Integrated vs Bespoke control surfaces

[AndrewR]

Well if you open up a Congo its all USB based inside....in fact its just a pc with a fancy control surface on top.

 

I think the big problem with this is still economics, We know that most desks are priced to factor in development costs for both the hardware and the software. The thing that manufacturers see is that people will buy the absolute minimum in terms of quality hardware, and buy the cheapest interface to go with it. Do they then start charging big money for the software licence?

 

I think its the same economics that was destroyed with the arrival of DMX. All of a sudden desks got very expensive.

 

Don't get me wrong, I love the idea, its just that I dont see us getting a manufacturer willing to risk its share of the market.

 

 

Be nice to mix and match encoders though, the trackball on my congo is a horrible piece of uselessness.

[dbuckley]

There is some progress in surfaces being made:

 

http://www.enttec.com/img/wings/frontplayback_small.jpghttp://www.enttec.com/img/wings/frontshortcut_small.jpg

 

Bit expensive at $720 and $599 though. Though they are eithernet and not USB, which I see as a great step. I hate USB; I have very little trouble with computers and shows, but that I do have is always down to USB.

 

http://www.enttec.com

 

But the folks in here who pay their mortgages working shows are never going to abandon the sanctity of the known universe. Perhaps a poll is called for...?

[lightsource]

The main reasons I think would render midi useless is mainly based around large events, a large control surface may be used where multiple DMX channels are present over more than one universe. midi has a low transmission speed, and (yet again correct me if I'm wrong, 'cause I was last time) skips events when it starts to get bogged down with with too much data to transmit.

 

Also as Dbuckley (thanks for correcting me) stated - the maximum number midi can generate is 127. (if you put two 7 bit "bytes" together to form a 14 bit word. that slows the data down further), now think logically, a standard moving head will rotate over 360 degrees, therefore standard midi could only resolve the position down to at best about 3 degrees. And then there's the colour palette, at 64k colours it becomes even harder.

 

Midi was created for audio,you wouldn't notice a volume difference with 127 notches on the scale, or a pitch bend that skipped a few events, however a MAC2000 20m away from the stage with only a 3 degree accuracy or a wrong colour?

 

I think ethernet is a good choice, the cabling is simple, the bandwidth is in MHz rather than KHz, it has error correction and can re-send corrupted data packets. It should also be fairly immune to noise and could easily integrated into any new console

 

Bit expensive at $720 and $599 though.

 

So were audio controllers when they first came out. Once a little mass producing and competition starts, the prices usually come down.

 

What we want to see is a universal protocol for all consoles, not Avolites using USB, Strand using ethernet and Zero88 using their own proprietary system.

[obsoperator]

MIDI has its' limitations, but note that I wasn't proposing it for detailed control surface communication. MIDI Show Control (MSC) typically sends relatively short messages; The lighting/sound/motion controllers are responsible for holding, transmitting,and changing the "control" outputs. That's how we used it between Obsession I and Horizon (earlier message), and more often, between Obsession I and Hog II.

[Paul_R]

I use the Enttec Playback wing (the one with faders) referenced by dbuckley with LightFactory software.

Those of you that were at Plasa might have seen these wings on the Enttec stand where they were demonstrating LightFactory with two Playback wings, a shortcut wing, and three 15 inch touchscreen LCD monitors in a flightcase.

A programming wing is supposed to be in development.

 

LF also responds to keyboard shortcut sequences enabling the use of programmable keyboards from Cherry etc to be used as a control surface.

P.I. Engineering also make the X-Keys products which are USB switch interfaces that you can use for control. There are also several custom solutions such as the matrix board which would enable you to build your own control surface. P.I. Engineering Custom

 

As the software is pc based if you want a trackball or mouse to control your moving lights, no problem use your own favourite, or both!

 

The idea being you can build a system that meets your own requirements in terms of control surface.

 

Paul

[dbuckley]

Thing is, we're at a crossroads here. Bryson started this by asking what for some will almost be a heretical question.

 

As I mentioned earlier, a goodly proportion of the folks who partake in this forum pay thier mortgage by knowing how to operate one or more of several popular consoles. Realities of theatre give rise to a very cosy relationship between people and kit. So, there's the Strand way, the Pearl way, the Express/ion way, and the Hog way, and thats what the lighting professionals know. The venues and touring productions' producers want kit they can get people for, and it's all fairly self-managing.

 

To break this circle will be very hard indeed. What busy receiving house is gonna have a desk that cant read the incoming show's disks? What producing house is gonna send out a show that costs extra programming hours per venue, or has to take their own kit out and then patch it at the venue? What producer wants to pay money for golden skills only a few have? To break this state of affairs, one needs to be doing something that is ground-breaking. And thats how the Hog got in in the first place; if you wanted to do movers and do them well, a conventionals desk like the Expression is not the best answer. You can do movers on an Express/ion, sure, but it's not as easy as a Hog. It is also true you can put screws in with a hammer.

 

The corollary of this is that all the interesting work on "doing it differently" is unlikely to make inroads into pro theatre, and is thus unlikely to generate the sales volume needed for them to become part of this hegemony.

 

Almost all of the PC-based packages fall into this category. There is lots of genuine progress, not in terms of control possibilities (there's not a lot of PC packages out there as capable as a 520i), but in terms of ways of working.

 

For example, one of the things that now bugs me about using conventional desks is that they work the wrong way up. Remember, I'm talking about (mostly) conventions rigs here, on scripted shows. And I'm specifically talking about the PC package I know inside out, and others may or may not emulate this way of working.

• "Normal" Desk: The basic unit of design is a state, which is recorded, and then placed into a theatre stack.
  
• The Hog way: You create a show, record states, and then place states into cuelists.
  
• My way: You create a show, create the cuelist, create the list of states you will want, and then finally create the states themselves.
  

I'm working top-down, whereas someone using a normal desk is working bottom-up. To me, top-down seems far more natural and sensible. It is like one way of creating a word processor document, you start out with the document, add titles and headings, then fill in the text. Anyone who has used show control in anger will recognise the obvious similarities.

 

The big big advantage of top-down is that rig design is the last step of the process. The cuelist and list of states is driven from the script and director input, so once the show is programmed up you have a list of states to design the rig from. The concept of channels is right at the end, whereas with bottom up you start with channels, so you need a rig design before you start.

 

Now I'd like to think that working with a normal desk the design process starts with the script and director input, but the desk doesn't support you as you as you move through the design process, it just delivers the results at the end. All the other elements of the design work was done on paper.

 

In terms of user interface, for normal programming I'm quite happy with mouse / trackball and keyboard. If I was doing movers I'd want encoder wheels or maybe a graphics tablet. I design the shows on the PC in the office, a normal PC that surfs the Internet and everything else. But for the theatre I transfer the files to a dedicated PC, which has no non-show software on it at all. The only work left to do in the theatre is to actually plot the states.

[lightsource]

Yes but surely the fundamentals of Bryson's original post was to have control surfaces desired by the operator / programmer. After all the subject was regarding control surfaces

 

I appreciate your programming style, I think what you're basically stating is 'start with an overall concept, and then refine it' Which I think is good way to define a project. I personally would take this route although I have never been involved in theatre :(

[Bryson]

To clarify, what I was talking about is a system in which the "system" is the same - the difference is in the control surface, and the control surface only. IE: The venue tech has a array of wheels, faders, buttons etc all to his personal specification, but the "brain" is the same from venue to venue. It will still open the same showfiles, only the buttons and knobs differ.

[SimonW]

IE: The venue tech has a array of wheels, faders, buttons etc all to his personal specification, but the "brain" is the same from venue to venue. It will still open the same showfiles, only the buttons and knobs differ.

 

As a lighting designer whose work fairly regularly goes out on tour I'd love to see a single, universal, showfile format which would eliminate the need for all of the various translation bodges which are currently used to avoid plotting afresh at each venue. My reaction to seeing venues with ADB boards on a tour schedule would bear this out!

 

However, my big concern with this is that the 'common' showfile would ultimately be a lowest common denominator. Anyone plotting shows using the more esoteric features of various consoles would find them unavailable in this new 'brain'. Such a monoculture would also discourage innovation - there would be no real way for a vendor to implement innovative new features, or even a revolutionary way of working (timelines, anyone) without making their desk fundamentally non-standard.

 

In the UK, our Strand (virtual) mono-culture has suited touring lighting well. In addition to being virtually ubiquitous on the touring circuit, Strand boards were also by far and away the most powerful of all of the theatre targetted desks available on the touring circuit. In order for something to supplant them it would need to be both revolutionary, and a significant improvement (in either cost, or functionality) on what went before. Unfortunately, that drive no longer exists, and it will make for an uncomfortable few years until any of the new boards reach the same level of functionality as was available with a few button presses.

 

There has been lots of talk about Congos reading Strand show files. I guess I'm equally interested in the opposite direction - how easy is it to open a show on a Congo, and then tour it in to Strand venues?

 

Simon.

[paulears]

as I mentioned - 7 bit resolution in the control surface isn't a problem at all - stick the mac700 in question on any desk and try to control 570 odd degreesof travel with an 80mm fader - 7 degrees per mm travel. So midi has better resolution than a smallish fader. a rotary encoder just has to go up and down - so there isn't a problem.

[lightsource]

Yes Paul, on second thoughts, I'd have to agree, especially as I have exactly those 70mm faders controlling pan/tilt on my movers :huh:

 

Oh, yes and it's midi controlled :)

[Rob Halliday]

Quoting from above:

 

-------

* "Normal" Desk: The basic unit of design is a state, which is recorded, and then placed into a theatre stack.

* The Hog way: You create a show, record states, and then place states into cuelists.

* My way: You create a show, create the cuelist, create the list of states you will want, and then finally create the states themselves.

-------

 

 

I'm a little confused. Surely you can do approach (3) on consoles of types (1) and (2) - or their off-line editors. Create the cues, give them times, even fill in some content if you like. Then fill in the rest of the content - the 'look' of the cue - when you get into the theatre.

 

Or have I missed something?

 

Rob.

[Leggy]

I have to agree with Rob here, that is exactly how I program shows on a Hog.

 

Leggy