New EYEMAGIC Scanners EMS7000

[absolom7691]

BTW, do you have any good tweeter tuning tools I can borrow?

LOL

As I have repeatedly stated and with the use of a little common sense one would realize that one can’t tune a tweeter with the tools for a woofer.

Apples and oranges COMPLETELY. Not to mention that the difference between a tweeter and woofer is several thousand percent difference in frequency. If you want to stick with your analogy, it would be more like a tweeter that has a frequency response of 1Khz~10Khz vs one with a fq of 1Khz to 20Khz.... they are still both tweeters.

The problem I see here is, if the scanners can't display the image correctly at the specified speed, then the problem is not with the scanners, it is with the ILDA test pattern? Am I reading that right? The ATM machine I use doesn't say I have 2 millions dollars in the bank. Must be a problem with the ATM machine. It needs to be updated. You need to read more about what the test pattern does. It measures bunch of different attributes. It measures how well the galvo can brake, change direction, accelerate... much more. This is an industry standard. That means that several companies participated in its design, people who have innovated galvo technology. This was not just Bill saying "This is the ILDA test pattern, so let it be written!" Many were involved. Could it be updated? Sure, but if anything, the update will still test the same things, but also test new things. Besides, nowhere do I read that the test pattern is ONLY compatible with 12K or 30K. No where do I read that any other scanner speed will be complete rubbish.

[White-Light]

All the features of the ILDA pattern work at any freqency. But the intention of the ILDA pattern was also another one, and this is where this statemant comes from: You tune to 12k or 30k which were standard speeds at some time and than every show recorded and played at 12k or 30k looks the same on every projector. You will anyway have a hard time finding e.g. 60k beamshows. Shows that rely heavily on optimization such as ballistic points tuned at 30k (ILD SOS is doing that if I recall right) will look completly different when run at 60k.

Andreas

I'd also like to add that there are 10 ILDA tests and to get a true overview of performance you need to run every one.

eg. If I turn my 25K LM's up to 30K, I still have a textbook main ILDA pattern, but it I display the colour test with lots of small circles, I find small breaks in the circles where they don't quite meet perfectly at the top when my scanners are over speed.

Does this mean the main ILDA test for speed is incorrect? No. It simply means that drawing 15 small circles in a circular pattern is more taxing than drawing one larger circle in the main test pattern and so to that end, it can show some flaws up that don't show up in the main pattern. The main purpose of the main circle is to show the speed to tuning relationship through it's diameter.

You have to remember Solar that any pattern designed to test multiple elements in one is going to have some restrictions simply becasue of how much a laser can physically draw on screen at any one time. That's the reason why there are 10 ILDA tests and not one and that's also the reason why to get the full picture, it's worth running all of the tests because colour modulation aside, some also test geometric abilities.

[Solarfire]

White-Light, now this I can agree with to the most part. In my quote thou it is explicitly stated how the ILDA frame is to be used, this is not my quote but a quote out of an article that Mr Benner pointed me too. For some reason what this quote states tends to be ignored or simply not understood for some reason. The ILDA frame was obviously designed and engineered for tuning scanners to 12 and 30kpps at best up to 36kpps, as stated on the Pangolin website. The ILDA frame was apparently created to standardize scanner tuning @ 12 or 30kpps for show creation and reproduction at these scanner tunings, this has absolutely nothing to do with general scanner tuning and even less for tuning scanners to 60kpps.

@ absolom7691

I’ve done a lot of studying up on this subject, contrary to you, obviously. So if you choose to bathe in ignorance and ignore the obviously stated or try to twist what the quoted statement says then that’s your problem. Besides that, there’s absolutely nothing that you could possibly tell me about speakers, especially to the technical aspects of chassis construction and function, unless you have more than 25 years of background in this field. So if you don’t have anything constructive to offer or you just want come here and show off your technical deficits and get stupid then I suggest you go back outside and play in the sandbox and let the grownups sort this out.

Besides, nowhere do I read that the test pattern is ONLY compatible with 12K or 30K. No where do I read that any other scanner speed will be complete rubbish.

For starters try the quoted text above and the bottom left hand corner of the ILDA frame itself, what do you think that means?

[DZ]

The ILDA frame was apparently created to standardize scanner tuning @ 12 or 30kpps for show creation and reproduction at these scanner tunings, this has absolutely nothing to do with general scanner tuning and even less for tuning scanners to 60kpps.

Solarfire, can you explain how you plan on tuning to 60K without a test pattern?

Also, aside from some minor imperfections, would you agree that this ILDA 12/30K test pattern is being properly displayed at 60K on a set of EMS7K scanners?

[planters]

This is getting unnecessarily personal AGAIN and Bill isn't even posting.

The group buy was completed months ago and then there was a complete silence about these scanners untill a few days ago. Now, Solarfire has put in the effort and provided the only images of their performance and seems to have found himself in the center of a firestorm of criticism. He has made his point over and over. Whether one agrees or disagrees with his methods or conclusions they are at the least reasonable or close enough to reasonable that much more value would be found if a few others would take up the burden and post their own results. And this includes EMS. Come on TOM. Send a version 2 to Pangolin. Lend one to Mixedgas. Ask Fred at OSLS to do a comparison. Do your own comparison

[EyeMagic]

Come on TOM. Send a version 2 to Pangolin. Lend one to Mixedgas. Ask Fred at OSLS to do a comparison. Do your own comparison

We have agreed with two different companies that use both CT6215 and ours to do a side-by-side test using Y cables.

Please be a little patient.

All the best,

Tom Kamaras
EyeMagic

[White-Light]

Firstly let me make it clear, this is not an attack on anyone or taking sides rather an analysis of the ILDA pattern.

It was said above, that Solar's ILDA pattern was pretty much as good as it gets.

I'd dispute that you can't get a better ILDA pattern because this is what I get from the Kvant side by side with Solars.

Please excuse:

1. The single colour - I have no red and the blue was making it too bright for the camera to record

2. The quality of the photo as I only have a compact camera to play with and thus I had to over expose it and compensate for exposure in photoshop - hence the fuzzy lines and the dots that appear as lines instead of dots. I can only assure you that they were dots on the wall and the lines were razor sharp, pencil thin and perfect.

Anyway, here it, this to me is pretty much a perfect ILDA pattern - drawn with LM scanners at 28K angle unrecorded but scanner speed adjusted to compensate to ensure the circle sat in the box as it was supposed to:




One thing that shows up straight away despite the camera's exposure "fuzz", perfect striaght lines, corners, the dots are straight (albeit over exposure makes them appear as lines or elipses in the case of the lower dots, in reality they were perfect dots on the wall).

[flecom]

you guys really need to turn off blanking to see exactly what is happening to the circlce

[White-Light]

you guys really need to turn off blanking to see exactly what is happening to the circlce

I don't know if that includes me as well as Solar, but I've just packed mine away so not happening in the immediate future. Besides I have nothing to prove, those LM's are giving a textbook pattern.

[Pangolin]

And I quote to the ILDA test pattern „The 12/30K indicates the output speed for this test pattern in points per second. Your image source must output points at 12,000 or 30,000 points per second (+/- 1%) for this test pattern to work.“ and I rest my case!! As I have repeatedly stated and with the use of a little common sense one would realize that one can’t tune a tweeter with the tools for a woofer. To make it short, This pattern is not suited for tuning 60kpps scanners at any angle! So technically speaking there is no such thing as a 60kpps scanner @ ILDA!!

Thanks for the link Mr. Benner, nice reading!

One lesson I've learned in my participation with this thread is to try to keep things down to a moderate tone. I can tell that all of the participants in this thread are passionate people. No question about it. However, we have to be careful not to let our passions overrule decorum (as I said, including me). I think I do well most of the time. Subjects of scanners and scanning are an area where I've always had a tough time controlling my passions, as also seen and documented in LaserFX 1999 which I had forgotten about.

Nevertheless, let me respond to what Solarfire wrote, and also bring some history to this subject -- an element that is completely missing in Solarfire's commentary (and understanding). I am uniquely qualified to present this perspective since I participated on the ILDA Technical Committee almost from the very beginning, and was Technical Committee Chairman for seven years.

First let me say that most things in this business existed long before everyone here on Photon Lexicon even got involved with lasers, and most definitely before the Photon Lexicon forum itself was established. What is the history of the ILDA test pattern? Who came up with it? And what were their intentions in creating the pattern? (Incidentally, I think these are all very valuable questions that each of us should consider before making a post.)

To give you some background, most of what we now know as the ILDA Test Pattern was actually developed by an artist -- not an engineer, named Bob Mueller, who worked for Laser Fantasy at the time, and later went onto become one of the principals of Lightspeed Design Group. Laser Fantasy was faced with a challenge. They had a number of laser projectors installed in planetariums and other theaters around the country, and they wanted to make sure that they all looked the same. Bob actually developed a variety of test patterns to try to help -- some of which were REALLY complicated and flickered like hell. What you now know as the ILDA Test Pattern was the simplest of them all (and in fact, was even simpler when he designed it).

Around the same time, everyone in the laser business was also facing the same challenge. Scanners can be tuned in a variety of ways, so it is good to have a standard way of tuning them. When this subject was taken up with the ILDA Technical Committee in the early '90s, several companies put forth their proposals. Interestingly enough, a guy named Eric Haunch from Audio Visual Imagineering had independently developed a test pattern very similar to what Bob came up with, with the main difference being that Eric's pattern had only ten points around the circle, and Eric's pattern was more stringently calculated (since Eric is more of an engineer than an artist).

A decision was made to adopt Bob's pattern. BUT, it wasn't adopted before some additions were made, such as lines below the square (that look like an upside-down ground symbol) and these dots above the square. I won't mention any names, but this person insisted that they be added, and the insistance was so strong that he was going to walk out of the meeting if they were not added. Nobody else strongly objected, so they were added. (Incidentally, years later this same person asked what those features are there for -- he completely forgot, and also apparently forgot that he was the person who insisted that they be present -- that's things "done by committee" for you...)

In any event, back in those days, most scanners only went 12K. Only scanners driven by TurboTrack amplifiers (a product I designed), and amplifiers made by Image Engineering could go faster (24K at the time). To aid people in knowing how fast the pattern should be shown, the letters "12K" were added to the pattern, and then it was finally adopted.

A few years later, when the Cambridge model 6800 became popular, the technical committee decided to adopt another playback standard -- the 30K standard. This standard was adopted because most people could acquire 30K scanners, and also improvements were made in the TurboTrack amplifier to make the industry-standard G-120 scanners also operate at that rate. Once this was done, as a part of the standards adoption, the letters "/30K" were added to the pattern, making it the "12/30K" pattern. Other language was added to the standard (language which we now see as mistaken) to clarify that the pattern must be displayed at a minimum of 8 degrees (I believe the current wording says "maximum", which is clearly a mistake).

Note that the whole purpose of the pattern is to allow people to tune their scanners to a particular standard, so that a wide variety of people in a wide variety of locations will get the same result. The pattern itself isn't necessarily designed for any number of "K", and in fact, even the concept of "K" is an odd-ball concept, only found in this business. The reason why the test pattern allows you to tune to the official 12K and 30K speeds is because of the "Circle inside the square" portion of the pattern, which is *supposed to* show the -3db point. This phenomenon (-3db) is applicable at 12K, 30K, 60K and a million K, because it represents a geometric phenomenon of roll-off. What this pattern DOESN'T show is the actual rate of roll-off, and some other factors. More fancy test equipment is needed to determine this.

Now, by the way, here's a funny thing. The last time this whole test pattern nonsense came to a head (which was in 1999, thanks in part to the LaserFX conference, and also thanks in part to the release of Cambridge model 6210s), I made a very close examination of the ILDA test pattern, and found that, in reality, there is a problem with the coordinates of "circle in the square" and that the result certainly won't represent the -3db point (at least not exactly). Knowing that Bob Mueller had made this pattern, I went back to him and asked him how he came up with that particular set of coordinates -- if it was precisely determined or not. I was a bit surprised to hear that the relationship he was going for wasn't at all an engineering relationship, and that this part of the pattern was done in a more haphazard way.

I guess my main points are:

* The pattern wasn't handed down to us from the Gods. It was developed by humans (all of whom are flawed) who had something in mind when they developed it.
* The pattern isn't perfect. In fact, there are elements in there that were put there "by committee" who then forgot why they were even put there in the first place...
* The pattern only measures a few phenomenon. HOWEVER, when applied across the board, to a wide variety of scanners, you can get some useful data out of it.

The ILDA frame was obviously designed and engineered for tuning scanners to 12 and 30kpps at best up to 36kpps, as stated on the Pangolin website.

Hehe. See above... Solarfire -- something we can all learn -- including me from time to time -- is to be very careful with our assumptions. Here you make the assumption that the ILDA pattern was "obviously deisned and engineered", but knowing the history, I can tell you with utmost certainty it wasn't "engineered" at all! ;-)

this has absolutely nothing to do with general scanner tuning and even less for tuning scanners to 60kpps.

I am sorry to say that I disagree with this statement.

I’ve done a lot of studying up on this subject, contrary to you, obviously.

I'd be careful with this kind of tone if I were you. Certainly there is always someone smarter than any of us on a given topic!

For starters try the quoted text above and the bottom left hand corner of the ILDA frame itself, what do you think that means?

Hehe. It means that Bob Mueller was asked to add that to the pattern after the Technical Committee adopted it. Nothing more... It does NOT mean that the pattern can't be used to qualify faster, or slower speeds, and I've used it myself for both purposes.

Remember the history! Remember who was involved! And -- something all of us should keep in mind -- remember our own roles in all of this. If a pattern or product or anything else existed before you got involved, there could be a lot more to it than you think! And -- as shown above, sometimes the obvious isn't so obvious... (like "obviously it was engineered...")

Also, information on Pangolin's web site, and the ILDA web site, on the topic of the ILDA Test Pattern hasn't been updated in years -- probably the better part of 20 years in fact!

Bill