DMX pyro's?

[henny]

In my opinion it's also beneficial to safety to have someone arm the system when it's safe without having to worry about getting the timing right which with pyro can be a challenge in itself.

errr... try the following over coms.

 

"stand by pyro cue 1"

 

"pyro standing by"

 

"pyro cue 1 GO"

[Ynot]

In my opinion it's also beneficial to safety to have someone arm the system when it's safe without having to worry about getting the timing right which with pyro can be a challenge in itself.

errr... try the following over coms.

 

"stand by pyro cue 1"

 

"pyro standing by"

 

"pyro cue 1 GO"

Erm, I think that's what Ike is saying........

[Ike]

Indeed.

 

I think there's few people who haven't had a bad cue now and again be it ambiguous or just plain wrong. Personally I'm always trying to work out if what I'm being told is 'about right', this is in my opinion attention that would be better directed towards safety when it comes to pyro.

[scjb]

The pyrotechnician should always see the product in use. If the pyrotechnician is unable to see a visual cue because it's out of his immediate sightline, they should use the show-relay camera, or they should use their own CCTV system.

 

Maybe it's just me, but I don't want to have to rely on anyone else for my cues. When I **** up my cues, I want to be able to say it was all my own fault!

[Ike]

OK lets try an example: An actor one one side of the stage pushes down one of those big cartoon style detonating plunger things and you have to fire a theatrical flash at the other. Whoever is in charge of safety should be watching the flash to ensure nobody and nothing enters the area, they shouldn't (IMO) be watching a TV monitor of the actor pushing the plunger to judge when to fire. Now you could argue that a verbal go would suffice however if the caller is inexperienced (or just plain crap) this could lead to problems with the operator trying to second guess them and therefore not paying attention to their main responsibility, the same goes to a lesser extent with cue lights.

 

The ideal way in my opinion especially if the set was complex and there were lots of actors around would be to have two operators: one to watch the plunger and one to ensure it's safe. My original point was that there is nothing to stop the person watching the plunger being the LX opp and using the existing DMX infrastructure and playback to carry out this non-safety related task.

 

Make sense now?

[scjb]

OK lets try an example:...

...Make sense now?

 

Your point is as plain now as it was previously in the thread.

 

It's simply the case that it's my opinion that it is the person pushing the button who should be FULLY situationally aware. It's hardly an uncommon occurence to be "looking in two, three or four different directions at once" when shooting pyro. It's the nature of the beast to be double\triple-checking everything all the time. If I can't see round the corner, then yes, I am happy to use a CCTV set-up. It's just a different focus in my cycle of verification.

 

Generally speaking, I suspect it's both easier and safer to rearrange the position of either the effect\cueing actor\control position than go down the spotter route. In addition, I personally would not be happy using anyone other than another pyrotechnician as a spotter in a situation where I had to go on someone else's word. It's unfair on both parties otherwise.

 

Or maybe I'm just a control-freak...! (Shut up Pyro Monkey!)

[Ike]

Generally speaking, I suspect it's both easier and safer to rearrange the position of either the effect\cueing actor\control position than go down the spotter route.

Possibly however there are lots of examples I can think of where it isn't possible for artistic reasons. Surely it's better to only mess around with the artistic side if you really have to, not just to make your life a bit easier?

 

In addition, I personally would not be happy using anyone other than another pyrotechnician as a spotter in a situation where I had to go on someone else's word. It's unfair on both parties otherwise.

Lots of DSMs and SMs regularly call pyro cues and I don't think it's any less fair than expecting them to call lighting, flys or anything else. It is after all you who decides if it's safe and if you should go or not. As for a separate spotter I wouldn't have any qualms about picking an ASM, noise boy or whoever else was free at the time. If they were doing it in a safety capacity I would of course pick someone responsible and make them aware of the dangers and devise some fail safe method of comunication (dead mans handle).

[scjb]

Surely it's better to only mess around with the artistic side if you really have to, not just to make your life a bit easier?

Hence why I included moving the control area as an option as well...

 

Lots of DSMs and SMs regularly call pyro cues and I don't think it's any less fair than expecting them to call lighting, flys or anything else. It is after all you who decides if it's safe and if you should go or not.

That's a fair comment Ike. I must admit that most of the time when I work I take my own cues, be it pyro professionally or lighting in an amateur capacity. Additionally, I rarely shoot pyro for theatre. The only times I remember taking someone else's cue is on live tv, where there has been no other option. It tended not to be a perfect situation.

 

As for a separate spotter I wouldn't have any qualms about picking an ASM, noise boy or whoever else was free at the time. If they were doing it in a safety capacity I would of course pick someone responsible and make them aware of the dangers and devise some fail safe method of comunication (dead mans handle).

I bl**dy well would. It would mean trusting my career to someone else's judgement. That's not something to take lightly.

 

EDIT: Lost connection during reply upload.

[peternewman]

OK lets try an example: An actor one one side of the stage pushes down one of those big cartoon style detonating plunger things and you have to fire a theatrical flash at the other. <snip> The ideal way in my opinion especially if the set was complex and there were lots of actors around would be to have two operators: one to watch the plunger and one to ensure it's safe. My original point was that there is nothing to stop the person watching the plunger being the LX opp and using the existing DMX infrastructure and playback to carry out this non-safety related task.

Why not go even further (in this particular example), give the pyro guy the dead mans handle so the pyro can only be triggered when he decides the area is safe, then link the actual fire control up to the big plunger button, giving a guaranteed cue timing, and the pyro guy still has full control of the safety aspects.

[Ike]

It did occur to me that that would probably be the best method as soon as I hit reply. Must learn to come up with better examples. :D

[Dmx512]

I think the original question was "can DMX be used to fire the pyro ?" so presumably a DMX/relay box would be needed and if this device should recieve a spurious signal (and this does happen occasionally I see my macs attributes flick around from time to time) then this relay could go off when someone is close enough to be badly burned or blinded!!!.....so surely the tried and tested dedicated person with a closed loop system and a key switch has to be safe and only route to take.......Dave www.q-lights.co.uk

[zonino]

if its for timing purposes try using a MTC setup with one of the control units available on the market.

 

as previously said - DO NOT USE DMX!!

[dbuckley]

OK lets try an example: An actor one one side of the stage pushes down one of those big cartoon style detonating plunger things and you have to fire a theatrical flash at the other. ... ... ... ..

 

Have a look at this youtube video of the (now gone) Wild, Wild, Wild West Stunt Show at Universal Studios, Florida, where just such a device is used in the manner described. Severl times a day, for years on end.

 

This entire show features lots of pyro and pyro like tricks, and (from my memory of discussing this with the show operator a long time ago) they are all extensively dead-manned, almost always by cast members themselves. For example, when someone gets thrown down a well and theres a big splash, the splash blast doesn't happen until the actor in the well engages the deadman, indicating they are out of the way of the water blaster, this is about 14:16

 

Automated pyro can be done safely, as long as the right precautions are taken.

 

If you want to see some real behind the scenes stuff, have a look at this PDF (2MB powerpoint, mostly images) of the refit of WaterWorld...

[scjb]

Severl times a day, for years on end.

I think that is probably the crux of this thread (and possibly one of the issues of the BR as a whole). What works in a pro environment (extensive production rehearsals, professionals all round) doesn't necessarily fit in a school environment (which the OP's is).

 

Interesting PDF David. Thanks for sharing.

[Ike]

This entire show features lots of pyro and pyro like tricks, and (from my memory of discussing this with the show operator a long time ago) they are all extensively dead-manned, almost always by cast members themselves.

Interestingly due to the number of performances one of the main problems they apparently faced was that the actors become very blasé around the effects. Most of the dead mans handles and switches were therefore designed so they could not possibly be operated by a cast member in an unsafe position. They usually took the form of two switches which had to be operated by both the cast members hands or feet as appropriate.