Lighting Plans

[SceneMaster]

Probably a bad example, if you look a this, and look on the LX bars on the left hand side (back of auditoruim) you will see what I mean?

 

http://www.ets.icyblu.co.uk/?url=how

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Not wishing to be a pain… but londonjim how the ________ are we supposed to read those thumbnails of plans let alone interpret symbols… I would have to agree with you thought they are very bad example if you are trying to prove anything… anyway that really is not the point! A symbol for a light can be anything as long as you make it clear in your key and keep all the lights of the same type the same symbol throughout the entirety of the plan to avoid confusion (which has all ready been stated here).

 

I for one, once when doing a small scale show design with minimacs in just made there symbol a square with a “M†in as this would be would be easily identifiable to the technicians and myself during the show and we would be able to tell them apart from the whole host of profiles, fresnels ect… that were also in the design.

 

(to londonjim)

What I am really trying to say is it doesn’t really matter how your design was done and what symbols you used as everyone has a different way of designing... although there are some conventions these are not set in stone, and all that really matters is the plan is easy to read and untreatable so the show is rigged and plotted without problems created by misinterpreted plans.

[londonjim]

Yep,

 

I was trying to show Gareth what I meant by my 'dagger' symbol of the VL6.

 

Its not really a dagger, a sword maybe. Well I don't know, all I know is it was on the stencil.

[gareth]

Probably a bad example, if you look a this, and look on the LX bars on the left hand side (back of auditoruim) you will see what I mean?

 

http://www.ets.icyblu.co.uk/?url=how

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, that's one option for a VL6 symbol, I suppose.

 

Here's the one that I used to use when I used TurboCAD to draw lighting plans :

http://www.ghughes.plus.com/vl6_1.jpg

 

And here's what WYSIWYG offers as a standard VL6 symbol :

http://www.ghughes.plus.com/vl6_2.jpg

 

But really, that's got to be one of the untidiest 'lighting plans' I've ever seen - it looks like most of the symbols were drawn freehand (especially evident from what look to be 4-cell floods on the front run of truss and some of the symbols in the legend on the right-hand side) and the hand-written text looks like it was done by a 7-year-old. Sorry to be so critical, but you've placed that particular drawing on your company's website to demonstrate to potential clients the sort of thing they can expect from ETS - is that really the best you can do?

 

Edit : Scenemaster, to see a larger version of the graphic, you need to view it at its full size. In Firefox I do this by right-clicking on the thumbnail and selecting View Image. Don't know if you can do that in IE, you might have to save the image somewhere and open it as a JPG in an image viewer.

[Light Console]

snipped

Also I want to buy the stencils that aren't the selecon ones, are they still for sale? I can only download the 1999 catalogue from their site, unless that is right!?!

I will email them in anycase.

 

Edit: part of post removed due to dead links!

[Guest lightnix]

I'm so old, all my stencils have "Theatre Projects" printed on them :P

 

Seriously, though - that's really not the sort of plan I'd put up on my site if I wanted to impress people with my design skills. I also wouldn't say...

 

{snip}

 

Self-moderation: Post edited due to the removal of the aforementioned site from the server.

[SceneMaster]

Gareth, I guessed they were only thumbnails but most people who put thumb nails on there site make it so you click on them and they load a bigger higher resolution version of the image (well that is the convention) this site didn’t do that... and I really couldn’t be bothered to download the image and open it up in fireworks or something as I could see from the thumbnail it wouldn’t be worth my time or hard drive space!!!

 

Really that lighting design plan should not be used to promote you company (to londonjim) how ever good the actual physical design is which I am sure it probably was and a very professional job otherwise your company would have gone out of business.

 

Edit: Well the actual page has been removed from the server… umm I wonder why…? :P

[gareth]

Gareth, I guessed they were only thumbnails but most people who put thumb nails on there site make it so you click on them and they load a bigger higher resolution version of the image (well that is the convention) this site didn’t do that

Yup, that's kinda the point I was making! Most people who design a website, even those with little or no experience (I include myself in that category!), would have the sense to make a thumbnail image into a clickable link allowing viewing of the full-sized image. Perhaps, though, making it difficult for people to view the image at full size was the intention in this case? It certainly looked better when you couldn't see the detail in the drawing! :P

[computer]

Gareth, I guessed they were only thumbnails but most people who put thumb nails on there site make it so you click on them and they load a bigger higher resolution version of the image (well that is the convention) this site didn�t do that

Yup, that's kinda the point I was making! Most people who design a website, even those with little or no experience (I include myself in that category!), would have the sense to make a thumbnail image into a clickable link allowing viewing of the full-sized image. Perhaps, though, making it difficult for people to view the image at full size was the intention in this case? It certainly looked better when you couldn't see the detail in the drawing! :P

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

correct SM, originally the site did show the links to larger versions but londonjim decided he didn't want people reading them close up or looking at HireTrack for the list of his 'clients'. So he removed them. Didn't do a very good job though it was still possible to view them full ;)

[david.elsbury]

If you're going to make thumbnails, there are two ways to do it. (sorry if this is a bit OT...). You can just adjust the image (canvas) size and make it smaller, so if you had a 300k 1024x768 image it would become a 300k 100x100 image... same time to load as the big one. Or you can do that and also make the file size and quality smaller. This enables faster loading, e.g. a 25k 100x100 image. I would imagine that londonjim did the first of these, though it is commonplace to do the second, to speed up page load times

David

[Freddie]

Sorry if I cause offence here, but does anyone else think that this thread has degenerated into (not asked for) criticism of londonjim's website? Is some moderation in order?

[paulears]

I've lost track - none of the url's work now, so not sure what was going on to get worked up about

[SceneMaster]

Nothing was going on... just the fact that londonjim was trying to prove a "valid" point... fair enough... but he went about it using a crap image of a rubbish plan... the physical rig of the plan may have been good as in the lights ect… but the way it was represented on the plan was hard to understand and the website didn't link the thumbnails properly (ok not all of us are pros at web design I wouldn't say I am that great...). Then the site went down... I wonder why and apparently it has links to riggit organisation :blink:, but we don’t want to get started on that...

 

Moderators please moderate me if this post is out of order in anyway... I know I am on shaky ground mentioning riggit... ;)