ULS Super Resolution Accessory

[Scott Shepherd]

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]

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]

Craig,

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

[Craig Hogarth]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.