Pangolin Discoscan 2.0

[sbk]

Have a look at this interesting video : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFHNr91aGog

Also I red somewhere there was a *decrease* of 20% in the laser beams divergence, is it true or it's me who was drunk?

[White-Light]

I'm also interested in knowing the optimal distance from scanners to lens and what input angle is required to gain 360 degree scanning.

I'm not sure you have much if any control over that Keith as I understand it uses either a brand specific lens mount (Kvant and some LW products) or a universal mount for other brands, and where in both cases the lens screws into the secondary part of the mount.

There's some possibility of adjustment maybe by how far you screw it onto the mount thread. However, one thing is certain, you're never going to get it nearer than the rather chunky looking fixed bracket allows so it's always going to be some distance from the scanner aperture.

You can get a better look at the mount here for LW projectors:



Judging from the thickness of the aperture bracket the actual lens screws into, I'd say there's no additional adjustment, as you'd need to fully screw it in by the looks of it just to secure it. You don't want a $280 lens falling off the projector! If there is any scope, it looks like very little as the entire threaded part of the lens holding bracket only looks around 10mm (?) thick at an estimate from the photo.

I too would like some more info on these though with regards to scanning. I was always impressed by the 1.0 version in terms of its ability to go wide and 360 degrees, but I believe from memory when I asked a long time ago, that I was also told that this was at the expense of some of the more conventional scans and that just as the name suggests, the disco scan was most suited to disco style effects rather than traditional laser effects. Whether the 2.0 alters that, I don't know.

[Galvonaut]

Have a look at this interesting video : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFHNr91aGog

Also I red somewhere there was a *decrease* of 20% in the laser beams divergence, is it true or it's me who was drunk?

Looks good, thanks....... yes, you were drunk

[swamidog]

Have a look at this interesting video : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFHNr91aGog

Also I red somewhere there was a *decrease* of 20% in the laser beams divergence, is it true or it's me who was drunk?

there may be a divergence decrease, but the beam size exiting the lens is larger than entry beam.

[Galvonaut]

I'm not sure you have much if any control over that Keith as I understand it uses either a brand specific lens mount (Kvant and some LW products) or a universal mount for other brands, and where in both cases the lens screws into the secondary part of the mount.

There's some possibility of adjustment maybe by how far you screw it onto the mount thread. However, one thing is certain, you're never going to get it nearer than the rather chunky looking fixed bracket allows so it's always going to be some distance from the scanner aperture.

You can get a better look at the mount here for LW projectors:

....

Judging from the thickness of the aperture bracket the actual lens screws into, I'd say there's no additional adjustment, as you'd need to fully screw it in by the looks of it just to secure it. You don't want a $280 lens falling off the projector! If there is any scope, it looks like very little as the entire threaded part of the lens holding bracket only looks around 10mm (?) thick at an estimate from the photo.

I too would like some more info on these though with regards to scanning. I was always impressed by the 1.0 version in terms of its ability to go wide and 360 degrees, but I believe from memory when I asked a long time ago, that I was also told that this was at the expense of some of the more conventional scans and that just as the name suggests, the disco scan was most suited to disco style effects rather than traditional laser effects. Whether the 2.0 alters that, I don't know.

Thanks for sharing that. I am doing my own build (eventually) so I can mount the lens wherever I fancy or rather, wherever is best. I won't start my build until I have all of the components including the right lens. So far this looks best (as I can't afford an AVI Skylase system)!

[masterpj]

Have a look at this interesting video : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFHNr91aGog

Also I red somewhere there was a *decrease* of 20% in the laser beams divergence, is it true or it's me who was drunk?

He might have had a few drinks too many or copied pasted a mistyped/false spec list

you're never going to get it nearer than the rather chunky looking fixed bracket allows so it's always going to be some distance from the scanner aperture.

With the current approach yes as it also allows you to remain your current apperature which is a big +. But for discoscan1.0 I recall you had to make modifications to your case or make a projector especially for the discoscan?.. They were mounted as close as you possibly could internally.. if not against the scanner block
.

No there would be no need for adjustement.. closer = better.. it just needs to be straight

[mixedgas]

Base is 6.96 mm thick. I just measured mine. The center point of the bottom asphere sticks about .1 -.2 mm out of the base on the scanner side.

So you can get in darn close, if your scanner mount permits. The baseplate thus is not the limiting factor.

Note its setting on recycled Popsicle sticks so I don't scratch the bottom lens in the 2nd picture.



Having been in Bill's office when the optical ray trace was open (yes, he showed it to me) , I'd say this is not a video fisheye as we know it.
Its optimized for use from a point source, not a focal plane. And no, I can't sketch it from memory, nor would I care to.




Images attached.

Steve

[masterpj]

The limiting factor is when you hit the scanner scanner block side as you want it dead center and if you want to go closer then that you would be off center.
I see a lot of projectors build which distance the galvo block from the apperture mirror quite a bit and leave a gap in between.... I honestly don't get that design choice.. (?? To prevent scanner block from taking hits when the front gets any form of impact and gives because of poor case design ???) To me it adds more disadvantage because you need a bigger apperture and also in the case of a discoscan its lost performance..

Maybe I'm getting a bit crazy on my thoughts here but I also think putting it as close as touching the front plate you also could somehow work out a way to use the front part as a bit of extra surface area for dissipating a bit more heat from your scanner block (though it'll be little without using thermal paste).. not practical off course when you open it for maintanance/adjustment unless you add one little screw door in your case for quick mount re-alignment access... but hey it's a brainfart..

[mixedgas]

As for the music in the video, OUCH! : See attached.

[masterpj]

By now dubstep is already over really or it should be...a lot of it is kinda "the same deal" and what worse is these preset.. very bland sounding wubs.
Thats why a lot of the "mainstream wanna be" guys are usually not the guys you should look for if you want cool music but the explorers who only use material to inspire and then make their own destinct sounds.

I think thats what more people also should do..not promote the mainstream and chew it over and over again but create the mainstream!

I asked a friend of mine to make something christmas styled and this is what he came up with: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...k_da_man_2.mp3