DMX Based Video Recall

[peter]

Hi Everyone

 

Having read the article in this months L&SI about the convergance of RGB and DMX, I thought I'd start off a thread here. What do those out there doing the job think of the implication that one day the LX Board Op can be running the video as well? Does it mean the death of an art or the growth in an area, due to the changing nature of video making it more about the art and less about the technology? Which of the currently available systems do Videots or Board Ops prefer?

Lets stimulate some debate here... its always healthy, right?

[sam.henderson]

My personal view on this is that there is the capability for all of it (sound, LX, VT everything) to be run just by the DSM pressing a button and then their would be no need for any ops but that isn't practical you are still always going to need someone with the know-how of the desk to do some quick last min programming or to add a bit of light or sort out problem effects on the vision mixer etc. etc.

 

The whole world of theatre is being combined and automated but I think that it won't last, man can do things better that machine because we have brains.

 

Sam

[David]

Automation its called, and every thinks that it dose it all by its self. You still need a board opp and a sound technician etc etc, to program all the elements of the show. Payback by DMX – SFX or any other program on the market need to be told what to do and when to do it. All it dos is make a tight show. The opps still have to be there, but to baby sitting rather than sitting there doing every Q.

[Tom]

man can do things better that machine because we have brains

and women even better because they tend to use them.

 

The above is meant solely as a joke and not as an invitation to start a debate on the matter which would no doubt end up breaching the Blue Room T&Cs

[Stu]

My personal view on this is that there is the capability for all of it (sound, LX, VT everything) to be run just by the DSM pressing a button and then their would be no need for any ops but that isn't practical

I think there are many a producer out there who would probably love for this to happen, but I really could never see it working.

 

A DSM has enough to do at times without thinking about pressing GO on the Lighting Desk (well a riggers I suppose) or mixing on a Vision console... Alot of small to medium scale theatre tours out there use their DSMs to trigger SFXs, which works due to the desk being preset, and then all the DSM has to do is press the play button at the right time. But imagine if they had to fire off a couple of cue lights and the lighting desk at the same time...

 

Or if something needed editing in the LX desk during a show - they'd probably be too busy for this...

 

I think the phrase Jack of all trades, Master of One comes to mind.

 

Stu

[peter]

I think the implication is that the DSM would have one master button, which would fire off one master cue stack, controlling DMX, SFX, AV, etc. It is theoretically possible but probably a good few years off being implimented into an off the shelf product, and even then as you say editing cues, etc would be virtually impossible in a busy show.

 

But the topic is meant to be about Catalyst and its friends.

[sam.henderson]

A DSM has enough to do at times without thinking about pressing GO on the Lighting Desk (well a riggers I suppose) or mixing on a Vision console... Alot of small to medium scale theatre tours out there use their DSMs to trigger SFXs, which works due to the desk being preset, and then all the DSM has to do is press the play button at the right time. But imagine if they had to fire off a couple of cue lights and the lighting desk at the same time...

 

When I said this I was talking about a new system which I could inviage being made which would plug into a lx board, sound baod, vision mixer and then just have one big GO button for all of them (it would automaticly find the next cue and prepare it so to speak)

 

Sam

[Stu]

I think the implication is that the DSM would have one master button, which would fire off one master cue stack, controlling DMX, SFX, AV, etc.

Well thats fantastic... and while s/he is doing this, what are the rest of us meant to be doing for work?!

 

Bloody Marvelous

 

Stu

[sam.henderson]

Well thats fantastic... and while s/he is doing this, what are the rest of us meant to be doing for work?!

 

Bloody Marvelous 

 

Stu

 

Exactly, but in my OP I did say I think it is highly unlikely and would never work!

 

Anyway back to the original question; I think the idea of running RGB from the LX desk is not very sensible apart from if it was controlling momitors backstage from a camera watching the stage (if you get what I mean) in this instance it could be very useful.

 

Sam

[David Buffham]

What do those out there doing the job think of the implication that one day the LX Board Op can be running the video as well?

Isn't this what products such as Catalyst and EX1 are all about? i.e. - DMX controlled video media servers? They are very much in use and there are lighting consoles around now, e.g. Virtuoso DX2, that tightly integrate graphical control of video playback with lighting control.

 

Maybe I've missed the point ?

 

Cheers,

David

[TomLyall]

well as automated as all the other stuff you said can be, your always going to need someone to mix sound live, theres too many variables there,

 

you also cant have such a system control pyro's or hoists etc, for the same reasons that they cant use DMX

 

Edit:

 

also, wait until a lamp blows seconds before an important scene with only this lantern on, how would a DSM cope with that in such a situation, this is one of the main reasons why I prefer a board with presets on as well as just alot of fancy memory/movers stuff

[peter]

I suppose what I was asking was the opinions of those who are working as Videots or LX Board Ops, as to whether they think the technology will become so widespread that it will one day combine both jobs, or whether (as seems to be the case at the moment) the Vidiots will have their own LX desk running the media server, plus some lights?

[David Buffham]

you also cant have such a system control pyro's or hoists etc, for the same reasons that they cant use DMX

Why not? If in the future you have show control protocols with proper error detection and handling, then what's stopping you? These must already be in use for scenery automation, and in the future may well take the form of ACN (Advanced Control Network) which was discussed in February's L&SI. From this article:

 

"ACN is generating a lot of excitement because although designed for lighting control, it is also suitable for audio control, motion control equipment or even pyrotechnics. In essence its a complete show control protocol and with the apparent willingness among manufacturers to adopt it, it may just become the first show control protocol to gain universal acceptance"

[j_b]

Have a look at www.DMXvideo.co.uk, although their website seemed to be down last time I looked.

[David Buffham]

I suppose what I was asking was the opinions of those who are working as Videots or LX Board Ops, as to whether they think the technology will become so widespread that it will one day combine both jobs, or whether (as seems to be the case at the moment) the Vidiots will have their own LX desk running the media server, plus some lights?

I believe that one factor for having a dedicated LX desk for media server control at the moment is due to the sheer number of control attributes for each media server and the problems associated with controlling them efficiently through user interfaces and control surfaces that were not designed for them. It is rather like trying to run a VL3000 from a GSX - achievable, but you wouldn't want to be concentrating on much else.

 

However as lighting consoles become more video-control friendly the opportunity for one operator to control lighting and video, especially in small to medium scale situations, will increase. In the case of the DX2, for example, having graphical previews of video clips stored on the media and easy access to attribute control makes control significantly more manageable.

 

In some ways its a bit like moving lights. When they first came into general use it was common for conventional lighting to be run from one desk and automated lighting to be run from another. But these days control has evolved such that both lights are easily controlled from a single desk. There are still cases where there is a split in control, but my perception is that this is somewhat less frequent now. From personal experience we went through a few shows with two desks running lighting and it was hard work to produce a well integrated show; it is so much easier with one console that is designed to do both.

 

So maybe something similar will happen with video control? I guess it depends on the scale of the show, and to what extent the console programmer is concerned with what's happening with the video. But lighting and video are closely related, so it makes a lot of sense to have integrated control. Also, from what I've experienced, console programmers are considered, or consider themselves, to be designers more than technicans. And it is not uncommon to find the designer behind the console themselves. So if video is part of the designer's palette for the visual look of the show, and the looks can all be controlled from one purpose designed console, then integrated control will take off.

 

It also depends if you're talking about programming or playback. If you have a control system that can be partitioned so that more than one operator can collaborate on programming, e.g. one on video and one on LX, but then brought back together for single-operator playback then maybe that is an ideal in certain situations; particularly long running shows where staffing costs are important.

 

Overall I think there will still be situations in the future where conventional lighting, automated lighting and video will still be controlled separately. But given purpose-designed control consoles, such as DX2, I believe the trend will be towards integration.