New EYEMAGIC Scanners EMS7000

[Pangolin]

You yourself point me to a website with information on scanners,

Sure. But the information wasn't for any particular purpose other than to provide more information about the topic, since you seemed interested in it. And I did not indicate that the information was up to date or complete. Indeed, what would you expect from a web posting from the year 1999?

Measuring at one point has worked so far because in the past the scanner performance curve has been similar at 12K, 30K and even 36K. If performance is known at one point, it can be inferred at most other points.
But new scanners or scanner amp tunings may come out which change the shape of the curve. For this reason, it may be necessary for the laser display industry to develop a consensus on new test patterns that give additional data.

Sure. It *may be necessary*. But really one of two conditions exist:

1. The industry keeps moving the entire capability-range forward, in which case we keep using the old test pattern and test method
2. The industry finds that it is impossible to move the entire capability-range forward, in which case obviously a new test pattern and new methods would be needed

You seem to arguing for the second point. Frankly we may need to exercise that second option one day because, eventually there will be no way to push the entire capability range forward. The question is -- are we there today or not? To help answer this question I'll leave you with three points:

A. In 1999 or 2000 (I can't remember and if you're interested, you can dig it up in meetting minutes), the ILDA Technical Committee decided to adopt 60K as a provisional ILDA standard, using the same test pattern and other specifications that we had up until then. I know this, because I was chair of the committee at the time.
B. Tom's advertisement implies that you could do everything you can at 30K, but now at 60K. In order for this to be the case, the entire capability range (entire range of effects, range of angles, etc.) would need to be possible, but at twice the speed.
C. If we adopt point number 2 above, then not only will the test pattern and test method need to change, but likely much of the already-digitized laser imagery that exists within libraries as well. This is of course not palatable...

I don’t know how often I have read and heard this introduction,

Me neither, but I think you're exaggerating. Certainly I don't remember cutting and pasting that many times ;-)

I’m 53 years old and currently head a part of our R&D department at Terex-Demag here in Germany with 8 engineers.

<snip>

Bottom line, I'm a freak, nerd or what ever you want to call it.

WOW, sounds great! Thanks for sharing! OK, well, at least now we know that you're a tech guy. Great!

With respect to why I asked, Norty has been on this forum for a long time. He's a really smart guy too, so you might want to consider his experience while responding to one of his comments. And I've seen a lot of smart things come out of Absolom as well.

Enough of this shit, to me it’s clear that you have some kind of vendetta going against EyeMagic

Would you say I had "some kind of vendetta going against Cambridge" after reading how I embarrassed them at that 1999 LaserFX conference? (after working with them since 1992 on the original 6800 project, and then working with them since 2002 on the 6215 project, and then purchasing 200 scanning systems per year for the past five years)? Would you say I have a "some kind of vendetta going against General Scanning" who, just before they purchased Cambridge, they sent me specifications for two of their new scanners, and on one of the spec sheets I sent it back and said "I don't believe this -- the number is way off, have your engineer check it again" and they did, and revised it and sent it back to me, to which I said "I still don't believe this, the number is still off -- have your engineers check it again"?

I only have "some kind of vendetta going against" incorrect specifications! Always have! I guess I'm funny that way...

Bill

[norty303]

With respect to why I asked, Norty has been on this forum for a long time. He's a really smart guy too, so you might want to consider his experience while responding to one of his comments.

Whilst I appreciate the complement, I would say I really know f*ck all about the technicalities of scanners. But I do understand how a standard form of measurement is important, nay essential, if we want to have any hope of comparing 2 products, regardless of how good it might be considered to be.
imho (knowing very little, as I said) the ILDA frame seems to be a pattern that taxes scanners in a number of different ways, and remains so as the speed increases. I'm happy to accept that it alows me to view 2 scansets and make a judgement about which is the better performing, although 'performance' is often about more than just the output (as Jon would say, would you bet your ass on them? Do they deform or just collapse when driven to extremes?)
It feels like I only joined yesterday, and I was a complete laser noob at the time, so don't put too much stock in that... I am however quite opinionated, and post quite a bit, so that may have mislead you...

[Michaelight]

Eye Retina

I'm a new member with PL and I'm customizing an old laser display.So at the moment I'm saving up the cash for some EMS7000 60K
scanners it will take me till July but well worth the wait.I was just wondering if you could give me some info.When i fit these 60K scanners
to my module will they need eney tuning with Gain and Damping or are they just ready to use.And I'm confused with pangolin using percentage % and scanners use angles and degrees for the size of your picture.I dont want to damage my scanners when i get them i'ts
scary.I use pangolin quickshow software.

Thank you for your time regards Mick.

[absolom7691]

The reason Pangolin (or ANY software) measures the image output in % is because it is impossible to determine angular deflection in the software. Glavo mirros may be a different size thus affecting speed/angle of your glavos. The gain on galvos may be set differently from galvo amp to galvo amp. Different galvos have different deflection capabilities e.g. G120s are different from CT 6800s are different from Catweazles are different from DT40s are different from DT40 wides... etc etc etc. Also amp capabilities are different from eachother. There are a million more reasons why but these are a few highlights. It would be like basing the speed of a car on how far the accelerator pedal is depressed.

[sbk]

I was doing some adjustments on two projectors, one with DT40 Pro, the other with Eyemagic EMS7000. Both with bigger mirrors for 5mm beam.
And I thought interesting to do a quick test, projecting the same graphics side by side to compare them, with an Y-cable, factory tuning, 40kpps and a small angle around 8-10°. Just to ensure me the EMS7000 was working at least better than the cheaper DT40

By the way, the precision of the EMS7000 projector stays about the same even approaching max angle...

Now, someone should do the same but comparing them with CT scanners!

[dave]

I like what you are projecting

[planters]

By the way, the precision of the EMS7000 projector stays about the same even approaching max angle...

Now, someone should do the same but comparing them with CT scanners!

Thanks. That helps a lot when deciding which to purchase. Were you suggesting that the quality of the DT's dropped when the angle was increased? Also, I assume the EMS is on the right?

[absolom7691]

...factory tuning...

I have found that DTs need a little tweaking on the tuning to get them right. Thanks for the side-by-side!

[sbk]

Yes EMS7000 are on the right. Indeed they perform better than the DT40, as if I remember someone even has doubt about that in this thread, as DT are copy of CT6800...

I should do more side by side projections when I have free time.

[White-Light]

I'd hope 40 or 60K CT's would be a lot better given their price, as both the DT's and EMS, appear to be at their limits.

Assuming both sets are fully tuned, the DT's are clearly beyond their capabilities with that cue at that angle, as evidenced by the break apart of the circles and the EMS's are, if you look carefully, starting to break the circles apart also in the same place as the DT's.

Clearly assuming they're fully tuned and everything being equal, EMS7700 > DT40 based on that test. But then again don't the EMS claim 60K, so wouldn't this be expected?

Yes EMS7000 are on the right. Indeed they perform better than the DT40, as if I remember someone even has doubt about that in this thread, as DT are copy of CT6800...

I don't think anyone's under any illusion that DT's come anywhere near CT's for quality. TBH almost every Chinese scanner out there is similar to a CT in some respects, so similarity is no basis for a quality of performance judgement.

I think the only realistic conclusion you can draw from this comparison is that the EMS 7700 are quite clearly a better choice than DT40's if you have the extra money to spend. You can't really bring untested CT's into it.

Nice to see a comparison though.