Tom_Robbo26 Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Ive just read a news artice on the Zero 88 website: Zero88 News Page LinkAnd it says 11 Fat Frogs were used to control the lighting at Obamas Inauguration. Am I mad thinking why on earth did they use 11???? It talks about the 11 different towers and not being able to run cabling between them which is fair enough, but wouldn't wireless DMX have been an option???And secondly why the Fat Frog?? Possibly the most un user friendly desk for intelligent lights surely something else would have been more appropriate, or did the credit crunch help make the decision of the Fat Frog? This is just a general note and was wondering what others thought of this? :unsure: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genus Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 I think that they chose a solution that fitted in with their constraints, financial, timing and practical and decided that Fatfrogs would do the job. And, according to the article at least, they did. It doesn't matter what kit is used for any given problem, so long as it's right for the gig. Incidentally (and I may be the only person who holds this opinion), I don't have a problem with Fatfrogs and have found them to be very simple to get my little head around and they've always worked for me. I have heard horror stories about other Zero88 desks, however I've also heard many horror stories about different desks and fixtures. If I listened to everyone of them, I'd live in a cave with candles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LXbydesign Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 I get fed up with people dissing the Fatfrogs as well. I think they are great little desks and can handle quite a lot. Yes we all know there not as good as an Avo or GrandMA or Hog but then they dont cost as much do they - and it all comes down to application. Im not gonna use a fatfrog to control LX for an arena show am I?!!!!! - likewise, I wouldnt see the point having a Pearl or a Hog running 60 generics and 12 moving lights in a small theatre. And actually, the Leapfrog96 is just as good as a pearl pretty much -once you get the hang of the slightly different O/S and layout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smalljoshua Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 If they only needed to control less than 12 fixtures on each tower and needed something easy and quick to use and focus with. It seems a no brainier to me. Josh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aidso Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 yeah what is the problem with frogs??? I dont know how many times ive thrashed them to within an inch of their life. they are a great wee desk for the money what about £1600 new and whats a pearl? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davethsparky Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 Ive just read a news artice on the Zero 88 website: Zero88 News Page Link And secondly why the Fat Frog?? Possibly the most un user friendly desk for intelligent lights surely something else would have been more appropriate, Do you have any evidence to support this scathing remark about the desk? Surely if they are really that bad zero 88 would have gone out of business by now? Is this just your opinion based on an experience where you haven't been provided with enough training to be able to use the desk effectively? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slim_mcslim Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 f they are really that bad zero 88 would have gone out of business by now no its precisely the opposite, the fact that they cost £1600ish means that people can afford them and buy them and then end up cursing them when they want to do anything complicated or quickly. they are fine in a venue once programmed up, but touring I have always found them a pain. zero88 make some good products, yet fat frogs are not one of them, they sell well which means they don't need to make them different, the frog two is a whole different kettle of fish but thats they kind of price of an avo pearl... the thing that amazed me about it is that christie lights have 11 fat frogs.... christie are not a small company and used to doing fairly large scale lighting so I am surprised that they have so many "smaller" desks. P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 the thing that amazed me about it is that christie lights have 11 fat frogs.... christie are not a small company and used to doing fairly large scale lighting so I am surprised that they have so many "smaller" desks.Slim, you might be interested to learn that Christie have over 100 of the Frog range consoles in their regular rental stock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slim_mcslim Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 indeed that does surprise me.I wonder whether they have similar numbers of flying pig/jands and avo desks, or if they just favour z88 P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aidso Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 Slim have you ever spent time in getting to KNOW the frog range? If a frog is setup properly and used properly its is infact very quick and easy. If you program via the palletes for example you can put together a show in no time at all and when you move venue just change you palletes and hey presto the show has adapted. and really do you need a HOG to run a few movers and a few generic or is it just overkill? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davethsparky Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 That is my point exactly. If you haven't had the same level of training and experience with a frog as you have with a pearl/hog/500 series then how can you compare them reliably? I though the pearl was a heap of junk after my first experience with it, but since I've learned to use it properly my opinion is quite the opposite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Jay Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 I dont know why this argument is still happening on this board, It all boils down to application, if a school or indeed a pro venue only runs 48 dimmer and say 2 movers or scanners, why go and buy a pearl for 4-6k when the frog could happely cope with the setup easily. If your going to run 60 movers and 120 dimmers with 20 scrollers the frog would not be my choice. Then I would look into something like the strand or ETC ION/EOS (Please dont turn that remark into another discussion). Spec the desk that is right for the application. They obviously new that the 11 frog's were needed so they got them. Get over it and stop this argument about what is better, there is no better, just right for the job. Sorry for this rant but come on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 And secondly why the Fat Frog?? Possibly the most un user friendly desk for intelligent lights...Surely the mark of being a good programmer/operator/designer is being able to get and use any desk put in front of you? Doesn't winging about desk x being no good at movers/generics/theatre stack/busking simply indicate that you really ought to be looking at a change in career? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vbm Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Surely the mark of being a good programmer/operator/designer is being able to get and use any desk put in front of you? Doesn't winging about desk x being no good at movers/generics/theatre stack/busking simply indicate that you really ought to be looking at a change in career?I wouldn't say so. That would indeed be the mark of a versatile programmer, but I'm pretty sure that most of the "top" programmers [with "top" being defined at working on the biggest & most high profile jobs in any field of entertainment, and therefore (presumably) being paid the most] are very, very good with just one or two desks, and would specify those on every job they do. And "whinging" about the tools of the job is as old as (whinging about) work itself. If everybody who whinged about the tools of their job changed career, nothing would ever get done! (edited to replace the word "LDs" with "programmers"). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 ...with "top" being defined at working on the biggest & most high profile jobs in any field of entertainment, and therefore (presumably) being paid the most...Ah but I said 'good' not 'top' and is that a good definition anyway? If I take my car into a garage and the guy says 'I only word on Lotus Elise' am I impressed?If I call out a plumber and he arrives and says 'Sorry mate, can't help you, I only do Grant boilers' should I think him any good?Would I consider a chef who only cooks fish to be a 'top' chef?Is being highly paid a mark of being any good at what you do? In the real world, where very few people will ever regularly work on the high profile shows (whatever they may be), does having a narrow skills range make you 'good'? Are the 'top' people by your definition 'good' by my definition or are they simply good at getting the high-profile work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.