Scannermax 506s

[mixedgas]

My block also has the pattern of holes underneath, six of them. So you have many options for mounting.

Steve

[swamidog]

that's great. i appreciate the attention to detail that's been put into this.

My block also has the pattern of holes underneath, six of them. So you have many options for mounting.

Steve

[mixedgas]

Quoting Norty

Quote:
P.S. without wishing to derail this thread further, but related to the glut of threads and discussion about 'speed' and 'kpps' currently, do we need to revisit 'why' we use the ILDA pattern at 8 degrees and 30k as a 'standard'?
I thought it would be obvious that it is simply a common benchmark by which to judge performance, which tests a number of different parameters/properties, but it would seem that some people think that it defines max angle for graphics, or isn't then applicable when not scanning beams at larger angles, and other such strangeness.
I liken it to some of the computer graphic chip benchmark programs - it taxes a scanner set in a particular way, that is consistent and repeatable across any scanner platform.
I seem to recall there was a similar derailment discussion on the ill fated EMS thread of recent history.[/QUOTE]

I think we need to obtain the release of the test definitions, which pretty much explain everything.
For a long period of time, you had to join ILDA to get a copy of the standard. That is the issue, "What is the ILDA Pattern For?"
I think its a matter of getting the word out.

The circle in the square test is brilliant and reproducible. It is a benchmark and standard for image interchangeable tuning, nothing more. I have the early three ring binder of the standards with included definitions. It should be made public. The glossary alone explains a lot of time tested traditions that reside in modern software and few even understand why the terms are used. However every page says "Not to be reproduced without the express permission of...."

I could take a scanner with a given mirror set and amp, and make all sorts of jump time vs. step angle measurements on a oscilloscope. It would boggle the mind to interpret such data tables. Hence the need for the test pattern, with all its idiosyncratic parts. The ILDA pattern Is a compromise, but you would need a pretty brilliant team of engineers and artists to improve it.


Steve

[mixedgas]

So after pondering Norty's message, I called the ILDA Executive Director.

Here is his response, I have permission to scan a few portions of the standards binder:

Coming soon to a PL near you, the test pattern standard and the glossary and the signal voltages.
The rest stays members only..... But I will mention the names of the chapters in a future post.
I have to get back to the day job,,,,,

Steve


Quote:

Steve --

Thanks very much for calling me to ask about permission to reprint selected
information about the ILDA Test Pattern, ILDA signal levels, and the
complete ILDA Glossary.

I hereby give permission for this to be disseminated on the PhotonLexicon
thread about these issues, in order to bring the participants up to speed
on these important facts.

You can make a PDF of these. The first page of the PDF must include the
following text (e.g., cut-and-paste this and make it a standard
human-readable text page, before the ILDA pages):


This material is copyrighted by the International Laser Display
Association. Permission is given to O. Steven Roberts to scan this for the
use of PhotonLexicon forum members in a discussion in January 2014.
PhotonLexicon members on the discussion may have a copy but may not
disseminate it further without written permission from ILDA (contact
mail@laserist.org).

The full ILDA Standards are available for Members in the Members-Only
section of the ILDA website, www.laserist.org, by direction of the ILDA
Board of Directors. Memberships start at about $50 for students and about
$125 for individuals.


Steve, thanks VERY much for your help on getting this information out there!

-- Patrick Murphy, ILDA Executive Director

[White-Light]

P.S. without wishing to derail this thread further, but related to the glut of threads and discussion about 'speed' and 'kpps' currently, do we need to revisit 'why' we use the ILDA pattern at 8 degrees and 30k as a 'standard'?

Bill explained this in his scanner presentation at 3 mins 30 secs onwards:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiaM0adidIo

I understand from the watching that video that it's because the circle in the test pattern when it touches the inside of the square corresponds to a -3db Pass Filter. (A scanner behaves like a -3db Pass Filter when performing properly). The circle actually has 12 points and at 12K projects outside of the circle but when you increase the speed to 30K it reduces in size to 70% which corresponds to touching just inside of the square and a 70% reduction = -3db, so effectively at a 70% reduction in size it's behaving like a -3db filter. If the circle touches the inside of the square at a different speed, then that is the true speed of the scanners as that's the point at which they are behaving as the -3db pass filter.

I refer you to Bill if you need a better or more accurate explanation (or correction if needed)!

[Pangolin]

Hi guys,

@Norty, in a private email you recommended we use metric threads. On the next batch of X-Y mounts we make we have specified M3 threads for the bottom.

@Everyone else, with the ability to exaggerate the whole "pps at xx degrees" argument, or at the very least twist it into areas where, even if the scanner could do what people say, it's not beneficial to end-users (for example 120K at 0.5 degrees), it could very well be that -- for the purposes of testing and comparing scanners, a new test pattern is needed. Something that measures not only the -3dB bandwidth, but can also illustrate any kind of resonances and where the small-signal/large-signal boundaries are which would affect when straight lines start to become curved.

In my recent testing and side-by-side comparison video, there were areas where our little 506 scanner was clearly superior to the DT-40, but just just because it's not marketed as a "faster than 30K" scanner, it might be perceived in the marketplace as being "inferior"...

If a more elaborate single test pattern existed, this would really help, especially if it gave more meaningful indication of how scanners will behave in real projection scenarios and real images.

Bill

[White-Light]

I know it's probably a lot more complex than this, but as I find this interesting, indulge me.

Bill, would a grid pattern work with the square and circle in the centre of it and then maybe a rotating line sweeping through them as per Doc's suggestion?

So the idea is to combine the -3db test, grid pattern (to show corner rounding) and Doc's Line split test all in one so there's a technical test and 2 practical real world visual tests in the one.

I'm making an assumption here that the -3DB square and circle would work on their own and that the grid test has sufficient lines in it to still be taxing enough to show the rounding and that the whole thing with Doc's line test, isn't too taxing overall to be displayed.

Something like this where the red line in the centre rotates around the cross hairs:





Like I say, it's probably a pie in the sky idea as no doubt the designing of the pattern is far more technical than just picking bits and sticking them together, but I'm just trying to piece together in my mind what would be a good visual test to demonstrate the artefacts along with the -3db test and I'm interested to hear what would and wouldn't work and why.

[norty303]

@Norty, in a private email you recommended we use metric threads. On the next batch of X-Y mounts we make we have specified M3 threads for the bottom.

Thats great Bill. Does that mean the whole block and fastenings will be metric sizes? The other thing that potentially caused me problems was the hex pinch bolts, which were imperial.

For context for everyone else, I felt that as the market for these is worldwide, metric threads and hardware might be more readily received globally.

Or given the quantities you're likely to be making these in, have a version for the domestic market, and one for everywhere else.

[norty303]

If a more elaborate single test pattern existed, this would really help, especially if it gave more meaningful indication of how scanners will behave in real projection scenarios and real images.

Given the position within ILDA now, can this not be tabled by yourself/other members?
Who is in a position to create/define such a thing?


P.S. top work Steve on getting the permissions to re-produce the documentation

[johnjack]

Hi. When can I order this scanner?