Page 13 of 19 FirstFirst ... 391011121314151617 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 182

Thread: Fb3 worth it?

  1. #121
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    East Sussex, England
    Posts
    5,248

    Default

    I'm not entirely clear that is in fact the case.

    It would be nice if someone here who has access to a QM and an FB3 could take an identical frame (one of the test frames perhaps) and try and scan them under the same conditions and see if it is noticeably dimmer under the FB3 control than the QM, as this seems to be one of the implications raised.

  2. #122
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,622

    Default

    Very good idea.. that hasn't been done yet. Also, a comparison of the FB3 against a competing product from another manufacturer might not hurt.

  3. #123
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Orlando, FL - USA
    Posts
    1,770

    Default

    As all of us in the main Orlando office are preparing for the upcoming LDI tradeshow, we don't have time to do this experiment ourselves. I'll see if Ante in our Slovenia office has time to do this.

    For a 1-point frame, I'm not expecting much. Under ordinary circumstances, the QM2000 will add around 12 blanked points to this 1 point frame (this assumes that the 1-point frame is put into the beam zone) or around 200 or so blanked points if the frame is put into the normal graphic zone.

    But try this folks. Try turning that 1 point frame into a 2 point frame, then a 3 point frame, then a 4 point frame, etc. and do this while you are "drawing something out" by hand (or using a point by point tool). With our normal way of doing things the scanners will remain pretty silent, and in fact, perceived image brightness will not change as you add points (good for graphics and for the scanners). But try this on some other competitors software. What will happen is image brightness will decrease dramatically (as you spread the light around adding points) and the scanners will scream like crazy. Steve Roberts -- want to comment on how scanners used to sound with the old Laser Media system?

    For the 300 point frame, the zone should not matter and there should be somewhere around 12 blanked points added. Duty cycle should be over 96 %. (Remembering the eye perceives 1/5 optical power as half as bright, a 96% duty cycle will be imperceptable).

    What I wrote above is applicable for the QM2000. I know those numbers off the top of my head. For the FB3 and esspecially for LiveQUICK, I don't know the numbers off the top of my head. We'll do the experiment and see where things are.

    Someone pointed out a problem with LivePRO recently. I think it was Carlos. As a result of his observation, we did an experiment and noticed something we hadn't anticipated in the beam code which was reducing power (for a single beam only -- for multiple beams power was always good). We then changed the softare (both FB3 and QM versions) and the newest version is on the web.

    We'll have to see where things are at with the FB3. Surely (and clearly) a true 5V is being output on the connector. The question is one of duty-cycle and source imagery (as well as softare, settings, etc...)


    Bill

  4. #124
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,622

    Default

    Interesting. I've noticed what you describe with my system, which is just a soundcard DAC ATM. I've heard conflicting reports about galvo noise being harmful. Some folks say that galvo noise isn't an issue at all, and others say that the more noise the galvos make, the more stress they're under.. Which is it? Based on your post it sounds like the latter..


    EDITed: misread post.
    Last edited by ElektroFreak; 11-10-2009 at 12:46.

  5. #125
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    East Sussex, England
    Posts
    5,248

    Default

    Thank you Bill for your willingness to have someone experiement with this, if even only to put it to bed once and for all.

  6. #126
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Posts
    2,342

    Default

    Nah, the audio card DAC currently just displays what it is told. This works reasonably well because most show players have some sort of scanner preservation features built-in. If the frames are optimized well, everythings good and the scanners whir along nicely. If the frames aren't optimized well, and the player software optimization is off, then you'll get the screamin demons.

    It's not clear from the above if the FB3 does any scanner preservation in hardware or if it's only the QM2000. But optimization could be done in the FB3 playback software, similar to what other programs do. Given sufficient processing time, even the 'audio card dac' driver could inspect what it is given to display for galvo safety first, but given the adequateness of existing players so far I've considered this to be not worth the time to code.

    edit: just as clarification what I'm discussing isn't 'scanner excercising' where the controller decides to stop displaying what it's told and go and do a blanked wide sweep instead for a little bit.

  7. #127
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Portland
    Posts
    1,565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by drlava View Post
    It's not clear from the above if the FB3 does any scanner preservation in hardware or if it's only the QM2000. But optimization could be done in the FB3 playback software, similar to what other programs do. Given sufficient processing time, even the 'audio card dac' driver could inspect what it is given to display for galvo safety first, but given the adequateness of existing players so far I've considered this to be not worth the time to code.
    I am not sure either I think you are correct, the output for X/Y from the FB3 is NOT pulsed so I am guessing software.

    -Adam
    Support your local Janitor- not solicited .

    Laser (the acronym derived from Light Amplification by Stimulated Emissions of Radiation) is a spectacular manifestation of this process. It is a source which emits a kind of light of unrivaled purity and intensity not found in any of the previously known sources of radiation. - Lasers & Non-Linear Optics, B.B. Laud.

  8. #128
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Orlando, FL - USA
    Posts
    1,770

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ElektroFreak View Post
    Interesting. I've noticed what you describe with my system, which is just a soundcard DAC ATM. I've heard conflicting reports about galvo noise being harmful. Some folks say that galvo noise isn't an issue at all, and others say that the more noise the galvos make, the more stress they're under.. Which is it? Based on your post it sounds like the latter


    As a direct answer, it depends on the kind of "noise". High frequency noise can be a bearing killer, because the bearings won't have time to roll over and get more lubrication. If the bearings vibrate back and forth too quickly (depending on the lubricant used), something called "snow plowing" can result (where the balls actually push the lubricant out of the way). Even white noise can degrade the lifetime of bearings and lead to something called "fretting".

    There are other factors too, such as that heat inside the scanner goes as the fourth power of speed. So if you ask a scanner to go twice as fast, you are generating 16 times the heat.

    Lower frequency noise might not be harmful, and in fact might not be coming from the scanner per se, as much as from the projector acting like a sounding board.

    It's a well-known fact that scanners driven by Pangolin software last longer than when driven by others. (Again, they don't know what we know, they don't have patents in the field of scanning, etc.) Our "scanner saver" technology does have a cost -- the cost is a teensy weensy amount of light (yes, teensy weensy). What you guys are reporting is unusual. We'll have to see if it's real or not.

    Incidentally, someone wrote to me last night and told me that the club owner complained that another laserist's equipment "looked brighter" even though the laser power was supposedly lower. Hmm, really? A club owner with a power meter, wavelength meter, divergence measuring setup and sharp enough eye to be able to read the power label inside the projector? All of these kind of qualitative comments aren't doing anybody any good...

    LOBO has a great picture they show people of three lasers pointing up into the sky. The dimmest looking one is a 20 watt argon. The brightest looking one is 2 watt Coherent Tiapan... Divergence plays a much larger role in perceived brightness than beam power...


    Quote Originally Posted by norty303 View Post
    Thank you Bill for your willingness to have someone experiement with this, if even only to put it to bed once and for all.


    Yes, we'll see. Sometimes things surprise us. As I wrote recently about a bug someone found in a particular build of version 4.5 of LivePRO. It wasn't there in 4.0, 4.1, 4.2, etc. and somehow while we were fixing things or changing things, we influenced something in 4.5 and things broke. We can't test every scenario possible and we rely on user feedback.

    There's another factor involved here too which is that really there is a lot of software that will run with the FB3 (LiveQUICK, LivePRO, Draw3D, Showrider, etc.) and also the various versions and builds. We'll test the latest LiveQUICK and LivePRO and also QS just to make sure they're all roughly like the QM2000.


    Bill

  9. #129
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    East Sussex, England
    Posts
    5,248

    Default

    We can't test every scenario possible and we rely on user feedback.
    And i suppose there is the rub - laserists are not a large group of users by any stretch, and not all of them will use Pangolin products. Whilst you have many sales worldwide, I would guess that this forum might constitute one of the larger user groups alongside your own forum (although with plenty of overlaps I'm sure). Add to that fact that 95% of users are probably much less nosey than lots of us and your group of people who might go actively ( ) searching for this stuff is likely very small.

  10. #130
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Portland
    Posts
    1,565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pangolin View Post

    Incidentally, someone wrote to me last night and told me that the club owner complained that another laserist's equipment "looked brighter" even though the laser power was supposedly lower. Hmm, really? A club owner with a power meter, wavelength meter, divergence measuring setup and sharp enough eye to be able to read the power label inside the projector? All of these kind of qualitative comments aren't doing anybody any good...

    Bill
    Bill,

    I have an idea as to why, just and idea. DPSS lasers take a long time to warm up, some of the analog drivers don't give the last mile until driven to a full 5vdc.Specifically give the best modulation between 4.8-5vdc to get the last bit of power. Blue lasers from a well known dealer here seem to be that way. Another question is the output on the scopes indicate a pulsed output is this the blanking? In addition if the laser is being blanked all the time a beam will look much dimmer especially for beam shows. I am U.S. Biased in that way all we get is beam shows so every mW counts!

    -Adam
    Last edited by sugeek; 11-10-2009 at 13:49. Reason: run on sentence!
    Support your local Janitor- not solicited .

    Laser (the acronym derived from Light Amplification by Stimulated Emissions of Radiation) is a spectacular manifestation of this process. It is a source which emits a kind of light of unrivaled purity and intensity not found in any of the previously known sources of radiation. - Lasers & Non-Linear Optics, B.B. Laud.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •