony ES
Thats my point.
Thanks Zoof for showing the 442 diode..I will be looking hard at that.
Interesting factoids:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Laser
445.9nm is the peak in the CIE "z_bar" color matching function used to weight a spectral distribution to calculate the Z term, from which the x, y, and z chromaticity coordinates are computed via the formulae:
x = X/(X+Y+Z), y = Y/(X+Y+Z), z = Z/(X+Y+Z)
If Z is larger, then the (x,y) pair moves more toward the deep violet corner of the x,y color space. But because the effect depends not only on the fact that Z is in the denominator but also that as the wavelength moves from 473nm -> 445nm, the "blue impact" value of 445nm is 1.56 times greater than 473nm in affecting how deep into the violet corner the resulting gamut extends.
There are also revised luminous efficiency functions, such as the
Sharpe, Stockman, J., & J. 2005 revised V*_lambda function, which has the relative brightness of 473nm vs. 445nm at only 2.51, vs. 3.45 for the CIE 1924 V_lambda function.
The point is that much deeper blues can be produced from 445nm vs. 473nm, for a given power, than is suggested by their relative luminosities. Second, there is unresolved debate about the luminosity functions, and 445nm might not be as much dimmer than 473nm than indicated by the V_lambda function to which most commonly refer.
Extensive data on the functions may be found here:
http://cvrl.ioo.ucl.ac.uk/