SparkySteve Posted January 11, 2004 Author Posted January 11, 2004 Very apt - the programmer gives instructions via the desk, the fixture obeys. (Usually!) so...... if the fixtures disobey, then surely they do not obey the programmer, indicating either uninteligent operating, or, inteligeligence, even on a very lowly level. It 's often said (and widely agreed upon) that a computer can only do what it's oporater instructs it to do, so therefore if the fixtures disobey then they have been programmed incorrectly.
gareth Posted January 11, 2004 Posted January 11, 2004 Very apt - the programmer gives instructions via the desk, the fixture obeys. (Usually!) so...... if the fixtures disobey, then surely they do not obey the programmer, indicating either uninteligent operating, or, inteligeligence, even on a very lowly level. Errr, no, the implication was that if the fixtures don't obey, they're f*cked .... nothing intelligent about that.
colinmonk Posted January 11, 2004 Posted January 11, 2004 doesnt nessecarily mean its fu*ked, as often it can or could be a problem between operator and finger or data stream! No amount of swapping out the fixture is going to fix that really!
gareth Posted January 11, 2004 Posted January 11, 2004 doesnt nessecarily mean its fu*ked, as often it can or could be a problem between operator and finger or data stream! No amount of swapping out the fixture is going to fix that really!OK, if we're going to be pedantic about it .... Automated/obedient fixtures need intelligent programming - they do not have integral intelligence. If the programming is a sack of cack, as long as the fixture is functioning it will obey all instructions - the results may look like #####, but the fixture is being totally obedient and compliant and therefore doing its job perfectly. If the programmer sends instructions to the fixture, and it doesn't obey those instructions as it should, it's f*cked. Would anybody like me to phrase it yet another way? Or do we all get it now? :huh: :blink:
SparkySteve Posted January 11, 2004 Author Posted January 11, 2004 the fixture obeys. (Usually!) this gives me the impression that your implying that fixtures don't always obey, it may be from personal experience... I don't know. But this goes against the point that you've just made the fixture is being totally obedient and compliant
gareth Posted January 11, 2004 Posted January 11, 2004 the fixture obeys. (Usually!) this gives me the impression that your implying that fixtures don't always obey, it may be from personal experience... I don't know. But this goes against the point that you've just made the fixture is being totally obedient and compliant Some intelligence is definitely required around here, and it's not for any lighting fixtures .... Read carefully what I wrote - if the programmer sends instructions to a fixture, and the fixture obeys those instructions, all is well in terms of automation - intelligent programming, no intelligence on the part of the fixture. If the instructions are a load of balls, the fixture is going to obey them anyway - the result will not be good, but the fixture has done its job - no intelligence from programmer or fixture. If the programmer sends all the right instructions to the fixture, but the fixture doesn't obey them (i.e. sits there doing nothing, or does the wrong thing), then assuming all's well with the transmission of data up to the point at which it enters the fixture it's a reaonsable assumption that the fixutre is not working correctly, i.e. it is f*cked. That latter example is what I was referring to when speaking about disobedient fixtures. A scenario in which a fixture displays intelligence (e.g. thinks to itself "he's told me to pan right, but I think I should pan left instead" is a complete nonsensical one - the only ways the fixture would pan in the wrong direction would be if it was actually instructed to do the wrong thing, or if it was malfunctioning in some way. Now do you understand?
colinmonk Posted January 11, 2004 Posted January 11, 2004 or you could have pan invert selected on the unit! I understand that the actual unit doesnt show any intelligence when acting from a control desk - im not saying it does, but it is a way of classifying between the two main types of fixtues, a conventional or an intelligent fixture!
SparkySteve Posted January 11, 2004 Author Posted January 11, 2004 Some intelligence is definitely required around here, and it's not for any lighting fixtures .... We can get into the misrepresentation of the word inteligence! If a fixture is sent a signal, it must somehow decode that signal and make it into movement, i.e. motors etc. okay, your probably thinking that its all preprogrammed etc etc.... but how does the fixture know to use this bit of it's preprogrammed information for this particular thing? it must have some inteligence about it, not necasarily an IQ of 130 but a different type of inteligence which allows it to take in data, process it and provide an outcome... something we all do in everyday life.
gareth Posted January 11, 2004 Posted January 11, 2004 or you could have pan invert selected on the unit!{sigh} Yes, that's right, you could. But in what way does that support Steve's and your argument for fixtures displaying intelligence? All that says is that whoever prepped the fixtures didn't do their job properly. Would it have made it easier for you to undertsand if I had chosen, say, an example of the operator selecting red and the colour wheel going to blue? Now, will you accept that lighting fixtures cannot, and do not, display intelligence (i.e. think for themselves) in any shape or form? Or would you like to go around this argument in ever-decreasing circles until it implodes? Your choice ...
colinmonk Posted January 11, 2004 Posted January 11, 2004 gareth - do you not read what I posted at all? I said that the term intelligent fixture does not nessecerilly mean it is intelligent, it is merely a way used to define between a conventional or a moving light!!!!! that was my arguement - but again your on your high horse because you dont agree they should be called that!
SparkySteve Posted January 11, 2004 Author Posted January 11, 2004 Or would you like to go around this argument in ever-decreasing circles until it implodes? Just out of interest, can an argument... something which doesn't have matter/mass.... implode?
gareth Posted January 11, 2004 Posted January 11, 2004 If a fixture is sent a signal, it must somehow decode that signal and make it into movement, i.e. motors etc. okay, your probably thinking that its all preprogrammed etc etc.... but how does the fixture know to use this bit of it's preprogrammed information for this particular thing? it must have some inteligence about it, not necasarily an IQ of 130 but a different type of inteligence which allows it to take in data, process it and provide an outcome... something we all do in everyday life.That's not intelligence, that's processing information. Intelligence is comprehension, reasoning, understanding, insight, whatever you want to call it. Automated lighting has none of these attributes. Sometimes it would be nice if it did - "OK, listen up you Macs, I'm going for a coffee, when I come back I want you to have progammed yourselves with a nice sweepy movement chase around the auditorium." "Yes, boss!" ... but it doesn't.
gareth Posted January 11, 2004 Posted January 11, 2004 Or would you like to go around this argument in ever-decreasing circles until it implodes? Just out of interest, can an argument... something which doesn't have matter/mass.... implode? Probably not - but figuratively speaking it can quite easily disappear up its own arsehole, which is precisely what this one is in danger of doing if it continues. We need to agree to differ, I think. You call them what you want, I'll call them "moving lights" or "movers". And if you ever find one with true intelligence in the proper sense of the word, patent the damn thing before Genlyte get their hands on it, because it sure as hell hasn't been invented yet ... {Argument ends ...}
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.