Pangolin demonstrates 90K ILDA at Prolight & runs 3 shows simoultaneously

[White-Light]

If you sell 90k scanners at a "hobbyist price" but can only use it with the top level software you are doing the competitors a favor.

So far as I'm aware the 90K scanners will not be at a hobbyist price. I think most of us were originally expecting pricing North of $1K as originally it had been mentioned that they would undercut Cambridge by a little.

Who knows where they will slot in now, but I doubt they're going to be DT territory. Only the 506's are likely to be very low cost.

..Correct.. Precisely-why I'm not beating Tom / EMS about the head with a product *I* don't even own... Perhaps you might also consider the wisdom of the same-course?
(..with all due-respect..

j

I'm not beating anyone around the head Jon.

If you make marketing claims, you need to be able to back them up. Tom chose to jump into this thread and make claims that his scanners that did 90K @ a claimed 4 degrees were the fastest in the world when Pangolin had just shown 90K @ at a claimed 30 degrees on video (what this thread was about). I very politely pointed out that his claim to be fastest might not be accurate. No beating involved.

[smogthemog]

So far as I'm aware the 90K scanners will not be at a hobbyist price. I think most of us were originally expecting pricing North of $1K as originally it had been mentioned that they would undercut Cambridge by a little.

Not be at a hobbyist price? What is a 'hobbyist price'?

What is a 'Hobbyist' Al?

[dsli_jon]

...If you make marketing claims, you need to be able to back them up...

..And, straightaway, indeed. However.. can *You* prove Tom is wrong in his stated-specs? [sound of wind blowing..] Then, I guess I fail to see / understand how you would have place be all up in his face (posts) about them? Whatever, it's irrelevant noise, like 90% of this thread.. (including this post.. quite silly it was prompted to-exist..

..Viva Planters Laboratories!

L8r...
j

[norty303]

I currently only have 1 set of 506's, but they are running the large aperture mirrors. I'm trying to see if the other 2 sets of 506's I need soon (with regular sized mirrors) can be supplied in time for the UKLEM.
If they can be, and anyone has EMS scanners for comparison, we could do something there.

I can only say that I'm very happy with the 506's (not having ever even seen an EMS scanner in the flesh), not because of the speed/size/whatever, but simply that I can now run higher speeds and wider angles without the ever present buttock-clenching in fear of a failure that used to go on with my DT's

I'm reasonably fickle, in that I'll tend to follow what i think is best value (for me - others will have different sets of 'values' for thir situation). I happen to have accidentally become a Pangolin 'fanboy' purely because when i need to buy something, they seem to have the product, at the right price. I'd ALWAYS want to pay less for EVERYTHING I own, but in the scheme of things, as someone who takes money in return for laser shows, they are pretty competitively priced I think.

If there was a better alternative I'd probably have bought it, and there are threads from last year where I considered selling up and moving to Fiesta (at greater cost)

[Bradfo69]

Since Tom has effectively disappeared, and to get some semblence of merit to this thread, can anyone elaborate on Tom's comment in post #40:

"Do not be fooled by the ''trick'' of playing many shows, one next to the other, at high speed. The widths of the shows DO NOT ADD UP. If each show is played at (for example) 10 degrees, then the whole projection is still in 10 degrees, even if the shows are ''spread'' around the projection area. We are happy to explain this if you do not understand it."

Since this still makes no sense to me.

If I'm running a show that's measured to be 10 degrees wide and, to the right of it is another show running at 10 degrees wide and then finally to the right of that, there is a third show running at 10 degrees wide. My feeble math aptitude says that, the overall width of the projection should be about 30 - 32 degrees wide. (Assuming a small gap between shows.) How is the whole projection still just 10 degrees? I'll use the fitting term, "It's all Greek to me."

[planters]

Brad,

I'll hazard a guess. From a purely mathematical standpoint I agree with your example. Three 10 degree circles ie "000" each drawn at 90 k and nearly touching at their diameter is a 10 degree by 30 degree projection. However, let's say the circles were more like "0 0 0". Now, you could say this was a 10 degree by 60-70 degree projection. Right? But, because the scanner moves far enough between the individual circles their absolute position accuracy could be pretty low compared to the requirement that the line drawn to create the circle needs to return to the same point to avoid a gap or tail. In addition, the scanner might "cheat" and redraw each circle less frequently than a full 90k rewrite of the entire three circle image.

Personally, I think the demo is pretty impressive and the capability of the Saturn to actually achieve small angle 120k scanning might be the major reason the three show 90k projection was successful.

[Stiffler]

Ok, so why is Tom saying this is a 'trick'?

[Bradfo69]

I get the point count thing but, that's not what he (Tom) said. He said the widths don't add up and the whole projection would still be 10 degrees. My brain is can't get unwrapped from the above drawing and how that's still only 10 degrees.

edit - Thanks Eric, I was drawing and scanning the photo while you replied. Although, the size of the circle in within each 10 degree "segment" I don't know is relevant. When the three zones were set up - say using the projection zones feature - and if each were 10 degrees... what's displayed in each affects point count of course but, not how wide the overall angle is.

[planters]

Because (assuming I am understanding this correctly) the implication (trick) is that each frame is scanned as if it were a window in what could be a huge, full angle 90k projection, but rather each frame is sequentially scanned and the precision (settling) of the throw from frame to frame is less demanding.

[colouredmirrorball]

I think it's because the limit of the scanners is the angular velocity, not the size. If you play two shows next to each other, the difference is only a DC offset, which doesn't put a strain on the scanners at all. It doesn't have to move the full 30° from the example above all the time, only 10° and occasionally make a larger jump.