Pangolin Quickshow -VS- Phoenix (now Pangolin Phoenix)

[norty303]

I have issue with his conclusions fundamentally. That FB3 doesn't provide 5v. That is not what he is seeing. We've been here before. Revisiting the same thing in the same way doesn't change anything.
It's a shame they chose to use single beams to test with as these are known to have issues with power fluctuations depending on how they are created.

I know I'll be dismissed as a Pango fanboy on this, but if you read back on the old threads about low power I was one of the vocal ones too. What I disagree with here is the bad science and wrong conclusions being drawn from the evidence. Yes, the FB3 may produce dimmer beams for a number of reasons, but it's not down to it not producing 5v on the mod lines.

[Pangolin]

It's not a 5V thing. It's a duty-cycle thing. This can be seen very clearly on an oscilloscope. Alexey and I were looking at this while looking at the "streaking" and other phenomenon.

Unfortunately, even though QS is meant to be a program for beginners, it gives a TREMENDOUS level of flexibility (many areas where people can influence the duty cycle) including the Projector Settings dialog box, Projection Zones dialog box, and even QuickTargets Beam Settings windows. If things are set "wrong" in any of these places, then it will decrease beam power.

(Decrease it by enough to be perceptible? Personally I think that's debatable, but certainly decrease it.)

There is another possible reason why people might see "lower power" too, and that is that people will go into our little drawing program, click down a single dot, click OK, and then expect maximum laser power to happen at this one single dot. WRONG!!! How would our little drawing program know that it wasn't your inanition to draw a dim dot -- like one single star in a star field? The fact is that our drawing program does offer the ability to "place a beam" instead of "place a dot". If you hold CTRL while you click a dot, the drawing program will "place a beam", and this is indicated with a kind of icon that appears in the drawing window. Then you'll get something much brighter!

And here's where I might start to sound like a jerk. Experts will know exactly where those areas are, and exactly how to make the adjustments to get maximum beam power. Beginners won't. But my argument is -- beginners do not need maximum beam power. The system is safer (for beginners) if the system puts out less power....

In any event, if he likes Phoenix let him use Phoenix. No problem ;-) And I am sure the Phoenix programmers will be amused that he believes Phoenix puts out more power than QS, because they did not believe it to be the case. Probably he has the settings in Phoenix optimized, and has the settings in QS sub-optimized...

Bill

[norty303]

P.S. Did you get my email?

[JohnYayas]

And here's where I might start to sound like a jerk. Experts will know exactly where those areas are, and exactly how to make the adjustments to get maximum beam power. Beginners won't. But my argument is -- beginners do not need maximum beam power. The system is safer (for beginners) if the system puts out less power....

I'm all with you except for your last sentence quoted above. Unless you are attenuating the beam to a truly safe level (eg < 5mw) then how is it any safer by being not quite as bright? Even 50% of a 2W beam is not safe. It would be like a machine gun manufacturer saying that their guns only come in semi-automatic mode by default to be safer for beginners.

All the rest about why it may or may not be brighter or dimmer makes perfect sense.

[mixedgas]

I can tell you this. One part of this discussion is NOT BS. There are waveforms used in the Pangolin software that even out the wear on the bearings. If they were not already there, I'd be asking Bill to put them into the software.

The basic concept is to occasionally send a large jerking motion to the galvo. The waveform has to be carefully designed to cause the balls in the bearing to slip slightly. It really does lengthen the lifetime of the galvo by slowing the formation of gouges into the bearing race. Those gouges eventually will trap a bearing ball and reduce or prevent its ability to spin.

Bill is not the only one to have a patent on the concept. He is the only one as far as I know to integrate it into show software. I have a app note on the subject from a major galvo maker. The technology to do that does exist.

On the old QM32, I could show you the PWM effect, as it was obvious with a scope that the card was doing a DMA request or other form of ISA BUS data transfer and other processing. However I'd be hard pressed to show it to you on a more modern system without a digitizing scope.

Given a choice of loosing a few percent of power or having the wear reduction waveform, I'd opt for the wear reduction waveform.

I'm curious if even a true RMS, high bandwidth voltmeter, was used by the OP. I'm not saying his results are in-correct, but I'd really like to see a much better test methodology before I comment further. A modern integrating ADC voltmeter without true RMS might have difficulty measuring these waveforms.

Steve

[rfourt]

Hi guys.

Its interesting again that the turn of this discussion is going into allot of technical focus about duty cycles and blanking points etc etc. And i know this test was not done in a laboratory with high quality equipment. And of course to get the absolutely correct readings this might be needed but the fact is that the test is showing you exactly what you as a user of these 2 programs will see.

Both programs where installed on the same time at a brand new computer and no modifications where done except to the cue that we used where similar settings. Meaning color/blanking shift points on both computers where set to 4.
On the particular CUE witch was used in the first test we didn't draw a dot witch might have given us a more accurate reading, instead we used an abstract and made an horizontal line and shrunk it down to minimum and placed the Powermeter just infront of the scanners with aprox 2cm distance. And yes the Voltage test might be affected by this as some of you say that this will not produce the highest voltage becouse of number of points in the abstract cue etc etc. But the fact is still that we used the same CUE for both programs and created the dot in the same way and the readings where higher for the Phoenix program. And yes as i said my Voltmeter might not be fast enough to capture Quickshows spikes but the fact is still that the same CUE put out more power on Phoenix.. it couldent be any more clear then that.

The CUE´s used the same amount of points for both programs.

And yes perhaps the Phoenix use some other technical variables for creating the Beam and i understand both programs probably creates the Beam and animation in different ways, and that the Galvos+duty cycle etc etc are different in both programs but still its an accurate reading, Phoenix put out more VISABLE power from default settings using the same cue. The volt might not be accurate but the powermeter dosnt lie and our eyes didn't either. Its clearly visible, especially when drawing a circle and standing 10meters away. Hey the reason i decided to do this test was because both me and the crew working that night saw the same thing when we first set up my show with QS and then switched to Phoenix to let him set up his show. At that particular time we didn't even know each other. We where as i said booked to do our own shows at this big venue for an big event, and for me who has seen my projectors perform hundreds of times i clearly saw the difference and where amazed at what better colors my projector all of a sudden could perform, even though i thought my show where better lol J/K.

So, to not blame QS or pangolin to much you might be correct that its depending on allot of technical stuff that im not aware of, but to call me a beginner after working with lasers since the early 90´s is little rude, but of course compared to you i am and compared to many others here also but still not called for, but the fact is still.

USING THE SAME ANIMATION, POINTS, BLANKING POINTS etc the Phoenix puts out more VISIBLE power.
I mean if the Voltage meter don't show the correct i can agree with and perhaps also that the powermeter is to slow to read the accurate mW, but don't that mean also that peoples eyes don't see either?
I think so, or in fact i know so.

Conclusion.
QS dont put out the same amount of power in visible laser color as the Phoenix using the default settings in both programs. Not according to my test anyhow.

I agree that the Voltage meter might be to slow to read the voltage from QS. And with some tweaking QS might put out more power but from default it does not.

Also i have to state on behalf of QS that this test was very fast and yes we could have perhaps done the test even more technical by going through every single settings in the programs, but the fact is. from default: QS is putting out lower power and it is visible even after 5 minutes of changing the DAC and cables from the other program to the next.

So if there is some settings that might have changed the outcome im sure many others like me who bought QS/FB3 would like to know these, and perhaps like me also wonders why these settings are not there from the default.
Yes might be because of hundreds of other technical reasons, because of scanners, algorithms, duty cycles, spacing, beginning anchors, ending anchors, fixed points, zones, vectors, blanked lines etc etc. But still Not as powerful as Phoenix by default.

Both programs are different in many ways MANY. some bad some better but for me, if i have a choice of buying either a 1.5Watt 642nm Red laser module or a 2.0Watt and select the 2Watter i dont want to put out 500Euros extra and then to be put back 200Euros because QS dont want me to, because it thinks im a beginner. I know this is not the case and of course you at pangolin are not thinking like this but from comments like these below it looks like thats the case.

And here's where I might start to sound like a jerk. Experts will know exactly where those areas are, and exactly how to make the adjustments to get maximum beam power. Beginners won't. But my argument is -- beginners do not need maximum beam power. The system is safer (for beginners) if the system puts out less power....

How can u not say beginners do not need maximum beam power? Is that your choice?
yes ofcourse it is you are the creator so you do as you want but you have no idea if im a beginner or if the other guy is.
Infact in QS first time you install it you get a choice to answer that exact question, but i guess that is only affecting the GUI of the program but couldn't that also affect the mysterious super technical DR.evil laser knowhow NASA setting to get the power that you actually bought your laser as. So you could enjoy both an professional program and that 30 000Euro laser.

I mean as some one else posted. You have no idea how powerful my laser is. I can understand the "thinking" that beginners perhaps dont have the knowhow of safety but you have no idea if my laser is 1watt and you make it safe by only letting me putting out 800mW or if my laser is 20Watt and you only let me put out the "SAFE" 18.3Watt.

In any event, if he likes Phoenix let him use Phoenix. No problem ;-) And I am sure the Phoenix programmers will be amused that he believes Phoenix puts out more power than QS, because they did not believe it to be the case. Probably he has the settings in Phoenix optimized, and has the settings in QS sub-optimized...

As i said all settings are default in both programs, no settings where done to either of the programs. so i guess its sub-optimized from start. And from the previous comments it looks like you are doing it because you think all your customers are beginners.

Witch is absolutely your decision, safety is always good
But thats why im going with PANGOLIN Phoenix Still Pango though

Cheers.

[whiteg]

" The fact is that our drawing program does offer the ability to "place a beam" instead of "place a dot". If you hold CTRL while you click a dot, the drawing program will "place a beam", and this is indicated with a kind of icon that appears in the drawing window. Then you'll get something much brighter!"

Intresting, but where is a description of these special settings, usage? I would like to get to know them.
thx,

[buffo]

Intresting, but where is a description of these special settings, usage? I would like to get to know them.
thx,

Bill did a demonstration of this feature during the 2010 ILDA conference (aboard the Carnival Cruise ship). He purposefully disabled the code in the LD2000 software so that there was no scanner bearing protection. We were displaying a frame consisting of 4 white dots in a horizontal line for the test. When the code was disabled, the dots got visibly brighter. However, after 5 or 6 seconds, the scanner protection circuit in the projector we were using kicked in, and started smearing the dots into lines. This scanner bearning protection circuit was something that Medilas had recently added to the Infinity projector line. (Pretty cool.)

What we all learned from this little demonstration was that there is a hell of a lot more going on under the hood of Panoglin's software than most people realize, and while it might be difficult to understand why it's happening, there is a damned good reason for it.

All that being said, I'm sure Bill would be willing to share this information in private with experienced users who don't mind risking permanent damage to their scanners in the interest of learning more about how the software actually draws images.

But if you DON'T understand those risks, and you turn this feature off, you WILL ruin your scanners in short order. That is why this stuff is undocumented - it keeps the average laserist from getting into trouble.

Personally, after having seen the demonstration, I have no desire to mess with the settings.

Adam

[norty303]

I think his question was more in relation to the optimization settings than the bearing protection stuff.
I think that the the 2 things (optimization and bearing protection) can be mutually exclusive, but thats just based on my understanding of what the optimization stuff does.

[JohnYayas]

For general information on the bearing protection Google "Custom Clearing Moves for CTI Scanners". Basically, just FYI type stuff.