Compare these 2 Projectors!

[DanG]

I appreciate the edit, but the original post was fine. I'm a big boy. =)

As for your comment, yes of course with 15K you are going to get more flicker; I did not mean to imply otherwise. When designing a product one has to make choices and for the majority of our customers interested in this piece they wanted higher brightness rather than high scan rate. From your original post, yes, it is quite true that some of the QS patterns will max out 30K scanners, no question. And thus, if one wanted to do those very smoothly, a faster scanner would be required. "No compromises" is a nearly meaningless marketing term, every product design makes compromises and choices to support one or more goals. We simply made all (or most all) of the choices which resulted in the highest brightness for this particular model and for *most* people, 15K is enough for beam work and basic graphics. Is it perfect? Surely not nor was I intending to imply that our scanners are 'better' than a Cambridge. I was only saying that we purposefully chose slower scanners to improve the brightness and thus sought out the best units we could in that category.

In any case, I A/B'ed them side by side about a year ago and the X-Beam was obviously brighter. The Kvant had a more elegant effect and is a more refined piece, but to compare them that way creates a false equivalency because that is not what the X-beam is designed to do. I would be glad to A/B them again and do a video on it in our studio if someone wants to loan a spectrum to me for a few days.

I would point out that a great deal of this is perception based which is inherently unscientific and that our users use our products differently than many people here. As such, we make lasers under a different set of assumptions and in so doing are not even trying to compete with Kvant or Arktos or almost anyone else. Kvant makes a really good product for many uses and we support them wholeheartedly.

[dave]

Sorry man, but I think you should probably AB them both again TBH!!

What does the X beam use, 660 right? 660 vs 637nm - no comparison!!

You don't purposely choose scanners to improve brightness! You choose slower scanners to save a dollar!!! Cmon man!! There is nothing stopping someone buying a projector with fast scanners and running them at 15k!! Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't know of any 15k scanners that cost close to $100USD

Have you ever considered politics?!!??

;-)

PS, why don't you post a pic of the internals of this said projector, I'm quite interested to see the build quality

In any case, I A/B'ed them side by side about a year ago and the X-Beam was obviously brighter. The Kvant had a more elegant effect and is a more refined piece, but to compare them that way creates a false equivalency because that is not what the X-beam is designed to do. I would be glad to A/B them again and do a video on it in our studio if someone wants to loan a spectrum to me for a few days.

[DanG]

I have considered politics but to be honest I decided not to because I hate what people seem to have to do to get elected. I like my moral clarity where it is. =)

X-Beam is 650, not 660. Of course 637 is brighter than 650 - with all other variables held constant - I would never say otherwise. However, the I am pretty sure that the Kvant we looked at was a 640, not a 637 and in any case the X-Beam uses 40% more red @ 650 than does the Kvant which pretty quickly erases the perceptual wavelength difference.

Intentionally choosing scanners which are brighter does also save the customer a dollar which is a good deal all around but our 15K scanners do cost more than $100. I am not going to get into why because...

Look - our operational realities are far different from those in the hobbyist community and I think that it would be appropriate to give you an example. At LDI in Orlando we exhibit alongside perhaps a dozen other companies who make lasers and the vast majority of them are Chinese. I have nothing against the Chinese whatsoever and so have no intention of painting them all with the same brush but the reality is that engineers from many of these companies spent a good deal of time in front of our booth with sketch pads and cameras getting as close as possible to our products, sending people over to ask technical questions about them, etc. so that they can take them back home and replicate them. Our products are unique in the world in the ways in which we specify them, the components choices we make and the procedure we use to build them all of which contribute to the quality and effect of the finished product.

Getting to a final result with all of that takes time and a boatload of money. I just got off the phone with our production manager Adam and he and I together estimate that R&D on the X-Beam series in the end cost us about $40,000.00. Explaining how we make all of our choices, posting pics and giving more detailed specifications that go way beyond what a user would ever need to know to make an informed buying decision would effectively just take that $40,000 and chuck it out the window. What is stopping a firm from buying one and ripping off the design? Nothing really but they would have to look DAMN hard to figure it all out and I am not going to make it easy for them by just posting it here.

I have a great deal of respect for the hobbyist community which is why I spend some of my very little free time here trying to help here and there. I have a great deal of respect for the creativity and passion with which this community approaches their builds AND I have a great deal of respect for people being willing to call BS on a manufacturer they think is just popping off blather. It keeps us all honest. But I mention all of this because there are really limits to what I can share and that is just the stark reality.

That said, we have a very good procedure for doing A/B's and again if anyone would like to loan me a piece, any piece, I would be happy to do a comparison to one or more of our products. In so doing we can create a fair and accurate testing environment while not having to get into communicating issues of intellectual property.

I know that is not totally satisfying, but it is the best I have for you right now. And, for the record, I always do my level best to be accurate irrespective of who the facts favor. Is 637 generally brighter than 650? Absolutely. But everyone here knows that the wavelength alone is far from the whole story by the time a beam reaches an audience.

[norty303]

However, the I am pretty sure that the Kvant we looked at was a 640, not a 637 and in any case the X-Beam uses 40% more red @ 650 than does the Kvant which pretty quickly erases the perceptual wavelength difference.

See the videos below, 380mW of 640 on the left, 1.1W of 650 on the right.
You decide. They give a pretty fair representation of respective brightness that the eye perceives, in as much as I was hard pushed to tell in the room.
I'm not sure that 40% more 650 is going to look as bright (or brighter in your case) based on my experience (which had ~280% more), which is why I guess Dave was curious about the magic, unless you're getting a better power density out of your 650's than I was with my flashlight.

I run all my beams at 18k for the improved visibility.

Dan, out of interest, did you compare apples with apples, i.e. did you also slow the Kvant down to the same scan speed when you did the visual comparison?

[logsquared]

You would probably get more credit if you let an independent third party A/B both projectors.

On a side note: I am curious how the FDA lets you sell your projectors to an un-varianced end user? Do you have something special set up with them? Just curious.

That said, we have a very good procedure for doing A/B's and again if anyone would like to loan me a piece, any piece, I would be happy to do a comparison to one or more of our products. In so doing we can create a fair and accurate testing environment while not having to get into communicating issues of intellectual property.

[DanG]

Its not magic guys - nor is anything we do super secret... When we did the A/B with the Kvant I was not running it so I can't tell you how it was set.

I understand the questions but I was sharing a subjective experience which, not for nothing, tracks with the shoot-offs that I know of which were done in GA, TX and Chicago. We have also gotten similar feedback vs. other brands of higher power and the whole point is that it is not an apples to apples comparison. We designed the X-Beam to be an orange on purpose which was the whole point of this conversation. If we held all of the variables as constants 640/637 would win in brightness, hands down. You get no argument from me.

With that I think that I am going to suggest that we end this thread because I do not see it going anywhere or getting resolved. And, to log's point, I would like to do it myself because I have spent a great deal of time developing my own methodology which I have found to excellent real world validity.

In any case, the OP wants to do graphics I think which we have already determined is not squarely in the XB's wheelhouse.

[logsquared]

With all due respect, you didn't start the thread. I don't think its fair you suggest the thread be ended. If you make a claim you need to back it up. I think all people here want to see is... proof.

Any comment on my second question? That information could be of great benefit to the community here.

[DanG]

The suggestion to end the thread at least as far as an unproductive debate was concerned was just that, a suggestion, and I don't see how making a suggestion could be unfair. Aside from that, wanting to see evidence supporting a claim is perfectly reasonable and I have twice in this thread offered to do so if anyone cares to take me up on it.

I didn't see your second question before as it appears that it was added late. We spent two years developing a comprehensive process including both product and procedural components that the FDA felt provided a sufficient level of public protection under their 'alternative but at least equal' standard which ultimately allows us to deliver products to end users before they have an approved variance as is otherwise required in Laser Notice 51 (I think). In essence, I created a process that is extremely complicated but is almost totally transparent to the end user. They are still required to hold a valid variance before performing a show however as has always been the case. There was no change in policy on the FDA's side nor can it be used for non-x-laser products due to the equipment requirements so unfortunately I do not think it would be of much if any help here.