New EYEMAGIC Scanners EMS7000

[EyeMagic]

Hello Mr. Adam and others,

First of all, contrary to what was written by someone, Mr. Benner does not have any respect in our products. Please read page 11 of the Quickshow installation manual :
''The high performance setting is only for American-made scanners, as well as the most expensive German and Chinese scanners''

Also, in the same page, where the user selects ''scanner level'', our scanners do not exist in any level :
Medium Level : Suggested scanners are the DT-24 and Sonima
High Perf. Suggested scanners are Cambridge, DT-40 and top end Sonima

First unbelievable (UNBELIEVABLE) discovery : Pangolin promotes Cambridge and, at the same time, their cheap copiers. DT-40 and Sonima are just plain copies of cambridge's work. No R&D, nothing. Tell you what, if half of you, Laser Enthusiasts, never get any chance to profit from this business, is because we, as companies, use our own hands to take our eyes out.

How would Mr. Benner feel if Cambridge was promoting as a control software for their scanners, a cheap copier of Pangolin LD2000 ? A coin has always two sides, you know...

Second discovery : After almost 5.500 sets sold since 1999, with many of those helping laser enthusiasts come in to the business by offering a bulletproof design, necessary for novice users, our scanners are not worth of Pangolins recommendation. Even if they are a totally original design and not a copy of another company's product like all the chinese. On the contrary, we have reports that Mr. Benner drives users away from our scanners.

Now, regarding the specs : These scanners are tuned to 60K ILDA @9-10 deg small mirror and 60K@6 deg, bigger mirror. When tuned for 30K, they achieve around 28 degrees. Mr. Benner said that they could do up to 60K@4.7deg or 30K @ 13 deg. This shows that the scanners were defective. Period.

How come we always refer to ''some'' customers reporting that the scanners do not deliver and we ''forget'' about posts like the one made by sbk (that also includes a photo of the ILDA test pattern at 54K, using the BIGGER mirrors), where he REPEATEDLY confirms that the scanners work EXACTLY as advertised ?

''Well I did some quick tests and so far I'm impressed by the quality of the projections!! It looks *exactly* at what you have on computer screen, with razor sharp edges, etc, I'm happy And no resonance even with 5mm aperture mirrors. Way better than my DT40Pro with 5mm mirrors!
I pushed the speed up to 60k and even at bigger angles the corners are still perfectly sharp, not bending when you push the scanners too hard.''

On another post :

''I can confirm that my 5mm beams fits perfectly on the EMS7000 mirrors almost without overspill. Maybe I'm loosing 10mW on the "corona" of the beams but that's insignifiant power on a 4W RGB... And they are indeed working very well at 60kpps @6° ''


Now, on another issue, regarding ads :

Everyone says (Mr. Benner also) that the main problem is that our advertising is a lie and this is why we get attacked. Sonima publishes, for their long scanner (the ScanPro50 I assume) that the performance is around 82K at +/-5 degrees (if I remember correctly). Read that again : 82K at 10 degrees. But you did the test yourself and found that it was a ''not very clear'' 50K at 6.5 degrees. Why isn't Mr. Benner attacking Sonima ? On the contrary, he promotes this company in the ''professional level''...Maybe because Sonima is a Pangolin dealer.

I cannot go side by side with this kind of ethics. I have my own.

You see, Mr. Adam, this is where a pattern is visible. And by calling our product ''they suck'' you look extremely biased towards Pangolin/Scanpro.

Also, as a suggestion, I would be more reluctant to imply that big companies risk the fame of their 20K+ Euro laser systems by installing scanners that they haven't tested to the limit. Or that they do not know how to test them !!!!!
Unless off-course we are (also) lying about selling to big companies. But then, how do we survive for 13 years in a row, making only scanners ? Where do we find all those naive customers to deceive ?

Now, would you agree with me that this is, at least, a very hostile environment for our products ?

Anyway, I will post once more, after a couple of weeks. We asked some of our big customers to take pictures of test frames, side by side with 6215's, driven by Y cables. Given their permission, we will post those photos along with the names of the technicians that did the tests.

All the best,

Tom Kamaras
EyeMagic

[heroic]

I can't help but think, Tom, that Bill's announcement of his UBER SUPER AWESOME SCANNER OF DOOM despite the complete lack of any marketable product is pure and simply an anticompetitive move; it is the same kind of FUD tactic that Microsoft used to use.

For reference, I have a set of CT 6800HPs, a set of CT 6215s, a couple sets of DT40s, a set of DT40 Wides, and a set of EMS4000s with the big, big mirrors. The CTs are fast and sharp. The EMS4000s are fast (for the 9.5mm aperture), and are of high build quality. I imagine- though I have not seen a set- that the EMS7000s are good too. The DT40s are cheap and break easily, but they're good for experimentation.

Bill's new scanner... well, nobody's bought system 1 yet. Whereas your EMS7000s are shipping. And, well, I imagine that any technology *he* has available is available to you too. And EyeMagic has been making scanners for many years and no doubt you have learned a lot in the process. That's an advantage Bill doesn't have, so he has to go for the low blow of claiming that your scanners don't achieve their design goals, despite the fact that he's not proven jack shit.

[planters]

Tom,
You go on and on with anecdotal claims of high performance. I am reading multiple posts where users are not seeing this impressive performance. Forget about Bill for a moment and prove your claims. Its your product. You have access to as many as you want. Send some 7000's as well as some Cambridge models to an independent lab and get some data. You choose, entertainment industry data like the ILDA pattern at X degrees and Y KPPS or more universal data like resonance frequency, inertia, pointing accuracy etc.
Explain why these new scanners are better. The 4000 series are good ( I know, I have one). What has changed? What makes these 7000's better and be specific the technical data will be understandable to the contributors to this forum.

You could include testimonials and comparisons with various competing scanners done by respected European Laser Show companies.

This thread is about your new model scanner and not about Pangolin. This back and forth is not productive and until you can produce some convincing results I think your potential costumers will just watch and wait.

[White-Light]

Hello Mr. Adam and others,

First of all, contrary to what was written by someone, Mr. Benner does not have any respect in our products. Please read page 11 of the Quickshow installation manual :
''The high performance setting is only for American-made scanners, as well as the most expensive German and Chinese scanners''

Also, in the same page, where the user selects ''scanner level'', our scanners do not exist in any level :
Medium Level : Suggested scanners are the DT-24 and Sonima
High Perf. Suggested scanners are Cambridge, DT-40 and top end Sonima

In all honesty Tom, I don't think it was supposed to be an exhaustive list. There's probably someone in some small republic somewhere eg Kazakhstan, making very high quality scanners but it would be impossible reading if Pangolin were to list every country and every product. I think it far more likely that the USA, Germany and China were chosen because they are the centre of production for the majority of scanner systems. With no disrespect to Greece, you are the only scanner company over there that I'm aware of which is more likely the reason that Greece didn't get a mention.

As for the list of products, again I doubt it was supposed to be exhaustive. Ok so you feel that maybe Eye Magic should have got a mention. But how many other companies feel the same, you can't recommend everyone not unless you're writing a scanner bible rather than an instruction manual. Maybe Pangolin do feel they have reasons not to want to recommend you. But if that was the case, that's also their choice just like you may choose to recommend software other than theirs if you so desired.

First unbelievable (UNBELIEVABLE) discovery : Pangolin promotes Cambridge and, at the same time, their cheap copiers. DT-40 and Sonima are just plain copies of cambridge's work. No R&D, nothing. Tell you what, if half of you, Laser Enthusiasts, never get any chance to profit from this business, is because we, as companies, use our own hands to take our eyes out.

DT40 and Somnia perform well. That's not to say yours don't (as I've said earlier that's not an argument I'm going to get drawn into). So that's probably why Pangolin made the recommendation because they were from the nations mentioned previously and example of good performing scanners, not because they were the only good scanners out there.

I also doubt like you appear to imply that they are exact copies of Cambridge, similar maybe, but not exact, simply because if they were exact they'd perform like Cambridge and so far as I'm aware, they don't. I've also yet to hear of anyone abandoning Cambridge because Chinese scanners out perform them.

Anyway, I will post once more, after a couple of weeks. We asked some of our big customers to take pictures of test frames, side by side with 6215's, driven by Y cables. Given their permission, we will post those photos along with the names of the technicians that did the tests.

With all due respect that proves nothing. That's like asking Pangolin's biggest clients to evaluate their software, If you really want to prove your point then the scanners need to be tested by someone independent who can if necessary tune them and evaluate them properly using the correct ILDA pattern and measurements.

[JohnYayas]

It is not possible to compensate for DAC deadtime by changing the frame.

Moreover, this idea of one frame to a buffer is wrongheaded in the extreme. Frames are not reflected in the hardware of the system in the same way as they would be in a video environment. What you do to eliminate deadtime is to turn your stream of frames into a stream of points. You put as many as you can into the buffer and you start filling the next buffer immediately from the point you left off. If your original source has too few points for your DAC, then you resample the points. Because you do this on a small scale, point by point rather than frame by frame, there is no repeat issue. There is no reason for a frame boundary to be a buffer boundary.

Better still, having decomposed frames into point streams, you ditch the double buffering entirely and use a circular buffer of points. Then there is no buffer switch issue.

When I listen to a 44.1 kHz audio CD on my 96 kHz sound card, I don't get deadtime between CDDA sectors. This has been solved since about 1985, when sample rate converters became a common feature of digital audio systems.

A buffer switch is nothing more than a pointer change. There is absolutely no deadtime unless the programmer was an idiot. What leads you to believe that there is some delay? I don't agree with what you are saying because your premise is flawed.

When I said compensate by changing the frame I was not refering to buffer switching deadtime but deadtime that occurs when a frame is drawn faster than it should be for synchronization. For example, if a projector shutter operated as a strobe a movie would not appear as bright as it should. You can't speed up the movie to compensate because it would look ridiculous. Maybe you missed my point.

[Pangolin]

I'm going to ignore your appeal to authority and speak to the point

<snip>

The magnets used in CT scanners are samarium cobalt.

Well I would certainly hope you appeal to my authority because this is an area I know a lot about! Certainly Cambridge has never released a commercial scanner with anything other than NdFeB scanner for the past nearly 25 years they've been in business! So, not only are the magnets within their moving magnet scanners NdFeB, but also even their moving coil scanners.



Bill

[Pangolin]

This seems to contradict your article here: http://www.pangolin.com/ILDAtest.html

Maybe you're saying that describing a product as being a "30K scanner" is something entirely different from saying "this scanner runs at ILDA 30K pps", which is the phrasing used by that article about the ILDA test pattern. If the former is, in fact, "more to do with heat inside the scanner than anything else", then I'd like to understand what the exact criteria are.

I'm going to put on a class -- probably in association with a Photon Lexicon meeting, where I cover all of this in great detail. I'll get into the physics of scanners, and then everyone will understand what can be done, what can't be done, why it's foolish to tune 30K scanners to faster-than-30K speeds, etc.

This is pretty complicated, especially to a non-technical audience. But the fundamentals can be presented like this:

1. Torque is proportional to current. Want twice the torque? You got to pay twice the current.
2. Heat is proportional to current squared. Remember "Eye Squared Are" (i^2 R) losses?
3. If you want to scan twice as wide, you need twice the torque. This means "twice as wide" requires twice the current, and thus four times the heat.
4. If you want to scan twice as fast, you need four times the torque, due to square-root-law. This means "twice the speed" requires four times the current and thus, 16 TIMES!! the heat!!

So tuning 30K scanners to only 40K requires (40/30)^4 = 3.16 times the heat inside the scanner!! It also requires (40/30)^2 = 1.8 times the current from the power supply and from the scanner amp. Normally neither the power supply nor the scanner amp can supply ANY more current. So what this usually means is that when you tune 30K scanners to 40K, you really have to reduce the size pretty dramatically. So for reasons of heat and scan angle, you're not doing your customers any favors by tuning 30K scanners to a faster-than-30K rate...

Cambridge model 6215 scanners with high power amps can scan the ILDA test pattern at 60K and at 8.64 degrees. This same scanner can scan the ILDA test pattern at 30K at 34.5 degrees with the same amps. The reason a 6215 can get away with even scanning 60K is because:
1. Coil resistance is 2.53 ohms, which is nearly half that of a Cambridge model 6800 (and equivalents).
2. Thermal conductivity is a factor of four times better than a Cambridge model 6800 (and even higher than equivalents).

"Speed" comes from a few places in a scanner:
1. Resonances
2. Inductance
3. Torque to inertia ratio
4. Heat dissipation

The reason why a Cambridge model 6800 scanner is a 30K scanner is because of how heat is dealt with, and also because of resonances. The 6215 is 8 times better than a 6800 when it comes to heat, and nearly twice as good when it comes to resonances.

Bill

[dsli_jon]

..There's probably someone in some small republic somewhere eg Kazakhstan, making very high quality scanners

Heh, sorry, but this made me laugh... ...Don't forget the 'Kuntsmoon!' http://www.photonlexicon.com/forums/...7&d=1326705717 Sorry, but I think it's rather obvious that there seems to be at least a degree of 'prejudice', in this case... 'Justified'? IMO, that's still TBD, because we have one party insisting the 'test-subjects' must have been damaged.. OK, and there's a real-easy way to 'prove' this was / wasn't the case.. For this reason - again - it will be *ideal* that any tests are done by someone truly 'independent', with a 'factory-fresh' pair of 'tuned to 60k ILDA' (..thanks for clearing that-up, Tom.. ) 7Ks, so *no one* can point any fingers at anyone...

you appear to imply that they are exact copies of Cambridge, similar maybe, but not exact

He said 'plain', not 'exact' - and he's right - very-little 'R&D', and if you saw the manufacturing 'process' / assembly-area, for the first few pairs?? OMG, it's a wonder they worked at-all.. Improved? Yes. Even 6800-quality?? No-way. They 'are what they are' - 'disposable razors' / cameras / bubble-gum scanners, etc, etc.. You wanted 'cheap', World?.. You got it...

If you really want to prove your point then the scanners need to be tested by someone independent who can if necessary tune them and evaluate them properly using the correct ILDA pattern and measurements.

I vote sending a pair to Greg Mack and/or Casey Stack. Either of them will have 'proper' test-gear, (..as does Pango, acknowledged.. ) and they certainly well-know / understand the ILDA test-pattern / the proper-way to eval. / tune a galvo.. However, this 'indi-test' will likely cost $$, since thier time is rather valuable, so... Not sure how this can get done, at least with them. This way, however - again - *no one* can 'point any fingers' at anyone..

Still, to me - and many others - 'at the end of the day', how do they perform, in the real-world, with 'real-world content' - ie: some friggin Client's 4300pt (..with no-way to 'further-simplfiy', as-per their demands..) logos, in 'real-world conditions' - hot / cold / dusty / sweaty / salty, etc, etc - Do you come home a champ, with a paycheck in your hand? OR, do they leave you a chump, sued, chased out of town, etc.. THAT IS WHAT REALLY COUNTS, imho..

j

[Pangolin]

Regarding Norty's comment "Does the top end need improving", JohnYayas wrote:

Yes, and no. Not for beam shows. But, faster speeds will allow for more complex graphics show since you can't do a whole lot without introducing flicker.

Actually faster scanners means more complex graphics can be shown, or the same graphics can be shown with less flicker. But with respect to audience scanning, it means safer shows. If I can scan past an eyeball twice as fast, it means the pulse-width is halved. (And no, I don't buy that if it's scanning twice as often, that the benefit is lost because there would be twice as many scans past the eyeball. The reason I don't buy this is that if the beam effect is moving, it's likely only going to scan past the eyeball once in the first place). So faster scanning is safer scanning.

If I were to guess, I would say that their motivation is to be able to sell an end to end solution at some point in the future. Which makes me further wonder if since their software to DAC solution is proprietary if their DAC to scanner solution will end up being proprietary so that if you want the "best scanners in the world" you will have to buy a Pangolin system. I don't have a clue. Just wondering out loud.

Hehe. There are certainly many conspiracy theories postulated about Pangolin and about Bill Benner. In this case the motivations are:
1. Same reason people climb mountains
2. Faster scanning means more complex graphics and/or less flicker
3. Faster scanning means safer beam shows

Essentially that's it.

Bill

[heroic]

A buffer switch is nothing more than a pointer change. There is absolutely no deadtime unless the programmer was an idiot. What leads you to believe that there is some delay?

I have measured it.

When I said compensate by changing the frame I was not refering to buffer switching deadtime but deadtime that occurs when a frame is drawn faster than it should be for synchronization. For example, if a projector shutter operated as a strobe a movie would not appear as bright as it should. You can't speed up the movie to compensate because it would look ridiculous. Maybe you missed my point.

There does not need to be any deadtime at all. Ever. You don't have to speed up the movie, because LASERS DO NOT HAVE A FRAME STRUCTURE. You can scan faster without any need for deadtime or the loss of brightness it includes if you treat the frame as a sequence of isolated vectors and reoptimize on the fly for the scan set available. This is what all decent laser software does. Heck, even the shonky old LAStudio Pangolin stuff does this.