PDA

View Full Version : ULS Super Resolution Accessory



Tim Stamplis
09-26-2006, 7:17 PM
Does anyone have the ULS super resolution accessory ($2,650)? I intend to do a lot of photos on marble, granite, glass and am wondering which is better, 40 w with the resolution accessory or 50 w without as the cost would be equivalent in a vers laser 300. Any advise would be greatly appreciated!!

Tim Stamplis

Lee DeRaud
09-26-2006, 8:04 PM
I'm not sure what you're looking at. On the ULS website, the part with that name for the VL series looks like it's just a replacement lens assembly, which normally has a price about 1/10 of what you're quoting. (Note that the description for the shorter lens (1.5") also talks about improved resolution, presumably because of smaller dot size at the focus.)

In any case, the "stock" resolution is in the 200dpi range, so I'm not sure how much it would help on the materials you're interested in.

Richard Rumancik
09-26-2006, 8:33 PM
I'm not sure if I can tell you which to buy but there is interesting info in the review linked on the site. The article is from Engravers Journal and written by Steve Spence. If you go to products, then there is a link "Download VersaLaser Product Review."

Seems the lens assy refines the beam to smaller than .003 allowing finer resolution. It is an interesting option for some applications but I can't say that you would "need" it for granite, marble etc. I understand that you can do pretty good photos using 150-200 dpi with conventional optics.

There is a brief mention of photo engraving in the Review.

Mitchell Andrus
09-26-2006, 8:37 PM
I have a March 2005 price list from ULS. Under "Accessories" there is a listing for a "High Power Desity Focusing Optics (Professional Series Only)"... $2,650.00.

In the glossy brochure, the "HPDFO" is said to reduce spot size and produces higher resolution graphics, "even scribe/etch on uncoated metals... without marking compounds".

If the beam size is just fine on a standard unit, the extra $2,650.00 may be an un-necessarily expensive add-on.

My Spirit has a beam of approx .004 to .006 depending on the target. (I sent a few samples to a friend with some very expensive optical calibration equipment) Is ULS's standard beam so much larger?

Mitch

Mike Mackenzie
09-26-2006, 8:38 PM
Tim,

That application would not need the HPDFO option and believe it or not you really do not need any more than 30 watts to do the photos on the materials listed. For those materials less power is better from the tests we have done.

The HPDFO is an application specific option its very nice if you want to spend the money on it but it does not do everything that a standard 2.0 or 1.5 inch lens will do.

if your application is going to be doing photos on granite, marble, and glass then I would not try to sell you on this option. Keep in mind you can add it onto the system later on if you need it. If you are needing a spot size of 0.001 for very detailed work or are interested in marking on some metals without cermark then this lens option is the best.

To give you an idea the attached pic is about 2.0" tall when extreme detail matters there is no better solution.

Mike Null
09-26-2006, 9:10 PM
Mike:
Maybe this would be a good time to talk about the differences in the focal length of the lenses.

Mike Mackenzie
09-26-2006, 9:16 PM
Mike,

Here they are:

1.5" spot size 0.003 focus distance 1.5 inches
2.0" spot size 0.005 focus distance 2.0 inches
2.5" spot size 0.007 focus distance 2.5 inches
4.0" spot size 0.013 focus distance 4.0 inches

HPDFO optics spot size 0.001 focus distance 2.0 inches.

When ever you have a smaller spot size you must focus closer to the material, this causes the lens to gather debris faster it also causes larger kerfs, cutting with smaller spot sizes is not recommended. It is also very important to note that with smaller focus distances your tolerances are less so your material must be consistent in thickness. This is necessary when using the hpdfo optic as well even though you have a farther focus distance you have less tolerance going in or out of focus with your material.

Hope this helps.

Richard Rumancik
09-26-2006, 9:32 PM
Hmmm ... when I saw the jpg from Mike I realized why I was confused. Epilog has their own product which they call Radiance optics. Seems the implementation is different but the end result similar to ULS. (If you go to the Epilog site do a search on Radiance and you will find the technical info faster.)

I don't actually see Epilog put a number on the spot size. In Steve Spence's article he says ULS gets a .00125 spot size. Curious that ULS and Epilog are both using the same Aztec calendar graphic to market their systems. I have the Epilog sample in front of me. The resolution is very impressive on wood; I assume the ULS version is comparable.

I would like to see how dark the ULS can mark stainless. Steve says that on the VL-300 at 15% speed the mark is not as dark as Cermark. I do like the dark black mark that Cermark provides - I don't care for a greyish or "washed out" looking mark.

Tim Stamplis
09-26-2006, 9:39 PM
My machine purchase is confused by the two main types of material I intend to use; Stone (marble, granite) and wood. From my research, the stone requires very little laser power, while wood cutting requires the higher power. I intend to do more engraving on wood than cutting, but don't want to sell my potential short:cool: That is why I am trying to get a higher wattage.

I read the article on the lens, and it was impressive. I have read a lot of articles on this forum where people weren't happy with the quality of the photos, granted the end result seemed that they were using too high a resolution.

What made me consider this lens was the thought that a higher resolution engraving may be used with this lens thus producing a better graphic. I am going to Trotec tomorrow morning (I live 30 minutes from them) and I have a sample of marble and granite to take so I can see for myself the quality on a standard 2.0 lens.

Thank you for the advise, especially Mike!

Tim

Richard Rumancik
09-26-2006, 9:45 PM
Mike MacKenzie . . .

I think what is needed in the table is depth of field for each lens. You suggest that the depth of field of the HPDFO is lower (in your comment about consistent thickness requirement of the material) but how much lower? Are there any numbers available?

I was surprised that you said cutting with HPDFO was not recommended. That's what I would have wanted it for. For one customer I cut doll house kits and fine accuracy is important. I noticed that in Steve Spence's article he said that HPDFO worked great for cutting wood, acrylic, and plastics in general. Doesn't the air assist keep the lens clean?

Tim Stamplis
09-26-2006, 9:47 PM
Uhmm, good question Richard! Mike?

I forgot to mention I also want to cut paper for quilting patterns. Whatever advise anyone has on that in relation to equipment would be helpful!

Tim

Keith Outten
09-26-2006, 10:57 PM
I've seen the engraved Aztec calendar that Epilog is now including with their brosure, it is indeed impressive. I would love to see the Epilog and Universal samples side by side for a visual comparison of the detail quality.

A Super Resolution Lens sounds real interesting if it is practical but it sounds to me it has a very limited range of application.

.

Mike Hood
09-26-2006, 11:11 PM
Does someone have that Mayan Calendar in a CDR file? Look like a fun one to cut.

Tim Stamplis
09-26-2006, 11:45 PM
Actually I received the same Aztec calendar from Pinnacle, but just a circle cutout without the extra frame work. It was not as impressive as Epilogs. Partly because of a knot in the wood they used, and I don't think the cleaned it very well, it showed a lot of burning on the surface portions. They engraved the back of the circle with their logo. I wish I would have made the ULS rep burn one for me!

Kim Vellore
09-27-2006, 12:46 AM
I use my laser for fine scale models way smaller than doll houses and detailed. One interesting point is if you get a lower wattage laser the cuts are finer maybe the beam size is smaller for the lower wattage for the same focal length lens. I might be wrong here but when I use a machine at 35W to do my cuts I get a finer cut than with a 45W machine. This is after fine tuning both for best results. I am talking about high precession cuts, I use 1/64" thick plywood and paper sometimes. There could be other reasons too , like for example the output is pulsed , so at any time when the laser is ON it outputs max power at that instance and we see the average effect by changing PPI or frequency, so a higher power beam will burn a bigger spot dia on wood for the same beam size since it is hotter. I know the average effect is what comes in play but there could be a point where the power effect could be seen on fine cuts. I use a 1.5" lens on a 45W machine to get very good results a little better than 2" on a 35W Machine. Hope this makes sense, because I spent my first 6 months trying to get the fine cuts that I could with a 35W machine and this has been my experience.
Kim

Mike Null
09-27-2006, 1:41 AM
I think this informative post by Dave Fifield may be appropriate to this discussion. http://www.sorrythatnameisalreadytaken.com/LaserMarquetry_SMCversion.ppt

Tim Stamplis
09-27-2006, 2:27 AM
I might be wrong here but when I use a machine at 35W to do my cuts I get a finer cut than with a 45W machine.

I use a 1.5" lens on a 45W machine to get very good results a little better than 2" on a 35W Machine.
Kim

Kim,

Did you invert those wattages at the end? You started by saying you get a better cut from a 35 w and end by saying the 45 w w/1.5" lens is better. Please clarify;)

Tim

Rodne Gold
09-27-2006, 2:55 AM
Tim , your 2 applications are different , one uses a form of leaching (the stone) and the other uses ablation or vaporisation to cut , the wood. In terms of leaching , low power is used to leach the colour out of the stone which can be done due to its porosity (unless you wish to "engrave" it) and in the case of the wood , a high powered pulse thermally shocks the wood and this thermal shock provides the impetus for the material to enter a gaseous state and to vaporise.
The media you work on in stone will determine the resolution that can be achieved , IE its grain structure , solidity of colour etc. Considering that a laser is a one colour printer , you are bound by how it determines the spacing and clumping of the single colour dots that make up the 1/2 tone image. The software used to produce these 1/2 tones is way more important than the laser resolution, In essence , increased resolution here in terms of DPI will overlap dots , increased resolution in terms of spot size will make a smaller dot. More dots would result in better detail , howver better detail does not always make for a better overall effect. Bear in mind most of what you will be lasering in terms of pics (especially after scanning) will not be high resolution in the first place and wont really benefit much from increased rez.
For wood , the power density is important , IE how much power in a spot size in terms of power over area , here more power in a smaller area will aid the cutting process in that the thermal shock is greater in that area and vaporisation is better achieved, this also results in deeper cutting and the ability to cut more materials and less heat affected zones (IE less charring)
Even with a beam collimator in place , there are still limits to the depth of "field" , IE the area above and below the lens focal point at which there is enough power density to enable the beam to do what its supposed to.
Depth of field/focus tables are not that useful sometimes as the divergence of the beam is often shaped by the material which can act as a waveguide. For example , the depth of focus of a 2" lens is around 4-7mm , but its possible to effectively cut 8-10mm pex with one , the pex acts as a waveguide and doesnt allow divergence to the extent another substrate will
A collimator will tend to modify the beam prior to it striking the last focussing optic and should be useable with any lens , a lens alone will only modify the spot size due to its focussing abilities and wont really modify the convergence and divergence of that beam. If the beam is big when entering , it will diverge and converge more before and after focus , if its narrower , the divergence and convergence will be less and there will still be a high power desnity figure at these divergent/convegent profies , IE the beam will still have enough power to do what you want despite its tendency to liik like an hourglass.
One doesnt always want a small spot size and little convergence , espcially if one is lasering solid areas , if you are doing a lot of line and vector stuff , it's a different story.
I would rather take more power than a collimator or beam conditioner under general conditions.
I would use the laser as standard before deciding to buy any other lenses or beam modifiers.

Kim Vellore
09-27-2006, 3:40 AM
Tim,
I do get good cuts with a 45W 1.5" lens than with a 35W 2" lens. If you compare apples to apples then a 35W 2" lens has finer cuts than 45W 2" lens. I have not tried 35W 1.5" lens but assume it will be finer than 45W 1.5" lens.

Kim



Kim,

Did you invert those wattages at the end? You started by saying you get a better cut from a 35 w and end by saying the 45 w w/1.5" lens is better. Please clarify;)

Tim

Keith Outten
09-27-2006, 5:02 AM
Does someone have that Mayan Calendar in a CDR file? Look like a fun one to cut.

Mike,

The Aztec calendar CDR file is in this forum. Check post number 15 in the following thread.

http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?t=40721&highlight=aztec+calendar

Rob Bosworth
09-27-2006, 12:24 PM
Theoretically, you should not get a different spot size from different powered lasers. IF the beam diameter going into the focusing optic is the same, the focused spot size should be the same. What you might be seeing in the different kerf widths from 35 watts to 45 watts could be different mode quality from one laser to the other. If you do a "mode" burn into a piece of clear acrylic, from each laser, without going through all of the optics, you might see one is rounder than the other. Or one has an "eyebrow" on it, or that one of the modes is of a higher order than the other. Cutting through the materials you mentioned, wood and paper, you would not see a diifference in the beam from phase or phase shifting.

Something that has made very little sense to me, but is fact: the larger the beam size going into a focusing optic, the smaller the spot size you can achieve at the focus point. So a 1/4" dia. beam going through a 2" fl. lens will be larger in diameter at the focus point than a 1/2" beam going through the same focusing optic at focus point.

Rodne Gold
09-27-2006, 12:51 PM
Rob , the spot thing has got to do with the optic itself , the lenses used are planar convex , flat one side , curved the other.
A smaller spot entering the the lens will essentally almost "Pass thru" in that it will not be refracted into a focal point cos the spot size is so small , the lense almost appears "flat" both sides cos the small spot exits the lens over such a small area (much like us and earth , we see it as flat but its really curved , its just we so small in relation to it)
The bigger spot entering the lens will distribute its light over a larger area and thus the lens is using more of it's curvature to bend the light to the focal point and thus the exit of the lens is not seen as flat , but as a curved section and does its job properly.
Laser lenses seem a major rip off from the manufacturers, you can most likely get replacements at far cheaper prices from reflexusa.com or
http://www.iiviinfrared.com/replacement.html?gclid=CIeKrPOQzocCFQEgQAodbUJEIg
or
http://www.iiviinfrared.com/lenses.html#anchor5

Mike Mackenzie
09-27-2006, 1:29 PM
There have been a few things questioned that I will attempt to answer.

First off this optic package and the epilogs are not the same epilog just has a special lens ground to achieve a smaller spot size, Universal uses three different optics to achieve the spot size that they have. They also have a patent on this optic package.

The Aztec calender was used because of the epilog sample and there consistent statements about no one else can achieve this type of quality or resolution. Well we blew it away the picture posted does not give a good representation of the part it was difficult to photograph this pc.

Cutting with the HPDFO can be done however it is recommended to cut .125 or under. When cutting thicker materials the depth of focus range will make a difference using this lens.

When you use a smaller spot size you are basically putting more energy into a smaller area thus the removal of more material with the same amount of power. Remember when you were younger and you had the magnifying glass out to burn the bugs? in order to get that bug to fry you had to get the sun lite into a small spot the focus lens work about the same way.

Engraving directly into metals can be done the higher the carbon content the darker the mark. I don't think it will ever be as dark as cermark, and I don't think that I would purchase this optic for that application specifically. It has its uses Tool marking is a great application, medical devices is another area that uses them a lot due to not being able to use chemicals on the parts that need to be marked, There are other industries that can not do with out this optic package. Is it for the everyday woodworker "NO" is it for the everyday Awards shop "NO" but again there are several functions and accessories that are specific to applications.

I am attaching two charts that I hope will help in the understanding of the depth of field for the different lens.

I hope I covered everything if I missed anything I am sure you will let me know.

Dave Jones
09-27-2006, 3:19 PM
epilog just has a special lens ground to achieve a smaller spot size

That's not true. Epilog's Radiance optics involves a beam expander lens and beam collimator lens directly after the laser. That gives a thicker beam going through the optics, resulting in a finer spot size, as Boz and Rodney describe.

Mike Mackenzie
09-27-2006, 3:31 PM
Sorry Dave I meant just there focus lens any system should have the collimator, and expander however these alone do not create the spot size it is the lens.

Lee DeRaud
09-27-2006, 4:44 PM
I am attaching two charts that I hope will help in the understanding of the depth of field for the different lens.

I hope I covered everything if I missed anything I am sure you will let me know.Ok, that makes more sense. The picture on the ULS website shows only a lens assembly...for the life of me, I can't see how there's room for beam expander optics inside that mirror/lens housing. So there's another (expensive!) piece that mounts "upstream" somewhere?

Tim Stamplis
09-27-2006, 5:01 PM
Wow! It is EXTREMELY interesting to hear you guys talk about this subject, however, I must admit it's a little over my head! I think I am convinced I don't need the high output optic, but it does raise the questiong of whether Epilog should be looked at closer since it has the higher resolution optics standard on the mini-24?

Also, in plain english please, does anyone think 30 watts, regardless of speed, is sufficient to do wood engraving and inlay work?

I also have a question for Mike - Does the rotary attachment for the Versalaser do conical shapes? And if so, since the height limit is 5", how do conical objects effect this height limit (i.e., since you have to "cock" the object, I assume the height of that object increases).

Tim

Tim Stamplis
09-27-2006, 5:05 PM
Considering that a laser is a one colour printer , you are bound by how it determines the spacing and clumping of the single colour dots that make up the 1/2 tone image. The software used to produce these 1/2 tones

Rodne,

To produce images on marble/granite, do you prepare a photo first in grey scale, then line art? What form of image is best for this 1/2 toning process?

Tim

Lee DeRaud
09-27-2006, 5:05 PM
Also, in plain english please, does anyone think 30 watts, regardless of speed, is sufficient to do wood engraving and inlay work?In plain english, "yes". :cool:

Tim Stamplis
09-27-2006, 5:33 PM
In plain english, "yes". :cool:

Lee rules:D !

Mitchell Andrus
09-27-2006, 5:37 PM
I do inlay (veneer cutting) and engraving on a 60 watt machine and rarely do I go above 35% power and lower than 25% speed. 30 watts will do the job just fine.

I can cut 3/8" mahogany and cherry at 2% speed, 75% power, so you might just make it for cutting ooomph at 30 watts.

If you need any other pointers, just ask, there are a few of us "Marquetrie Men" here.

Mitch

Tim Stamplis
09-27-2006, 5:52 PM
I do inlay (veneer cutting) and engraving on a 60 watt machine and rarely do I go above 35% power and lower than 25% speed. 30 watts will do the job just fine.

I can cut 3/8" mahogany and cherry at 2% speed, 75% power, so you might just make it for cutting ooomph at 30 watts.

If you need any other pointers, just ask, there are a few of us "Marquetrie Men" here.

Mitch

Mitchell rules too:D ! Thanks, you both put me, and my checkbook, at ease!

Tim

Dave Jones
09-27-2006, 6:15 PM
There are some woods that are very oily and problematic, but common woods like cherry, walnut, alder, oak, etc... all engrave without needing a lot of power. The more power you have the thicker wood you can cut and in some cases you can cut with less char on the edges. But engraving uses a lot less power than cuttiing. And cutting thin woods like veneer is easy with virtually any laser.

Mike Mackenzie
09-27-2006, 8:35 PM
I also have a question for Mike - Does the rotary attachment for the Versalaser do conical shapes? And if so, since the height limit is 5", how do conical objects effect this height limit (i.e., since you have to "cock" the object, I assume the height of that object increases).

Tim

Tim it really depends on the difference in diameters. Which versa are you talking about? VL200, VL300?

I will try and get back to you on this by Monday 10-2 I will be out at a show until then.

Tim Stamplis
09-27-2006, 11:27 PM
Tim it really depends on the difference in diameters. Which versa are you talking about? VL200, VL300?

I will try and get back to you on this by Monday 10-2 I will be out at a show until then.

The VL300.

Rodne Gold
09-28-2006, 2:18 AM
Tim , By far the most hassle free software to laser engrave photos is Photograv , there are other strategies and you can do more or less what this package does in other software packages , but you have to jump thru hoops. 30w is fine for most stuff , we run 6 x 30w lasers and cope with just about anything. Seems 30-50w is a good compromise in terms of price/power/applications for general engraving , light industrial etc.
What will happen is that you will soon find your "niche" in terms of what you use your laser for , you might start out with wood engraving and soon find out that something else like perspex fabrication is the money spinner.
Be VERY careful about high res optics etc , we have a selection of lenses for our lasers and find that high res lenses are very application specific and generally use the std lens about 99.5% of the time. There are no free lunches , IE your 30w with a high res optic is NOT going to be the same as a 60W machine , there are not just benefits in using these optics , there are disadvantages too.
What I would do if you are going to be working in stone is to spend any "extra" money on a sandblaster. The laser has the ability to vaporise resists put on stone and then the stone can be blasted for far better effects in some cases than merely leeching the colour out of it , the laser wont really "engrave" stone.
PS , beam collimators are std on the GCC explorer and I think might also be std on the Spirits.

Pete Simmons
10-05-2006, 5:15 PM
I have said a few times that the Epilog version of the Aztec Calender has the best detail of any machine samples I had seen. Mike's new lens, very small spot size and the posting of an out focus photo of the Aztec Calender prompted me to ask him to show how good the resolution is.

I said send me your version of the Aztec calender lasered with the new optics and make a believer out of me.

Well ------------ I believe!!

Mike sent me a calender. It is beautiful with detail fine enough to do the micro printing on $100 bills.

I do not think ANY Method can engrave finer detail on wood than what Mike has done with the new optics.

Keith Outten
10-05-2006, 10:18 PM
Pete,

I have the Aztec Calendar that Epilog sent to me with their new brosure. The detail is so fine it can't be seen with the naked eye. If Mike's calendar is better it must be a sight to behold, with a magnifying glass :)
Very Cool Mike.

I also have a sample from Trotec that is difficult to describe, it is an acrylic piece shaped like a four point star. The points of the star are vector cut in a Greek Key pattern. The width of the kerf is so fine you can't tell that the center of the star can be removed with half of the Greek Key details intact, the other half remain in the base piece.

It seems to me that the latest models of Laser Engravers are much improved over what the industry offered four years ago. Better optics, more precise mechanical systems and major speed increases are all over the industry these days. I thought it was difficult to shop for a machine then, I think it is more difficult to make a decision now given the specifications on the new model lasers.

Now there are Super Resolution Optics to consider............Geez!

.

Harry Radaza
09-25-2007, 12:04 PM
OMG! I just realized that I have now been in the laser business almost 2 years now. I started with 1 Versalaser VL300 and have since added 2 Laser pro Mercurys.

After reading this, I just realized that I DID BUY the HPDFO option with my first laser (versa). I checked and I still do have the lens.

It's use would mainly be for marking metals and not for hi precision cutting or engraving.

Anyone have any users guide for the HPDFO from ULS ? Or at least point me to the right settings to start marking on metals ?

SOmeone mentioned earlier, 15% power for stainless steel. I do remember tinkering with the HPDFO the first few weeks of my first laser and had no success marking on metals without metal marking compound used.

Zvi Grinberg
09-25-2007, 5:46 PM
I read the thread (which celebrates a birthday this week!), and I have some comments.

Disclaimer: My company is selling Universal Lasers machines in Israel

HPDFO has a very fine spot. In fact, if you refer to the Aztek Calendar, it can be done half size comparing to 1.5" and looks even greater. I'll post images one of the next days.

HPDFO is excellent for extremely fine application. I am not willing to disclose trade secrets, but I know about a special application that otherwise would not be possible.

Being so dense, as a side effect HPDFO can indeed mark on bare metals. It does so in quite impresive way, but requires extra care of focus and other settings.
However if your main application is marking on metal - I would recommend to stick with Cermark paste. BTW HPDFO and Cermark combination gives fantastic results.

For cutting, I would still recommend conventional optics. The non-dense nature of a regular lens, (or longer for thicker boards) is actually helping the cut process by allowing wider spread of energy through the thickness of the material.

It is a misconcept to assume that HPDFO being thin spot would cut finer cuts, because thick materials need more energy to cut which burns more of the material which yields wider gaps between cut pieces. Nothing to do with the spot size.

OTOH, HPDFO would cut thin material with unbelievable quality.

Hope this helps to settle the concept. Those of you who do have HPDFO can find applications that are not accessible for competition by those with standard optics.

Darren Null
09-25-2007, 8:59 PM
So HPDFO is a 2" focus distance lens with a (necessarily) shallow depth of field then? Good for detail work but no good for cutting anything but very thin stuff?

Just trying to get straight what it actually is.

Bill Cunningham
09-25-2007, 11:15 PM
Pete,

I have the Aztec Calendar that Epilog sent to me with their new brosure. The detail is so fine it can't be seen with the naked eye. If Mike's calendar is better it must be a sight to behold, with a magnifying glass :)
Very Cool Mike.

I also have a sample from Trotec that is difficult to describe, it is an acrylic piece shaped like a four point star. The points of the star are vector cut in a Greek Key pattern. The width of the kerf is so fine you can't tell that the center of the star can be removed with half of the Greek Key details intact, the other half remain in the base piece.

It seems to me that the latest models of Laser Engravers are much improved over what the industry offered four years ago. Better optics, more precise mechanical systems and major speed increases are all over the industry these days. I thought it was difficult to shop for a machine then, I think it is more difficult to make a decision now given the specifications on the new model lasers.

Now there are Super Resolution Optics to consider............Geez!

.

You had posted that Trotec one here.. A while back.. A fun little project
http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?t=57502

http://www.sawmillcreek.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=64297&stc=1&thumb=1&d=1178840488

http://www.sawmillcreek.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=64298&d=1178840502

Zvi Grinberg
09-26-2007, 10:07 AM
So HPDFO is a 2" focus distance lens with a (necessarily) shallow depth of field then? Good for detail work but no good for cutting anything but very thin stuff?

Just trying to get straight what it actually is.
Well, it's interesting that you put it this way.

I cannot help but comparing it to this description:
"So this is a 3 wheel vehicle, not very good tracktion, difficult to manouver and requires straight road"

You could describe an airplane like this and compare it with a car.

Back to the Aztek Calendar - the following picture shows the standard calendar (made with regular 1.5") on the left and half size made with HPDFO
http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l98/ZviGr/2vsH.jpg

When focusing on the HPDFO result (at half size) this is what you see

http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l98/ZviGr/HPDFO.jpg

I am not sure if I am good at taking pictures, but the difference is aparrent.

Bottom line -if you need fine touch and high precision, HPDFO is the best tool for you.

Scott Shepherd
09-26-2007, 10:29 AM
Zvi, thanks for posting that. I saw that demo when I looked at our Universal. I was handed the sample along with a magnifying glass. I took a little time and look at the detail under the magnifying glass and it was perfectly detailed. It's hard to believe that such a small image can be done with such amazing details. Anyone who thinks the normal Aztec Calendar is amazing needs to see this minature one to believe it.

I seem to also recall a 3D image of something like the center or a flower that was just perfect.

It's a quite amazing option. One we didn't select, but one that's certainly got it's place. Something makes me say that the beam width was something like .0005" or less than .001". Maybe it was .001".

One thing I really like about the ULS is it's extremely modular. Want this option? Just order it and swap the lens out with 3 thumb screws and it's over. Installed and using it in less than 5 minutes.

Zvi Grinberg
09-26-2007, 11:14 AM
I seem to also recall a 3D image of something like the center or a flower that was just perfect.


You probbly refer to this one
http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l98/ZviGr/3DandPenny.jpg

Scott Shepherd
09-26-2007, 12:14 PM
Yes, that's the one! One thing that's not real clear is the perimeter around the flower are all very tiny sphere like objects, all in 3D as well.

Very cool stuff. Wish I had a reason to have it. I've even tried lying to myself about possible work and uses for it and I still can't convince myself that it's something that would be good for the type of work we do.

Thanks for sharing!

Craig Hogarth
09-26-2007, 12:53 PM
Since we're on the topic, does anyone know why it has better definition? I know the biggest difference is that the beam is widened first and that somehow gives a smaller dot, but I don't understand how.

Since the beam is shaped like an hourglass and it converges at one point, shouldn't all lenses be able to achieve the same dot size?

Mike Mackenzie
09-26-2007, 2:26 PM
Craig,

If you look at post #23 page #2 of this thread I posted an explaination of how the optic works.

Craig Hogarth
09-26-2007, 2:38 PM
Craig,

If you look at post #23 page #2 of this thread I posted an explaination of how the optic works.

What I'm trying to figure out is why all lenses aren't able to achieve the same dot size. On your illustration, it shows the "hourglass." At the point where the beam "crosses," shouldn't the dot size be the same? I mean, there has got to be a certain point in the beam on a 2" lens that is the same as the the HPDFO. Maybe I'm just over-thinking it.

Mike Mackenzie
09-26-2007, 3:12 PM
Craig,

I am not an optics expert but I believe it is the way the grind the Len's that creates the spot size.

This is one reason that the focus distances are different between Len's.

On the HPDFO there is a secondary optic in the X axis head so the distance between this optic and the Len's itself is very short. If you just use a beam expander the beam is that size until it gets to the focus Len's The collimator part of this equation just keeps the beam straight or from what they called diverging.

So what you have is the laser source through the collimator then through a secondary lens mounted on the X Axis head then a right angle mirror and then the focus lens.

On the Radiance optic they expand and collimate, combine and use a right angle mirror but then use a special ground Len's to achieve a small spot they still have to focus very close to the material thus allowing debris to get onto the optic very easily.

On the HPDFO the focus distance is still 2" and can achieve a spot size of 0.00125

rick woodward
09-26-2007, 6:44 PM
WOW ! WOW ! Thanks for posting those pics Zvi ! THAT is Amazing ! The 3d pic is truly stunning ! So is the miniature aztec calender. But that 3d one is outstanding. Next question would be the size of it and how long does it take to do. I assume these are samples you got , if so , Maybe someone from ULS could answer ? Not sure if its practical but it sure is impressive.

Darren Null
09-26-2007, 8:22 PM
Well, it's interesting that you put it this way.

I cannot help but comparing it to this description:
"So this is a 3 wheel vehicle, not very good tracktion, difficult to manouver and requires straight road"

You could describe an airplane like this and compare it with a car.
I'm sorry Zvi, you may have mistaken my typing brevity as some sort of challenge or aggression. I'm sorry if that's the way it came over. I was just trying to ascertain -minus the sales cruft- what the kit actually IS; as well as the pros and cons of it in use.

I don't have a Universal, so probably the kit wouldn't fit in my machine anyway, but I'm definitely interested in something that reduces the spot size by 1/5...even just how it's done in a theoretical sense for scientific interest, let alone the potential of being maybe able to modify something for a similar effect in my machine.

EDIT: Even if there's limited practical applications for it in production; being able to produce insanely detailed wowstuff helps a lot in sales.

Bob Cole
09-27-2007, 2:22 AM
I have an aztec calendar from Epilog and ULS. The ULS has one side using the 1.5 and the other side using the HPFDO. See the below post for more info:
http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?t=61757

There have been other discussions on this optic and the differences on the optics.

The ULS book that came with my system mentions the other optics, but doesn't give specifics on HPFDO. For what I was doing, the cost didn't justify.

Here is what is mentioned in the book:

Focal length Spot Size Focal Range (+/-)
1.5" .003" .075"
2.0" .005" .100"
2.5" .007" .125"
4.0" .013" .200"

I was exclusively using the 1.5" lens and recently started using the 2.0" lens and was amazed at how much further away the object is when focusing (manual).

I haven't noticed any good/bad/difference when using the 2.0 versus the 1.5 but haven't gone through the entire spectrum of materials and graphics.

Zvi Grinberg
09-27-2007, 3:45 AM
Darren,

No offense here.
Your previous post served very well by putting the right question and helped me in clarifying my explanation.
And you're right, being a ULS reseller (which I boldly stated although I gain no commercial benefit from lurking here) - might put me in a suspicious position from time to time.

Rick
Regarding the sample sizes

The Aztec Calendar (standard) has diameter of ~51mm (2.0") (measuring only the compared geometry)
The Aztec Calendar (Mini) has diameter of ~28mm (1.13")
The 3D piece is 51mm X 45 mm (2.0" X 1.78") (you can see the 1 Penny coin for reference).

rick woodward
09-27-2007, 4:40 AM
Hi Zvi
I must have missed where you were a reseller. Thanks for the sizes. Can you tell me the times for lasering them ? Appreciate you posting these pics and information. I have gotten some literature from ULS but no samples. I would like to get samples/examples on different substrates and this aztec calender done with the standard lense and one small one with the HD lense option , also this 3d flower. I want to show these to people , a few in particular. Hope the closest reseller to me is well versed in this lense option, including creating the files for 3d. I assume this is done with grayscale. There is 2 companies at the top of my list. Uls being one of them. This just added another point to the ULS . Thanks , rick

rick woodward
09-27-2007, 5:08 AM
Sorry to double post, apparently i took too long to edit. Zvi, I re-read the previous post on this subject that Bob linked too. I want to say , Your pics , close up, really shows the detail and quality this super resolution can achieve. Almost as good as having it in my hand. I have some ideas but wonder how long the times to laser are. Also wonder if times would make a difference with 30,40,50 or 60 watt lasers. thanks again. rick

Zvi Grinberg
09-29-2007, 9:07 AM
Sorry to double post, apparently i took too long to edit. Zvi, I re-read the previous post on this subject that Bob linked too. I want to say , Your pics , close up, really shows the detail and quality this super resolution can achieve. Almost as good as having it in my hand. I have some ideas but wonder how long the times to laser are. Also wonder if times would make a difference with 30,40,50 or 60 watt lasers. thanks again. rick

I cannot tell exact or specific time.

However lasering with HPDFO involves setting the best line density available for you.
Your system's motion speed determines the time to laser.
Universal's equipment can be used at the maximum theoretical speed without quality compromise. (PLS is mechanically faster then VLS).
Ther laser power is less significant here, as far as I can tell, as we anyway need to refrain from using full power or otherwise we would burn the material.