New EYEMAGIC Scanners EMS7000

[Solarfire]

Well I’ve put up the facts that I have to offer here, nothing has been coloured pretty and I’m not associated with either side. There may be some information which may be valuable to some people in deciding if these scanners are something for them or not, makes absolute no difference to me. I for one am very impressed by the performance delivered at a very comfortable price. Even single beams within a graphic are as sharp and tight as if they were coming out of the laser directly instead of being scanned. I may post some pictures later of graphic and beam show situations scanned @ full angle. After that I’m going to bow out here because I’ve already spent more time on this subject then I wanted to. I’m sure that everyone can form their own opinions from here.

Cheers!

[EyeMagic]

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

Hello Everyone,

Mr. Flecom, the 8x14mm mirror scanners are advertised by our company as 30K@6-7 deg. In the FLEM you found that they do 30K@6.8 deg. So, why do you say that they cannot display the ILDA test as advertised ?

A final note to everyone : The ''pdf'' says that the scanner set was received October 30, 2011. Now, read that again.

UNTIL THAT DATE, WE HAVE SHIPPED ONLY BETA VERSIONS OF OUR SCANNERS, TO SELECTED COMPANIES, FOR TESTING AND FEEDBACK. THE SCANNERS WERE SENT WITH THE INSTRUCTION ''NOT FOR SALE''. The slightly tilted pin and the glue that is bonded with, proves to us that it was one of the very first test samples, made without the appropriate production ''jigs''.

Now, what happens. Mr. Benner somehow gets a set of our pre-production items, tests it, and given his appetite to minimize everyone else's work (that is very clear in the pdf, he has even dug inside the coil..!!!), presents this ''report''.

Mr. Benner, do you compare the power consumed by the scanners with the power consumed by the scanners and amps ? And you want to persuade everyone that this was a ''professional'' and ''unbiased'' review ?

As with all products, the scanners have improved dramatically over the last months. The PL group buy has received the update ''1'' scanners and we are now shipping the update ''2'' products. The last update has to do with better mirror balance eliminating any remaining ''waves'', a better bearing preload technique, an improved mirror glueing technique (yes it matters...) and an improved end stop system . The second update can be retrofitted to the previous scanners, so we will slowly do a recall to update each and every scanner sent out. Have you ever seen this from any other scanner manufacturer ?

As with all products, it is good faith that improves them. And we certainly didn't find good faith in this ''review''. If Pangolin motive was in good faith, THIS ''REPORT'', SHOULD HAVE COME FIRSTLY TO US, before sent out to the public. Now, mate this with the recent incident where Pangolin was caught spreading bad words about competitors products and their users.

As a comparison, we are firm supporters of Pangolin software since 15 years now (even if I am sitting next to a 48.000 Euro Lacon5 system), we have seen all problems of their software / hardware during the years and we have even repaired broken QM2000 ourselves (when it was a simple op-amp issue etc..). Despite the above, we will never change that, even after Pangolins attack, as we believe in good faith.

For your reference, take a look at shows we have created using LD2000 and 3D : www.laserdesign.gr (look for ''videos'')

All the best,

Tom Kamaras
EyeMagic

[MIIKKKLLLL]

As with all products, it is good faith that improves them. And we certainly didn't find good faith in this ''review''. If Pangolin motive was in good faith, THIS ''REPORT'', SHOULD HAVE COME FIRSTLY TO US, before sent out to the public. Now, mate this with the recent incident where Pangolin was caught spreading bad words about competitors products and their users.

Tom Kamaras
EyeMagic

Yeah you are absolutely right! And I add that he disclosed (perhaps) some technological secrets with his pictures...

Moreover, this is the same way if you find a way to "EDIT" the code of Pangolin software Beyond and disclose all algorithms here on PL!

Don't think Mr. Benner approve.


But I still don't understand why Pangolin has this fury against Eyemagic. This is perhaps that their work for their own scanners will be worth nothing because they reach the same speed@ same angle so they are furious!




Mr Benner, what speed do you reach with your experimentals scanners @10 degrees?



Miikkkllll

[dsli_jon]

Heya Chief -

..my intention -- only to determine the FACTS. ...To me the main question is -- are there exaggerations...yes or no.....I'm only after the FACTS.

Gotta say - I respect where your 'passion' for this all stems-from, and I don't even remotely-pretend to have more than a rabbit-pellets' amount of in-depth knowledge about the 'underlying-fundamentals' in the materials-science, etc - I'm more of a 'what's the end-result / real-world performance / toughness' kinda-guy, being a show-soldier, and all... but - I gotta say - I think you may need to go back to 'FACTS-ONLY presentation-school' a little-bit...

ie: How, exactly, is this: "...This is of interest, since the claims made by the advertisement are pretty outlandish." - relevant to 'mining the FACTS'? I think this is why some-people, here, may-be getting the 'feeling' / vibe, that this 'crusade' is not as 'un-biased' as you sing - from an objective-viewpoint, this kinda 'flavor', peppered throughout the report, does-feel kinda 'personal' - not 'only the facts'. And, I dare-say, that if this were some 'court-case', stuff like this: "Could it be true that the EMS-7000 is really the fastest scanning system on planet earth? Is it true that no scanner is faster? And is it true that this is the most efficient too?" - would likely cause an 'Objection!, your Honor...leading the witness / jury..' to be thrown by the Defense... Such 'non-facts' do not really 'help the case', imho..

Why is this at-all 'relevant'? I mean - the 'data is the data', right? Well, also keep in mind, that, as this all relates to your-issues with 'the advertising claims' - you're forgetting the factor of *subjectivity* - In example, I am quite more than-sure that there are those in this world, that do not share-agreement with your 'posturing' of Pangolin-products' 'superiority' over all other competitors, for every aspect of show-creation / performance - in particular, 'Beyond', as-it was first-released. Certainly, there are those - up-to this very moment - that feel that it has not 'lived up to all the 'hype' - and, there are those that do... yup, they're happy as a pig in... chocolate.

..Bill, I'm *NOT* trying to crit. Pango-products / Beyond, etc, here, but simply making the point about 'subjectivity' being a factor in EMS' 7K 'posturing' and 'marketing hype', much in the same-way Pango asserts that it is 'the number one laser-show software in the world' / the "Best".. I say, OK, but by who's yardstick? For many, many, yes - many, it is "the Best". However, for many others, it's just ONE good, solid 'tool', in-amongst several others, that - in the 'end': (ie that 'huge-arena' with 36,000 people with all-eyes on *your* show / content) - can, in-fact, 'get the job done', and done well / you get paid / everyone goes home happy, etc. It's not an entirely 'binary' equation, here..

Yes, there is 'hard data' / materials-science / laws of physics that are *not* 'subject to subjectivity', here, but, if you say 'I'm only riled about the exaggerations / hype vs the real-world facts', well... then let's leave the 'leading' comments out of the next-report, and just present the actual-data, eh? This is why, a 'recent Gen' set, sent to S. Roberts Laboratories will be a good thing, for all..

Really looking forward to seeing the 'Pangvos', someday, and having the time to dive into the depths of Beyond, myself.. QS is definitely a great-tool so, eager to further-explore all the expanded-capabilities that Beyond-promises..

Ok, I'm shutting up now.
j

[JohnYayas]

Sooooo, the explanation is that the FLEM tests were carried out on a beta version of scanners that were not meant to be in the public's hands? If this is true, then the FLEM tests should basically be "thrown out of court" in my opinion. At this point, I am giving Eye Magic the benefit of the doubt and will assume that their specs are correct.

As far as the above discussion about the ILDA test pattern, I find that there is some nit picking going on. It isn't 100% perfect but I rarely see scanners tuned 100% perfectly. Mine are 30K scanners and the ILDA pattern isn't perfect. An audio amplifier will not be 100% perfect across all frequencies. Advertising they can do 60K does not mean that they can do 60K with 100% perfection and whether or not the end user expects perfection or not has little to do with it.

Pangolin sometimes described as the best software. But it isn't. At least not to me. To me, my software is better because is fits my needs 100% with zero fluff. In other words, my software is 100% efficient in relation to my needs so it is impossible for anything to be better. But, the point is not to say my software is better but to say that claims in adverstisements can be gray and in this case I am siding more and more with Eye Magic and less and less with Benner due to undisclosed flaws in testing.

Had Benner shown up with the scanner set at FLEM and first announced that it was a beta set that he really shouldn't be using for tests then I think that the whole atttidude at FLEM and within this discussion would be a lot different. In good faith I went away from FLEM with the feeling that Benner had proved his point but now I am just jaded by it all and feel like a lot of my vacation time was wasted as I watched him capture the entire FLEM audience for hours.

[loopee]

Just an observation

Joost got hammered for the misrepresentation of his 9Watt projector he was selling and when questioned and with him not responding he got further criticized (granted there were further safety concerns but that what started it initially)

Interestingly White-Light made a comment about new European laws on misleading consumers

Yet when Eyemagic make a claim that there new scanner are better than the current market leaders (CT’s) and get called out on it and don’t/can’t substantiate the said claim they don’t get grilled on it

I find it amazing that a vendor (Eyemagic) are relying on their clients to defend their reputation and try to substantiate the claim they made and not do it themselves (to me this doesn’t sell well, but that’s just me)

I would think at the very least Eyemagic could provide Specs and appropriate imagery (with comparisons against other scanners in the same league) to validate the claim (how frigging hard is it especially if a hobbyist can do it. I would imagine their R&D/Marketing budget would be substantially bigger than the average hobbyist)


Now, my 2c worth (only really worth 1c)

To be honest I’m a little disappointed with Tom’s responses particularly post #373

I call bogus on
“WE HAVE SHIPPED ONLY BETA VERSIONS OF OUR SCANNERS, TO SELECTED COMPANIES, FOR TESTING AND FEEDBACK”

If this was the case all these companies would know this and would have reply to Eyemagic (why would they send them to Bill (and if they did, not state that they are beta versions, especially for more than one set (apparently))

I’d also like to ask that if this thread didn’t exist would all the PL group buy purchasers 1) find out that they have “Update “1” scanners” and 2) be offered to have them eventually retrofitted to “Update “2” scanner”? (if at all it happens, I’d assume that would cost a considerable amount of money on something that was sold at a heavily discount price as part of the group buy, sorry I don't see the economics on this for what were basically one off sales)

I also agree with others that Bills posts on this haven’t been the most tactful and could have been presented in considerable better ways, but at the end of the day would this come about if he didn’t post some of the information that he did? (it has also made for some interesting technical information)

Also to the point of 60k scanning, how does one validate this speed if it’s not to an industry accepted/standard frame?

I don’t get all the talk about how the ILDA test frame is outdate or not useful for 60k scanning, yet other manufactures use it to test their scanners and show the capabilities of their product.

If it wasn’t for the test pattern you would have manufactures producing a set of scanners that can scanning a circle at “60k” and then claiming that they are 60k capable (BTW I have just designed my own scanners capable of doing 100k scanning, currently in beta, but will be available soon for purchase http://lh5.ggpht.com/_SvO97HE_fik/TH...-mirrors-1.jpg)

I don’t doubt that these scanners are good but I’m just finding the lack of information/validation not living up to the claim

Looking forward to seeing some independent testing and comparisons being done, particularly against some 60k CT6215

Cheers
Troy

[andyf97]

[QUOTE=loopee;230653]
(BTW I have just designed my own scanners capable of doing 100k scanning, currently in beta, but will be available soon for purchase http://lh5.ggpht.com/_SvO97HE_fik/TH...-mirrors-1.jpg)

Neat piezoelectrics, have an application for some of these. Got any ready for sale?

[mixedgas]

Neat piezoelectrics, have an application for some of these. Got any ready for sale?

Have you seen a professional optician lately?

Those are not piezo..

Steve

[andyf97]

Have you seen a professional optician lately?

Those are not piezo..

Steve

Look like to me, what do you think they are apart from cooling fans with mirrors on?

[mixedgas]

Look like to me, what do you think they are apart from cooling fans with mirrors on?

I think he was trying at Satire, with the fans,

Steve