256 Hz, and 50% is showing a slow rise/fall.
fuzz around the line -- that's 100 kHz ripple that I'd like to remove.
If you’re using pwm dimming, a capacitor would cause trouble on low levels at a minimum I think
To be brutally honest, if that's an accurate measurement of light intensity, this is an exceptionally poor PWM performance. I'd be seriously concerned about this.
Do you mean the small-amplitude 'heavy' fuzz (2.5mV amplitude if I read correctly), or the much lighter fuzz that's apparently not there most/some of the time and only sporadically at some points of the period (the 15-20mV amplitude fuzz)? The latter looks like an oscillation; I'd be tempted to scope out the actual current through the LEDs to see if it's there, or if you're picking up a spurious effect in your phototransistor detector circuit.
I think the phototransistor is useful for determining thermal degradation effects, but perhaps less so for measuring PWM performance. To that end, I'd directly measure LED current instead.
It would further degrade PWM slope performance, indeed. As such it would affect all duty cycles, with very low ones being erased away and very high ones all glued together to 100%. Depending on component choice / dimensioning, of course. I don't use any caps across the driver outputs for this reason. I do use a much higher PWM frequency; I think I'm running the LEDs at 10kHz now. This used to be 1.5kHz in my previous setup. I'd have to go back to my notes on the buck frequency I chose for the LED drivers, but off the top of my head I set this at 330kHz.
This smoothing behavior is good to know about, because the reciprocity characteristics of paper might differ from pulsed vs continuous light.
Since you have set up the measurement (kudos!) could you report what happens also on longer timescales, say from 1 to 100 seconds. At full power, because that is probably worst-case. Pretty sure that at 1 second, the temperature of the heatsink had no time to rise and is still far from steady-state. Suppose your test strip shows that 5+5+5+5 seconds is perfect; will a continuous 20-second exposure result in the same quantity of light, in the unfavorable case that at 10s continuous, the temperature is rising towards steady-state? (5+5+5+5 is just to keep it simple, actually I'd rather do 5+2+3+4+6+8..... or a similar f-stop progression).The result: Red had a flat line with no decline over the first second. Green and blue also had flat lines.
Since you have set up the measurement (kudos!) could you report what happens also on longer timescales, say from 1 to 100 seconds.
Any idea what is causing this? I'm hoping a small capacitor across the Mean Well output-pins will smooth it out of existence.
On the Mean Well driver, Out- is not connected to ground, which would force me to scope Out+ and Out- on two scope channels, and mentally subtract the two traces. It makes me wish I had a differential probe. But you're right; it wouldn't hurt to do it anyway to see what's there.As I said before, to determine the actual behavior of the meanwell supply, scope the actual LED current instead of the phototransistor output. The latter can be subject to all kinds of effects through which rapid transients change shape.
The Mean Well LDD-700L is a 10x23 mm through-hole package that is filled (potted) with epoxy, and epoxy is almost impossible to remove. Sigh.That's very well possible and I agree with your colleague it could be there to suppress EMI. Easy enough to figure out; just open up the box and poke around!
Out- is not connected to ground, which would force me to scope Out+ and Out- on two scope channels
(potted) with epoxy
As I said before, to determine the actual behavior of the meanwell supply, scope the actual LED current instead of the phototransistor output. The latter can be subject to all kinds of effects through which rapid transients change shape.
On the Mean Well driver, Out- is not connected to ground, which would force me to scope Out+ and Out- on two scope channels, and mentally subtract the two traces. It makes me wish I had a differential probe. But you're right; it wouldn't hurt to do it anyway to see what's there.
Does it really matter whether it is linear?
The industry has anticipated your need; similar components available from several companies.
Does it really matter whether it is linear?
Thanks for writing these! Actually, I read part 3 last night before you announced it here. I happened to notice it in your blog. Yes, plenty of lessons learned in there.I promised a couple of times to also do a writeup of the actual building project of my color enlarger light source. It took me a while, but I did it. I explained it - all of it - quite expansively in a series of 4 blog posts:
How well does your current system print colors?
For me, that's good enough at this point.
To improve optical efficiency, have you considered removing the condenser lenses and trays, putting the diffuser about 1 cm above the film, and putting the LEDs 5-10 cm above the diffuser?
I'm very curious as to how it'll work out, keep us posted! Those LEDs sound very promising.
Concerning the drivers, I'm kind of surprised they only allow up to a 1kHz PWM frequency although the internal switching frequency is 200kHz. Perhaps it has to do with the PWM-wave shaping that we've discussed before. This part still concerns me a bit, I must admit. Might be good for (against) EMI, but not necessarily for printing.
I use a LUT to convert attenuation (in tenths of stops) to PWM, so some nonlinearity is okay. Presently, the LUT strays from theory by at most 10%, which I'm happy with. Mean Well's datasheet claims it has EMI suppression built-in and that no external caps are needed, so I won't try adding one.Smoothing is likely to be highly non-linear, so you're probably working with an S-curve output for a linear input. You could correct for this of course. And maybe it's not an issue at all.
I'm not concerned about the pulsed light source thing or the burn/dodge thing. Concerning the latter, anything above 20Hz or so won't be a problem.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?