New EYEMAGIC Scanners EMS7000

[Pangolin]

Would you care to inform us who provided the set of EMS-7000 ?

No, but the reason I won't is because it will give you an out like "oh, well we purposely sent a bad set to that guy" or something like that.

Was it with the smaller or with the bigger mirrors ?

Smaller. That's how we know your mirror size and can verify that the mirrors can not do what you advertise them to be able to do...

You mentioned in another thread that the scanners came factory adjusted at 45K.

I showed the folks at FLEM meeting a few weeks ago. This was only the second time the scanners had been operated -- with the first time being in my office to do an initial test. Everyone there saw -- with their own eyes -- that the scanners were tuned to around 45K or so, and produced the ILDA test pattern at that rate with a scan angle of only 2.6 degrees. JohnYayas was one of the folks there and he can corroborate it.

f you think about it for a moment, then it becomes clear enough : The very first thing each and every customer does with our EMS-7000 (including very big and respected companies like HB-Laser, Laser Animation Sollinger, RGB Lasersystems, LPS-Laser etc... ), after unpacking the scanners , is to test them...also against the 6215s... Would we continue advertising them as 60K, if our customers had come back to us complaining that this is a 45K scanner ?

Well have you modified your advertisement regarding aperture size? Certainly at least that point is exaggerated...


Bill

[heroic]

]
Talk is cheap, actions speak louder than words, and all of that... Perhaps it's time to put your microprocessors where your mouth is and build your own digital amp?

Maybe I will. Control systems are my day job.

Well I would certainly hope you appeal to my authority because you're dead wrong about the magnets in Cambridge scanners. Certainly Cambridge has never released a commercial scanner with anything other than NdFeB scanner for the past nearly 25 years they've been in business!

Odd, then, that the ones in the 6800HPs that I blew up were unquestionably SmCo. Measured the Curie point with a Hall effect probe.

This is an instance where you are opinionated where you are not knowledgeable...

Nice ad-hominem.

Hehe. You're way over-estimating!! I know their prices well, and you are many times higher than their manufacturing cost...

I seriously doubt that.

[planters]

This is killing me.

So much time spent discussing what is NOT the original post. All these issues are interesting, but what about the damn 7000 scanners. So far, a test run at a FLEM. Results? Video? Other side by side comparisons???

Jon, I agree a comparison has to be made and the cost? How about the manufacturer? They need to sell these, I don't have to buy them.

Bill,

I assume when your scanners are available you will run many and independent comparisons. You will present the results and provide the proof. I'm serious. OK then, who will you send them to? How will you get them evaluated? Who's scanners and which models will you compare them with? Demand exactly that from EM.

[Pangolin]

The reason the FB3 is dimmer at higher point rates is that it seems to need a little bit of time at the end of a frame scan to get its ducks in a row, during which time the lasers are off. This is common in systems that use double buffering-

I am always amazed by the talents of folks here on Photon Lexicon. However, I think it's safe to say that everybody has blindspots...

I can assure you that the FB3 does not use double-buffering. Instead we use a "direct feed" approach. There is only a teeny tiny amount of memory in every FB3. Therefore every point is fed by the computer over USB to the FB3.

And what you wrote about "a little bit of time at the end of a frame" really depends on settings found in our Projector Settings dialog box. These can be eliminated if desired...

[heroic]

Yet another area where you are opinionated but not knowledgeable...
No FB3 on earth uses double-buffering. Instead we use a "direct feed" approach. There is only a teeny tiny amount of memory in every FB3. Therefore every point is fed by the computer over USB to the FB3.

Funny you mention that, because if that's the case then (a) where's the deadtime coming from? I can show you the scope traces if you like and (b) what's with the RAM chips on the FB3-SE PCBA?

Stop saying I'm not knowledgeable, Bill. I own *five* FB3s, one of each generation, and I design control systems for a living. Your story does not add up, and ad hominem does not become you.

I understand that you're trying to sell this thing, but seriously, Bill, this is not a good way of engaging with your customers.

[heroic]

You measure the curie point by placing a Hall effect probe near the magnet and heating the magnet up. SmCo retains magnetism up to 6-700 degrees C. NdFeB loses its field (Curie point, derp) much lower.

[Pangolin]

what's with the RAM chips on the FB3-SE PCBA?

Please take a photograph, post it here on PL, and point to the RAM chips...

Stop saying I'm not knowledgeable, Bill.

I am sure you are very knowledgeable about many technical things. Of that there is no question. However, I hope you'll agree that it is fair to say that you are not as knowledgable as the manufacturer when it comes to how the FB3 works!! The FB3 absolutely does not do double-buffering! And Cambridge never used SmCo in their rotors.

[JohnYayas]

I have measured it.

There does not need to be any deadtime at all. Ever. You don't have to speed up the movie, because LASERS DO NOT HAVE A FRAME STRUCTURE. You can scan faster without any need for deadtime or the loss of brightness it includes if you treat the frame as a sequence of isolated vectors and reoptimize on the fly for the scan set available. This is what all decent laser software does. Heck, even the shonky old LAStudio Pangolin stuff does this.

Unfortunately, you do not have the experience that I have to understand what I am talking about. What I have said has obviously gone over your head because you are speaking drivel that is not even related to what I was describing.

And finally, that streaming audio example you mentioned... anyone who has done Windows platform streaming audio processing will tell you that at least two buffers are employed. That's how it's done and there is no dead time that you speak of. I'm doing it with 8 channels of audio just fine.

[Pangolin]

All these issues are interesting, but what about the damn 7000 scanners. So far, a test run at a FLEM. Results? Video? Other side by side comparisons???

Here are the results from FLEM testing:

Toms scanners out of the box: Showed ILDA test pattern *properly* (i.e. circle inside the square, but touching the sides) at 47K and at 2.6 degrees.
When size was increased, scan rate had to be decreased (for obvious reasons). Eventually size of 13 degrees was met, but with scan speed of 30K.

After that initial test, I re-tuned the scanners so they would go 60K. In such a case, scan angle was 4.82 degrees.

After that, we tried several other scanners -- all running at 30K, and checked the scan angle:

Adam's ScanPro 50s: 17.5 degrees
Original DT40 Pros: 14.4 degrees
Aaron Cambridge 6215 with 673 amps (the slow amps): 28.6 degrees
LJ's original 6800s: 10.5 degrees
Dave Zurcher G-120 with TurboTrack amps: 11.2 degrees
EMS-4000 scanners with supposedly 6.5mm mirrors: 6.8 degrees

When I got back to the office, I tested Cambridge 6215 with high power amps tuned to 60K and running 60K. They produce the ILDA test pattern (again -- producing it at spec, the way you are supposed to display and test with the ILDA test pattern) at 8.64 degrees.

Note that all of these are over the minimum of 8 degrees. Tom's, even re-tuned only hit 4.82 degrees. And frankly I don't buy the "faulty scanner" argument. All of this is controlled by Physics. 140 microhenry inductance alone will prevent faster speeds and wider scan angles, not to mention the torque to inertia ratio, peak current, etc...

Bill,

I assume when your scanners are available you will run many and independent comparisons. You will present the results and provide the proof. I'm serious. OK then, who will you send them to? How will you get them evaluated? Who's scanners and which models will you compare them with? Demand exactly that from EM.

Planters, what you wrote above is ENTIRELY REASONABLE!!! The answer is yes!

Bill

[Pangolin]

Second discovery : After almost 5.500 sets sold since 1999, with many of those helping laser enthusiasts come in to the business by offering a bulletproof design

... You might want to check with Laser Design Productions because they've had plenty of them fail. When they brought them to Pangolin for analysis, we see that the nickel plating came off of the magnet and the magnet started to disintegrate...

This fact, plus my knowledge of magnetic circuits and scanners is what prevents me from recommending your products, nothing more...

Everyone says (Mr. Benner also) that the main problem is that our advertising is a lie and this is why we get attacked. Sonima publishes, for their long scanner (the ScanPro50 I assume) that the performance is around 82K at +/-5 degrees (if I remember correctly).

Tom, I believe it should be clear that your advertisement is -- at the very least -- misleading with respect to the size of a beam which will fit onto your mirrors and be scanned throughout a large scan angle. This news already shocked a few people who purchased the scanners.