4 ms·

Epilog claims (up to) 1200dpi resolution. Another comment mentioned the "standard bezier curve representation" is accurate to 0.03%. This means errors should st

Epilog claims (up to) 1200dpi resolution. Another comment mentioned the "standard bezier curve representation" is accurate to 0.03%. This means errors should start being observable with a circle as small as 3in. These are probably wildly optimistic assumptions, but it's still 10x smaller than the bed of their largest unit, and there's nothing to stop people from creating arcs of circles with radii even bigger than that!

photonerd 3y ago
Observable is pushing it. Technically observable, sure, but ~1dpi misplaced is… unlikely to be noticeable. Plus, if that level of accuracy is required simply adding more nodes improves accuracy exponentially. Not least, the “standard” approximation really should be updated in software, as modern 4-node approximations are down to 0.005%, almost an order of magnitude better.
- ars 3y ago
  If you are misplaced by 1dpi, then your "1200 dpi" is actually 600 dpi. If you got a machine that's accurate to 1200 dpi presumably you want 1200 dpi and not 600.
  - photonerd 3y ago
    That’s not true in this case. It would still be 1200 dpi but the approximation of one curve is off by 1 dpi in some dimension. If all the lines were off, then yes, kinda. Ish.
- itishappy 3y ago
  Oh, I completely agree! "Observable" is pushing the limits of the word past absurdity. 1200dpi would put the resolution of the system at just twice the wavelength of their laser. I feel like that's about the limit of what's possible due to physics [citation needed]. I'm fairly confident their actual performance is less.
- versteegen 3y ago
  > simply adding more nodes improves accuracy exponentially According to another comment, it actually improves at O(n^6).
  - photonerd 3y ago
    I stand corrected! Polynomial..ly
amluto 3y ago
Last time I used one, Epilog’s software was pretty terrible. It seemed to designed around a workflow in which you either design your cuts in CorelDraw and then print to a Windows print driver. I sincerely hope that the upcoming Windows third-party print driver deprecation kills this. (Also, what’s wrong with them? Even ignoring cost, I would rather have a Chinese printer that had a publicly known control interface and supported Lightburn than a “nice” American laser printer that was only operable with bad proprietary software.)
mlyle 3y ago
The 1200DPI resolution is for engraving using rasterization, so, not really the same thing. When you're cutting things on a laser, there's myriad sources of error. Odds are the optical path isn't completely square, so there's some cross coupling between axes. There's drive belts. The laser is often pulsed. There's taper.

photonerd 3y ago

Observable is pushing it. Technically observable, sure, but ~1dpi misplaced is… unlikely to be noticeable. Plus, if that level of accuracy is required simply adding more nodes improves accuracy exponentially. Not least, the “standard” approximation really should be updated in software, as modern 4-node approximations are down to 0.005%, almost an order of magnitude better.

ars 3y ago
If you are misplaced by 1dpi, then your "1200 dpi" is actually 600 dpi. If you got a machine that's accurate to 1200 dpi presumably you want 1200 dpi and not 600.
- photonerd 3y ago
  That’s not true in this case. It would still be 1200 dpi but the approximation of one curve is off by 1 dpi in some dimension. If all the lines were off, then yes, kinda. Ish.
itishappy 3y ago
Oh, I completely agree! "Observable" is pushing the limits of the word past absurdity. 1200dpi would put the resolution of the system at just twice the wavelength of their laser. I feel like that's about the limit of what's possible due to physics [citation needed]. I'm fairly confident their actual performance is less.
versteegen 3y ago
> simply adding more nodes improves accuracy exponentially According to another comment, it actually improves at O(n^6).
- photonerd 3y ago
  I stand corrected! Polynomial..ly

amluto 3y ago

Last time I used one, Epilog’s software was pretty terrible. It seemed to designed around a workflow in which you either design your cuts in CorelDraw and then print to a Windows print driver. I sincerely hope that the upcoming Windows third-party print driver deprecation kills this. (Also, what’s wrong with them? Even ignoring cost, I would rather have a Chinese printer that had a publicly known control interface and supported Lightburn than a “nice” American laser printer that was only operable with bad proprietary software.)

mlyle 3y ago

The 1200DPI resolution is for engraving using rasterization, so, not really the same thing. When you're cutting things on a laser, there's myriad sources of error. Odds are the optical path isn't completely square, so there's some cross coupling between axes. There's drive belts. The laser is often pulsed. There's taper.