tomchennells Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 Ok maybe a slightly generall post but I use the futurelight (robbe now I think) mh860s for moving profile light usually has anyone used theese with other movers and could give me a direct comparison? I used them with mac500s same lamps etc and they appeared brighter :D is it worth splashing out and going for VLs or sticking with futurelite or should I be industry standard and go with macs ? or use one of the other million lighting companies ?? thanks - tom ps - the macs seem to do better subtle colours but I usually use vibrant colours and the mh860s seem to cater for theese well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyF18 Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 The new VL1000s etc. are vastly superior to the Macs in almost all respects, if you can get away with spending the money I'd go for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vinny baby Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 futurelight (robbe now I think) mh860s for moving profile light usually has anyone used theese with other movers and could give me a direct comparison? All future light, coemar, studio due fixtures used to be manufactured by ROBE, but ROBE now produce there own fixtures, and no longer manufacturer the future light brand. therefore if you buy a future light product, it is in no way linked to any of the ROBE fixtures. I have found many products on the market that out perform Macs, people are now slowly coming round to the idea, of that you dont need industry standards, to get the best effect for your show. VL without a doubt is the ultimate in moving light, but there are mega exspensive, and most dont tend to buy the fixtures, they tend to hire them, VL products are also a little advanced for the avarage user, as you dont use direct DMX feeds into them, instead you have to use repeaters ect. I would have a look at Macs in more detail, or even ROBEs own brand, that are very good, and in my opionion, and the opinion of many LD,s are far better than Macs, (just and opionion). futurelite are good fixtures but the quality has droped since they have started manufacturing for themselves. vince Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P. Funk Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 I think you may find thats just with the older V*Ls - the new uber-fixtures run off DMX. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gareth Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 VL without a doubt is the ultimate in moving light, but there are mega exspensive, and most dont tend to buy the fixtures, they tend to hire them, VL products are also a little advanced for the avarage user, as you dont use direct DMX feeds into them, instead you have to use repeaters ect.I think you may find thats just with the older V*Ls - the new uber-fixtures run off DMX. In fact, Series 200 fixtures (VL2C, VL4) will run from DMX quite happily - you just need to put the right bit of VL interface kit between the desk and the ACS rack. To address one or two of the other points that people have made ... you can't compare the VL1000 to anything in the Mac range - it's a very different beast. The closest 'relatives' across the ranges are the VL2000 spot against the Mac500/550, and the VL3000 spot against the Mac2000. And the VL2000 spot, incidentally, wipes the floor with the Mac500! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomchennells Posted June 18, 2004 Author Share Posted June 18, 2004 cheers guys - do they all have very similar lens choices ? also do they all have similar prisims colour wheels gobos etc ?? Becsuse I have found the futurelite mh860 does lack a few simple but effective gobos such as stars (as standard that is) do you think its best to go for a mixture of manufacturers of MLs to get a wide range of effects on a show ?? or stick to the one ?? finally does a scanner such as a bright roboscan or clay paki rival theese moving heads ? since they are a hell of alot cheaper and often we only end up using a small amount of the travel on a moving yoke :( thanks for all your help - tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P. Funk Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 do you think its best to go for a mixture of manufacturers of MLs to get a wide range of effects on a show ?? or stick to the one ?? well this is what you... as a lighting designer.. decide. if you want a gobo wash or something on stage, then generally you would try and opt to use similar fixtures. but if you do not need that effect, then different models could be chosen to do different things! the main difference between scanners and moving heads, is that normally the scanners do not have as much room in it for different features. with a moving head, you can pack all the optics into the main head of it - with a scanner you have to fit it in a smaller space (in general). Also of course you only have half the pan/tilt range, and scanner beams move faster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Baldwin Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 the main difference between scanners and moving heads, is that normally the scanners do not have as much room in it for different features. with a moving head, you can pack all the optics into the main head of it - with a scanner you have to fit it in a smaller space (in general). ??? Go and play with a Superscan or NAT, then come back here and say that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete McCrea Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 Scans have less mass to accelerate (a Mirror) compared to a moving head (Lamp, Lenses, colour wheels, Gobos........) so are quicker. The 918 is equvilent to the Mac500 by all accounts. Depends on what your after really. And my memory of Golden Scans is that they are bl**dy huge, so there is definately room for all the same effects as a moving head..... That said some of the moving heads are getting quite quick. Seeing Robe 575XT's against Mac600's shows up the speed difference. 575's make the 600 look like a sloth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mac500 Posted June 19, 2004 Share Posted June 19, 2004 Having played with the MAC 250 Entour at ABTT on Wednesday I am quite impressed with them. If your looking for a small 250watt fixture then they are the best choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P. Funk Posted June 19, 2004 Share Posted June 19, 2004 sorry - thats why I said 'in general' - I would have thought it was more economical to put those kind of features into moving heads at the high end... with exceptions of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martinw Posted June 19, 2004 Share Posted June 19, 2004 I would have thought it was more economical to put those kind of features into moving heads at the high endI can't see how thats true. If you put more features into a scanner, you just pay for those extra features. If you put them into a moving head, you have to use larger pan/tilt motors an associated electronics to move the fixture at an acceptable speed, due to the extra weight. There is also the added design complexity of having to balance the head correctly, so that it isn't significantly heavier on one side of the centre of pan/tilt rotation. Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P. Funk Posted June 19, 2004 Share Posted June 19, 2004 ok sorry! I admit that im talking complete crap! but I do know what im talking about - I just cant put it into words! ignore my last couple of posts :( actually... ignore all my posts... its probably for the best! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomchennells Posted June 20, 2004 Author Share Posted June 20, 2004 hee hee I think I know what your getting at scanners can be cheap whilst still packing a pucnch yeh ? because theyve got less gear to move around and hence only need two little stepper motors to move the mirror - as for palls whats going on there ??? I dont really see much point to be honest there about 4 foot tall and weigh as much as me cost the same as a low end moving head and it takes approximatly ten years to complete a movement :** laughs out loud **: I do see what u mean about a scanner having less room in general tho - look how many gobos a roboscan has got compared to a mac !! ps - I once came across a disco running mac 500s :o what the hell is the point can anyone shed any "light" on this - he wasnt even playing big venues, my 250watt futurescans look like the sun in any venues smaller than 500 people :( and these macs had the 575 discharge lamps in ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gareth Posted June 20, 2004 Share Posted June 20, 2004 as for palls whats going on there ??? Do you mean the Strand PALS system? Or the old Martin PAL1200 scanner? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.