Biskit Posted February 24, 2008 Share Posted February 24, 2008 Hi All, Does anyone have any photometric data for Patt 763/764 profiles? I'm looking into borrowing some as a stop-gap (I'll be buying some more modern units shortly anyway), but I seem to remember them being very dim* when I last used one. Strand Archive doesn't have this info, but perhaps someone here uses them alongside other units for which I may be able to get such info, as a rough reference? *By dim... I mean I'm not expecting Source 4 standards, but I'm hoping they may be at least comparable to, say, a Cantata or Harmony profile (focussed to the same angle, and using a 1k lamp)? Or are they a lot worse then this? Any ideas? Cheers, Ben. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulears Posted February 24, 2008 Share Posted February 24, 2008 I have a 764 alongside 2 optique and 2 cantatas on a truss. bearing in mind we're also comparing zoom optics with more glass and 200W extra in the lamp, yes, they are dimmer - and with both up focused next to each other, there difference is both brightness and warmth - the 764 is notably different - however, with a few of them, I'd be quite happy using them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryson Posted February 24, 2008 Share Posted February 24, 2008 Well, technology advances always, so yes, expect the optics in a S4/SL to be better than a Cantata, which is better than a Harmony, which is better than a T-spot, which is better than a 764*.... It wouldn't be progress otherwise, would it? * = Actually, I'm not so sure a T-spot is actually better than a 764, but that's a peculiarity... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ba77a Posted February 24, 2008 Share Posted February 24, 2008 Hi Ben, I don't know any technical data about the Patt 763/764 but I know exactly what you mean about "dim"! I remember when they were 263/264! What I would suggest though, is that you contact Sam Garner-Gibbons (Head of Lighting) at Chichester Festival Theatre. His main rig has them and they often get used for gobo washes. What he doen't know about getting the best out of these lanterns isn't worth knowing! Good luck,Ba77a Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Coker Posted February 26, 2008 Share Posted February 26, 2008 The first edition of Pilbrow might have some basic data in the technical appendix.If I'm passing one then I'll have a look for you....if not, someone on here is bound to have one. KC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tlc Posted February 26, 2008 Share Posted February 26, 2008 From Strand data sheet 20 17 001 for the Patt 263 (the precurser to the 763) Cut off angle 201/2 peak 18 for T4 lamp throw (m)...........8........9........ 10 ....... 11....... 12spread (m) ......2.8......3.2 ......3.5.......3.9...... 4.2lux..................820......650......525.......435.....365 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulears Posted February 26, 2008 Share Posted February 26, 2008 Here's an extract from the data file I compiled many years ago available hereExcel spreadsheethttp://www.eastanglianradio.com/litedata.jpg Doesn't have the brightness figures, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbthegreat Posted February 26, 2008 Share Posted February 26, 2008 All I have access to are 264s, not fun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulears Posted February 26, 2008 Share Posted February 26, 2008 Oddly, I don't agree. How many other profiles can you put front of house and hard shutter the pros leaving the opposite edge soft to blend with others? I always though Strand were mad to dump the bifocal design. With a conversion kit fitted for more modern lamps, They're pretty good. The angled lamphouse is also handy as it takes less rear space on the bar. Fair enough, there are plenty of brighter, superior optics kit about,but there's still a use for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbthegreat Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 Hmmm, I would disagree, the angled lamp house is good yes, but overall they are much bulkier and more awkward than a modern profile. The ones I have access to are in a bit of a state, they've been neglected and abused for a good while, so the shutters are a bit of nightmare to set, though do work nicely as you described. My main gripe with them though is just how dim they are, by the time you factor in the longer throw, they can hardly make themselves stand out against the wash, and a profile being over powered by a Patt 123 is just depressing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulears Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 Confused - bulky compared to a Source 4 maybe, but most others are pretty much the same. With a clean reflector, clean lens and a halogen bubble, they aren't that dim - certainly obviously brighter than a 500W profile, or a 123, other than when they are spotted right down, and close in. We've still got a pile of T-spots which are pretty horrid - but again, they do work. The modern stuff is better, of course, but the oldies still have their uses when quantity is needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbthegreat Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 Perhaps mine are just very bad then :D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbthegreat Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 Ohh just had an original Silhouette and two T-Spots donated, that's improved the profile stock no end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.