New EYEMAGIC Scanners EMS7000

[andythemechanic]

I would say in Post 390 solarfire showed the ILDA frame at 62k @ 10.something degrees. Admittedly still wavy and not 100% but so is the scan from pangolins trueK 50k scanners posted in Bills link (http://www.laserfx.com/Backstage.Las...LFX99scan.html).
There are still several scanners sold in the groupbuy so there must be somebody who can confirm / deny these results. Until than I will believe that these are at least scanners which play speed wise in the same league than ct6215 or 6210h.
About the marketing claims, yes they could be exaggerated but actually all marketing claims are, in the show laser industry especially and I don't want to start which Pangolin claims or statements Bill itself did e.g. at laserfreak meetings that I find exaggerated.
So until there are no new infos about other pairs of sold scanners from the groupbuy this discussion adds nothing more from this point on.

Andreas

[andyf97]

I am going to order a set of EMS7000 from Tom, not to tear them them to bits to see how they are made so I can copy there best features or publicly scrutinies them, just to see if they are a good enough replacement for the CT we use that are too dam expensive. If they are a good match for CT scanners I will buy more to replace some older 6800HP sets we have..

I have a bunch of EMS4000 and these have always done the business. So glad Karl started this topic and shared the info about Toms new scanners.

[White-Light]

HAHAHA, refused a licence,

My information is you were refused at testing licence so if you do have Beyond, somehow I doubt you've tested 2.0.

As for kissing asses, I make no secret of the fact that I'm a fan of Pangolin software but equally I don''t kiss anyone's ass. In case you missed the quote above:

this thread was as a result subject to some ill judged comments from many sides that have perhaps led to it becoming a witch hunt.

I don't see anywhere where I excluded Pangolin from that comment. It was aimed at many people in this debate.

..and therein lies the difference Andy, I don't go around posting spoilers and provocative pictures / comments in every thread I can find of the company I don't like.

My involvement in this debate has been exactly that, debate, and I've stayed entirely neutral in my position regarding the scanners.

[White-Light]

So far as the scanners here are concerned, I think Absolum hit the nail on the head.

If the scanners were pre-production models then fair enough, make a production set available to a trusted independent member on here such as Mixed Gas to run some tests and verify the claims.

Ultimately like many on here, I'm not interested in who's right or wrong, I just want to know if there's a cheap pair of 60k scanners out there.

[andyf97]

Your information is miss-informed . So you can doubt what you like, for me it makes no difference.

My information is you were refused at testing licence so if you do have Beyond, somehow I doubt you've tested 2.0.

As for kissing asses, I make no secret of the fact that I'm a fan of Pangolin software but equally I don''t kiss anyone's ass. In case you missed the quote above:



I don't see anywhere where I excluded Pangolin from that comment. It was aimed at many people in this debate.

..and therein lies the difference Andy, I don't go around posting spoilers and provocative pictures / comments in every thread I can find of the company I don't like.

My involvement in this debate has been exactly that, debate, and I've stayed entirely neutral in my position regarding the scanners.

[Pangolin]

Here's a picture provided by someone who took advantage of the recent Group Buy. They didn't want to get caught up in the flames, so they sent it to me and asked to remain anonymous.

No tuning was done. They simply received the scanners and installed them into the projector.

Distance to the screen was 5 meters. Width of the projection is 65 centimeters. Resulting scan angle is 7.44 degrees.

They reported that this was the largest size before more significant distortion became visible.

I'll inform this fellow to send them back in favor of the Rev 2 models...

Bill

[massivesound]

This has been a very frustrating thread to read, but it contains a lot of very interesting information (particularly to another owner of a set of EMS7000 scanners). I'm really glad to finally see some scan images, and it makes me excited to install these scanners in a projector this summer. The test results from the FLEM and in Bill's paper are also very interesting. I'd really like to see some updated independent test results for a current gen set of these scanners for comparison.

I also work for a nonprofit R&D firm that does a LOT of product testing (unfortunately not this kind of testing). Our nonprofit status and unbiased test results are the reason for nearly all of our business ($350m/yr). My experience here has led me to a few issues with the discussion so far:

-I think it's crazy that EMS hasn't come back with pictures and test results of their own. Right now they're letting a (soon to be) competing firm test their product and publish results unanswered. The EMS ad is really gimmicky and DOES make sweeping claims that are questionable. Those kind of claims are unlikely to win over a very technical audience like this even if there was no evidence to the contrary. I purchased my EMS7k set based on the EMS reputation on this forum, and if anything their ad was a turn-off. I want to see datasheets and technical information, which work better than a sales brochure for a technical audience.

-Whoever asked Pangolin to test the EMS7k scanners would have done better to go to a truly neutral party for testing if the results mean a lot to them. I'm sure there are independent test labs with the capability to test scanner performance (same test equipment as Pangolin, etc).

-The Pangolin paper does contain lots of technical information (which I wish EMS would provide), but it is clear that it's been written by a competing manufacturer. I'm pretty sure I'd be fired for publishing something with this much bias. Statements like "This is of interest, since the claims made by the advertisement are pretty outlandish…" and "the EMS-7000 is not “the cleanest on planet earth” and thus can not be “the fastest” either" are unnecessary opinions which distract from the technical content of the paper. The paper also says coil inductance, torque-constant-to-inertia ratio, resonance, and heat dissipation all contribute to speed, but in each section the paper claims that the fact that the EMS scanner has worse properties than a different scanner proves on its own that the EMS scanner is slower.

-I also take issue with the power usage claims in the paper. I'm not sure if it's an oversight or what, but the paper clearly compares the EMS scanner system (including amps) total power consumption to the actual galvo power consumption (neglecting amps) of the Cambridge system. It also doesn't have any power consumption test data, only the nominal power supply spec for the EMS system. The nominal PSU spec is certainly higher than the PEAK power consumption of the scan amps, which necessarily exceeds the average power consumption of the scan amps, which again exceeds the average power consumption and heat generation of the galvos themselves. No one has measured the power consumption of the motors, which it seems is the critical number for thermal management of the galvos.

-The only part of the discussion that seems mostly unbiased is the pictures from Solarfire showing the response of his EMS7k system. The only bias he's got is that he purchased the scanners and want them to work as well as they can (just like every purchaser does). The results he's obtained may or may not be good enough for a particular application, but at least that's what a prospective buyer can truly expect beyond all the marketing hype. For me personally, I think the results he's obtained and the anecdotal description of widening the scan angle without a dramatic rise in temperature and degradation in performance is really exciting, so I doubt I'll regret my purchase.

It certainly appears that the advertisement for the EMS7k scanners makes a few stretches and a LOT of opinion/unprovable points, but what marketing material doesn't? Digging through the Beyond literature I come across statements like "Beyond has all the features and power you will ever need," and "ultimate lasershow software," both of which may or may not be true depending on a user's needs. The "fastest scanners on earth" statement can also mean a lot of different things: fastest at ILDA pattern generation? small angle step response? ability to move quickly for long period of time (thermal characteristics)? I see scanner technology as somewhat analogous to speakers in this regard. I have speakers with thin, light voice coils with very high instantaneous power impulse response, but the long term (thermal) power handling isn't very high. Other speakers have heavy voice coils so they can handle huge RMS power load, but the added mass of the VC means the impulse response suffers a lot. I understand that this is a loose analogy, but its clear that the "loudest speaker on earth" is marketing language that several manufacturers could (and can) use.

I love Pangolin products (2 FB3s with QS and Beyond for now) and I think I'll enjoy these EMS scanners whenever I get around to installing them, but there's some serious problems with the way both EMS and Pangolin are approaching this issue. Cambridge, DT, etc are clearly not concerned with proving EMS marketing literature is incorrect, even though they're direct competitors. Likewise, all of those companies publish datasheets with actual technical information on their scanning systems unlike EMS.

I'm not sure it would satisfy everyone in this pie fight, but I'll gladly send my factory fresh and completely unused EMS7k system to Steve for comparison as long as I can get it back in a month or two!

[Pangolin]

The EMS ad is really gimmicky and DOES make sweeping claims that are questionable. Those kind of claims are unlikely to win over a very technical audience like this even if there was no evidence to the contrary.

Agreed. Had this not been the case, I would have never have gotten involved.

As stated earlier, I've publicly called out both Cambridge and General Scanning any time their datasheets weren't right on. I've also done this privately to other companies as well.

-I'm pretty sure I'd be fired for publishing something with this much bias.

Thanks for your comments about the report. Tell you what. Take another look. I toned down the language based on your feedback, and also provided information from Tom regarding that he's done revisions since these were made.

The paper also says coil inductance, torque-constant-to-inertia ratio, resonance, and heat dissipation all contribute to speed, but in each section the paper claims that the fact that the EMS scanner has worse properties than a different scanner proves on its own that the EMS scanner is slower.

I'm not understanding your point, or I'm not real clear on how to respond. For the scanners I received, I tested them with the ILDA test pattern in front of a room full of 20 other people. They did not live up to the claims. Then -- piece by piece I showed how, individually the pieces also can't live up to the claims.

For example, let's say a car manufacturer said "the fastest car on earth", but when we put it up against a Porche, it's slower. Then we test the break horsepower and it has less horsepower than a Porsche. Then we test the body and see that it's heavier, then we test the transmission and see that the gear ratio is sub-optimal, etc.

I guess the main point was to just focus on the main claim "the fastest on earth". In order to be the fastest, all parts would have to at least equal the Porche, with at least one part being faster.

-I also take issue with the power usage claims in the paper. I'm not sure if it's an oversight or what, but the paper clearly compares the EMS scanner system (including amps) total power consumption to the actual galvo power consumption (neglecting amps) of the Cambridge system.

Regarding the power supply, it was only to point out what I believe is an exaggeration. The advertisement claims that these consume the same power as normal 30K scanners, but later indicates that they require 120 watts of power. Normal 30K scanners certainly do not require 120 watts of power. If the EMS-7000 consumes less than 120 watts, then fine! But why spec a 120 watt power supply? (It consumes as much gas as a Porche -- with 120 gallon tank...)

Cambridge, DT, etc are clearly not concerned with proving EMS marketing literature is incorrect, even though they're direct competitors.

Hehe, they're probably unaware of this discussion ;-)

Likewise, all of those companies publish datasheets with actual technical information on their scanning systems unlike EMS.

Yes, well I'm a fiend for the data, and as I've demonstrated before (written independently in 1999 LaserFX by Michael Roberts), if a company publishes questionable data, I'm all over it, particularly when it concerns scanning. My behavior, which is clearly demonstrated historically, has nothing to do with competition...

I'm not sure it would satisfy everyone in this pie fight, but I'll gladly send my factory fresh and completely unused EMS7k system to Steve for comparison as long as I can get it back in a month or two!

Sounds like a good idea. Based on what the other guy showed with his scanners only being able to go 7.44 degrees and another with 10+ degrees, we might see a variety of results here.

But to speak to your last sentence, to me this isn't a "fight" per se -- but more of a dispute over advertising. And regarding "satisfy", sure, marketing hyperbole does exist all around us, but for Pete's sake, it should be clear that a 5.3mm mirror can't project a 3.8mm beam through wide angles... If the advertising were adjusted in line with reality then I'd be satisfied!

Bill

[absolom7691]

-I think it's crazy that EMS hasn't come back with pictures and test results of their own.

I agree with this. If you go to GSI or CT' websites and look at their products, they all have spec sheets. These sheets show verbose information about the performance of their galvos, not just Xkpps @ Xdegrees. For instance http://www.gsig.com/scanners/downloa..._Sheet_290.pdf check the bottom of the pdf. Granted, this doesn't mention laser show performance because laser entertainment is a fraction of their business, but most websites share all these technical data, and these numbers ARE important. From what I can see, EMS doesn't even have a page on their website with ANY info.

[norty303]

For example, let's say a car manufacturer said "the fastest car on earth", but when we put it up against a Porche, it's slower. Then we test the brake horsepower and it has less horsepower than a Porsche. Then we test the transmission and see that the gear ratio is sub-optimal.

I guess the main point was to just focus on the main claim "the fastest on earth". In order to be the fastest, all parts would have to at least equal the Porche, with at least one part being faster.

Its been said before, but car analogies are often inappropriate for many situations.
I think this is the case here.
You do not need more power to go faster in every case - mass, drag and friction will play their part too.

But I think you may have inadvertently demonstrated what massivesound might have been getting at - some things don't perform as they indicate they might do on paper (just like you expect the car with less power to go slower, but it doesn't).