New EYEMAGIC Scanners EMS7000

[planters]

I am not being facetious so I apologize if this comes across this way, but...

Tom,
What dose a pair of these 7000 series scanners cost. If as a US customer I was to order one or two pairs from EM what would I expect to pay?

Bill,
Looking ahead, What price point are you targeting for the scanners your developing.

Finally, what is the cost of the scanners from say DT ( if that's even a reasonable player here) and from CT that most closely approximate the performance of these scanners.

I am asking to get a handle on the price/performance tradeoff. For example, If the highest performance CT scanner that can manage 60K at 15 degrees costs $8,000 and the EMS 7000 that manages 50 K at 11 degrees ( just saying... so relax) costs $1,000 this is a VERY significant piece of the puzzle in a thread about the 7000 series scanner. You decide.

[Pangolin]

I am not being facetious so I apologize if this comes across this way, but...

Tom,
What dose a pair of these 7000 series scanners cost. If as a US customer I was to order one or two pairs from EM what would I expect to pay?

Bill,
Looking ahead, What price point are you targeting for the scanners your developing.

Finally, what is the cost of the scanners from say DT ( if that's even a reasonable player here) and from CT that most closely approximate the performance of these scanners.

I am asking to get a handle on the price/performance tradeoff. For example, If the highest performance CT scanner that can manage 60K at 15 degrees costs $8,000 and the EMS 7000 that manages 50 K at 11 degrees ( just saying... so relax) costs $1,000 this is a VERY significant piece of the puzzle in a thread about the 7000 series scanner. You decide.

These are indeed fair questions and it dovetails into something I wrote in the past, but which has been overlooked. It's not my intention to make people who have already bought these scanners feel bad about their decision. And I've never made the statement that these are overpriced. When considering price/performance, if the average laser enthusiast can't afford Cambridge model 6215 with high power amps, then they should look elsewhere. This is not the issue, which is why your questions above are entirely relevant.

My concern has always and exclusively been the facts and representations (or misrepresentations) being made about this product. I'm not trying to unduly pick on Tom or anyone else. It's just that if statements are being made in the public, I personally don't feel that it's too much to ask that those statements be factual.

Regarding your question about our scanners, no price has been set yet because -- as I wrote in the past, it's not our intention to make a cheap scanner, but rather to make a great scanner -- hopefully one which everyone will agree is the greatest (and we'll be happy to present all of the facts about why this is the case when the time comes).

Bill

[Pangolin]

As I wrote above, and in the past, my concern has always and exclusively been the facts and representations (or misrepresentations) being made about the EMS-7000. From the outset, the advertisements have outlandish claims which -- if true -- would be awesome news for the whole industry! But if false, then why make the claims?

In the interest of full disclosure, Tom sent me a pre-release of the advertisement before it went public. When I stated that I did not believe the claims being made and asked him to prove them, instead of stepping up and providing information as to why the claims were true (something I certainly would have done), he merely replied with something akin to "how dare you question me".

For that reason, we did our own analysis of the EMS-7000, to see if indeed the product lived up to the claims. After all, anyone making outlandish claims should be prepared to back them up. Unfortunately, what we found was that the product does not live up to the claims. During the examination, we also found other problems with this design which are not presented in this report, because the main point of this report is to compare that which is being claimed to reality. The report can be found here:
http://www.pangolin.com/_Files/EMS_7000_Report.pdf

Given that the report shows clear and irrefutable evidence that -- at the very least -- the advertisement has a number of exaggerations, it will be interesting to see if the advertisement is adjusted to reflect reality, or if the exaggerations are allowed to stand.

Bill

[Solarfire]

First of all I would like to thank andythemechanic, DZ, White-Light and JoJo for indirectly participating in confirming my position on the questionable usefulness of the ILDA frame, especially for scanners in the 60kpps class @ angles >8°. I see that we unanimously agree that the images tuned to try and meet the ILDA test frame requirements, literally do these scanners a great injustice.

During my many hours of testing, tweaking and overdriving of these scanners I have discovered that there is plenty of headroom in regards too scan rate and scan angle. It really made no difference if scanned faster, slower, bigger or smaller, the optimal adjustment in regards to the ILDA frame all looked like the last picture I posted when optimally tuned @ a given angle and scan rate. The tested range was from 58kpps to 64.5kpps @ angles from 10-12°.

To Mr. Benners question to image size and distance of the scanner aperture to the projection surface, the distance is 4.6m and the image is a hair under 0.85m which under my calculations gives an optical angle of ≈ 10.5°.

As to my reply to Andy, yes that wasn’t very nice and I sincerely apologize, it’s no excuse but it was a shitty day and unfortunately Andy got in the line of fire. Sorry Andy!!

Mr. Benner, it’s exactly because of your credentials that makes me wonder why testing of these scanners at the FLEM and wherever else, was done in such a slack way and then with only a single set. Not even questioning if everything was done correctly or even considering a scanner fault. Could it be that you and others just saw what you wanted to see and just left it at that because it would have confirmed your claims? Why weren’t there any pictures posted with results of the FLEM? As some would say “This thread is useless without pictures”. Yes there is 1 claim that doesn’t quite add up and that is the claim of a 3.8mm scanner aperture but during testing of the scanners in show mode there wasn’t any visible deficit on the edges of graphics @ the outer edges of the max scan angle. It should also be mentioned that the laser used has a 3.5mm x 3.5mm beam @ the aperture with a max divergence of 0.65mrad. I didn’t really pay attention to see if and how much spill over there was on the scanner mirrors during show operation @ max output, but I will check this.

As to my comment to the quietness in this thread after pictures were posted, was actually meant in general and not directed @ you.

As too your suggestion of Adam testing another set of these, I tend to think he was also a little biased and eager to accept the FLEM testing as substantial without questioning. Steve would be my choice as an independent tester; it also appears that his suggested test methods show that there is more to scanner testing/tuning then the somewhat disputed ILDA frame. Speaking of the ILDA frame, would you not agree that the ILDA frame is not laid out for properly testing and tuning of scanners in the 60kpps class and @ angles >8°?

[Pangolin]

Mr. Benner, it’s exactly because of your credentials that makes me wonder why testing of these scanners at the FLEM and wherever else, was done in such a slack way and then with only a single set. Not even questioning if everything was done correctly or even considering a scanner fault. Could it be that you and others just saw what you wanted to see and just left it at that because it would have confirmed your claims?

First, what was done at FLEM was only done to confirm that which I had already discovered through detailed testing with advanced test equipment. Also the testing was done "in public" so it wasn't just one guy's opinion.

Yes, it was only one set of scanners, and yes it could be that other sets may have different performance. But this was never the main point of my debate. The main point was always -- does the advertisement exaggerate yes or no? I know that the advertisement does indeed exaggerate on many levels, as detailed in my report.

And regarding "scanner fault", remember, there are two scanners here, so in fact, there would have to be a problem with two separate scanners, and a problem exactly the same way on both separate scanners! This is believed to be a bit unlikely...

Why weren’t there any pictures posted with results of the FLEM? As some would say “This thread is useless without pictures”.

Sure, well it wasn't until tonight when I could actually find the time to roll those FLEM pictures into the report. Remember two things:

* Pangolin was on tour for 32 days straight in Europe. After that time there were many paying customers to attend to (3500 emails).
* I don't come onto PL very often

Yes there is 1 claim that doesn’t quite add up and that is the claim of a 3.8mm scanner aperture but during testing of the scanners in show mode there wasn’t any visible deficit on the edges of graphics @ the outer edges of the max scan angle. It should also be mentioned that the laser used has a 3.5mm x 3.5mm beam @ the aperture with a max divergence of 0.65mrad. I didn’t really pay attention to see if and how much spill over there was on the scanner mirrors during show operation @ max output, but I will check this.

Our mechanical engineer Scott is busy with final exams all week, and has been studying for the past few weeks. Once he has a chance, I'll have him mock up the aperture of EMS-7000 and show exactly how big of a beam the mirrors can take, and under what circumstances. This is clearly Tom's job, but since he won't do it, we will...

Anyway my beef with this is that it's clearly an exaggeration. Is it meaningful for laser enthusiasts doing shows in the comfort of their own home? Maybe not. But if a spec is on a sheet, why not make it true? Why exaggerate the claims?

Speaking of the ILDA frame, would you not agree that the ILDA frame is not laid out for properly testing and tuning of scanners in the 60kpps class and @ angles >8°?

Actually I don't necessarily agree with this statement. The ILDA test pattern actually tests a number of things -- the circle inside the square being only one of them. Some of the others are only visible when blanking is completely disabled.

HOWEVER, what I will say is that the circle inside the square only tests scanner response at one point -- specifically at what frequency has the response reduced to -3db (i.e. 70.7% of the original size). The circle inside the square does not test the rolloff rate itself, or other factors such as resonances that might be seen either on it's way to the -3db point and beyond. For that, only a Dynamic Signal Analyzer and Laser Doppler Velocimeter can show these effects.

the optimal adjustment in regards to the ILDA frame all looked like the last picture I posted when optimally tuned @ a given angle and scan rate. The tested range was from 58kpps to 64.5kpps @ angles from 10-12°.

Well it depends on what you mean by "display the ILDA test pattern". See my comments within your own pattern. The wiggly lines and bent lines are because of the effect of resonances. All of the tuning in the world will not eliminate them, and most tuning won't even influence them at all.


Bill

[absolom7691]

Very thorough report, as always.

Tom, can you add to this with test results of your own? Not to nitpick but, so far, you have only provided a flyer.

[flecom]

I tend to think he was also a little biased and eager to accept the FLEM testing as substantial without questioning. Steve would be my choice as an independent tester; it also appears that his suggested test methods show that there is more to scanner testing/tuning then the somewhat disputed ILDA frame. Speaking of the ILDA frame, would you not agree that the ILDA frame is not laid out for properly testing and tuning of scanners in the 60kpps class and @ angles >8°?

because we have eyes and could clearly see that they were incapable of doing what was advertised? the same way my 4k's were incapable of doing what was advertised, and what DZ'd TurboTrack'ed G120's were doing very impressively

[Solarfire]

Well it depends on what you mean by "display the ILDA test pattern". See my comments within your own pattern. The wiggly lines and bent lines are because of the effect of resonances. All of the tuning in the world will not eliminate them, and most tuning won't even influence them at all.


Bill

As stated in the post where this picture came from, I said that after seeing the picture that there is still a little room for improvement. I didn’t see this during initial adjustment because adjustment was done on a projection area 1.2m from the scanners where the image was only 22cm; the finer details aren’t so visible @ that distance. The undershot and corners can be improved on. Besides that with the image at that size and such a low divergent beam there are some imperfections to be expected/become apparent, I also could have decreased the projection distance so that some of these details wouldn’t be so visible like the images in Buffos review of the ScanPro50s which are really unsharp and hide such details. If you check the link in a previous post to an Image of the CT6215 there are also points to be criticised. In regards to the resonances, these are very small in relation to the image/beam size and can also be seen in the ScanPro50- and CT6215 images @ much lower resolution/distance.

[Pangolin]

Besides that with the image at that size and such a low divergent beam there are some imperfections to be expected

Some imperfections to be expected? I didn't see that in Tom's advertisement... What the advertisement says is that you can now run 60K instead of 30K. Certainly these artifacts aren't to be expected with 30K are they?

I also could have decreased the projection distance so that some of these details wouldn’t be so visible like the images in Buffos review of the ScanPro50s which are really unsharp and hide such details.

I'm not aware of the test you're talking about here. However, I will say that a common failing of Chinese scanner companies is to use mirrors that are too thin. They foolishly believe that thin mirrors are lighter and therefore will allow the scanner to go faster. The inertia decrease is insignificant, but longitudinal resonances certainly become visible in such a case.

In regards to the resonances, these are very small in relation to the image/beam size

Yes but in graphics they will manifest themselves in a visual result, and that visual result will be unpredictable, and will change from graphic to graphic.


By the way, not to detract from this topic, but since you're interested in scanners, you might check out this:
http://www.laserfx.com/Backstage.Las...LFX99scan.html

[andyf97]

As I wrote above, and in the past, my concern has always and exclusively been the facts and representations (or misrepresentations) being made about the EMS-7000.

Of course that was, the reason . mooo mooo