Moving Lights

[Guest lightnix]

Coinciding with this thread... ;)

 

I still remember how the hair on the back of my neck really did stand on end, the first time I saw a moving light show - the Genesis video of the first VL tour - especially the bit where they all swung down together onto Phil Collins, during middle bit of The Cage ;) :o :o

 

Maybe I've missed something in the intervening decade and a half, but the last "really serious" piece of moving light programming I saw, was for the final Pink Floyd tour - way back in 1994 :unsure:

 

Have moving lights peaked? Have they reached the limit of their creative potential? Are there any moving light users / programmers / designers out there, who are creating anything new and original - or is everyone falling back on the same old, same old, tried and trusted techniques, (flyouts, pull-downs, ballyhoos, rotating gobos to create sparkle, etc., etc., etc...)???

 

I was recently invited to take a gander at a "certain" major, forthcoming (i.e. next month) game show, which uses a lot of our kit (and Yes - I do work for an LED company), but what interested me more about the overall design, was that the LD and set designer had conspired to use no moving lights at all. All the movement and animation came from graphics on elements made from Barco(?) video tiles and chases through the LEDs built into the set.

 

I'm sure that moving lights, like tungsten, will be with us for many years to come - but with continuing maintenance issues and the fact that every Tom, Dick and Harry seems to be a moving light expert these days; can they any longer be considered as "cutting edge"? :D

[Ynot]

From a personal point of view, looking from the outside into the full time pro world, I'd tend to agree that there doesn't seem to be much else that can be improved upon in the basic design of movers in their present form. And I can't foresee any major changes in the basics that have been around since the early VLs.

 

Refinements, yes, some which will enhance the detail of the kit, others maybe just flashy add-ons.

Smoother movement perhaps, better colour mixing, we already have a myriad choice of gobo options and the effects engines in the larger fixtures are probably as good as they'll get.

 

We already have, with the like of the DLPs, high quality digital projectors in moving heads, so the possibilities there of outputting crystal clear graphics with pan & tilt are already established.

 

And whilst they're nowhere near as high-output as conventional light sources we do have LED movers which are beginning to do some interesting things.

 

So no - at the moment I can think of nowhere the moving head can go other than just improving what is already available by ever decreasing degrees.

[Big Jay]

Are there any moving light users / programmers / designers out there, who are creating anything new and original -

 

I'm sure that moving lights, like tungsten, will be with us for many years to come - but with continuing maintenance issues and the fact that every Tom, Dick and Harry seems to be a moving light expert these days; can they any longer be considered as "cutting edge"? :D

 

 

I think there is a contridiction there, You ask weather there is any deisnger/programmer with Original/Creative ideas

, yet you say every Tom, Dick and Harry seems to be a moving light expert these days, what about Lord of the Rings, a show like that with a couple of hundred moving ligts require a very skillful programmer, and is that not in its self creative and original in the way the programmer did that show, I think we are now forgetting that programming is a very specialist career these days, and with show like Lord of the Rings, the programming needs to be classed as a origianal design, please dont forget that the programming can be just as creative as what we actually see.

[Ynot]

I think I see where Nick is coming from...

 

Designers can and are always creative with whatever tools they have at their fingers fixed lanterns or wigglies - but I take the question to mean has the technology peaked for movers in the same way that generics haven't really changed that much in principle for decades. There's not been a new type of lantern produced that isn't a variation on the same basics for years.

But designers/programmers still use generics as, well, a generic part of the rig because they have their place and do certain jobs FAR better than most movers ever could - that doesn't mean the S4s of this world are going to be defunct any time soon - far from it. Neither are the VLs and Macs etc.

 

LED is a comparatively new technology to the theatre, and as such has maybe a long road ahead before it becomes an essential part of the toolbox (though there are few TV shows that don't have them by the thousand!).

[Bobbsy]

I posted about this once before but couldn't find it on a search so I'll risk repeating myself.

 

I come from the world of TV and equate wiggly lights to the use of digital effects in television.

 

Back in the 1980s, Quantel and Ampex came out with digital effects units that let you put one picture in a box and zoom it around the screen on top of another picture. As soon as that was discovered, every single b****y transition in every programme involved a digital effect. News reporters were rolled up into balls and zoomed up the news reader's nose. Images bounced around the screen then sank out of sight. When two channel effects came out, every interview was done with participants put in boxes and zoomed...even if they were standing next to each other.

 

In short, the technology was over-used, often for no good reason. After a good many years of this, people got bored and stopped playing for the sake of playing. Digital effects are still used extensively, but usually only for a good reason and, often, subtley enough that you're not aware they're being used.

 

The same is happening with moving lights. Wigglies are wiggling "because they can" without much regard for whether or not it adds to the show...and often it doesn't. However, I sense we're coming to the end of that phase and people are largely getting bored with moving light displays unless they are something very special--or very suitable for the show. It might take a bit longer for this to filter down to schools, but it WILL happen, if only because something more interesting comes along. I suppose the club scene will continue to like flashing wiggling lights but I don't have to go there!

 

Anyhow, although rumours of the death of wigglies may have been exaggerated, I suspect they're at least starting to catch a cold!

 

Bob

[sleah]

Talking purely rock and roll, for my money you can't beat a moving light display with scans. Heads can certainly add to the overall effect, but not as the primary effect IMHO anyway.

[Bobbsy]

It occurs to me that as long as we're asked questions like "what moving lights should my school buy" or even "are the halcyon days of moving lights over" then we have a problem.

 

Moving lights are just a tool of the trade and, like any tool, there are proper times to use them and other times when they're inappropriate. However, as long as we're discussion the instruments themselves instead of what we're actually doing with them, we have our priorities wrong. As was said up above, the best designers know how to achieve the results they're after whether they're using a few basic lights...or a grid full of wigglers. More important, they know when to ask for which sort of light.

 

I work mainly in theatre and obviously I write from that point of view. However, I think the same principle holds true in "rock and roll". To say that one sort of light or another is "best" must surely be incorrect. The best rock lighting I've seen has very clearly started with a "vision" that supports and compliments the music...then the lights are chosen to achieve this vision. Certainly, moving lights are used but the good displays usually use a limited number of very deliberate...but very spectacular moves. The big shows don't just waggle the lights around in the hope of creating some kind of artificial excitement.

 

Bob

[Shez]

Perhaps many people forget that they don't have to be seen whilst moving. On the extremely rare occasions that I've used them (we're talking predominantly theatre here) 95% of the time they move whilst dark. I think most large scale theatre rigs are the same - they're used to do the jobs of multiple generic fixtures rather than waggle about wildly in vision.

Maybe if the new younger generation of upcoming designers learnt to use generics to their full potential first, they might see the myriad of other ways in which moving heads can be used without them drawing attention to themselves by actually being seen to move.

[steve1159]

I am sure there are a number of people on this forum that remember the early days of moving lights at which point you wondered around plasa etc and everyone and their dog had a moving light on their stand as that was the way forward and would soon totally replace the old generic lanterns. IMO we are now seeing the same sort of thing again with LED that will soon totally replace everything that has come before it. In reality there are vast numbers of venues and shows (possibly even the majority) of different forms that still just use the generic stuff because that is what they have and all they can afford. At the end of the day any type of light from a humble parcan to the latest all singing all dancing moving light/LED is just another tool to potentially be used by the LD. Yes everyone is an expert these days but the real skill is implementing a good lighting design with the available tools/lanterns (whatever they may be) whilst staying within budget, timescales and whatever other constraints may be placed on any particular job. Obviously moving lights/LED have their place and are very good for particular things but they are not the answer to everything. From a personal point of view we hold moving heads and LED in hire stock, but also still have a few PATT23 etc which do still get used.

 

I think one of the problems is the number of school students that go to things like PLASA and see the latest technology and think that is athe answer to everything. How often do you see generics etc exhibited at PLASA compared to LED?

[timtheenchanteruk]

the fact that EVERYBODY seems to be using movers adds to this IMO, and for the most part its to add a "Disco" style feel to something, or to add so many audience sweeps in that you cant see the bad acting!

 

it has got to the point, especially in some amateur stuff that I`m more impressed to see a well lit show NOT using movers.

 

not to say I don`t like movers, its just they have their place, we now have 4 and I have used them a few times in place of getting up the scope to move the specials, I now only need to leave a general wash up and use them as specials.

 

in the groups I work with they seem to have movers, not because the LD wans them, but beacuse the director/producer has seen some somewhere and thinks they look good.

[Just Some Bloke]

Maybe if the new younger generation of upcoming designers learnt to use generics to their full potential first, they might see the myriad of other ways in which moving heads can be used without them drawing attention to themselves by actually being seen to move.

100% agree with that. So often I see young (usually) men coming in fresh out of local college who call themselves LDs and this is how they light a show:

 

• What's the hire budget?
  
• OK, well with that I can afford 8 macs as long as I stick to 250/300s so let's get them ordered. Best use some of each so we'll say 4 250s and 4 300s
  
• Now, where am I going to rig them? Maybe I could get the 300s doing backlight and the 250s from the front so I can use them as spots as well as moving gobos.
  
• Ah, now to get a decent backlight wash I need 3 300s in a row. But I've got 4. Tell you what, I'll use 2 doing US backlight and 2 doing DS backlight and if there are holes in the washes then it's the fault of the company for not giving me enough money to have 6 in the first place.
  
• Now lets put them 4 250s FOH. Actually from that distance they're not very bright for spots are they? Oh well, that's the fault of the company for not giving me enough money to use 500s.
  
• Right, let's patch the board and get them doing all sorts of brilliant things. I'll plot some looks - this is my favourite bit.
  
• [6 hours later]
  
• Now, let's have a look at the show. What are they actually doing on that stage? Oh, they want specials I haven't put in and gobos that aren't in a 250. Well the company are going to have to pay more money so I can hire some Source 4s. I wonder if they'll pay for scrollers on them? And there isn't much need or those 300s to move, but hey, I can still make them change colour unnecessarily all night.
  
• Now, let's see if I can put more cues in than last time. Let's make sure we get at least 200 cues in or I won't be a proper LD.
  

[jonathanhill]

Maybe if the new younger generation of upcoming designers learnt to use generics to their full potential first, they might see the myriad of other ways in which moving heads can be used without them drawing attention to themselves by actually being seen to move.

 

 

Damn right. It is fine for TV to have movers whizzing about, it gives the cameras something to 'see', but inappropriate for theatre. Too many consider moving lights to be 'de rigeur' and toys. They are still tools for the creatives to use in the same way that generics are. Used discretely moving light can be an extremely efficient and effective way of lighting, not only for replacing huge amount of generics in the rig, but can be too heavily relied upon.

[Shaggy]

While I don't think that moving lights are going to go away, I think the days of massive improvement were over before I knew what a moving light was. However used well I think that moving lights still have great potential to impress the audience even if it's hard to create something new. What annoys me is the neo-luddite attitude some people take to everything technical in the entertainments industry. On this forum, as soon as anyone who might not be a professional talks about moving lights people spring into "Moving lights are too complicate for your fragile little mind", even when it's an event that with the right budget could be a suitable use of the technology. In my mind, there is little complicated about the concept of using several channels of numerical values to control something.

 

Learning how light works can be done with generics or movers, but at the low end generics give more control over light output than moving lights, but are far slower to adjust. I think that anyones first shows with little guidance will probably be rubbish, but the tools cannot be blamed for that. Moving lights do not automatically move and color chase.

[Mr_Jules]

Learning how light works can be done with generics or movers, but at the low end generics give more control over light output than moving lights, but are far slower to adjust.

 

Why on earth would any one want to learn how light 'works' using a 'mover'? That shows a basic misunderstanding about how lighting designers work.There's absolutely nothing 'low end' about conventional tungsten lighting (sorry, but 'generic' sounds somewhat derogatory in this instance). If a lantern is hung and focused correctly in the first place it shouldn't need adjusting, and if the only reason you'd want to use a automated fixture is to save time repositioning beams then you've got a serious problem.

 

anyones (sic) first shows with little guidance will probably be rubbish

 

of course - I know mine were - which is why you need to practice long and hard using small amounts of simple stock before rushing headlong into mover heaven. They should never be used to attempt to cover short comings, and given how difficult they are to blend with a primarily tungsten source, they chances are you'll just make matters worse.

 

well I think that moving lights still have great potential to impress the audience

 

I've got a large suspicion that most of the use they get in schools is to do with perceived c@ck size. Serious designers never try and 'impress the audience' that's just not it's about. It's about crafting a sympathetic and balanced atmosphere (which can at times be as flashy as you like) in which the action on stage can do its business. In the thousands of hours I've spent designing, programming and operating I've never once thought "that'll impress the audience", but I guess that's why when I worked for a school and had 8 grand to spend on new lighting stock I threw the whole lot at Robert Juliat fresnels which get used all the time rather than 4 250s which were going to spend more time off the truss than on.

 

 

Oh, and to get back onto the original thread - No I don't think their time has come - it's only relatively recently that theatre designers have been able to use them to create the kind of wonderful work we're no seeing on shows like LOTR. The manufacturers have listened a lot to what is being asked for by LDs and some of the latest models such as MAC TW1 have shown the way forward in what can be achieved in a theatre setting - Things will always improve otherwise manufacturers will stagnate and die.

[Shaggy]

My view is based mainly on rock'n'roll lighting, I don't do and have little interest in lighting design for traditional plays and musicals. Light doesn't suddenly look different in a theatre though.

 

Why on earth would any one want to learn how light 'works' using a 'mover'? That shows a basic misunderstanding about how lighting designers work.

So you didn't learn how light looks at different angles from putting lights in different places and turning them on? Why is a moving light less appropriate than a conventional tungsten luminaire if you have both to hand?

 

There's absolutely nothing 'low end' about conventional tungsten lighting (sorry, but 'generic' sounds somewhat derogatory in this instance). If a lantern is hung and focused correctly in the first place it shouldn't need adjusting, and if the only reason you'd want to use a automated fixture is to save time repositioning beams then you've got a serious problem.

I wasn't trying to be derogatory, I was pointing out that you have more control of the beam in a working conventional tungsten luminaire than a cheaper moving light. The type of shows I have done lighting for you don't get an idea of what will be on stage till it's on stage, and things get moved at the last minute. Being able to put some light where you want it without a ladder is an advantage here in my mind.

 

It's about crafting a sympathetic and balanced atmosphere (which can at times be as flashy as you like) in which the action on stage can do its business. In the thousands of hours I've spent designing, programming and operating I've never once thought "that'll impress the audience"

I agree to an extent, but previous discussion has focussed on big arena rock shows and tv shows where in my opinion the lighting is part of an event and is there to create as well as enhance mood.