New EYEMAGIC Scanners EMS7000

[Solarfire]

My scanners are at their rated speed and that's the point and that's why it is apples for apples.

Extra speed doesn't mean you can have a less than perfect pattern. If properly tuned and capable of doing X speed the pattern should be perfect at X speed.

Sorry but that just doesn’t add up if you’re not up to the task then don't step up to the plate. The theme here is at least 60k scanning for playing this game; let’s not play hardball with a softball now.

[White-Light]

Sorry but that just doesn’t add up if you’re not up to the task then don't step up to the plate. The theme here is at least 60k scanning for playing this game; let’s not play hardball with a softball now.

Rated speed for rated speed is equal.

However, if that doesn't satisfy you, get someone with 6215's to post an ILDA pattern, and not some random ILDA pattern you've googled but one from someone who has the technical knowledge and time to tune to a perfect 60k ILDA.

I can assure you it will be better than my ILDA, even though that's pretty much perfect.

I had several mini lem's at Jems with his projector with CT 6215's in and always left feeling jealous. Even on beams they were noticeably crisper, tighter and better delineated than my projections with LM's. But then again that's why they're several thousand dollars a set. If you honestly think that CT 6215's at 60K won't outperform my LM's on the ILDA patterns or in real world performance, then you really need to take a step back and have a cup of tea.

There's more to performance than just pure speed, there's precision and CT's have that in oodles.

[p1t8ull]

Whitelight, thanks for confirming that the ILDA test pattern can be displayed at a scanners rated speed, very useful information.

Tom's taking a big chance with the "Y" cable test
One thing, we all adapt the number of blanking and corner points and anchor with sliders in our software, to a given scan pair

Good point, I should've said the same show to a pair of QM's on one system.

[heroic]

How about making a new test frame? I suggest that it should incorporate a pair of chirps- one in the x axis and one in the Y axis. This would tell exactly where resonances, notches, etc., appear in the frequency response of the system.

[absolom7691]

I find it amusing that the ILDA test pattern is being suggested and outdated because a pair of scanners cannot perform as advertised when displaying an industry standard test pattern. Solarfire, before responding to this in another rude manner, which does not support your argument BTW, try something. Step the speed down until the pattern looks perfect, then kindly share with us the speed. An apples for apples comparison cannot be made if the pattern is not displayed correctly. You cannot compare two galvos displaying an image incorrectly. They will display it completely different, but both will be incorrect. Again, please read into this before responding in a snarky manner. All anyone is trying to do here is make sure you got your money's worth (along with anyone else who shelled out money based on the advert).

Check this link out. http://www.pangolin.com/50K_tests/TestPatternPhotos.htm I know, this is an old page, but it shows a decent side by side test. It shows what speed and deflection angle the patterns were drawn correctly at for the selected scanners. Then test was stepped up, and it shows where the scanners broke down and could not display it correctly. As you can see, they ALL look different when not drawing the pattern correctly. They also tested a few other frames as well, to show how this affects real-world performance as the frames that were selected were from an actual show. http://www.pangolin.com/50K_tests/CreationPhotos.htm

Draw the pattern perfect first, then you will have the ACTUAL speed and will have common ground. Try this at different angles, step the speed up 1K at a time and test, you will see where the scanners start having trouble.

Furthermore, I must apologize for my snarky comments directed toward you. It was late when I typed my previous post and I desperately needed sleep. When this is all over, we all need a beer!

[White-Light]

Whitelight, thanks for confirming that the ILDA test pattern can be displayed at a scanners rated speed, very useful information.

It is when Solar's argument is now that the ILDA test pattern is to fault as it can't apparently test 60K scanners.

[Pangolin]

now that I understand that it wasn't even engineered explains a lot in regards to the lack of professionalism in its design and lack of bandwidth.

Lack of professionalism? Lack of bandwidth? Boy, for someone whom MassiveSound considered to be unbiased you sure are opinionated!

Bob Mueller -- essentially the creator of the ILDA Test Pattern is one of only 11 people in history to receive the ILDA Career Achievement Award! (I'm also one of them, and he earned his long before me.) Moreover, ILDA considered this pattern to be worthy of two separate standards, and it's still the standard today. I'm not sure it gets much more professional than that!!

Indeed as Norty says, this one pattern definitely puts scanners through their paces, which is why you see squggles only in a few areas of the pattern, and might not see squiggles in many of your other images (but I am sure will see them in some of your other images).

No single pattern can test every aspect of scanners (believe me, Bob tried in some of his earlier versions -- you should see them!) which is why Pangolin distributes 14 separate test patterns with our LD2000 series of software.

Solarfire, please share with us your background so that we may know more about you.

How about making a new test frame?

We distributed just such patterns with our LD400 Amiga software. That was back in the days of the G-120, which had essentially no "power limit" (the peak and RMS power handling capability is the same). For slotless scanners like those which are most popular in the industry today, such a pattern would quickly overheat the scanners due to high RMS requirements. What's more, if you look in my report, you'll see that the resonances occur only at specific frequencies with narrow bandwidth. The pattern you suggest would likely skip right over trouble-spots. These are the reasons why we removed them from our distribution library.

Bill

[loopee]

Steve

Bruce Rohr, of Cambridge fame, published a nine page paper on how to standardize galvo testing, but I have been unable to obtain it.

Is this it?

http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/spie/test...ers-2ag7lGbSw0
or
http://spiedigitallibrary.org/procee...sAuthorized=no

[mixedgas]

How about making a new test frame? I suggest that it should incorporate a pair of chirps- one in the x axis and one in the Y axis. This would tell exactly where resonances, notches, etc., appear in the frequency response of the system.

There is no need to chirp it, galvos "like" pure sinusoid wave forms, which is why I can do things with my abstract gen I would not try in most software.

The one thing you need to do is accelerate fast toward a position, and then reverse course, any one given square wave will tell you loads about what you need to know.
Its how you collect and process the data that matters.

Steve

[mixedgas]

Steve



Is this it?

http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/spie/test...ers-2ag7lGbSw0
or
http://spiedigitallibrary.org/procee...sAuthorized=no

I do belive that is one of the two that are useful.

A quick check at the "day job" showed that SPIE are the ones I need to pay for personally, not part of our subscription.
Steve