New EYEMAGIC Scanners EMS7000

[White-Light]

No problem Simon. I'm trying to be neutral in this thread and felt able to comment on the pattern as the failing was obvious but sure I'll step out.

[absolom7691]

The circle is inside the square as opposed to just touching the walls, indicating that the scanning is too fast which is also why the circle has broken away at the top.

Agreed, the result is good, but is NOT 60K. Solarfire, when you get back to testing, slow the scan speed down until the image is correct and let us know what the speed is. Still not bad, though.

[andythemechanic]

@Solarfire: are there different sized mirros on the axes? It seems that the x-axis scans slower than y. A Hysteresis test image would show this. Also the balnkshift is not optimal. Adjusting it might lead to the circle looking a bit better.

[JohnYayas]

FYI: At FLEM they ran the pattern with lasers not blanking.

[MIIKKKLLLL]

About the broken circle on the top, can it be possible that it is the laser modulation (retarded or advanced) who generate this?

[Solarfire]

Ah.. as stated, the setup is just a quick "Let's see what these can roughly do setup", no tweaking of the scan amps and Mamba running with default scan/DAC values. The image size is calculated for the distance X from the scanner aperture to the wall plus a little just too make sure that the image is at least 10°, probably closer to 11°. This being said, what this picture is actually saying is that there is still potential here for improvement through tweaking. To me personally this is far from what has been depicted in this thread so far as to the performance of the EMS7000, with such terms as “sucks”. Can anyone, that was at the FLEM confirm that this is what you saw, someone neutral who isn’t a Pango/CT disciple, because for starters this looks pretty damnd good to me?

If I get home at a decent time today I'll tweak the setup and see what we can get out of these. I have 2 sets which will give the possibility of comparison within the series.

@ andythemechanic

The mirrors are the same size. Like I said, a little tweaking of the hardware and the scan/DAC parameters in Mamba should bring some improvement. Plus I just realized that the Gnd/0V connection of the scanner PSU to the pin 25 of the ILDA connector may be missing and could have some influence on the scan even though the image was stable.

[andyf97]

Guys and girls,

How is one knowing that this image is at 10, 11, 15 or even 8 degrees. This is a confusing method to use and also I am sure miss leading because we have say 10 across the entire image or 10+ and 10-.

Better I think would be to say the image at 2 meters should be 1 x 1 meter ( Something that can be measured with a ruler or tape ) when displaying the test pattens then you can be more accurate about the results and everyone using this 2meter scale will have also the same test setup instead of this ( degrees mumbo jumbo ).

And before somebody says, Oh my software when set at a% will be angle angle, of course this cannot be done because of the gain on amps.

So am I being thick here or are these test angles being guessed.

[Solarfire]

Guys and girls,

How is one knowing that this image is at 10, 11, 15 or even 8 degrees. This is a confusing method to use and also I am sure miss leading because we have say 10 across the entire image or 10+ and 10-.

Better I think would be to say the image at 2 meters should be 1 x 1 meter ( Something that can be measured with a ruler or tape ) when displaying the test pattens then you can be more accurate about the results and everyone using this 2meter scale will have also the same test setup instead of this ( degrees mumbo jumbo ).

And before somebody says, Oh my software when set at a% will be angle angle, of course this cannot be done because of the gain on amps.

So am I being thick here or are these test angles being guessed.

Andy, are you having a tough time reading and understanding? As stated, this was just a quick test and even over spec. Have you ever heard of trigonometry? The distance from scanner aperture measured to the projection area is 5m; @ 10° optical angle this gives an image of 87.5cm. The scanner output was adjusted to be slightly larger than the calculated 87.5cm. Besides that a 10° optical angel is 10° optical angle no mater how far away from the source. Is that so hard to understand? So be patient more detailed tests will follow, besides that, I’m not trying to sell anything to anybody here I’m just making my data/information available to the forum. What you believe and what you do with this information, to be frank with you, I don’t give a shit. Buy your own scanners and test them if you can’t follow the conversation. I’m just tired of this horn blowing crap where nobody at the FLEM was capable of producing even one single picture or side by side comparison shots, nothing.
So, sit up straight and pay attention now dude.

[andyf97]

Andy, are you having a tough time reading and understanding? As stated, this was just a quick test and even over spec. Have you ever heard of trigonometry? The distance from scanner aperture measured to the projection area is 5m; @ 10° optical angle this gives an image of 87.5cm. The scanner output was adjusted to be slightly larger than the calculated 87.5cm. Besides that a 10° optical angel is 10° optical angle no mater how far away from the source. Is that so hard to understand? So be patient more detailed tests will follow, besides that, I’m not trying to sell anything to anybody here I’m just making my data/information available to the forum. What you believe and what you do with this information, to be frank with you, I don’t give a shit. Buy your own scanners and test them if you can’t follow the conversation. I’m just tired of this horn blowing crap where nobody at the FLEM was capable of producing even one single picture or side by side comparison shots, nothing.
So, sit up straight and pay attention now dude.

"Have you ever heard of trigonometry?" who me, no, never what is that.

No, I am not having any hard time here at all, I did not even question what you are doing, Just pointing out that to base scanner tests on a certain degrees is somehow misleading and can introduce some issues when it would be much easier without any trigonometry.

To say at 5 meters the image is 87.5 cm. No math required. Clears it up for everyone then and we can all base tests on the same known setup instead of introducing another variable that could be wrong or guessed.

When I project a logo for a client on a wall, I don't go and measure the angles, I look at the logo and see how it looks, don't need any maths to see if a logo looks good or not.

[Solarfire]

"Have you ever heard of trigonometry?" who me, no, never what is that.

No, I am not having any hard time here at all, I did not even question what you are doing, Just pointing out that to base scanner tests on a certain degrees is somehow misleading and can introduce some issues when it would be much easier without any trigonometry.

To say at 5 meters the image is 87.5 cm. No math required. Clears it up for everyone then and we can all base tests on the same known setup instead of introducing another variable that could be wrong or guessed.

When I project a logo for a client on a wall, I don't go and measure the angles, I look at the logo and see how it looks, don't need any maths to see if a logo looks good or not.

The ILDA test frame is not my idea; other people here still see this as the Holy Grail for determining scanner performance. In my opinion, about as single fold and retro as it can get. This was probably ok in the days of torsion rod based scanners. As you said, show images are what count.