Anyone with Kvant ATOM 800 Experience?

[keebs]

Hi all,

I've been considering upgrading my small laser setup (currently just 2x first-gen X-Laser MobileBeat RGB's... ) with 1-2 Kvant ATOM 800 units. There hasn't been toooo much mention of these on the forums from what I can find, and some of what has been said has slammed it for being overly blue... but I'm wondering if anybody has experience with these or could give me some real life impressions.

I would likely be using these in one of two venues most often. The first venue is rather small and I'm sure these would be sufficient (the MobileBeat RGB's do a fairly decent job in terms of brightness there at the moment) but the second venue is a decent bit larger and the ATOMs would be mounted on a lighting truss relatively close to some TechnoBeams that they have setup there permanently. My concern would be that the light from the TechnoBeams may overpower the ATOMs.

Thanks for your help,

Todd Keebs

[hegelstad]

I second this.

[JD3]

With the new Kvant ClubMax 3000 being released i would say that would be a better bang for buck. They even include an FB3 in the price.

::Assuming you are from the US and need a laser with a variance.

[hegelstad]

I'm from Norway, looking to buy my first quality laser because I don't believe I'm skilled enough to build my own (will do crowd scanning sometime). No need for any variance or legal document. The Kvant ATOM 800 looks like the apple of lasers in my eyes. Low beam divergence, quality scanners and housing, but steep price. I haven't found any reviews of it, tho the youtube clips I've seen look very promising.

[masterpj]

I'm from Norway, looking to buy my first quality laser because I don't believe I'm skilled enough to build my own (will do crowd scanning sometime). No need for any variance or legal document. The Kvant ATOM 800 looks like the apple of lasers in my eyes. Low beam divergence, quality scanners and housing, but steep price. I haven't found any reviews of it, tho the youtube clips I've seen look very promising.

Even though crowd scanning possibly requires no variance or documents in your country I do not recommend crowd scanning soon, especially not a laser which you haven't build yourself yet. Lasers can be decieving sometimes especially since the majority of the harm is unnoticeable and comes in the form of build up.
Make sure you learn about MPE, the exact mrad of each color of the projector you buy, the exact measured powers of your lasers.

Even if there are no strict rules documented in your country the general laser safety rules still apply *the ones in work enviroments for instance* and violating them in any way will still form a legal issue and you risk a lawsuit if you do not document a crowd scanned show properly to prove it was safe incase someone does decide to act.

[dzodzo]

i'd second to that clubmax, for about 35% more price you get 375% power output and scannermax galvos that look very promising

[Pelikan]

Hi Todd and guys..


There are two reasons for it to be "blue heavy":

1. There would be no price difference if we turned down the blue to let say 100mW. The diode used inside would still be the same.

2. To match the real visual intensity of all the colours (R,G,B) there must be a lot more blue - especially in these low power systems. When you look at three R,G,B circles projected onto a wall, 600mW of blue actually matches the other colours nicely and the white balance you set in the software anyway. If there was 100mW of blue you wouldn't see much of it at all.

The beam is very sharp and tight and the NOHD (Nominal Ocular Hazard Distance) is around 270 meters so the ATOM 800 will work for bit bigger spaces than you may think. On the other hand you can't (and should not) compete against other lighting or LED walls. For that you'd need some serious power lasers.

The true is that the ClubMax 3000 is an exceptional value laser system that offers a lot for the money. And from what you describe it may be better for you - or more flexible rather.

Safety-wise run any lasers just above heads until you know the safety stuff 100%. 3m above the floor, be careful about reflective surfaces (i.e. mirrors behind the bars, bottles, etc.) and make sure you do mask the output aperture so the beams can't get where they are not suppose to be.

[masterpj]

The turning down of blue is done so you get a proper white on recieving the product, running the blue lower ensures a longer diode life so I'm not totally sure if that justifies turning up blue to then sell it as a higher power projector. Especially not for a company that lists them as premium.. they look nice and they are really nicely build projectors don't get me wrong! But that habit of cranking up the blue dissapoints me a little bit every now and then

With an higher amount of blue you indeed still get white but a much colder looking white.
Some people prefer a warm white which actually includes more red.

Having to crank down the blue through software you in fact do lose resolution on your modulation curve!!

[Pelikan]

The blue diode in that system is 1.5W so it is not about turning the blue up. And what I meant by turning it down in the software - that was only for colour balance purpose (i.e. for warm white) and not as whole. Of course you want to use all 650mW of blue when doing the show, to make it same visible as other basic colours.
That's what I meant above. If you use only that much of 445 that would fit to warm white scheme of this little system, you won't see much at all of that blue when on its own (50mW maybe?).

[masterpj]

But isn't the point of buying an RGB projector that the colors are balanced?
With a premium projector you pay for a proper almost out of the box color balance on top of a proper divergence.

When you color balance in software and then scan blue graphics the graphics wont be showed at a higher power then it was balanced at.. that would make no sense from a intensity perspective.
If you turn down blue in software to make proper white then blue will be turned down overall.. even when a full blue graphic is scanned.

Also I thought the diode was 1.2watt

Why not use a weaker diode with a better beam profile??